|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland24879 Posts
On June 24 2020 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 05:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2020 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:13 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of partly agree with Danglars here.
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory. That's entirely fine. There is nothing wrong with that. These statues are a basic tribal instinct, not a necessity and certainly not something with a positive impact. Monuments should convey admiration for ideas and accomplishments, not people. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hFxwej7.jpg) This statue in Russia is used to pay respect to mice who have been used for developing human medicine. It has a great meaning. Columbus had hands chopped off. Full stop, that's terrible. We should be proud we as a people are coming to realize barbarism isn't acceptable. I completely reject the idea that statues of people as a practice is valuable. I don't think anyone has shown that. You certainly haven't yet. All you are pointing out is what a big change it is in our current culture. Culture has radically changed before. Remember how women used to be considered property? Remember how slavery was common? Statues are not slavery, but I am trying to point out the fact that massive cultural changes do indeed occur and it doesn't make it bad, just shocking. It is ok for things to be shocking and uncomfortable. This won't be the last time our global culture undergoes radical change. This will happen many more times. Let me ask you this: Do you think we are at some sort of "end point" of cultural advancement? Do you think we'll be roughly the same as a planet in 500 years? This is just a moment in time. Nothing about our position in history is unique or special. We are simply a chapter in a book. Here is the thing, Columbus doesn't have his statue for having chopped hands, but for being the first european to discover the new world (after Leif but whatever) and therefore opening a new era in human history. Jefferson doesn't have statues for being a slaveowner but for being the writer of the declaration of of independence and a major political actor and thinker of his time. A statue is not a stamp of virtue, and doesn't mean the guy was "good" or anything. Just that he or she achieved something really important and is worth remembering. Columbus and Jefferson certainly did. And yes, we need to remember the terrible things they did and reflect and learn. What better way to reflect and learn than statues? Written in a textbook and wikipedia. You have suggested statues as a good method of displaying history, but in my eyes you have not actually made a convincing case for why they should be considered a valid or preferred method. I understand that it is what we have done until this point and that its just kinda standard procedure since like 3000 years ago. But I don't see that as a reason to continue the practice. I think the core justification is still missing. How about a statue of the declaration of independence? With a bottle of ink next to it and some tea or some shit? That would do a good job at symbolizing the declaration of independence. I don't see a core justification for a statue of Jefferson. I do believe we should be proud of the declaration of independence, and what that meant for the US as a country, as a people, but I am having a hard time seeing a statue of a person involved as something worthwhile or even beneficial. We could have both? I think Jefferson, as the writer of the Declaration, the founding father and one of the starting point of all political thought in 19th century North America is really worth remembering and celebrating. And we can remember and reflect on the slave owner. That's all very interesting. Why have both? Why build a statue of a person rather than the specific idea we are trying to admire? My point is that I am not seeing the specific benefit to commemorating the person, rather than the specific idea to be admired. It feels like the logic you are saying "Since this person was extremely accomplished and significant to our history, we should make a statue of that person". The connection that I am not seeing is "And the reason we should make statues out of really accomplished or significant people is _______". I am only seeing references to history. I am not seeing a justification. It feels like you are implying it is a natural, understood, self-explanatory scenario. Perhaps I am simply ignorant, but I truly don't see that. Let's say we made a big statue to admire the declaration of independence and used it to replace a statue of Jefferson. What would be the disadvantage to that?
I feel it serves a political purpose having the Founding Fathers canonised, they were great men ergo how dare people diverge from their vision. America’s founding was rather different from most other places granted, but they are invoked with such reverence and relative frequency that I think they have a certain power and influence in discourse themselves.
I’m ok with statues if there is an accompanying undoing of so much whitewashing really. As an Irishman once told me ‘it’s not the statue of Cromwell that angers me, it’s that so few people know what he ordered done in Ireland’.
Bur even under hypothetical Wombat rule, the same people who are pissed off at statues being taken down will be just as pissed off that I decree that schools have to have a proper history curriculum. They’d accuse me of hating America, or that kids shouldn’t be exposed to bad things, or wrongly conflate being made aware of historical white privileged to forcing original sin on people.
|
On June 24 2020 05:51 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2020 05:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2020 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:13 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of partly agree with Danglars here.
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory. That's entirely fine. There is nothing wrong with that. These statues are a basic tribal instinct, not a necessity and certainly not something with a positive impact. Monuments should convey admiration for ideas and accomplishments, not people. This statue in Russia is used to pay respect to mice who have been used for developing human medicine. It has a great meaning. Columbus had hands chopped off. Full stop, that's terrible. We should be proud we as a people are coming to realize barbarism isn't acceptable. I completely reject the idea that statues of people as a practice is valuable. I don't think anyone has shown that. You certainly haven't yet. All you are pointing out is what a big change it is in our current culture. Culture has radically changed before. Remember how women used to be considered property? Remember how slavery was common? Statues are not slavery, but I am trying to point out the fact that massive cultural changes do indeed occur and it doesn't make it bad, just shocking. It is ok for things to be shocking and uncomfortable. This won't be the last time our global culture undergoes radical change. This will happen many more times. Let me ask you this: Do you think we are at some sort of "end point" of cultural advancement? Do you think we'll be roughly the same as a planet in 500 years? This is just a moment in time. Nothing about our position in history is unique or special. We are simply a chapter in a book. Here is the thing, Columbus doesn't have his statue for having chopped hands, but for being the first european to discover the new world (after Leif but whatever) and therefore opening a new era in human history. Jefferson doesn't have statues for being a slaveowner but for being the writer of the declaration of of independence and a major political actor and thinker of his time. A statue is not a stamp of virtue, and doesn't mean the guy was "good" or anything. Just that he or she achieved something really important and is worth remembering. Columbus and Jefferson certainly did. And yes, we need to remember the terrible things they did and reflect and learn. What better way to reflect and learn than statues? Written in a textbook and wikipedia. You have suggested statues as a good method of displaying history, but in my eyes you have not actually made a convincing case for why they should be considered a valid or preferred method. I understand that it is what we have done until this point and that its just kinda standard procedure since like 3000 years ago. But I don't see that as a reason to continue the practice. I think the core justification is still missing. How about a statue of the declaration of independence? With a bottle of ink next to it and some tea or some shit? That would do a good job at symbolizing the declaration of independence. I don't see a core justification for a statue of Jefferson. I do believe we should be proud of the declaration of independence, and what that meant for the US as a country, as a people, but I am having a hard time seeing a statue of a person involved as something worthwhile or even beneficial. We could have both? I think Jefferson, as the writer of the Declaration, the founding father and one of the starting point of all political thought in 19th century North America is really worth remembering and celebrating. And we can remember and reflect on the slave owner. That's all very interesting. Why have both? Why build a statue of a person rather than the specific idea we are trying to admire? My point is that I am not seeing the specific benefit to commemorating the person, rather than the specific idea to be admired. It feels like the logic you are saying "Since this person was extremely accomplished and significant to our history, we should make a statue of that person". The connection that I am not seeing is "And the reason we should make statues out of really accomplished or significant people is _______". I am only seeing references to history. I am not seeing a justification. It feels like you are implying it is a natural, understood, self-explanatory scenario. Perhaps I am simply ignorant, but I truly don't see that. Let's say we made a big statue to admire the declaration of independence and used it to replace a statue of Jefferson. What would be the disadvantage to that? I feel it serves a political purpose having the Founding Fathers canonised, they were great men ergo how dare people diverge from their vision. America’s founding was rather different from most other places granted, but they are invoked with such reverence and relative frequency that I think they have a certain power and influence in discourse themselves. I’m ok with statues if there is an accompanying undoing of so much whitewashing really. As an Irishman once told me ‘it’s not the statue of Cromwell that angers me, it’s that so few people know what he ordered done in Ireland’. Bur even under hypothetical Wombat rule, the same people who are pissed off at statues being taken down will be just as pissed off that I decree that schools have to have a proper history curriculum. They’d accuse me of hating America, or that kids shouldn’t be exposed to bad things, or wrongly conflate being made aware of historical white privileged to forcing original sin on people.
It's a lot easier to appear reasonable and civil arguing that statues shouldn't be removed in hasty civil acts of disobedience than to argue for what they really represent being preserved. Though they typically fail at maintaining that illusion long.
|
On June 24 2020 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 05:07 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2020 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of agree with Danglars here. And I agree with that Trump quote wholeheartedly (never thought the day would come).
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory. Doesn't surprise me. Jefferson and Columbus were considered despicable people contemporaneously. This isn't even a case of "great men being held to unfair modern standards". No one gives a fuck how despicable Columbus was. That's not the point and that's not why we have statues of him. lmao. That is exactly the point. No one give a fuck how despicable Columbus was because of hegemonic white supremacist worldviews and that's why there are statues of him. As I said he was a criminal dipshit even in his own time. He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration. That's not that difficult really. Who is "we"? I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye  Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that. Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did. So far the "we" I've seen Biff referring to are himself, danglars, Trump, and those upstanding Philly gentlemen with bats calling the peoples Columbus insisted until death were Asian "savages" while assaulting the journalist that asked for their thoughts on Columbus cutting off the hands of Taíno people that didn't bring him enough gold
"We" mean us as a society.
And you understood that well enough the first time. How full of it can you be at the end?
Now one more time, stop discussing my posts to strawman the shit out of them. I understand that you are more comfortable with strawmans, little spikes and disguised personal attacks than substantial explanations of those slogans you don't quite understand yourself but leave me out of it. There is no content to any of the discussion I have had with you outside cheap indignation and vague reference to thinkers you haven't read.
