Taking a leaf from the Asmo's book -- maybe we need to start a whole thread on Facebook posts.
Anyway, got into a dust up on FB regarding a clip that, in my and two other people's opinions, did not have enough context for us to even know what was going on, much less come to an opinion about it. The clip shows a Canadian native woman ranting at a white woman (possibly a reporter but who knows) for asking a question (the clip starts just at the end of the woman's question so no idea what the question was) at what appears to be a press conference (but maybe not, again no information).
The position of the person who posted the clip, and possibly the one who shared it, was that it showed that white women are not the friends of people of color. Admittedly, those of us asking for more information were all white and two of us were women. I came in rather late to the dust up and, while I did get accused of colonialism, I also finally got some context pertinent to the clip tho it was like pulling teeth. For anyone who reads the FB posts attached and doesn't already know, I'm Sandra Craft.
My problem here is that, as near as I can figure out, the position of those arguing with us is that it doesn't matter what was going on in the specific situation of this clip, we should automatically side with the native woman no matter what because of the general history of natives and whites in Canada. That it was racist and demeaning and anti-native to ask any questions about the context of the clip at all.
Maybe it is, maybe I'm wrong in wanting to consider specific situations individually as well as considering the larger picture. I've been wrong about plenty before, and I'm used to it. It just bugs me being told not to question, to have an opinion without information; there's a lot of this thinking going on, particularly in the Women's Movement which is why, to be honest, I no longer consider myself part of the Women's Movement. I'm still very much a feminist, and any vote or action I take on any issue, not just feminism, is very much on the side of civil rights, justice and equality but I can't be part of a group where inquiry isn't allowed. Right or wrong, my mind doesn't work that way.
So I'm bringing the dust up here for the opinions of people I think I can trust to give me direct answers. I think I, and the other two people who were confused, asked very simple and inoffensive questions. What am I missing?
When you've had enough of white people's shit, especially from white women (https://www.facebook.com/stacy.williamsgrimes/posts/10213088519545772?comment_id=10213108136036172&reply_comment_id=10213111922770838¬if_t=feed_comment_reply¬if_id=1500326995139318)
I can't see the full amount of comments there, possibly because I am looking on a mobile browser.
I don't know any indigenous people specifically but I do believe they(at least some do at some point) see science and inquiry as a foriegn concept that doesn't belong on their side of the pond. That it is not apart of their religion or their identity that they desperately cling to but more and more of it is lost over time.
So that may be why you were shunned out and called for colonialism. As for what the context of the video is, who knows.
The post is a share from this guy Micheal Moore (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009809736840&lst=100001215320088%3A100009809736840%3A1500354829&sk=photos)who lives in the Western Cape in South Africa. He appears to be rather agenda driven.
Here is one of the posts from his wall.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.us%2Fv2%2Fxq90%2F922%2FlzEVDd.jpg&hash=a3458969426a2e182b8aaeef6565f1ec3d500be7)
I think this gives an impression of his mind set.
This may help give some context to the issue Red River Women (http://www.bbc.com/news/resources/idt-dc75304f-e77c-4125-aacf-83e7714a5840)
Can anybody here find the whole clip.
EDIT: Found it.
Quote from: Tank on July 18, 2017, 06:25:52 AM
This may help give some context to the issue Red River Women (http://www.bbc.com/news/resources/idt-dc75304f-e77c-4125-aacf-83e7714a5840)
Yeah, I saw that in the FB thread. I'm aware the history between natives and whites all over the American continent is horrific, that isn't what I was asking about. My only interest was the context for what was happening in that one, single video clip. I just wanted to understand what was going on there.
Quote from: Tank on July 18, 2017, 06:50:00 AM
Can anybody here find the whole clip.
EDIT: Found it.
That doesn't contain the part that was being disputed on FB, which I think may have happened during a question and answer period.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 17, 2017, 11:44:46 PM
Taking a leaf from the Asmo's book -- maybe we need to start a whole thread on Facebook posts.
What The Gray Tome demandeth... It demandeth. What can ya do? 8) Actually, I find forums to be a far better arena for nuanced discussion than places like Facebook or Asmo forbid Twitter.
