In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Remember, "white" is something made up to oppress and marginalize non-white people, that's why "white people" were created.
By whom and when? Are you thinking of social darwinism?
"The discovery day" idea turns a man stumbling into a land mass, misnaming the population, proceeding to help exterminate the native inhabitants, then the ongoing oppression and imperialism that resulted into something to be celebrated, that's dumb.
A lot of discoveries are by accident- or rather they were trying to figure out one thing, but ended up finding something else. That doesn't diminish the discovery. Put it this way. If the reverse happened, would it not still be a significant moment in history? If in the 1400's, the Iroquois appeared off the coast of France in tall ships and that led to a permanent relationship between the continents, wouldn't that be worth noting? Even if the Iroquois were trying to get to Australia and found Europe instead? I think so.
It could be both solemn and celebratory. Like a great many things in history, the consequences are both good and bad.
I'm thinking that "white people" were created to oppress non-white people. They aren't a thing, that's why people that didn't use to be white are white now and people who used to be called white aren't anymore.
He didn't discover anything though. Thinking Columbus "discovered" something is white supremacy. If indigenous people had sailed to Europe, no one would be saying "Native Americans discovered France" but because everything is viewed through the lens of white supremacy, it's perfectly sensible to say something like Columbus discovered America
I think you are confusing white supremacy with seeing things from a specific cultural perspective. Columbus introduced European culture to America, which now dominates America. To see things from within that culture has nothing to do with a belief that Whites are supreme. It is simply a normal cultural perspective. I guess it depends on whether you want to reach for the most divisive phrasing at all times though.
On October 10 2017 07:09 ticklishmusic wrote: columbus was a heinous and incompetent shitbag while he was governor of the west indies, even by the standards of his time. sure he managed to sail over to america (which he didn't know he was america, even), but that's a pretty tiny piece of his biography.
i'm fine with celebrating, commemorating, acknowledging, memorializing the event which was an important milestone milestone in human history, but there's a lot of baggage there we as a society don't like to talk about.
If the society dosent like talking about it, don't force it down their throats.
It creates fissure within the fabric of our community.
You're basically telling people that try to strengthen society by ripping off threads which barely hold the piece together and create ripples in the fabric, that sewing a tight seam is not something to be aspired?
You know that if a fabric is worn and full of holes, although it might be fashionable at times, it usually is better replaced or fixed?
Remember, "white" is something made up to oppress and marginalize non-white people, that's why "white people" were created.
By whom and when? Are you thinking of social darwinism?
"The discovery day" idea turns a man stumbling into a land mass, misnaming the population, proceeding to help exterminate the native inhabitants, then the ongoing oppression and imperialism that resulted into something to be celebrated, that's dumb.
A lot of discoveries are by accident- or rather they were trying to figure out one thing, but ended up finding something else. That doesn't diminish the discovery. Put it this way. If the reverse happened, would it not still be a significant moment in history? If in the 1400's, the Iroquois appeared off the coast of France in tall ships and that led to a permanent relationship between the continents, wouldn't that be worth noting? Even if the Iroquois were trying to get to Australia and found Europe instead? I think so.
It could be both solemn and celebratory. Like a great many things in history, the consequences are both good and bad.
I'm thinking that "white people" were created to oppress non-white people. They aren't a thing, that's why people that didn't use to be white are white now and people who used to be called white aren't anymore.
He didn't discover anything though.
Again. By whom and when? Your statement can't be true in all its meanings because I'm fairly certain most people in this thread mock the very idea of (ethnic) colour blindness: "I don't see colour." But perhaps you are not one? Certainly, I'm aware of the old hierarchies of European ethnicities in early America- Irish Catholics, swarthy Mediterraneans, Eastern European, etc. But your sweeping statement sounds more like social architects, deliberately planning new ethnic groupings for the express purpose of further subjugation of other minorities. Your oft repeated phrase, then seems a fairly large claim, so then I would like to know by whom and when.
He didn't discover anything though.
What do you mean by that? European maps didn't have the Americas on their maps, and didn't actively trade with the Americas (or for that matter, enslave, conquer and exploit). (And then even for the indigenous people, they had very little of the Americas mapped in its totality, so in a very real sense, you could say European mapmakers (like Vancouver) helped the indigenous map, and thereby discover the very continent they lived on.) That all changed after Columbus. The great project of mapping the Americas in their entirety began with him, Cabot and the others. In what sense did he not discover anything?
