Thoughts on racism

I tend to agree with the basic sentiment of the e-mail in question. I have, for years, found it reprehensible that historical error - admitted error - could be used to justify modern intolerances. I don't even want to get into the minute, pedantic particulars of history and its sociological implications. That's just an unending hellhole of futility.

For the larger part, all those who were involved with slavery and the greater era of segregation are dead. On all sides of the fences. We now realize and agree that such a practice was inhumane. I, personally, have never been involved in slavery, segregation, apartheid or any movement aimed at reducing the freedoms of another race or creed. I find it ludicrous that anyone could assume otherwise based simply by my apparent lineage. The retaliatory derogation applied by some groups is almost Biblical in its dogma; I have been cursed with the "sins" of my forebearers. Only this time, there's no sacred ritual that would cleanse the "taint" from my soul.

The tragedy is that, even for having this opinion, it could be construed that I've some axe to grind against minorities. I could be called a racist. I could be accused of pointing a wagging finger at someone who meant me no ill will. Ironic, no?
Yet even more bothersome is the idea that, for those who do judge my intent by my color, there is seemingly little I can do to refute their opinion. I am bound by perceptions of historical wrongdoing, trapped inside my invisible box, unable to dodge or return jabs from pointy sticks thrust inward. Doing so would only validate their claims against me.

So why, as a white person, am I a racist for not liking the way other groups demonstrably regard me?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Magi

I personally believe that knowledge of the Native American history and culture is vital to understanding of later conflicts between them and European settlers, which persisted for a very long time even after the Union has been established.

Its easy to frame the term in European perspective during that time, however, we are not dealing with bunch of animals when we are talking about native Americans, without knowledge of their relationship to the land and how they lived, its easy to get into the same mind set of the settler and justify the type of atrocity that follows.

In the grand scheme of the racist agenda, the Native American involvement is pretty unidirectional. They were here, were brutally ravaged by European invaders, herded and treated as property, then left to exist on only the most unusable land that Europeans didn't want. It was an unwillingness to learn about the people, their ways and a self-superior need to subjugate them with European values that led to their mass slaughter. Other than casinos, the Indians have had little opportunity to effectively strike back. (Although many tribes would rather not engage in further violence and dissent in the first place.)

Objectively speaking, even calling them Native Americans is kind of an insult. This is maintaining a label that doesn't truly apply to their heritage. "America" is a term derived from Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian, who had nothing to do with their culture, or even their discovery.

Christopher Columbus was an Italian, in service to the Portuguese crown. His knowledge of the Portuguese language is believed to be fairly limited and all his known documents were written almost entirely in Spanish.

In Columbus's documents, when he came into contact with indigenous people (From either continental America or Carribbea, depending upon your opinion of the matter), he referred to them as a "people in God", or, "en Dios".
It's conceivable that the term "en Dios" could've been colloqualized by the Portuguese into "Indians" ("en Dians"), which would coincide with the region of Columbus's true destination, the country we now call India. Except in the 15th and 16th centuries, India wasn't known by that name. It called itself "Bhāratavarsha". The fact that it laid upon the Indus river lent weight to the term "India", which is how it came to be known as the English colonization transpired.
The political term, "Indian", as refers to India, didn't come into use until around the 17th century, well after Columbus' voyage.

So it's very conceivable that calling Native Americans "Indians" is a more accurate, and not politically incorrect, statement. "In Dios" is compliment, even if it does juxtapose a European concept of Christianity upon a more polydeistic culture. But, if you want to call them anything, then they should be referred to by their individual tribal names, ones they chose for themselves. There is a vast amount of difference between a Sioux, a Hopi and a Seneca. To lump them into one category is tantamount to assuming that all people with narrow eyes are Japanese.

I feel that if any groups have a legitimate reason to be upset today, it's the tribes of America. They remain on their reservations, sometimes by choice yet often not, and receive token benefits but have not been given the same level of apology and advancement initiatives as have been offered to other races.
Despite this, almost all Natives that I've met are warm folk, unhurtful and eager to make friends. Fucking inspirational. But calling them "Native Americans", that, in my opinion, is a bit ignorant. (But not racist, as ignorance does not indicate intolerance.)

I think this is the first time I've ever given a political history lesson on GFF.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

DarkLink:

I have read through this entire thread and am sick of seeing your bilous, vulgar and inflammatory attacks on people. You call them "fucking retards", say that they have "thick skulls" and have been downright rude to anyone with a contrary opinion.

Say what you will about my perceived "agenda", but I see you as the one who is causing problems. Everyone else has maintained a civil tone. They may disapprove of you, but they haven't sworn at you or insulted you directly.

If I see ONE MORE CURSE OR DIRECT INSULT from you, you will be banned from this thread. Learn how to debate in a calm manner or don't debate at all.

Do you understand?

EDIT: Upon further review, Devo has been insulting in a similar manner. It's only fair that you too, Devo, will be banned if you do it again.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by daguuy

no offence Lurker, but i've noticed everything you said in this thread is complete and utter Bull. same goes to Devo. just lettin you know, you didn't seem to think about what you're saying. you should probably try to put a little un-deniable truth in your arguments, instead of just blatting out what you think with no facts to back it up. you shouldn't base everything you say off of picking apart your opponent's words and rewording them to say what you want them to say (also known as lying). you'll see what i mean if you get sober and read everything you've said. either that or you're just stupid.

BTW, this isn't about a particular post you made, you're just such a duche.

bye now, i have better things to do than talk to dumbasses

Congratulations on ignoring the same warnings I gave others.

You're now banned from this thread.

How ya doing, buddy?