Also, this topic is of interest to me as I happen to be somewhat opinionated on this sort of issue, so... Here we go.
QuoteThe position of the person who posted the clip, and possibly the one who shared it, was that it showed that white women are not the friends of people of color. Admittedly, those of us asking for more information were all white and two of us were women. I came in rather late to the dust up and, while I did get accused of colonialism, I also finally got some context pertinent to the clip tho it was like pulling teeth. For anyone who reads the FB posts attached and doesn't already know, I'm Sandra Craft.
My problem here is that, as near as I can figure out, the position of those arguing with us is that is doesn't matter what was going on in the specific situation of this clip, we should automatically side with the native woman no matter what because of the general history of native and whites in Canada. That it was racist and demeaning and anti-native to ask any questions about the context of the clip at all.
Yes, various SJW idiots, scumbags, failures and disappointments have been preaching this sort of thing for years now. They actually seem to believe that a white person, especially if he's unlucky enough to be male and do well-enough for himself, is a racist, sexist, homophobic sack of shit unless he prostrates before the goddess of Social Justice and regularly flagellates himself on his alter of privilege. This also touches on my issue with the social media brand of feminism, but that's a story for a different post, methink.
There are so many things wrong with their line of thinking that it's difficult to find an angle to even start going at it from. Ok... Suppose my European ancestors owned slaves, who were of African descent. Suppose then that slavery is wrong by most modern standards. Ok. Good. With you so far. But I have never owned a slave, nor have I ever aspired to, nor was I ever legally permitted to. And my black contemporary, whos ancestors my ancestors owned, has never him- or herself been a slave. So... What exactly do
I owe that person that I do not owe any other member of my society? Sins of my fathers are not my sins and may not even have been sins when they were committed, so fuck you, mostly-white-wannabe-bigot-hunter-turned-an-even-worse-bigot-than-most-of-them.
History is a poor excuse for tribalism-gone-cultism.
QuoteMaybe it is, maybe I'm wrong in wanting to consider specific situations individually as well as considering the larger picture. I've been wrong about plenty before, and I'm used to it. It just bugs me being told not to question, to have an opinion without information; there's a lot of this thinking going on, particularly in the Women's Movement which is why, to be honest, I no longer consider myself part of the Women's Movement. I'm still very much a feminist, and any vote or action I take on any issue, not just feminism, is very much on the side of civil rights, justice and equality but I can't be part of a group where inquiry isn't allowed. Right or wrong, my mind doesn't work that way.
I think you are just too sensible to buy into their bullshit. I also think that if sensible feminists managed to hijack their movement back, far fewer people would have a problem with it. Drown the shrieking harpies, then we'll talk, so to speak. But again, a different discussion.
QuoteWhat am I missing?
They are a cult. You asked them how they knew that there was a better life beyond the poisoned cool aid. It doesn't take more to at the very least get your behind shunned by their kind.
As usual, the Gray One has come up with a lot of good common sense.
Yes, well... Preaching common sense to the already-sensible. Unfortunately, those who would benefit the most from it rarely listen to common sense. Trouble is, they listen to cold, hard data even less, unless the narrative has already been spun their way, so I tend to take the path of least effort. Them cultists be right because them cultists want to be right.
An excellent example of that is the gender pay gap. Granted, that short phrase can mean a gazillion different things, but the kind of people I'm talking about are the ones who point to the average salary for all men and women [within a certain group], declare the numbers unequal and scream discrimination. Now, one could, of course, look at the studies, examine the generated data and the variables used therein. One could make a good case for things like life style choices being a significant factor. One could even point to other studies to make a case for there being nothing wrong with different sexes tending to make those different life style choices in certain areas. One could do that, and so one has numerous times. But then again, it's kind of like making a case against Allah to a fundamentalist Muslim. In one ear, out the explosive underpants.
And so in stead, one does limit oneself to pointing out that if indeed there was a real pay gap based on a person's sex, then one's expensive-ass scrotum would more than likely be totally unemployable. Profit-seeking entities... Seek profit. Or did you think that the whole construction industry speaks Baltic languages because Polish people are just kickass builders?