Surprised it hadn't been mentioned here so far, but Turkey and the USA stopped processing any VISA application from each other, effectively freezing any visits of each others nationals. This is actually much bigger than it looks at first glance...
[...] Washington said late on Sunday it was suspending the processing of all non-immigrant visas in Turkey due to “recent events” that “have forced the United States government to reassess the commitment of the government of Turkey to the security of US mission facilities and personnel”.
Ankara responded in the early hours of Monday with an identical statement, imposing tit-for-tat measures and suspending the processing of visas in its embassy and consulate in the US. It also shut down its online visa system for US citizens. [...]
Remember, "white" is something made up to oppress and marginalize non-white people, that's why "white people" were created.
By whom and when? Are you thinking of social darwinism?
"The discovery day" idea turns a man stumbling into a land mass, misnaming the population, proceeding to help exterminate the native inhabitants, then the ongoing oppression and imperialism that resulted into something to be celebrated, that's dumb.
A lot of discoveries are by accident- or rather they were trying to figure out one thing, but ended up finding something else. That doesn't diminish the discovery. Put it this way. If the reverse happened, would it not still be a significant moment in history? If in the 1400's, the Iroquois appeared off the coast of France in tall ships and that led to a permanent relationship between the continents, wouldn't that be worth noting? Even if the Iroquois were trying to get to Australia and found Europe instead? I think so.
It could be both solemn and celebratory. Like a great many things in history, the consequences are both good and bad.
I'm thinking that "white people" were created to oppress non-white people. They aren't a thing, that's why people that didn't use to be white are white now and people who used to be called white aren't anymore.
He didn't discover anything though.
Again. By whom and when? Your statement can't be true in all its meanings because I'm fairly certain most people in this thread mock the very idea of colour blindness: "I don't see colour." But perhaps you are not one? Certainly, I'm aware of the old hierarchies of European ethnicities in early America- Irish Catholics, swarthy Mediterraneans, Eastern European, etc. But your sweeping statement sounds more like social architects, deliberately planning new ethnic groupings for the express purpose of further subjugation of other minorities. Your oft repeated phrase, then seems a fairly large claim, so then I would like to know by whom and when.
What do you mean by that? European maps didn't have the Americas on their map, and didn't actively trade with the Americas (or for that matter, enslave, conquer and exploit). That all changed after Columbus. In what sense did he not discover anything?
It wasn't a single person but a strategy used by oligarchs (or your preferred term) to divide and conquer the servant class (I've mentioned it before when I've explained this, but it was also used to oppress servant class whites).
I'm not sure how/what you don't know about this so this is the expanded version of the executive summary.
Through a Eurocentric lens it makes sense to say "it wasn't on our maps, so we discovered it" except that's not how it works.
Let me ask it this way, when did South Americans discover Europe?
On October 10 2017 07:55 zlefin wrote: jock -> that small portion of the left isn't the majority at TL; unless you're blatantly misrepresenting things and really streteching the definition to be something that it isn't. It's mostly just GH really; some others that are adjacent to the crazy left, but not part of it, wiht a pretty sufficient distinctions I'd say.
Fair enough you're probably right. Its still where I find the most interesting discussion though. I'm trying to get into the mindset of people who share my goals but seem to have such radically different beliefs about the world.
On October 10 2017 07:09 ticklishmusic wrote: columbus was a heinous and incompetent shitbag while he was governor of the west indies, even by the standards of his time. sure he managed to sail over to america (which he didn't know he was america, even), but that's a pretty tiny piece of his biography.
i'm fine with celebrating, commemorating, acknowledging, memorializing the event which was an important milestone milestone in human history, but there's a lot of baggage there we as a society don't like to talk about.
If the society dosent like talking about it, don't force it down their throats.
It creates fissure within the fabric of our community.
You're basically telling people that try to strengthen society by ripping off threads which barely hold the piece together and create ripples in the fabric, that sewing a tight seam is not something to be aspired?
You know that if a fabric is worn and full of holes, although it might be fashionable at times, it usually is better replaced or fixed?
We will have to do a cost benefit on that one. I don't to be bogged down by a few holes there and there only to have China and Russia catching up to us.
Through a Eurocentric lens it makes sense to say "it wasn't on our maps, so we discovered it" except that's not how it works.