Leave. Me. Alone.
|
On June 24 2020 06:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 05:07 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2020 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of agree with Danglars here. And I agree with that Trump quote wholeheartedly (never thought the day would come).
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory. Doesn't surprise me. Jefferson and Columbus were considered despicable people contemporaneously. This isn't even a case of "great men being held to unfair modern standards". No one gives a fuck how despicable Columbus was. That's not the point and that's not why we have statues of him. lmao. That is exactly the point. No one give a fuck how despicable Columbus was because of hegemonic white supremacist worldviews and that's why there are statues of him. As I said he was a criminal dipshit even in his own time. He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration. That's not that difficult really. Who is "we"? I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that. Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did. So far the "we" I've seen Biff referring to are himself, danglars, Trump, and those upstanding Philly gentlemen with bats calling the peoples Columbus insisted until death were Asian "savages" while assaulting the journalist that asked for their thoughts on Columbus cutting off the hands of Taíno people that didn't bring him enough gold "We" mean us as a society. And you understood that well enough the first time. How full of it can you be at the end? Now one more time, stop discussing my posts to strawman the shit out of them. I understand that you are more comfortable with strawmans, little spikes and disguised personal attacks than substantial explanations of those slogans you don't quite understand yourself but leave me out of it. There is no content to any of the discussion I have had with you outside cheap indignation and vague reference to thinkers you haven't read. Leave. Me. Alone.
Generally if you want to be left alone you wouldn't continue to argue and add in a bunch of other nonsense about slogans and unsubstantiated accusations of me not reading the people I reference.
I can leave you out of it, but I'm still going to make my points about the ridiculousness of the position you articulated when it comes up.
|
On June 24 2020 06:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 05:07 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2020 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of agree with Danglars here. And I agree with that Trump quote wholeheartedly (never thought the day would come).
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory. Doesn't surprise me. Jefferson and Columbus were considered despicable people contemporaneously. This isn't even a case of "great men being held to unfair modern standards". No one gives a fuck how despicable Columbus was. That's not the point and that's not why we have statues of him. lmao. That is exactly the point. No one give a fuck how despicable Columbus was because of hegemonic white supremacist worldviews and that's why there are statues of him. As I said he was a criminal dipshit even in his own time. He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration. That's not that difficult really. Who is "we"? I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that. Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did. So far the "we" I've seen Biff referring to are himself, danglars, Trump, and those upstanding Philly gentlemen with bats calling the peoples Columbus insisted until death were Asian "savages" while assaulting the journalist that asked for their thoughts on Columbus cutting off the hands of Taíno people that didn't bring him enough gold "We" mean us as a society. And you understood that well enough the first time. How full of it can you be at the end? Now one more time, stop discussing my posts to strawman the shit out of them. I understand that you are more comfortable with strawmans, little spikes and disguised personal attacks than substantial explanations of those slogans you don't quite understand yourself but leave me out of it. There is no content to any of the discussion I have had with you outside cheap indignation and vague reference to thinkers you haven't read. Leave. Me. Alone.
It isn't reasonable to ask someone to not quote or respond to you. You can ignore the posts, but I think a fundamental tenet of internet forums is the idea that you can always quote or engage with anyone. There is nothing wrong with ignoring posts. If you have some people you prefer to interact with, do so, but I don't think it is appropriate to tell someone to not reply to you.
|
Northern Ireland24879 Posts
On June 24 2020 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 05:51 Wombat_NI wrote:On June 24 2020 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2020 05:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2020 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:13 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of partly agree with Danglars here.
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory. That's entirely fine. There is nothing wrong with that. These statues are a basic tribal instinct, not a necessity and certainly not something with a positive impact. Monuments should convey admiration for ideas and accomplishments, not people. This statue in Russia is used to pay respect to mice who have been used for developing human medicine. It has a great meaning. Columbus had hands chopped off. Full stop, that's terrible. We should be proud we as a people are coming to realize barbarism isn't acceptable. I completely reject the idea that statues of people as a practice is valuable. I don't think anyone has shown that. You certainly haven't yet. All you are pointing out is what a big change it is in our current culture. Culture has radically changed before. Remember how women used to be considered property? Remember how slavery was common? Statues are not slavery, but I am trying to point out the fact that massive cultural changes do indeed occur and it doesn't make it bad, just shocking. It is ok for things to be shocking and uncomfortable. This won't be the last time our global culture undergoes radical change. This will happen many more times. Let me ask you this: Do you think we are at some sort of "end point" of cultural advancement? Do you think we'll be roughly the same as a planet in 500 years? This is just a moment in time. Nothing about our position in history is unique or special. We are simply a chapter in a book. Here is the thing, Columbus doesn't have his statue for having chopped hands, but for being the first european to discover the new world (after Leif but whatever) and therefore opening a new era in human history. Jefferson doesn't have statues for being a slaveowner but for being the writer of the declaration of of independence and a major political actor and thinker of his time. A statue is not a stamp of virtue, and doesn't mean the guy was "good" or anything. Just that he or she achieved something really important and is worth remembering. Columbus and Jefferson certainly did. And yes, we need to remember the terrible things they did and reflect and learn. What better way to reflect and learn than statues? Written in a textbook and wikipedia. You have suggested statues as a good method of displaying history, but in my eyes you have not actually made a convincing case for why they should be considered a valid or preferred method. I understand that it is what we have done until this point and that its just kinda standard procedure since like 3000 years ago. But I don't see that as a reason to continue the practice. I think the core justification is still missing. How about a statue of the declaration of independence? With a bottle of ink next to it and some tea or some shit? That would do a good job at symbolizing the declaration of independence. I don't see a core justification for a statue of Jefferson. I do believe we should be proud of the declaration of independence, and what that meant for the US as a country, as a people, but I am having a hard time seeing a statue of a person involved as something worthwhile or even beneficial. We could have both? I think Jefferson, as the writer of the Declaration, the founding father and one of the starting point of all political thought in 19th century North America is really worth remembering and celebrating. And we can remember and reflect on the slave owner. That's all very interesting. Why have both? Why build a statue of a person rather than the specific idea we are trying to admire? My point is that I am not seeing the specific benefit to commemorating the person, rather than the specific idea to be admired. It feels like the logic you are saying "Since this person was extremely accomplished and significant to our history, we should make a statue of that person". The connection that I am not seeing is "And the reason we should make statues out of really accomplished or significant people is _______". I am only seeing references to history. I am not seeing a justification. It feels like you are implying it is a natural, understood, self-explanatory scenario. Perhaps I am simply ignorant, but I truly don't see that. Let's say we made a big statue to admire the declaration of independence and used it to replace a statue of Jefferson. What would be the disadvantage to that? I feel it serves a political purpose having the Founding Fathers canonised, they were great men ergo how dare people diverge from their vision. America’s founding was rather different from most other places granted, but they are invoked with such reverence and relative frequency that I think they have a certain power and influence in discourse themselves. I’m ok with statues if there is an accompanying undoing of so much whitewashing really. As an Irishman once told me ‘it’s not the statue of Cromwell that angers me, it’s that so few people know what he ordered done in Ireland’. Bur even under hypothetical Wombat rule, the same people who are pissed off at statues being taken down will be just as pissed off that I decree that schools have to have a proper history curriculum. They’d accuse me of hating America, or that kids shouldn’t be exposed to bad things, or wrongly conflate being made aware of historical white privileged to forcing original sin on people. It's a lot easier to appear reasonable and civil arguing that statues shouldn't be removed in hasty civil acts of disobedience than to argue for what they really represent being preserved. Though they typically fail at maintaining that illusion long.
Well yes, I probably should have added the caveat that keeping them up would depend on a wider historical understanding and cultural norms would have wholesale shifted to such crazy ideas like ‘imperialism is bad’, or ‘don’t starve millions of Indians Churchill’.
As that doesn’t exactly seem to be just around the corner I’m not exactly against getting rid of them.
It’s a terrible metric to used but based on the people on my social media feeds who are getting incredibly annoyed at this process I have to feel it’s a worthwhile endeavour.
|
*check Subscribed Threads*
Woah, that’s a lot of new posts. Wonder what set off the drama?
*read first line of Danglars post*
Ah, that’ll be it.
I’ve had this discussion quite a few times now and the discourse sucks every time. I think it’s because the statue apologist side is so rooted in a slippery slope argument that it’s hard to ever be talking about the same thing. Nobody defends a Nathan Bedford Forrest statue by defending Nathan Bedford Forrest, they defend it by defending statues of Washington and Lincoln. Then you say “I’m not trying to take down statues of Washington or Lincoln?” and the response is inevitably “Ah, but just wait, SOMEONE will!” Now I have to defend not just my position, but that of all statue removers (as well as any hypothetical future statue removers)?
It’s exhausting.
Now, it’s worth noting a slippery slope claim isn’t inherently fallacious. Suppose a spectrum of discrete policies ranging from 1 to 5. Further suppose our current policy is 2, but I’m proposing a move to 3 because 3 would produce better outcomes. It’s an intelligible position to say “I agree 3 would be better, but 5 would be disastrous. And I worry that people will see the move to 3 as a victory, and be hungry for more progress, and inevitably push to 4 and then 5; therefore I oppose your change.” There are objections, of course (Are the downstream effects actually inevitable? Why are you better qualified than future people to make their decisions for them?), but the fact an argument is rooted in a slippery slope doesn’t necessarily make it wrong, or fallacious, or “whataboutism.”