So yeah... Note how I used fewer lines in making my case using common sense alone than I did even explaining what the proper evidence-based case-making process might have looked like. Also, I may have re-opened an epic can of worms, but... Whatever. I'm game if someone else is.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 18, 2017, 07:33:46 AM
Ok... Suppose my European ancestors owned slaves, who were of African descent. Suppose then that slavery is wrong by most modern standards. Ok. Good. With you so far. But I have never owned a slave, nor have I ever aspired to, nor was I ever legally permitted to. And my black contemporary, whos ancestors my ancestors owned, has never him- or herself been a slave. So... What exactly do I owe that person that I do not owe any other member of my society? Sins of my fathers are not my sins and may not even have been sins when they were committed, so fuck you, mostly-white-wannabe-bigot-hunter-turned-an-even-worse-bigot-than-most-of-them.
I can see where, at least in the US, there is a huge problem with systemic, institutionalized racism and I do think it falls on those of us who benefit from it, whether or not we benefit willingly or greatly, to do whatever we can to fix it. Admittedly an uphill battle. It's like inheriting something your grandparents stole -- it's true you didn't commit the crime, but once you're aware you have something stolen you need to give it back. That's not a very good analogy, but it's late and I can't do any better right now.
What I can't see is what appears to me a growing ethic among progressives to demand we march in lock step, asking no questions. It's like saying (and here's another bad analogy coming up) if I generally support politician X I should approve of every single political stance he takes without thinking about it. Common sense tells me I'm never going to agree all the time with anyone, and even if I continue to generally support X I have to be able to say "but I disagree on this issue and that issue".
Same thing with someone from a group I sympathize with for the bad treatment they've been given and continue to receive. I need to be able to say "yes, I support and will fight for you to have fair treatment, equal rights and the protection of the law, but I do think that what you personally did or said in this one particular instance was wrong, or mistaken, or just plain BS."
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 18, 2017, 10:58:27 AM
I can see where, at least in the US, there is a huge problem with systemic, institutionalized racism
I don't really know enough about the specific case of the US to have a concrete opinion, but the scope of this problem does seem to be blown out of its proper proportions. Otherwise, one would assume it wouldn't be so hard to make a solid case for it.
Quoteand I do think it falls on those of us who benefit from it, whether or not we benefit willingly or greatly, to do whatever we can to fix it. Admittedly an uphill battle. It's like inheriting something your grandparents stole -- it's true you didn't commit the crime, but once you're aware you have something stolen you need to give it back. That's not a very good analogy, but it's late and I can't do any better right now.
I see what you are saying and I think your analogy is better than the credit you give it. Should you give your land back to native Americans? Should the UN un-make Israel? Who does Venezuela belong to? What about the spoils of ancient scams, swindles and then-gray-area exploits? Or what about shit your grandfather stole from my grandfather whos grandmother's father in law stole it from Sumerians and which your father sold to a Korean guy? Who does that there rightfully belong to? We all live on, with, because of or around something, which was taken from someone else at some point using means we would deem nefarious now, have done before or will do in the future. And no, we are under no obligation to give back that, which we have inherited in ways acceptable within our society at the point at which we inherited it. You cannot apply your moral sensibilities retroactively without hypocrisy.
QuoteWhat I can't see is what appears to me a growing ethic among progressives to demand we march in lock step, asking no questions. It's like saying (and here's another bad analogy coming up) if I generally support politician X I should approve of every single political stance he takes without thinking about it. Common sense tells me I'm never going to agree all the time with anyone, and even if I continue to generally support X I have to be able to say "but I disagree on this issue and that issue".
SJWs are a cult. I assume from implication that when you say "progressive," you are actually talking about them. They are not progressive. They are not leftists. They are a bunch of totalitarian demagogues surrounded by their faithful mobs. Thus, if you disagree, you are not one of them. If you voice an opinion outside the preferred narrative of a particular movement, you are not one of them. If you are not one of them, you are a part of the problem and must be opposed because you are unworthy of inheriting the mindless drones' sterile, stagnant and hopelessly censored utopia.
QuoteSame thing with someone from a group I sympathize with for the bad treatment they've been given and continue to receive. I need to be able to say "yes, I support and will fight for you to have fair treatment, equal rights and the protection of the law, but I do think that what you personally did or said in this one particular instance was wrong, or mistaken, or just plain BS."