How else would it work? It was hardly on their maps either- just local mapping for seasonal patterns of migration. Sure it's a lens- because the counter is 'well, the indigenous were always here, since time immemorable, they didn't need to discover themselves.' The sort of concern for subject and object in history. So in that sense all peoples are existing on their own and have no need of being discovered, for they already know themselves. Well sure, but who bridged that gap? Which ships set out from which continent to land in the continent of another. There were still those who acted and in acting would end up finding others that they did not know, and those that they discovered also discovered that there were others in the world besides themselves. So in a sense, point of contact is the moment in which both groups discovered each other... but 'X group discovered Y group' is a nice shorthand to describe which group it was that built the ships and went, in contrast to those who stayed and received those same ships. And this would be true if it were the Aztecs sending ships to India and China, or the Nuu Chah Nulth were circumnavigating the globe, or if the Tsleil-Waututh were figuring out how to sail around Cape Horn.
Still watching that video, but I would say some of his framing really depends how cynical of motivations you are ascribing to the elites. (By way of analogy- depending on your framing of the rise of unions, you can get some very different explanations. Were unions formed as a part of cynical plan by the bourgeoise to keep exploiting the proletariat? Or were unions formed when the elites were forced to make concessions from labour uprisings? The uprisings still happen, the elites are still resisting giving up power and the union still rises- but was it a reactive concession dragged from the elites or was it a pro-active plan by the elites for more nefarious purposes.) But because Tim is ascribing motivation, we simply bumped back from one assertion to another's assertions
LA city council voted to rename it. Proves they can view the totality of indigenous peoples despite cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, and mutilation, but won’t extend the same treatment to Columbus. Thankfully, polling shows (Marist) that Americans aren’t as swayed as certain leadership councils.
Happy Columbus Day, everyone.
I know you like to ruffle liberals' feathers so I'm sure this post is meant to be ironic or something, but do you really think
a) considering an entire (set of) civilization(s) to be worth celebrating despite some bad social beliefs and practices of some of their populations during their centuries of existence, and
b) considering a man to be worth celebrating despite some racist and genocidal beliefs and practice during his lifetime
are analogous? To me, that logic would suggest that celebrating the German people is only acceptable if it's also acceptable to celebrate Hitler, which I'm sure you don't believe. But if not, I'm curious how you draw the distinction.
Replacing one with another expresses a preference, as does the rhetoric on this religious crusade. (a) and (b) entirely miss the point.
But you're the one who drew the comparison. Am I wrong to say the implication of your post was "if the LA city council can take the bad with the good for indigenous peoples, they should be willing to do the same for Columbus"? If you try to equate to things, asking whether they're actually comparable is hardly beside the point.
How are you hoping to have a conversation about the issue of changing Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day without discussing the actual merits of each?
On October 10 2017 07:10 Falling wrote: Well, much less the person, but it is a significant event in history- the meeting of two worlds. I joked before about Viking Day, but while they arrived earlier, it's not as significant as it never turned into much. The Viking colony quickly faded and there was no follow up. Columbus is a landmark as an event because there was a permanent change from very little interaction between the continents to an interconnectedness that has yet to cease.
We could rename it a few things so it commemorates the event rather than a deeply flawed person, but I don't think Indigenous Day captures the significance of the change. We could have an Indigenous Day as well, but it's a different idea. I think to celebrate a collection of ethnicities vs events that landmark a change... is somewhat similar in the same way there was rumblings over Canada's 150th celebration. True, there were people in these lands for thousands of years prior to 1867. Nonetheless, July 1, 1867 acknowledges that something occurred that had not occurred before- a polity appeared that didn't exist before. We can celebrate static history- the people, the ethnic groups. But I also think it's worth acknowledging dynamic history- unique events that shaped and changed what came after.
You could rename it something like Discovery Day but the opposition would start going on about invasion day or something. It seems like an odd battleground for these ideas, but apparently celebrating anything about Western culture in 2017 is celebrating white supremacy.
Much of "western culture" was built on white supremacy, so that's bound to happen.
Remember, "white" is something made up to oppress and marginalize non-white people, that's why "white people" were created.
"The discovery day" idea turns a man stumbling into a land mass, misnaming the population, proceeding to help exterminate the native inhabitants, then the ongoing oppression and imperialism that resulted into something to be celebrated, that's dumb.
I don't have a problem with remembering it, but it should be a solemn occasion taken to reflect on the atrocities and the lingering consequences. Not blindly celebrated or whatever incredibly dumb and ridiculous "Columbus day is about discovery and Italian Americans" bs Danglars is pushing.
Didn't Danglars say his great grandparents were Italian?
Twitter is a shit company and doesn't ban accounts that threaten people. It's weird that this was the thing set them off. Not people calling black twitter users the N-bomb all the time.
EPT