But all too often, there’s a fundamental dishonesty in the statue apologist case. If someone were to say “I agree that letting Memphis remove the KKK founder statue would be better, but I worry it would inevitably lead to removing Jefferson Davis, and Andrew Jackson, and Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, and MLK,” that would be refreshingly honest. If someone were to enumerate what value they think society is deriving from these statues, which we should weigh against whatever other concerns we have about keeping them, that would honestly warm my heart a little.
Instead it’s all “political correctness” or “erasing history,” semantic abstractions which become essentially meaningless in the context without clarification, yet no clarification is ever given. It’s rhetorical, it’s performative, it’s insincere. I can’t help but feel like it’s intentional, since if your goal is to keep the statues up, making everybody get tired of arguing and go home accomplishes the goal.
I’ve had a few discussions where statue defenders try to talk more sincerely about why they believe what they do. Those were refreshing. But most of the time, the discussion is uselessly obfuscated, maybe intentionally so. I think the inevitable outcome of what amounts to a rhetorical filibuster is that the statues stay up, be they George Washington or Hitler, until eventually angry mobs rip every one away and throw it in the river. I’d prefer the process be more democratic and procedural, but what else can they do?
|
On June 24 2020 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 06:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 05:07 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2020 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Doesn't surprise me.
Jefferson and Columbus were considered despicable people contemporaneously. This isn't even a case of "great men being held to unfair modern standards".
No one gives a fuck how despicable Columbus was. That's not the point and that's not why we have statues of him. lmao. That is exactly the point. No one give a fuck how despicable Columbus was because of hegemonic white supremacist worldviews and that's why there are statues of him. As I said he was a criminal dipshit even in his own time. He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration. That's not that difficult really. Who is "we"? I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that. Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did. So far the "we" I've seen Biff referring to are himself, danglars, Trump, and those upstanding Philly gentlemen with bats calling the peoples Columbus insisted until death were Asian "savages" while assaulting the journalist that asked for their thoughts on Columbus cutting off the hands of Taíno people that didn't bring him enough gold "We" mean us as a society. And you understood that well enough the first time. How full of it can you be at the end? Now one more time, stop discussing my posts to strawman the shit out of them. I understand that you are more comfortable with strawmans, little spikes and disguised personal attacks than substantial explanations of those slogans you don't quite understand yourself but leave me out of it. There is no content to any of the discussion I have had with you outside cheap indignation and vague reference to thinkers you haven't read. Leave. Me. Alone. Generally if you want to be left alone you wouldn't continue to argue and add in a bunch of other nonsense about slogans and unsubstantiated accusations of me not reading the people I reference. I can leave you out of it, but I'm still going to make my points about the ridiculousness of the position you articulated when it comes up.
I've told you I didn't want to continue this obnoxious joke of dialogue with you and next post you say
"As Biff said [insert a fucking stupid strawman]" or even better "considering how absurd Biff position [never explain what's absurd about it, never make own position even known, if there is one]". You did that last time, you do that again, stop doing it.
The day you are able to substantiate anything at all, you are free to criticize my position. But you don't substantiate shit. In fact at the moment all you do in this thread is:
1. Cheap indignation directed at people "Columbus was cutting hands!" "Biden is caging children!" "Jefferson was the worst person in history" "policemen are the scum of the earth" with exactly zero reflection, zero nuance and zero thought.
2. Spout slogans that you are totally unable to explain "Abolish the police". Fucking hell, it's been good to read an interview by Vitale to see what that was all about, considering you have been totally unable in years being asked about it to even start giving a rational answer. I won't even start with "end capitalism" and the likes.
3. Reclaim yourself from thinkers you, yes, haven't read. You say something totally baroque. Someone asks you to explain. You say "read Baldwin" or "I am a marxist" or my favourite "some people have been working on years on that". Well, if you are a marxist, I am looking forward hearing about how well historical materialism is doing and how very not obsolete at all his theory of value is.
Now I've lost a lot of time going through your attacks (because I don't think we can call that a discussion, there is no content in any of your posts), and I am done.
So one last time. Stop quoting me especially if it's for one of your cheap strawmans. I am not interested, it's obnoxious and it loses my time. Talk about your own ideas, for a change.
|
On June 24 2020 06:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 06:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 05:07 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2020 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
No one gives a fuck how despicable Columbus was. That's not the point and that's not why we have statues of him. lmao. That is exactly the point. No one give a fuck how despicable Columbus was because of hegemonic white supremacist worldviews and that's why there are statues of him. As I said he was a criminal dipshit even in his own time. He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration. That's not that difficult really. Who is "we"? I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that. Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did. So far the "we" I've seen Biff referring to are himself, danglars, Trump, and those upstanding Philly gentlemen with bats calling the peoples Columbus insisted until death were Asian "savages" while assaulting the journalist that asked for their thoughts on Columbus cutting off the hands of Taíno people that didn't bring him enough gold "We" mean us as a society. And you understood that well enough the first time. How full of it can you be at the end? Now one more time, stop discussing my posts to strawman the shit out of them. I understand that you are more comfortable with strawmans, little spikes and disguised personal attacks than substantial explanations of those slogans you don't quite understand yourself but leave me out of it. There is no content to any of the discussion I have had with you outside cheap indignation and vague reference to thinkers you haven't read. Leave. Me. Alone. Generally if you want to be left alone you wouldn't continue to argue and add in a bunch of other nonsense about slogans and unsubstantiated accusations of me not reading the people I reference. I can leave you out of it, but I'm still going to make my points about the ridiculousness of the position you articulated when it comes up. + Show Spoiler +I've told you I didn't want to continue this obnoxious joke of dialogue with you and next post you say
"As Biff said [insert a fucking stupid strawman]" or even better "considering how absurd Biff position [never explain what's absurd about it, never make own position even known, if there is one]". You did that last time, you do that again, stop doing it.
The day you are able to substantiate anything at all, you are free to criticize my position. But you don't substantiate shit. In fact at the moment all you do in this thread is: 1. Cheap indignation directed at people "Columbus was cutting hands!" "Biden is caging children!" "Jefferson was the worst person in history" "policemen are the scum of the earth" with exactly zero reflection, zero nuance and zero thought. + Show Spoiler +2. Spout slogans that you are totally unable to explain "Abolish the police". Fucking hell, it's been good to read an interview by Vitale to see what that was all about, considering you have been totally unable in years being asked about it to even start giving a rational answer. I won't even start with "end capitalism" and the likes.
3. Reclaim yourself from thinkers you, yes, haven't read. You say something totally baroque. Someone asks you to explain. You say "read Baldwin" or "I am a marxist" or my favourite "some people have been working on years on that". Well, if you are a marxist, I am looking forward hearing about how well historical materialism is doing and how very not obsolete at all his theory of value is.
Now I've lost a lot of time going through your attacks (because I don't think we can call that a discussion, there is no content in any of your posts), and I am done.
So one last time. Stop quoting me especially if it's for one of your cheap strawmans. I am not interested, it's obnoxious and it loses my time. Talk about your own ideas, for a change.
Columbus cutting off hands was literally a quote from the journalist assaulted by the people in the video danglars posted. I'd argue between us it's abundantly clear I'm not the one demonstrating "zero reflection, zero nuance and zero thought".
|
|
|
Hmm yes this isnt worth it nvm.
@wombat:if you could delete the quoting of my post it would be apreciated. I should not have said this,even more so because i have given up on contributing to discussions with GH myself long ago.
|
Stupid late night post my bad
|
On June 24 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 06:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 06:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 05:07 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2020 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
lmao. That is exactly the point. No one give a fuck how despicable Columbus was because of hegemonic white supremacist worldviews and that's why there are statues of him. As I said he was a criminal dipshit even in his own time. He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration. That's not that difficult really. Who is "we"? I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that. Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did. So far the "we" I've seen Biff referring to are himself, danglars, Trump, and those upstanding Philly gentlemen with bats calling the peoples Columbus insisted until death were Asian "savages" while assaulting the journalist that asked for their thoughts on Columbus cutting off the hands of Taíno people that didn't bring him enough gold "We" mean us as a society. And you understood that well enough the first time. How full of it can you be at the end? Now one more time, stop discussing my posts to strawman the shit out of them. I understand that you are more comfortable with strawmans, little spikes and disguised personal attacks than substantial explanations of those slogans you don't quite understand yourself but leave me out of it. There is no content to any of the discussion I have had with you outside cheap indignation and vague reference to thinkers you haven't read. Leave. Me. Alone. Generally if you want to be left alone you wouldn't continue to argue and add in a bunch of other nonsense about slogans and unsubstantiated accusations of me not reading the people I reference. I can leave you out of it, but I'm still going to make my points about the ridiculousness of the position you articulated when it comes up. + Show Spoiler +I've told you I didn't want to continue this obnoxious joke of dialogue with you and next post you say
"As Biff said [insert a fucking stupid strawman]" or even better "considering how absurd Biff position [never explain what's absurd about it, never make own position even known, if there is one]". You did that last time, you do that again, stop doing it.
The day you are able to substantiate anything at all, you are free to criticize my position. But you don't substantiate shit. In fact at the moment all you do in this thread is: 1. Cheap indignation directed at people "Columbus was cutting hands!" "Biden is caging children!" "Jefferson was the worst person in history" "policemen are the scum of the earth" with exactly zero reflection, zero nuance and zero thought. + Show Spoiler +2. Spout slogans that you are totally unable to explain "Abolish the police". Fucking hell, it's been good to read an interview by Vitale to see what that was all about, considering you have been totally unable in years being asked about it to even start giving a rational answer. I won't even start with "end capitalism" and the likes.