Obviously, I agree with you. I just tend not to be quite so pleasant in ways I voice my dissent. So yeah... The Dark Side. Come, join us, ye unwoke masses, for unlike some other assholes, we actually DO celebrate diversity unless it tries to harm us.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 18, 2017, 11:20:25 AM
We all live on, with, because of or around something, which was taken from someone else at some point using means we would deem nefarious now, have done before or will do in the future. And no, we are under no obligation to give back that, which we have inherited in ways acceptable within our society at the point at which we inherited it. You cannot apply your moral sensibilities retroactively without hypocrisy.
I can try! Well, I said it was a bad analogy. Obviously I can't vacate stolen land and go back to Ireland, Scotland or Germany for any number of reasons, not the least of which is I doubt they'd take me back. But I do think those of us benefiting in some way from an unfair system are obliged to do what we can to make it fair. At least, I feel so obliged.
QuoteSJWs are a cult. I assume from implication that when you say "progressive," you are actually talking about them.
I don't know -- I don't understand the whole "SJW", "regressive left" thing. I mean people or groups who espouse liberal values I share but have weird rules about questions being presumptuous or racist or sexist or colonialist or whatever.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 18, 2017, 11:43:20 AM
I can try! Well, I said it was a bad analogy. Obviously I can't vacate stolen land and go back to Ireland, Scotland or Germany for any number of reasons, not the least of which is I doubt they'd take me back. But I do think those of us benefiting in some way from an unfair system are obliged to do what we can to make it fair. At least, I feel so obliged.
Certainly, if you are talking about something that is happening now, you can take responsibility. In fact, sometimes, you are morally obligated to. But not to pay for the sins of your predecessors, rather to make a better here and now. That's not the same discussion as we are having here, though.
QuoteI don't know -- I don't understand the whole "SJW", "regressive left" thing. I mean people or groups who espouse liberal values I share but have weird rules about questions being presumptuous or racist or sexist or colonialist or whatever.
SJW in this context is a label given to the more totalitarian sort of self-proclaimed leftist, mostly by the actual sensible leftists, to distance themselves from the nonsense. The term stuck and does serve its purpose well. It can also refer to those un-hirable assholes holding useless degrees in being a loud mouth and while those two groups do intersect, they are not necessarily the same people. I was referring to the former. Your assessment is not inaccurate.
Alright back to the Native thing. Regardless of who stole from who, is was stolen (the good stuff anyway). And the places with nothing valuable were set aside for the Native Americans to live. There was a genocide of many Native Americans leaving their tribes dwindled down to nothing.
Yes YOU didn't do that. But now they live in literal ghettos where the children are still taken to live with white families because the conditions they live in are so bad. When I say ghettos I mean like actual ghettos, not like a project in the inner city. These were set aside for natives to live on, then killed en mass.
Sure you can say that's not your fault but it's a sympathy to at least help them in some way. If you don't do that, not many people would care, but that is no different than standing by while the jews were waiting to get slaughtered.
I know it's hard because of the situation we are all in, and the way they sometimes act (like violence and aggression) but that leads to unnecessary tribalism and more violence and aggression.
Quote from: Arturo on July 18, 2017, 03:07:08 PM
Alright back to the Native thing. Regardless of who stole from who, is was stolen (the good stuff anyway). And the places with nothing valuable were set aside for the Native Americans to live. There was a genocide of many Native Americans leaving their tribes dwindled down to nothing.
Yes YOU didn't do that. But now they live in literal ghettos where the children are still taken to live with white families because the conditions they live in are so bad. When I say ghettos I mean like actual ghettos, not like a project in the inner city. These were set aside for natives to live on, then killed en mass.
Sure you can say that's not your fault but it's a sympathy to at least help them in some way. If you don't do that, not many people would care,
...And if I decide to help those worse off than I am, then that action says something nice about my insufferable self. You don't get to ask me to make sacrifices for someone who is unlikely to reciprocate though - not and get anything more than my tax coin. Another dimension here is expecting some people to pitch in disproportionately more than others. No, not progressive taxation-like, more as in, I have no children. Who the fuck are you, mother of four, to nag me about
my carbon footprint?!
Quote
but that is no different than standing by while the jews were waiting to get slaughtered.
Vastly different, and in several crucial ways. In fact, I would go as far as say "utterly dissimilar."
Quote
I know it's hard because of the situation we are all in, and the way they sometimes act (like violence and aggression) but that leads to unnecessary tribalism and more violence and aggression.
If one wants to strive for a utopic sort of situation of reduced inter-tribal tensions, then the way to do it is, in a broad sort of sense, cultural appropriation. If Irish Americans think of themselves as Americans and Ethiopian Americans think of themselves as Americans, and Salvadoran Americans think of themselves as Americans and, equally importantly, they all think of each other as Americans - then there really is no "us and them," is there?
If I choose to erect a wall around some bullshit identity I have, would I not be a hypocrite to then complain about not being treated the same as those living outside that wall treat each other?
Quote from: Asmodean on July 19, 2017, 07:02:37 AM
...And if I decide to help those worse off than I am, then that action says something nice about my insufferable self. You don't get to ask me to make sacrifices for someone who is unlikely to reciprocate though - not and get anything more than my tax coin. Another dimension here is expecting some people to pitch in disproportionately more than others. No, not progressive taxation-like, more as in, I have no children. Who the fuck are you, mother of four, to nag me about my carbon footprint?!
I don't know what you are getting at. What does a carbon footprint have to do with this?
Quote
Vastly different, and in several crucial ways. In fact, I would go as far as say "utterly dissimilar."
Except it is the same. Being corralled up and killed. Except when you can't kill them, you cut them off at the feet by taking away the children and white wash them.
Quote
If one wants to strive for a utopic sort of situation of reduced inter-tribal tensions, then the way to do it is, in a broad sort of sense, cultural appropriation. If Irish Americans think of themselves as Americans and Ethiopian Americans think of themselves as Americans, and Salvadoran Americans think of themselves as Americans and, equally importantly, they all think of each other as Americans - then there really is no "us and them," is there?
If I choose to erect a wall around some bullshit identity I have, would I not be a hypocrite to then complain about not being treated the same as those living outside that wall treat each other?
If you mean the people outside the wall have their own walls and the way they treat each other, then no. You don't have to bow down to what anyone thinks of people outside the walls of their identity. Because someone else has walls, and another person has walls, and they treat each other terribly, doesn't mean your walls and someone else's are going to collide. You don't have to agree with everyone on everything, that's just not going to happen.
The reservations are crap, which cause more problems that continue through the generations. They didn't come up and say, "I want to be land locked so I can have a bad education so the people who took the land won't even let us back into it. I hope we all die and waste away and everyone hates us." Nah that's just not what a sane person would say.
It's not like they made the reservations either. But they have to live on them. They are just trying to make the best of what they have, but it's not to everyone else's satisfaction, so they just shove the whole thing under the rug and ignore it. Then that sends the message they have to make the best of what they have, but only to other people's standards. "You can't be happy with yourself, you have to get your value from other people." Which is total abusive and manipulative bullshit.
Quote from: Arturo on July 19, 2017, 06:06:47 PM
It's not like they made the reservations either. But they have to live on them. They are just trying to make the best of what they have, but it's not to everyone else's satisfaction, so they just shove the whole thing under the rug and ignore it. Then that sends the message they have to make the best of what they have, but only to other people's standards. "You can't be happy with yourself, you have to get your value from other people." Which is total abusive and manipulative bullshit.
Now I ask because I'm European and don't know, but from this thread it kinda sounded like.
Are there laws in effect in America right now that says a native American can't leave the reservation and go live somewhere else?
For example, if a member of the Arapaho tribe got a job in ....Seattle or wherever.... is there some legal barrier preventing him from moving there?
Quote from: Guardian85 on July 20, 2017, 12:42:14 AM
Now I ask because I'm European and don't know, but from this thread it kinda sounded like.
Are there laws in effect in America right now that says a native American can't leave the reservation and go live somewhere else?
For example, if a member of the Arapaho tribe got a job in ....Seattle or wherever.... is there some legal barrier preventing him from moving there?