3. Reclaim yourself from thinkers you, yes, haven't read. You say something totally baroque. Someone asks you to explain. You say "read Baldwin" or "I am a marxist" or my favourite "some people have been working on years on that". Well, if you are a marxist, I am looking forward hearing about how well historical materialism is doing and how very not obsolete at all his theory of value is.
Now I've lost a lot of time going through your attacks (because I don't think we can call that a discussion, there is no content in any of your posts), and I am done.
So one last time. Stop quoting me especially if it's for one of your cheap strawmans. I am not interested, it's obnoxious and it loses my time. Talk about your own ideas, for a change. Columbus cutting off hands was literally a quote from the journalist assaulted by the people in the video danglars posted. I'd argue between us it's abundantly clear I'm not the one demonstrating "zero reflection, zero nuance and zero thought".
Look, you can go on a fishing expedition to find something heinous with every historically famous person (oddly, I find it tends to partisanry like say, Lenin statue standing tall and celebrated in Portland, Wilson and Lincolns racism, FDR's many atrocities, Che's homophobia that apparently is not a disqualifier, etc.). and bring it up to provide a rational to remove public facing monuments, statues, remembrances, etc. but you miss the intent and the historical significance of the person behind the statues. Jefferson and Washington commemorations aren't there to promote slavery or white supremacy (I'm sure I'll hear the protestations). It would be odd to not have public commemorations for the individual responsible for the independence of the nation and being its first executive providing a legacy of traditions for the highest office in the country. Same goes for the person behind the ideas for the nation itself (we really should have more Sam Adams / Patrick Henry / T. Paine commemorations).
If the test to have public monuments for a person is to be a saint, well, I guess we should just dispense with the whole idea (and perhaps that argument is worth having). I also confess that I have a strong bias in favor of the liberal political traditions that someone like Jefferson represents and so as Wombat pointed out (the political purpose of maintaining that strong tradition) as well. So to me, there's a deeper political fight to public monuments and the traditions they represent like Jefferson. There's a reason Portland is destroying Jefferson while keeping Lenin up. Honestly, let Portland go commie, but keep that shit there. I'm really sick of the nationalist tripe...maybe the further polarization of the country will lead to decentralization and secession (can only hope). Ok digression aside, the point is that its fatally simple to just point to something bad a person has done while dismissing their historical significance and say, lock this away out of public sight. MLK was an adulterer. I guess we should take his statues down too.
https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-scholar-and-ill-never-be-able-to-view-king-in-the-same-light-118015
By the standards set forth from those destroying statues he has to. I wonder how vigorously the same people removing the statues now would go for that.
|
Northern Ireland24879 Posts
On June 24 2020 07:11 pmh wrote:
I'd argue between us it's abundantly clear I'm not the one demonstrating "zero reflection, zero nuance and zero thought".
Well lets have a vote on that then.
Between the 2 of you my vote would go to biff for beeing the smarter and more intelligent person with more reflection,nuance and thought and also beeing a better person in general,a person who cares for other peoples well beeing.
You think you are smart for beeing able to formulate your thoughts well and maybe you can fool some people with that.
But your thoughts itself are all very dumb which reveals how smart you really are.
I have seen many people like that in my life,all well educated in easy studies. All their intelect goes into formulating,debating and arguing and none goes into actual thinking or understanding.
And yes,i will happily take a temp ban for this.
#TeamGH.
Nah I enjoy both his and Biff’s contributions here, my sanctum from the horrors of discussing politics elsewhere.
I appreciate Biff’s nuanced utterances on certain topics, on other topics, namely climate change I feel GH’s approach to the issue is more appropriate.
|
United States24652 Posts
On June 24 2020 07:04 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 05:45 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 05:26 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 05:04 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 04:53 micronesia wrote:This explains your position in Canada. Do you have evidence that the Native Americans in the USA feel the same way? If so I'll agree with your original claims. I'm sorry because I've never see you as ignorant, but for example the Blackfoot nation is not Canadian or American, it govers territory in both countries. Many of the people travel back and forth, the Blackfoot nation is not the only one like this. I'm not sure what you after, it really does not matter if some people do or don't find it offensive to whether it is or is not. It does not matter if it is used in school's or on websites. It is no different than if we were talking about this around the N word 50 years ago. Edit: it didn't at some point become offensive, it always was just many people were ignorant to that fact. The only people who can decide if the Native Americans in the USA don't like it when members of the USA use the term "Indian" is Native Americans in the USA. Perhaps there is a small amount of overlap between those Canadian issues you linked to and the type of evidence I am looking for... I hadn't noticed that and if I missed it I apologize. However, my point stands that you have no right to accuse Americans of being ignorant for using a term that Native Americans in the USA don't like, when talking about Native Americans in the USA, unless Native Americans in the USA have said so to the USA to some reasonable extent. Your logic for why you think the term is insulting is invalid unless some reasonable quantity of Native Americans in the location of question actually agree with you. I use the term Native American because I think your conclusions is correct, but I just don't agree that you've backed up your conclusion properly yet (although perhaps you are close due to overlaps between Native Americans in Canada and Native Americans in the USA). I completely do, for personal as well as because it is factual. It was given to them based on ignorance and by a people who treated them as sub human. That is just the facts, if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance. That you are not wanting to be racist but are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_studies#:~:text=Native American studies (also known,taking a hemispheric approach, theObjections to the usage of "Indian" and "American Indian" include the fact that "Indian" arose from a historical error, and thus does not accurately reflect the derivation of the people to whom it refers; and some feel that the term has absorbed negative and demeaning connotations through its historical usage that render it objectionable in context. Additionally, "American Indian" is often understood to mean only the peoples of the mainland body of the United States, which excludes other Native Americans in the United States who are considered indigenous peoples of the Americas; including the Haida, Tlingit, Athabascan, Inuit, Yup'ik (Yuits/Alutiiq/Cup'ik), Iñupiat, Aleut (i.e., the groups whose traditional languages are Eskimo–Aleut languages), Marshallese, and Samoan; who are referred to collectively as either Alaskan Natives, First Nations, Native Hawaiians or Siberians.
Supporters of the terms "Indian" and "American Indian" argue that they have been in use for such a long period of time that many people have become accustomed to them and no longer consider them exonyms. Both terms are still widely used today. "American Indian" appears often in treaties between the United States and the indigenous peoples with whom they have been negotiating since the colonial period, and many federal, state and local laws also use it.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversyIf your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you. That does not mean it is not, the same way the N word was once used commonly and not all black people are offended by it. https://www.insider.com/native-american-offensive-racist-things-2020-1#im-not-indian-im-native-american-indigenous-or-first-nations-4https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/what-s-in-a-name-indian-native-aboriginal-or-indigenous-1.2784518Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant? You aren't reading what I wrote. "if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance" I never expressed a desire to use the term. I specifically expressed that I think the term is likely offensive and I don't use it. You are starting with the conclusion and working backwards here. If the term is not offensive it's okay to use it. If the term is offensive then using it likely means you are ignorant. Saying you are ignorant because you use the term, prior to establishing that the term is offensive, is pointless. You are arguing with nobody. "If your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you." That is not my point. My point is that people in the USA using the term "Indians" to refer to Native Americans in the USA is okay unless the Native Americans in the USA are not okay with it. Of course, it doesn't need to be 100% of Native Americans in the USA... but it should be more than say, 1 person. If you can point to a Tribe that has formally stated that they do not prefer people refer to them as Indians, then I think that's sufficient evidence, even if some other Tribes are okay with the term. I don't think it's hard to find or provide this evidence, I'm just calling your logic chain into question. You are wrong until you provide this evidence. Then you are right and we can stop discussing this.It bothers me when people get offended on behalf of other people, and it turns out those other people weren't even offended. I'm just asking you to show this is not the case. You may think the term "Indian" being incorrect from the getgo automatically makes the term offensive, but not all Native Americans agree with you, so at least show that some of them do (in the region of relevance given that you were addressing people from the USA when this was triggered). You are not choosing a reasonable hill to die on here. I do not use the term Indian to refer to Native Americans, or am I suggesting other people do that in the USA or elsewhere. edit: "Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant? " Answer: 99% of Native Americans in the USA aren't offended by it. Prove me wrong and you win. Perhaps you missed that I am of Native American descent, I have American Cousin's many that are full blood and I guess I could get them to create accounts log in and tell you they don't like it. If I seem flippant it is because it is amazingly absurd for me to have to prove to you why a term so BLATANTLY rooted in racism is offensive. But I guess here goes. First lets start with Danglar's use, he had the brave general defending America from the "Indian's". In this context it is obviously racist since it was the people he is calling "american's" many of who at that time were likely born in Europe or first Generation "american" defening "their" land. I hope you can see the problem with that. Next I looked up Native American studies in the US. While I did see a couple called Native American and American Indian's studies, I saw none called "Indian's". Yes American Indian is less offensive, I don't prefer it but I will say it is better. However most did not. I put forward that if it was unoffensive to 99% of First Nation's people in the USA that they would All be called Indian studies, none were and most were called what I would deem non offensive terms. http://www.ou.edu/cas/nashttps://www.colorado.edu/cnais/https://www.uaf.edu/indigenous/https://english.gmu.edu/programs/la-minor-la-nais?_ga=1.19843320.1764790523.1451302302https://native-american.dartmouth.edu/http://www.law.msu.edu/indigenous/https://nas.unm.edu/https://nau.edu/ais/https://nacc.stanford.edu/https://www.cser.columbia.edu/indigenoushttps://liberalarts.utexas.edu/nais/Here is a quote for you. Show nested quote +How I loathe the term "indian." ... "Indian" is used to sell things--souveniers, cigars, cigarettes, gasoline,cars.... "Indian" is a figment of the white man's imagination Lenore Keeshig-Tobias, Ojibwe 1990 She is Canadian but I like the quote, and as a Canadian I tend to know more of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenore_Keeshig-TobiasThis is also Canadian, but it goes through the various titles, I'll get to more American stuff shortly. Show nested quote +The term “Indian” refers to the legal identity of a First Nations person who is registered under the Indian Act. The term “Indian” should be used only when referring to a First Nations person with status under the Indian Act, and only within its legal context. Aside from this specific legal context, the term “Indian” in Canada is considered outdated and may be considered offensive due to its complex and often idiosyncratic colonial use in governing identity through this legislation and a myriad of other distinctions (i.e., “treaty” and “non-treaty,” etc.). In the United States, however, the term “American Indian” and “Native Indian” are both in current and common usage.