No, there's no such law. Only about 22% of natives live on native lands (as the rez is sometimes politely called).
Edited to add this article I found about it: Between Nations: choosing to live on or off the reservation (http://nativenews.jour.umt.edu/2014/?page_id=171)
Quote from: Guardian85 on July 20, 2017, 12:42:14 AM
Quote from: Arturo on July 19, 2017, 06:06:47 PM
It's not like they made the reservations either. But they have to live on them. They are just trying to make the best of what they have, but it's not to everyone else's satisfaction, so they just shove the whole thing under the rug and ignore it. Then that sends the message they have to make the best of what they have, but only to other people's standards. "You can't be happy with yourself, you have to get your value from other people." Which is total abusive and manipulative bullshit.
Now I ask because I'm European and don't know, but from this thread it kinda sounded like.
Are there laws in effect in America right now that says a native American can't leave the reservation and go live somewhere else?
For example, if a member of the Arapaho tribe got a job in ....Seattle or wherever.... is there some legal barrier preventing him from moving there?
No there aren't any laws, it's just really tough because the education they recieve is so poor and there is a lack of opportunities to become skilled at something on reservations. So they don't get hired anywhere and become "land locked" because there really is nowhere for them to go.
Which, in my mind, makes the "old way" seem so enticing. Where they could roam the land and get everything they needed from the earth.
Quote from: Arturo on July 19, 2017, 06:06:47 PM
I don't know what you are getting at. What does a carbon footprint have to do with this?
With this? Oh, nothing! I know my style can be demanding sometimes, but I think what I was getting at was pretty clear. If you are a bigger drain on something than I am, or a smaller net contributor to something
positive, where does your right to demand greater sacrifices from me come from?
Quote
Except it is the same. Being corralled up and killed. Except when you can't kill them, you cut them off at the feet by taking away the children and white wash them.
And white-washing is obviously bad. Wait, why is it bad again? Or is it just the way in which it was/is/may-have-been done? I'm not being rhetorical here - I'm just not ashamed enough of being white to know such things.
Beyond that, this point has been reasonably, albeit indirectly, addressed in the posts above.
Quote
If you mean the people outside the wall have their own walls and the way they treat each other, then no. You don't have to bow down to what anyone thinks of people outside the walls of their identity. Because someone else has walls, and another person has walls, and they treat each other terribly, doesn't mean your walls and someone else's are going to collide. You don't have to agree with everyone on everything, that's just not going to happen.
Point of clarification: this was a stab at "where do we start?"
My opinion? Start with your own fences before you complain about others'. Yes, "we" can batter down someone's walls, but as long as "we ourselves" are surrounded by one, that one will just become the new divide and before you know it, that someone's own walls will be right-fucking-back. So yeah... Start in your own house,
then change the neighbor.
QuoteThe reservations are crap, which cause more problems that continue through the generations. They didn't come up and say, "I want to be land locked so I can have a bad education so the people who took the land won't even let us back into it. I hope we all die and waste away and everyone hates us." Nah that's just not what a sane person would say.
This point was addressed nicely in the posts following Guardian85's question. By yourself, no less. A lack of opportunities in the "wider world" is not in itself a sign of a broken or even unhealthy system. If you can hop on a bus, go to LA and do porn... Then you can hop on a bus, go to LA and do porn. If you choose not to, that's on you, yes? (I am being deliberately provocative in my wording here. Understanding it verbatim-only is discouraged)
Risk
everything, and you will win or die. Risk
nothing, and you will die without ever having won. Somewhere in-between lies the path to having just enough success to be content.
Generally, though, I agree. The whole concept of reservations is bullshit.
QuoteIt's not like they made the reservations either. But they have to live on them. They are just trying to make the best of what they have, but it's not to everyone else's satisfaction, so they just shove the whole thing under the rug and ignore it. Then that sends the message they have to make the best of what they have, but only to other people's standards. "You can't be happy with yourself, you have to get your value from other people." Which is total abusive and manipulative bullshit.