You may also hear some First Nations people refer to themselves as “Indians.” While there are many reasons for an individual to self-identify as such, this may be a deliberate act on their part to position and present themselves as someone who is defined by federal legislation.
“Indian Band” is also a legal term under the Indian Act to denote a grouping of status Indians. (For more information on this, see our section on bands.) https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/Here is a article about 5 Native American's describing which terms they prefer. Not surprisingly most prefer to be called by their specific tribe but then often as Native American. Some of them say American Indian is fine, None say Indian. Here are some quotes. Show nested quote +“We aren’t Indian. When other people [non-Natives] say ‘Indian’ it’s because they don’t know any better. And sometimes it comes out of ignorance.” She states that when she hears non-Natives use the term “Indian” it reminds her of how people use the term “redskin” out of ignorance. “Some people just don’t know the history of the name and they think it is just the name of a football team.” She states that non-Natives should refer to us as Native American or indigenous.” Show nested quote +Waln also said he feels the term ‘indigenous’ is an acceptable blanket statement of our people. He deters from terms such as ‘Sioux’ or ‘Indian,’ but knows others who use these terms. “I feel every Native should have the choice. Those conversations we need to have within ourselves, and it’s not for the outside to know everything about us or be involved in those types of conversations. Because those are for us.” Show nested quote +“For most of my life, I didn’t understand I was attached to this amazing ancestry. That I came from such strong people because a lot of what media tells us is, as Native people, we are dumb, cheap, less than, we’re savages, we’re alcoholics, and I internalized that as a kid because that is the environment I grew up in. When I speak to Native kids now, I remind them that they come from greatness. Greatness is inside all of us. That myth that Natives are dumb, primitive, savages, even shy, it’s all a lie! I call myself Sicangu Lakota because to me that name is strong, that name is old; it predates the United States.”
Waln also said he feels the term ‘indigenous’ is an acceptable blanket statement of our people. He deters from terms such as ‘Sioux’ or ‘Indian,’ but knows others who use these terms. “I feel every Native should have the choice. Those conversations we need to have within ourselves, and it’s not for the outside to know everything about us or be involved in those types of conversations. Because those are for us.” Show nested quote +When asked which references she feels most comfortable with she says, “I prefer indigenous, but I am comfortable with ‘Native American’ or ‘American Indian’. The reason I prefer indigenous is because being indigenous means you are of a place, one place on earth, which is unique to you. It identifies our peoples well because we referred to ourselves as from a place or location.” Here is another. https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/native/homepage.htmShow nested quote +A common belief in the contemporary United States, often unspoken and unconscious, implies that everyone has a right to use Indians as they see fit; everyone owns them. Indianness is a national heritage; it is a fount for commercial enterprise; it is a costume one can put on for a party, a youth activity, or a sporting event. This sense of entitlement, this expression of white privilege, has a long history, manifesting itself in national narratives, popular entertainments, marketing schemes, sporting worlds, and self-improvement regimes. C. Richard King, redskins: Insult and Brand (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2016), 100. It really did not take the long to find all of this. I find it very strange that you ask me to prove something is offensive but maybe you don't know any Native American's or have any around where you live. I hope this has shown you that 99% of native American's would rather not be called Indian's. If it does not than so be it. I'm not looking to "win", I'm looking for people to not not be ignorant and think about the terms that they use, what they mean and who they may offend unintentionally. he easiest way to think of why it is offensive is think about where it came from, and what happened to those people when it was commonly used. Something being used commonly does not make it right, every word that you would consider awful likely had a time when it was considered alright and was commonly used as well. And on top of that context matters, so when danglar's chooses to use it the way he did, as if the "indians" were in the wrong for attacking the poor innocent American's it becomes clearer. It is also pretty obvious of Danglar's thinks on these sorts of matters from his many awful posts.
I did not realize that you were of Native American descent. Had I known that I would have broached the issue with you more delicately. I have met Native Americans in the USA who did not object to the use of the term Indian. I have not met Native Americans in the USA who object to the use of the term (in my presence so I was aware). I expect you know way more people of Native American descent than I do, and you even said some of them are in the USA, so your personal anecdotes may be more valuable than I originally gave them credit for.
It still seems surprisingly challenging to find widespread evidence that dislike of the term "Indian" is prevalent among Native Americans in the USA. For many other terms, it's super easy to find the evidence. As I was trying to say before, "why" the term should be considered offensive is only relevant if the Native Americans are actually offended. Given that you've likely personally been offended by this issue before, I'll recognize that if either of us did more digging we'd surely find enough evidence that we can move past the "do Native Americans in the USA even dislike the term being used in the USA." Also, if Americans saying "Indian" were only offensive to Native Americans in Canada, a good argument can still be made that Americans should stop using the term, even if the USA-based Native Americans are indifferent. If I go back and read a couple of your earlier posts as, "As someone of Native American descent, I find the term insulting because..." then it makes a lot more sense to appeal to the logic behind why the term would be considered insensitive or ignorant.
|
So lets assume it is offensive to some people and not offensive to others. And then lets consider there are terms that are basically offensive to no one, such as specifying the tribe. Why not just toss "Indian" in the trash if there are more widely accepted terms?
If people from Columbia decided being called "dolphins" was the least offensive thing, I'd just go with that. I would not hesitate. I would just always choose which ever thing is considered the least offensive.
|
Northern Ireland24879 Posts
On June 24 2020 07:18 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 06:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 06:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 05:07 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2020 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration.
That's not that difficult really. Who is "we"? I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that. Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did. So far the "we" I've seen Biff referring to are himself, danglars, Trump, and those upstanding Philly gentlemen with bats calling the peoples Columbus insisted until death were Asian "savages" while assaulting the journalist that asked for their thoughts on Columbus cutting off the hands of Taíno people that didn't bring him enough gold "We" mean us as a society. And you understood that well enough the first time. How full of it can you be at the end? Now one more time, stop discussing my posts to strawman the shit out of them. I understand that you are more comfortable with strawmans, little spikes and disguised personal attacks than substantial explanations of those slogans you don't quite understand yourself but leave me out of it. There is no content to any of the discussion I have had with you outside cheap indignation and vague reference to thinkers you haven't read. Leave. Me. Alone. Generally if you want to be left alone you wouldn't continue to argue and add in a bunch of other nonsense about slogans and unsubstantiated accusations of me not reading the people I reference. I can leave you out of it, but I'm still going to make my points about the ridiculousness of the position you articulated when it comes up. + Show Spoiler +I've told you I didn't want to continue this obnoxious joke of dialogue with you and next post you say
"As Biff said [insert a fucking stupid strawman]" or even better "considering how absurd Biff position [never explain what's absurd about it, never make own position even known, if there is one]". You did that last time, you do that again, stop doing it.
The day you are able to substantiate anything at all, you are free to criticize my position. But you don't substantiate shit. In fact at the moment all you do in this thread is: 1. Cheap indignation directed at people "Columbus was cutting hands!" "Biden is caging children!" "Jefferson was the worst person in history" "policemen are the scum of the earth" with exactly zero reflection, zero nuance and zero thought. + Show Spoiler +2. Spout slogans that you are totally unable to explain "Abolish the police". Fucking hell, it's been good to read an interview by Vitale to see what that was all about, considering you have been totally unable in years being asked about it to even start giving a rational answer. I won't even start with "end capitalism" and the likes.
3. Reclaim yourself from thinkers you, yes, haven't read. You say something totally baroque. Someone asks you to explain. You say "read Baldwin" or "I am a marxist" or my favourite "some people have been working on years on that". Well, if you are a marxist, I am looking forward hearing about how well historical materialism is doing and how very not obsolete at all his theory of value is.
Now I've lost a lot of time going through your attacks (because I don't think we can call that a discussion, there is no content in any of your posts), and I am done.