Aside from where my response from right above this quote still applies, I agree with you. Seeking to control other people is what our species does, but in general, "abusive and manipulative bullshit" is just that.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 21, 2017, 10:37:04 AM
With this? Oh, nothing! I know my style can be demanding sometimes, but I think what I was getting at was pretty clear. If you are a bigger drain on something than I am, or a smaller net contributor to something positive, where does your right to demand greater sacrifices from me come from?
Generational poverty is a thing. The fact of the matter is, when you have poverty that reaches through the generations, you're just sitting back letting it happen as much as they are. But I guess it's
their fault that the jobs don't exist where they live and the education they receive is poor, right? They don't contribute to anything positive because they can't/haven't been enabled to. I've explained this already.
Quote
And white-washing is obviously bad. Wait, why is it bad again? Or is it just the way in which it was/is/may-have-been done? I'm not being rhetorical here - I'm just not ashamed enough of being white to know such things.
Beyond that, this point has been reasonably, albeit indirectly, addressed in the posts above.
The point is that the Nazi concentration camps and the reservations are very similar. Corralled up and killed. But I guess you can focus on the white washing. As if I said in anyway there is a problem with being white.
But let me put it this way - imagine islamic terrorists invading and killing your parents while you are a child. They take you and put you in a camp, then tell you your beliefs are wrong and you must worship allah. Does that make it wrong to be a brown guy from the middle east in your eyes?
Quote
Point of clarification: this was a stab at "where do we start?"
No. I was just using your symbology from your previous post to make it easier to understand.
Quote
My opinion? Start with your own fences before you complain about others'. Yes, "we" can batter down someone's walls, but as long as "we ourselves" are surrounded by one, that one will just become the new divide and before you know it, that someone's own walls will be right-fucking-back. So yeah... Start in your own house, then change the neighbor.
...Okay...
Quote
This point was addressed nicely in the posts following Guardian85's question. By yourself, no less. A lack of opportunities in the "wider world" is not in itself a sign of a broken or even unhealthy system. If you can hop on a bus, go to LA and do porn... Then you can hop on a bus, go to LA and do porn. If you choose not to, that's on you, yes? (I am being deliberately provocative in my wording here. Understanding it verbatim-only is discouraged)
Risk everything, and you will win or die. Risk nothing, and you will die without ever having won. Somewhere in-between lies the path to having just enough success to be content.
Generally, though, I agree. The whole concept of reservations is bullshit.
When some make it harder for others to succeed at the "some's" benefit is no reason to believe we should just continue to let it get harder.
That's the real easy way out. Because eventually it will lead to us.
QuoteIt's not like they made the reservations either. But they have to live on them. They are just trying to make the best of what they have, but it's not to everyone else's satisfaction, so they just shove the whole thing under the rug and ignore it. Then that sends the message they have to make the best of what they have, but only to other people's standards. "You can't be happy with yourself, you have to get your value from other people." Which is total abusive and manipulative bullshit.
Aside from where my response from right above this quote still applies, I agree with you. Seeking to control other people is what our species does, but in general, "abusive and manipulative bullshit" is just that.
[/quote]
I'm not sure if you approve?
Quote from: Arturo on July 21, 2017, 04:26:44 PM
But let me put it this way - imagine islamic terrorists invading and killing your parents while you are a child. They take you and put you in a camp, then tell you your beliefs are wrong and you must worship allah. Does that make it wrong to be a brown guy from the middle east in your eyes?
Just an amusing aside:
Did you know that you just perfectly described the Ottoman Empire?
Quote from: Guardian85 on July 21, 2017, 07:11:20 PM
Quote from: Arturo on July 21, 2017, 04:26:44 PM
But let me put it this way - imagine islamic terrorists invading and killing your parents while you are a child. They take you and put you in a camp, then tell you your beliefs are wrong and you must worship allah. Does that make it wrong to be a brown guy from the middle east in your eyes?
Just an amusing aside:
Did you know that you just perfectly described the Ottoman Empire?
Not really no. But lol
Quote from: Arturo on July 21, 2017, 07:58:32 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on July 21, 2017, 07:11:20 PM
Quote from: Arturo on July 21, 2017, 04:26:44 PM
But let me put it this way - imagine islamic terrorists invading and killing your parents while you are a child. They take you and put you in a camp, then tell you your beliefs are wrong and you must worship allah. Does that make it wrong to be a brown guy from the middle east in your eyes?