So one last time. Stop quoting me especially if it's for one of your cheap strawmans. I am not interested, it's obnoxious and it loses my time. Talk about your own ideas, for a change. Columbus cutting off hands was literally a quote from the journalist assaulted by the people in the video danglars posted. I'd argue between us it's abundantly clear I'm not the one demonstrating "zero reflection, zero nuance and zero thought". Look, you can go on a fishing expedition to find something heinous with every historically famous person (oddly, I find it tends to partisanry like say, Lenin statue standing tall and celebrated in Portland, Wilson and Lincolns racism, FDR's many atrocities, Che's homophobia that apparently is not a disqualifier, etc.). and bring it up to provide a rational to remove public facing monuments, statues, remembrances, etc. but you miss the intent and the historical significance of the person behind the statues. Jefferson and Washington commemorations aren't there to promote slavery or white supremacy (I'm sure I'll hear the protestations). It would be odd to not have public commemorations for the individual responsible for the independence of the nation and being its first executive providing a legacy of traditions for the highest office in the country. Same goes for the person behind the ideas for the nation itself (we really should have more Sam Adams / Patrick Henry / T. Paine commemorations). If the test to have public monuments for a person is to be a saint, we'll, I guess we should just dispense with the whole idea (and perhaps that argument is worth having). I also confess that I have a strong bias in favor of the liberal political traditions that someone like Jefferson represents and so as Wombat pointed out (the political purpose of maintaining that strong tradition) as well. So to me, there's a deeper political fight to public monuments and the traditions they represent like Jefferson. There's a reason Portland is destroying Jefferson while keeping Lenin up. Honestly, let Portland go commie, but keep that shit there. I'm really sick of the nationalist tripe...maybe the further polarization of the country will lead to decentralization and secession (can only hope). Ok digression aside, the point is that its fatally simple to just point to something bad a person has done while dismissing their historical significance and say, lock this away out of public sight. MLK was an adulterer. I guess we should take his statues down too. https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-scholar-and-ill-never-be-able-to-view-king-in-the-same-light-118015By the standards set forth from those destroying statues he has to. I wonder how vigorously the same people removing the statues now would go for that.
Adultery is not exactly equivalent to genocide, or owning slaves or whatever.
My point re the symbolism of the Founding Fathers and them being invoked wasn’t an entirely positive one. Their quasi sainthood does serve as some ideal to strive to, equally ‘the founding fathers wouldn’t like x’ is wheeled out so frequently and is rather strange. We don’t really have comparable figures over here, it’s quite an alien practice to an outside observer.
Mohdoo had suggested making monuments to the Declaration or what have you, which I like as an idea. I just don’t think a document has the same cachet as the Founding Fathers themselves, for better or worse.
Always had a soft spot for Paine since I encountered him in my teenage years. Think there’s a few obvious reasons he and some of the other fellows aren’t held up on that same pedestal by conservative America (or America at large for that matter).
Been pondering where my lines on statues would be.
Personal conduct aside, Jefferson et al at least stand for something noble to some extent. Plus huge historical significance.
Columbus did something of great importance, but equally stood for imperial exploitation of New World. But did at least have a huge impact in shaping the world we exist in now.
The Confederate statues were neither nice men, nor aspired to anything noble in the abstract either.
Really as a wider aside why not take this opportunity to honour people who aren’t leaders or generals and have helped shape America as it is today, many of whom are lacking wider recognition.
|
|
|
On June 24 2020 07:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 07:25 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 07:04 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 05:45 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 05:26 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 05:04 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 04:53 micronesia wrote:This explains your position in Canada. Do you have evidence that the Native Americans in the USA feel the same way? If so I'll agree with your original claims. I'm sorry because I've never see you as ignorant, but for example the Blackfoot nation is not Canadian or American, it govers territory in both countries. Many of the people travel back and forth, the Blackfoot nation is not the only one like this. I'm not sure what you after, it really does not matter if some people do or don't find it offensive to whether it is or is not. It does not matter if it is used in school's or on websites. It is no different than if we were talking about this around the N word 50 years ago. Edit: it didn't at some point become offensive, it always was just many people were ignorant to that fact. The only people who can decide if the Native Americans in the USA don't like it when members of the USA use the term "Indian" is Native Americans in the USA. Perhaps there is a small amount of overlap between those Canadian issues you linked to and the type of evidence I am looking for... I hadn't noticed that and if I missed it I apologize. However, my point stands that you have no right to accuse Americans of being ignorant for using a term that Native Americans in the USA don't like, when talking about Native Americans in the USA, unless Native Americans in the USA have said so to the USA to some reasonable extent. Your logic for why you think the term is insulting is invalid unless some reasonable quantity of Native Americans in the location of question actually agree with you. I use the term Native American because I think your conclusions is correct, but I just don't agree that you've backed up your conclusion properly yet (although perhaps you are close due to overlaps between Native Americans in Canada and Native Americans in the USA). I completely do, for personal as well as because it is factual. It was given to them based on ignorance and by a people who treated them as sub human. That is just the facts, if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance. That you are not wanting to be racist but are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_studies#:~:text=Native American studies (also known,taking a hemispheric approach, theObjections to the usage of "Indian" and "American Indian" include the fact that "Indian" arose from a historical error, and thus does not accurately reflect the derivation of the people to whom it refers; and some feel that the term has absorbed negative and demeaning connotations through its historical usage that render it objectionable in context. Additionally, "American Indian" is often understood to mean only the peoples of the mainland body of the United States, which excludes other Native Americans in the United States who are considered indigenous peoples of the Americas; including the Haida, Tlingit, Athabascan, Inuit, Yup'ik (Yuits/Alutiiq/Cup'ik), Iñupiat, Aleut (i.e., the groups whose traditional languages are Eskimo–Aleut languages), Marshallese, and Samoan; who are referred to collectively as either Alaskan Natives, First Nations, Native Hawaiians or Siberians.
Supporters of the terms "Indian" and "American Indian" argue that they have been in use for such a long period of time that many people have become accustomed to them and no longer consider them exonyms. Both terms are still widely used today. "American Indian" appears often in treaties between the United States and the indigenous peoples with whom they have been negotiating since the colonial period, and many federal, state and local laws also use it.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversyIf your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you. That does not mean it is not, the same way the N word was once used commonly and not all black people are offended by it. https://www.insider.com/native-american-offensive-racist-things-2020-1#im-not-indian-im-native-american-indigenous-or-first-nations-4https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/what-s-in-a-name-indian-native-aboriginal-or-indigenous-1.2784518Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant? You aren't reading what I wrote. "if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance" I never expressed a desire to use the term. I specifically expressed that I think the term is likely offensive and I don't use it. You are starting with the conclusion and working backwards here. If the term is not offensive it's okay to use it. If the term is offensive then using it likely means you are ignorant. Saying you are ignorant because you use the term, prior to establishing that the term is offensive, is pointless. You are arguing with nobody. "If your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you." That is not my point. My point is that people in the USA using the term "Indians" to refer to Native Americans in the USA is okay unless the Native Americans in the USA are not okay with it. Of course, it doesn't need to be 100% of Native Americans in the USA... but it should be more than say, 1 person. If you can point to a Tribe that has formally stated that they do not prefer people refer to them as Indians, then I think that's sufficient evidence, even if some other Tribes are okay with the term. I don't think it's hard to find or provide this evidence, I'm just calling your logic chain into question. You are wrong until you provide this evidence. Then you are right and we can stop discussing this.It bothers me when people get offended on behalf of other people, and it turns out those other people weren't even offended. I'm just asking you to show this is not the case. You may think the term "Indian" being incorrect from the getgo automatically makes the term offensive, but not all Native Americans agree with you, so at least show that some of them do (in the region of relevance given that you were addressing people from the USA when this was triggered). You are not choosing a reasonable hill to die on here. I do not use the term Indian to refer to Native Americans, or am I suggesting other people do that in the USA or elsewhere. edit: "Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant? " Answer: 99% of Native Americans in the USA aren't offended by it. Prove me wrong and you win. Perhaps you missed that I am of Native American descent, I have American Cousin's many that are full blood and I guess I could get them to create accounts log in and tell you they don't like it. If I seem flippant it is because it is amazingly absurd for me to have to prove to you why a term so BLATANTLY rooted in racism is offensive. But I guess here goes. First lets start with Danglar's use, he had the brave general defending America from the "Indian's". In this context it is obviously racist since it was the people he is calling "american's" many of who at that time were likely born in Europe or first Generation "american" defening "their" land. I hope you can see the problem with that. Next I looked up Native American studies in the US. While I did see a couple called Native American and American Indian's studies, I saw none called "Indian's". Yes American Indian is less offensive, I don't prefer it but I will say it is better. However most did not. I put forward that if it was unoffensive to 99% of First Nation's people in the USA that they would All be called Indian studies, none were and most were called what I would deem non offensive terms. http://www.ou.edu/cas/nashttps://www.colorado.edu/cnais/https://www.uaf.edu/indigenous/https://english.gmu.edu/programs/la-minor-la-nais?_ga=1.19843320.1764790523.1451302302https://native-american.dartmouth.edu/http://www.law.msu.edu/indigenous/https://nas.unm.edu/https://nau.edu/ais/https://nacc.stanford.edu/https://www.cser.columbia.edu/indigenoushttps://liberalarts.utexas.edu/nais/Here is a quote for you. How I loathe the term "indian." ... "Indian" is used to sell things--souveniers, cigars, cigarettes, gasoline,cars.... "Indian" is a figment of the white man's imagination Lenore Keeshig-Tobias, Ojibwe 1990 She is Canadian but I like the quote, and as a Canadian I tend to know more of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenore_Keeshig-TobiasThis is also Canadian, but it goes through the various titles, I'll get to more American stuff shortly. The term “Indian” refers to the legal identity of a First Nations person who is registered under the Indian Act. The term “Indian” should be used only when referring to a First Nations person with status under the Indian Act, and only within its legal context. Aside from this specific legal context, the term “Indian” in Canada is considered outdated and may be considered offensive due to its complex and often idiosyncratic colonial use in governing identity through this legislation and a myriad of other distinctions (i.e., “treaty” and “non-treaty,” etc.). In the United States, however, the term “American Indian” and “Native Indian” are both in current and common usage.
You may also hear some First Nations people refer to themselves as “Indians.” While there are many reasons for an individual to self-identify as such, this may be a deliberate act on their part to position and present themselves as someone who is defined by federal legislation.
“Indian Band” is also a legal term under the Indian Act to denote a grouping of status Indians. (For more information on this, see our section on bands.) https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/Here is a article about 5 Native American's describing which terms they prefer. Not surprisingly most prefer to be called by their specific tribe but then often as Native American. Some of them say American Indian is fine, None say Indian. Here are some quotes. “We aren’t Indian. When other people [non-Natives] say ‘Indian’ it’s because they don’t know any better. And sometimes it comes out of ignorance.” She states that when she hears non-Natives use the term “Indian” it reminds her of how people use the term “redskin” out of ignorance. “Some people just don’t know the history of the name and they think it is just the name of a football team.” She states that non-Natives should refer to us as Native American or indigenous.” Waln also said he feels the term ‘indigenous’ is an acceptable blanket statement of our people. He deters from terms such as ‘Sioux’ or ‘Indian,’ but knows others who use these terms. “I feel every Native should have the choice. Those conversations we need to have within ourselves, and it’s not for the outside to know everything about us or be involved in those types of conversations. Because those are for us.” “For most of my life, I didn’t understand I was attached to this amazing ancestry. That I came from such strong people because a lot of what media tells us is, as Native people, we are dumb, cheap, less than, we’re savages, we’re alcoholics, and I internalized that as a kid because that is the environment I grew up in. When I speak to Native kids now, I remind them that they come from greatness. Greatness is inside all of us. That myth that Natives are dumb, primitive, savages, even shy, it’s all a lie! I call myself Sicangu Lakota because to me that name is strong, that name is old; it predates the United States.”
Waln also said he feels the term ‘indigenous’ is an acceptable blanket statement of our people. He deters from terms such as ‘Sioux’ or ‘Indian,’ but knows others who use these terms. “I feel every Native should have the choice. Those conversations we need to have within ourselves, and it’s not for the outside to know everything about us or be involved in those types of conversations. Because those are for us.” When asked which references she feels most comfortable with she says, “I prefer indigenous, but I am comfortable with ‘Native American’ or ‘American Indian’. The reason I prefer indigenous is because being indigenous means you are of a place, one place on earth, which is unique to you. It identifies our peoples well because we referred to ourselves as from a place or location.” Here is another. https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/native/homepage.htmA common belief in the contemporary United States, often unspoken and unconscious, implies that everyone has a right to use Indians as they see fit; everyone owns them. Indianness is a national heritage; it is a fount for commercial enterprise; it is a costume one can put on for a party, a youth activity, or a sporting event. This sense of entitlement, this expression of white privilege, has a long history, manifesting itself in national narratives, popular entertainments, marketing schemes, sporting worlds, and self-improvement regimes. C. Richard King, redskins: Insult and Brand (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2016), 100. It really did not take the long to find all of this. I find it very strange that you ask me to prove something is offensive but maybe you don't know any Native American's or have any around where you live. I hope this has shown you that 99% of native American's would rather not be called Indian's. If it does not than so be it. I'm not looking to "win", I'm looking for people to not not be ignorant and think about the terms that they use, what they mean and who they may offend unintentionally. he easiest way to think of why it is offensive is think about where it came from, and what happened to those people when it was commonly used. Something being used commonly does not make it right, every word that you would consider awful likely had a time when it was considered alright and was commonly used as well. And on top of that context matters, so when danglar's chooses to use it the way he did, as if the "indians" were in the wrong for attacking the poor innocent American's it becomes clearer. It is also pretty obvious of Danglar's thinks on these sorts of matters from his many awful posts. I did not realize that you were of Native American descent. Had I known that I would have broached the issue with you more delicately. I have met Native Americans in the USA who did not object to the use of the term Indian. I have not met Native Americans in the USA who object to the use of the term (in my presence so I was aware). I expect you know way more people of Native American descent than I do, and you even said some of them are in the USA, so your personal anecdotes may be more valuable than I originally gave them credit for. It still seems surprisingly challenging to find widespread evidence that dislike of the term "Indian" is prevalent among Native Americans in the USA. For many other terms, it's super easy to find the evidence. As I was trying to say before, "why" the term should be considered offensive is only relevant if the Native Americans are actually offended. Given that you've likely personally been offended by this issue before, I'll recognize that if either of us did more digging we'd surely find enough evidence that we can move past the "do Native Americans in the USA even dislike the term being used in the USA." Also, if Americans saying "Indian" were only offensive to Native Americans in Canada, a good argument can still be made that Americans should stop using the term, even if the USA-based Native Americans are indifferent. If I go back and read a couple of your earlier posts as, "As someone of Native American descent, I find the term insulting because..." then it makes a lot more sense to appeal to the logic behind why the term would be considered insensitive or ignorant. I can appreciate that, I don't bring it up a lot because I am not full blood and really don't experience the systematic racism that most do. Most people who look at me in the summer think I'm Hungarian or something and in the winter no one knows. In the reading I just did on the American sites there seems to be a fair amount of acceptance for the use of "American Indian" but I didn't read anything about Indian. I get that they are very similar but from those I read it mattered.
To be honest, I was a little bit taken aback when noticing how often "Indian" is used pretty much interchangeably with Native here. Plenty of tribe-operated services and industries here use "Indian" (without an "American" prefix) in titles. It seems just as common as being titled after the tribe which runs it. The first time I heard someone say that they would have to go to the Indian hospital for something, I thought it a poor choice of words, until realizing that there is a big building called "Indian Hospital" down the road.
The trail of tears ended around here, and I would think that the tribes relocated here would be the first to speak out against an incorrect label forced upon them, but most of the natives I have met here recognize it as just a name.
|
On June 24 2020 09:06 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 07:49 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 07:25 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 07:04 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 05:45 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 05:26 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 05:04 micronesia wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On June 24 2020 04:53 micronesia wrote:This explains your position in Canada. Do you have evidence that the Native Americans in the USA feel the same way? If so I'll agree with your original claims. I'm sorry because I've never see you as ignorant, but for example the Blackfoot nation is not Canadian or American, it govers territory in both countries. Many of the people travel back and forth, the Blackfoot nation is not the only one like this. I'm not sure what you after, it really does not matter if some people do or don't find it offensive to whether it is or is not. It does not matter if it is used in school's or on websites. It is no different than if we were talking about this around the N word 50 years ago. Edit: it didn't at some point become offensive, it always was just many people were ignorant to that fact. The only people who can decide if the Native Americans in the USA don't like it when members of the USA use the term "Indian" is Native Americans in the USA. Perhaps there is a small amount of overlap between those Canadian issues you linked to and the type of evidence I am looking for... I hadn't noticed that and if I missed it I apologize. However, my point stands that you have no right to accuse Americans of being ignorant for using a term that Native Americans in the USA don't like, when talking about Native Americans in the USA, unless Native Americans in the USA have said so to the USA to some reasonable extent. Your logic for why you think the term is insulting is invalid unless some reasonable quantity of Native Americans in the location of question actually agree with you. I use the term Native American because I think your conclusions is correct, but I just don't agree that you've backed up your conclusion properly yet (although perhaps you are close due to overlaps between Native Americans in Canada and Native Americans in the USA). I completely do, for personal as well as because it is factual. It was given to them based on ignorance and by a people who treated them as sub human. That is just the facts, if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance. That you are not wanting to be racist but are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_studies#:~:text=Native American studies (also known,taking a hemispheric approach, theObjections to the usage of "Indian" and "American Indian" include the fact that "Indian" arose from a historical error, and thus does not accurately reflect the derivation of the people to whom it refers; and some feel that the term has absorbed negative and demeaning connotations through its historical usage that render it objectionable in context. Additionally, "American Indian" is often understood to mean only the peoples of the mainland body of the United States, which excludes other Native Americans in the United States who are considered indigenous peoples of the Americas; including the Haida, Tlingit, Athabascan, Inuit, Yup'ik (Yuits/Alutiiq/Cup'ik), Iñupiat, Aleut (i.e., the groups whose traditional languages are Eskimo–Aleut languages), Marshallese, and Samoan; who are referred to collectively as either Alaskan Natives, First Nations, Native Hawaiians or Siberians.