Just an amusing aside:
Did you know that you just perfectly described the Ottoman Empire?
Not really no. But lol
Janisarries. Check them out.
Quote from: Arturo on July 21, 2017, 04:26:44 PM
Generational poverty is a thing. The fact of the matter is, when you have poverty that reaches through the generations, you're just sitting back letting it happen as much as they are. But I guess it's their fault that the jobs don't exist where they live and the education they receive is poor, right? They don't contribute to anything positive because they can't/haven't been enabled to. I've explained this already.
Fault? I don't know, nor do I care. Responsibility for ones own life? Yes. If the jobs do not exist where you are, you may want to move. If you "can't" because living in a fucking shelter for a year or two, or having to do shit you would rather not is just too big and scary... Not the society's problem.
I'll give you an example from Norway. We have a strong social safety net, so if you lose your job, the tax payers will pay your way until you can find another. What you get is like 2/3 of your three-year average salary, or some such, from a certain point and up to a certain maximum. However, in order to get that, you must be actively looking for a job (Which pretty much IS your job then) and beyond a certain point, you must be willing to apply for jobs far, far away and move to where that job is when eventually you get one. That, or we the tax-payers... Won't pay. Yes, there may be complicating issues and while my society will generally drag someone's deadbeat ass through those too, they are usually... Sort-of on that person.
So yeah. No education? Take a couple of burger joint jobs to pay for a shitty roach-infested apartment and some instant noodles now and then, and do classes in what's left of the day. It is likely to be extremely difficult, but so fucking what? Some hills
are just steeper than others. If you are resourceful and determined to climb, I don't see why you wouldn't find a way.
Yes, maybe someone or something will come along and propel you towards where you want to be, but ultimately, getting somewhere
you want is
your job.
Quote
The point is that the Nazi concentration camps and the reservations are very similar. Corralled up and killed. But I guess you can focus on the white washing. As if I said in anyway there is a problem with being white.
Um... No, Nazi concentration camps were not like that at all. Their death camps were. However, the reservations are dissimilar to the Nazi death camps. So what are you trying to compare here? Places to stash the undesirables until you get around to gassing their asses?
Also, I am interested in hearing more about this white-washing thing. I have seen this term in a less-sinister setting, and frankly do struggle to see how there is something inherently wrong with it.
QuoteBut let me put it this way - imagine islamic terrorists invading and killing your parents while you are a child. They take you and put you in a camp, then tell you your beliefs are wrong and you must worship allah. Does that make it wrong to be a brown guy from the middle east in your eyes?
Not at all! My parents are dead, my god is bullshit, if I buy their narrative... Brown people from the Middle East
are my people now.
Quote
No. I was just using your symbology from your previous post to make it easier to understand.
Heheh... Nono, that one was
my point of clarification. What
I was aiming for.
Quote
When some make it harder for others to succeed at the "some's" benefit is no reason to believe we should just continue to let it get harder. That's the real easy way out. Because eventually it will lead to us.
Don't step on people's throats is a nice enough rule to live by, even though it's unlikely to get you far. Your success is still your responsibility though, no matter if some asshole is sawing at the steps for some reason. If you get to the competitive end of the "upper levels," you will find that you have to deal with exactly the same sort of shit - only with far more zeroes at the end and far less potential for hunger or homelessness.
Quote
I'm not sure if you approve?
Hah..! Neither am I, my friend... Neither am I.
In this particular discussion, I don't think that I do, and yet, abusive and manipulative... Can be useful. Especially in situations where one's moral sensibilities don't trump that need, which abusiveness and manipulation satisfy.
I'm defining what constitutes my approval very broadly here, by the way. Speaking from more than ethics, so to say.
I think I'll have to clarify some inconsistencies with you but I'm not too critical of other people. Plus you jus said you'll be fine with abuse manipulation if it suits your needs. So I'm done here.
Yes, I think I'd be OK with that. Thus far though, I'm just too... Middle-class for that to be the path of least resistance.
Too small an observation sample to call it either way.
Inconsistencies to clarify? Point, and I shall attempt.