Supporters of the terms "Indian" and "American Indian" argue that they have been in use for such a long period of time that many people have become accustomed to them and no longer consider them exonyms. Both terms are still widely used today. "American Indian" appears often in treaties between the United States and the indigenous peoples with whom they have been negotiating since the colonial period, and many federal, state and local laws also use it.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversyIf your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you. That does not mean it is not, the same way the N word was once used commonly and not all black people are offended by it. https://www.insider.com/native-american-offensive-racist-things-2020-1#im-not-indian-im-native-american-indigenous-or-first-nations-4https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/what-s-in-a-name-indian-native-aboriginal-or-indigenous-1.2784518Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant? You aren't reading what I wrote. "if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance" I never expressed a desire to use the term. I specifically expressed that I think the term is likely offensive and I don't use it. You are starting with the conclusion and working backwards here. If the term is not offensive it's okay to use it. If the term is offensive then using it likely means you are ignorant. Saying you are ignorant because you use the term, prior to establishing that the term is offensive, is pointless. You are arguing with nobody. "If your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you." That is not my point. My point is that people in the USA using the term "Indians" to refer to Native Americans in the USA is okay unless the Native Americans in the USA are not okay with it. Of course, it doesn't need to be 100% of Native Americans in the USA... but it should be more than say, 1 person. If you can point to a Tribe that has formally stated that they do not prefer people refer to them as Indians, then I think that's sufficient evidence, even if some other Tribes are okay with the term. I don't think it's hard to find or provide this evidence, I'm just calling your logic chain into question. You are wrong until you provide this evidence. Then you are right and we can stop discussing this.It bothers me when people get offended on behalf of other people, and it turns out those other people weren't even offended. I'm just asking you to show this is not the case. You may think the term "Indian" being incorrect from the getgo automatically makes the term offensive, but not all Native Americans agree with you, so at least show that some of them do (in the region of relevance given that you were addressing people from the USA when this was triggered). You are not choosing a reasonable hill to die on here. I do not use the term Indian to refer to Native Americans, or am I suggesting other people do that in the USA or elsewhere. edit: "Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant? " Answer: 99% of Native Americans in the USA aren't offended by it. Prove me wrong and you win. Perhaps you missed that I am of Native American descent, I have American Cousin's many that are full blood and I guess I could get them to create accounts log in and tell you they don't like it. If I seem flippant it is because it is amazingly absurd for me to have to prove to you why a term so BLATANTLY rooted in racism is offensive. But I guess here goes. First lets start with Danglar's use, he had the brave general defending America from the "Indian's". In this context it is obviously racist since it was the people he is calling "american's" many of who at that time were likely born in Europe or first Generation "american" defening "their" land. I hope you can see the problem with that. Next I looked up Native American studies in the US. While I did see a couple called Native American and American Indian's studies, I saw none called "Indian's". Yes American Indian is less offensive, I don't prefer it but I will say it is better. However most did not. I put forward that if it was unoffensive to 99% of First Nation's people in the USA that they would All be called Indian studies, none were and most were called what I would deem non offensive terms. http://www.ou.edu/cas/nashttps://www.colorado.edu/cnais/https://www.uaf.edu/indigenous/https://english.gmu.edu/programs/la-minor-la-nais?_ga=1.19843320.1764790523.1451302302https://native-american.dartmouth.edu/http://www.law.msu.edu/indigenous/https://nas.unm.edu/https://nau.edu/ais/https://nacc.stanford.edu/https://www.cser.columbia.edu/indigenoushttps://liberalarts.utexas.edu/nais/Here is a quote for you. How I loathe the term "indian." ... "Indian" is used to sell things--souveniers, cigars, cigarettes, gasoline,cars.... "Indian" is a figment of the white man's imagination Lenore Keeshig-Tobias, Ojibwe 1990 She is Canadian but I like the quote, and as a Canadian I tend to know more of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenore_Keeshig-TobiasThis is also Canadian, but it goes through the various titles, I'll get to more American stuff shortly. The term “Indian” refers to the legal identity of a First Nations person who is registered under the Indian Act. The term “Indian” should be used only when referring to a First Nations person with status under the Indian Act, and only within its legal context. Aside from this specific legal context, the term “Indian” in Canada is considered outdated and may be considered offensive due to its complex and often idiosyncratic colonial use in governing identity through this legislation and a myriad of other distinctions (i.e., “treaty” and “non-treaty,” etc.). In the United States, however, the term “American Indian” and “Native Indian” are both in current and common usage.
You may also hear some First Nations people refer to themselves as “Indians.” While there are many reasons for an individual to self-identify as such, this may be a deliberate act on their part to position and present themselves as someone who is defined by federal legislation.
“Indian Band” is also a legal term under the Indian Act to denote a grouping of status Indians. (For more information on this, see our section on bands.) https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/Here is a article about 5 Native American's describing which terms they prefer. Not surprisingly most prefer to be called by their specific tribe but then often as Native American. Some of them say American Indian is fine, None say Indian. Here are some quotes. “We aren’t Indian. When other people [non-Natives] say ‘Indian’ it’s because they don’t know any better. And sometimes it comes out of ignorance.” She states that when she hears non-Natives use the term “Indian” it reminds her of how people use the term “redskin” out of ignorance. “Some people just don’t know the history of the name and they think it is just the name of a football team.” She states that non-Natives should refer to us as Native American or indigenous.” Waln also said he feels the term ‘indigenous’ is an acceptable blanket statement of our people. He deters from terms such as ‘Sioux’ or ‘Indian,’ but knows others who use these terms. “I feel every Native should have the choice. Those conversations we need to have within ourselves, and it’s not for the outside to know everything about us or be involved in those types of conversations. Because those are for us.” “For most of my life, I didn’t understand I was attached to this amazing ancestry. That I came from such strong people because a lot of what media tells us is, as Native people, we are dumb, cheap, less than, we’re savages, we’re alcoholics, and I internalized that as a kid because that is the environment I grew up in. When I speak to Native kids now, I remind them that they come from greatness. Greatness is inside all of us. That myth that Natives are dumb, primitive, savages, even shy, it’s all a lie! I call myself Sicangu Lakota because to me that name is strong, that name is old; it predates the United States.”
Waln also said he feels the term ‘indigenous’ is an acceptable blanket statement of our people. He deters from terms such as ‘Sioux’ or ‘Indian,’ but knows others who use these terms. “I feel every Native should have the choice. Those conversations we need to have within ourselves, and it’s not for the outside to know everything about us or be involved in those types of conversations. Because those are for us.” When asked which references she feels most comfortable with she says, “I prefer indigenous, but I am comfortable with ‘Native American’ or ‘American Indian’. The reason I prefer indigenous is because being indigenous means you are of a place, one place on earth, which is unique to you. It identifies our peoples well because we referred to ourselves as from a place or location.” Here is another. https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/native/homepage.htmA common belief in the contemporary United States, often unspoken and unconscious, implies that everyone has a right to use Indians as they see fit; everyone owns them. Indianness is a national heritage; it is a fount for commercial enterprise; it is a costume one can put on for a party, a youth activity, or a sporting event. This sense of entitlement, this expression of white privilege, has a long history, manifesting itself in national narratives, popular entertainments, marketing schemes, sporting worlds, and self-improvement regimes. C. Richard King, redskins: Insult and Brand (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2016), 100. It really did not take the long to find all of this. I find it very strange that you ask me to prove something is offensive but maybe you don't know any Native American's or have any around where you live. I hope this has shown you that 99% of native American's would rather not be called Indian's. If it does not than so be it. I'm not looking to "win", I'm looking for people to not not be ignorant and think about the terms that they use, what they mean and who they may offend unintentionally. he easiest way to think of why it is offensive is think about where it came from, and what happened to those people when it was commonly used. Something being used commonly does not make it right, every word that you would consider awful likely had a time when it was considered alright and was commonly used as well. And on top of that context matters, so when danglar's chooses to use it the way he did, as if the "indians" were in the wrong for attacking the poor innocent American's it becomes clearer. It is also pretty obvious of Danglar's thinks on these sorts of matters from his many awful posts. I did not realize that you were of Native American descent. Had I known that I would have broached the issue with you more delicately. I have met Native Americans in the USA who did not object to the use of the term Indian. I have not met Native Americans in the USA who object to the use of the term (in my presence so I was aware). I expect you know way more people of Native American descent than I do, and you even said some of them are in the USA, so your personal anecdotes may be more valuable than I originally gave them credit for. It still seems surprisingly challenging to find widespread evidence that dislike of the term "Indian" is prevalent among Native Americans in the USA. For many other terms, it's super easy to find the evidence. As I was trying to say before, "why" the term should be considered offensive is only relevant if the Native Americans are actually offended. Given that you've likely personally been offended by this issue before, I'll recognize that if either of us did more digging we'd surely find enough evidence that we can move past the "do Native Americans in the USA even dislike the term being used in the USA." Also, if Americans saying "Indian" were only offensive to Native Americans in Canada, a good argument can still be made that Americans should stop using the term, even if the USA-based Native Americans are indifferent. If I go back and read a couple of your earlier posts as, "As someone of Native American descent, I find the term insulting because..." then it makes a lot more sense to appeal to the logic behind why the term would be considered insensitive or ignorant. I can appreciate that, I don't bring it up a lot because I am not full blood and really don't experience the systematic racism that most do. Most people who look at me in the summer think I'm Hungarian or something and in the winter no one knows. In the reading I just did on the American sites there seems to be a fair amount of acceptance for the use of "American Indian" but I didn't read anything about Indian. I get that they are very similar but from those I read it mattered. To be honest, I was a little bit taken aback when noticing how often "Indian" is used pretty much interchangeably with Native here. Plenty of tribe-operated services and industries here use "Indian" (without an "American" prefix) in titles. It seems just as common as being titled after the tribe which runs it. The first time I heard someone say that they would have to go to the Indian hospital for something, I thought it a poor choice of words, until realizing that there is a big building called "Indian Hospital" down the road. The trail of tears ended around here, and I would think that the tribes relocated here would be the first to speak out against an incorrect label forced upon them, but most of the natives I have met here recognize it as just a name.
Most Indigenous peoples in my circles would prefer anyone wondering what to call them to just not opine on whatever they needed to know the right word for because they know it is going to be uninformed.
People's preference (beyond the Tribe part which is pretty ubiquitous) definitely has a political influence. "Boarding Schools" or "Indian Residential Schools" are also representative of longstanding efforts to literally beat that preference out of people. In some ways the prevalence of "Indian" or "American Indian" is evidence of the effectiveness of that effort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
