Discrimination -- the reality

[Bomb#20]

... In the most technical and unimportant way, the Cherokee are immigrants. So is everyone who isn't an indigenous central African. ...

The difference seems to be that as peoples migrated to the Americas, there were no other people here to displace.

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

Why do you believe something so Eurocentric? Did some history class teach you that people crossed the Bering land bridge 13,000 years ago, and Europeans arrived 500 years ago, and in the intervening 12,500 years the people of the Americas were all peace pipes and potlatches? Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. On top of all the displacing of one another the descendants of the earliest entrants carried out, people migrated from Asia into Alaska during at least three time periods. The ancestors of Na-Dene people migrated to the Americas perhaps 8000 years ago and displaced the local inhabitants; and some 4000 years ago the ancestors of Eskimos arrived and displaced Na-Dene people in turn.

Who did the original immigrants from Asia displace? No one as far as I can tell.

Well that's a massive goal-post move. "As peoples migrated to the Americas" includes a hell of a lot more migrants than "the original immigrants". Are you stipulating then that Apaches are every bit as much "immigrant"/"non-indigenous"/"invader"-y as English-Americans?

As you wrote, various populations in the Americas behaved much the same as Europeans (and Asians and Africans) did all of those years ago: invasions, wars, enslavement, etc.

People are people. Welcome to the "damned human race".

Although as near as I can tell, no other culture practiced slavery in such abominable ways as was carried out in North America.

Oh for the love of god! Why on earth would you believe something so counterfactual? Learn some world history. Every male Spartan was expected to murder a slave as a standard rite of manhood.

That does not mean that it was ok for Europeans to come to the Americas and exterminate the people they found here. It does not mean that it was ok for them to purchase human beings as livestock and use them as such.

Who said it does? Your fear that somebody might make a bad argument from actual history is no excuse for making up false history.

 

[Toni]

Cute... it is "negligible", but somehow you can detect it above background?

I'm not saying it is genetics... I'm just bringing it up for some reason.

It wasn't me who made genetics an issue in this thread. I've been dismissing the importance of genetics.

Did you read the rest of that post, or any of my other posts?

Perhaps you have a different agenda than the topic.
Tom

Yes, I read it... and I replied to all of it. I get you miss context or subtle jabs, but my response replies in whole to your post.

Now let's get back to this stupid fucking derail that has shit to do with attempting to address the intentional bondage of blacks in America between 1776 -1865, sabotage of blacks in America between 1865 - 1970s, and the subsequent inertia of those actions between the 1970s - and today. But without the derail, it makes this shit harder for people notice it being swept under the rug.

One quibble: I would argue that the sabotage of black people ( and indigenous people and generally brown people) continues, albeit with some more subtlety than Jim Crow.

 

[TomC]

Cute... it is "negligible", but somehow you can detect it above background?

I'm not saying it is genetics... I'm just bringing it up for some reason.

It wasn't me who made genetics an issue in this thread. I've been dismissing the importance of genetics.

Did you read the rest of that post, or any of my other posts?

Perhaps you have a different agenda than the topic.
Tom

Yes, I read it... and I replied to all of it. I get you miss context or subtle jabs, but my response replies in whole to your post.

Now let's get back to this stupid fucking derail that has shit to do with attempting to address the intentional bondage of blacks in America between 1776 -1865, sabotage of blacks in America between 1865 - 1970s, and the subsequent inertia of those actions between the 1970s - and today. But without the derail, it makes this shit harder for people notice it being swept under the rug.

Bullshit.
You did not respond to

Here in Christendom, European culture was the cultural equivalent of an invasive species. We also had comparatively high powered weapons and deadly diseases and concepts like borders. European culture spread like dandelions with nukes.

If you want to discuss

the subsequent inertia of those actions between the 1970s - and today.

you'll have to explain away two generations of Affirmative Action, the gigantic transfer of wealth from white people to black people called "government entitlement" and a bunch of other stuff.
Just hand waving all that away and pretending that things are still the same as the 70s does not give you any credibility to me.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...

This all sounds highly implausible. Only white people have the competence and intelligence and constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation.

Ahh it's the ole, everyone did it so stop complaining stance. That's the verbal equivalent of a crane kick; looks good, but in reality doesn't work.

Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

 

[Bomb#20]

It does not mean that it was ok for them to purchase human beings as livestock and use them as such.

Who said it does? Your fear that somebody might make a bad argument from actual history is no excuse for making up false history.

I should add that as Politesse and I pointed out back in the DeSantis thread, slavers have the morality of mob capos. You don't get any credit for being a not-so-bad mob capo when your motive for being a not-so-bad mob capo is that worst-of-the-worst mob capo would be less profitable.

 

[Gospel]

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...

This all sounds highly implausible. Only white people have the competence and intelligence and constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation.

Ahh it's the ole, everyone did it so stop complaining stance. That's the verbal equivalent of a crane kick; looks good, but in reality doesn't work.

Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.

 

[Metaphor]

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...

This all sounds highly implausible. Only white people have the competence and intelligence and constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation.

Ahh it's the ole, everyone did it so stop complaining stance. That's the verbal equivalent of a crane kick; looks good, but in reality doesn't work.

Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.

The point is not 'stop complaining'--though without a time machine, what people did before you were born is not something that can be changed. The point is 'you're not a special subjugated snowflake, and nobody is responsible for what their ancestors did'.

 

[Gospel]

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...

This all sounds highly implausible. Only white people have the competence and intelligence and constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation.

Ahh it's the ole, everyone did it so stop complaining stance. That's the verbal equivalent of a crane kick; looks good, but in reality doesn't work.

Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.

The point is not 'stop complaining'--though without a time machine, what people did before you were born is not something that can be changed. The point is 'you're not a special subjugated snowflake, and nobody is responsible for what their ancestors did'.

Aww you really think that's what its all bout when people look at the current human condition and reflect on the past? That's so cute. I remember arguing with 9th graders that thought the same thing. It's not about wanting to go back and change things it about realizing where we are and how we got here. Everyone that you know of that subjugated people think like you (which is nothing we can do about the past). How's about we grow up as a species and learn from the past without snowy white fee fees getting in the way because the now and the where is mostly a result of actions taken by your ancestors.

 

[Gospel]

I really love folks who live off the blood of their ancestors, celebrate their ancestors with adorable holidays & than say "who me? I ain't got nothing to do with them".

 

[Metaphor]

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...

This all sounds highly implausible. Only white people have the competence and intelligence and constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation.

Ahh it's the ole, everyone did it so stop complaining stance. That's the verbal equivalent of a crane kick; looks good, but in reality doesn't work.

Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.

The point is not 'stop complaining'--though without a time machine, what people did before you were born is not something that can be changed. The point is 'you're not a special subjugated snowflake, and nobody is responsible for what their ancestors did'.

Aww you really think that's what its all bout when people look at the current human condition and reflect on the past?

It depends on who is doing it and why.

That's so cute. I remember arguing with 9th graders that thought the same thing. It's not about wanting to go back and change things it about realizing where we are and how we got here. Everyone that you know of that subjugated people think like you (which is nothing we can do about the past).

But there is nothing we can do to change the past, and that's true whether you are a 'subjugator' or not.

How's about we grow up as a species and learn from the past without snowy white fee fees getting in the way because the now and the where is mostly a result of actions taken by your ancestors.

So, in other words, you do think there is a blood debt.

 

[Metaphor]

I really love folks who live off the blood of their ancestors, celebrate their ancestors with adorable holidays

Not a fan of Asian cultures then I guess.

 

[Gospel]

But there is nothing we can do to change the past, and that's true whether you are a 'subjugator' or not.

Sure there is nothing anyone can do to change the past, but there is a lot we can do using what we've learned from it. You seem to be uncomfortable with the conversation in general. I do agree with you that there are people who cling to past wrongs and hold it over "the white mans" head. I live around those people. I also live around people that when confronted with the reasons for why things are the way they are I get the ole Shaggy "IT WASN'T ME" or the classic, "You can't change the past" when no one said anything to prompt it.

 

[Gospel]

I really love folks who live off the blood of their ancestors, celebrate their ancestors with adorable holidays

Not a fan of Asian cultures then I guess.

Don't know much about it, but that wasn't what I expressed not being a fan of (if I expressed such a thing). Simply put, I'm not a fan of people that refute arguments on this board that no one in particular made.

 

[Politesse]

Are you proposing that conquest was only a minor consideration in the determination of land rights prior to the arrival of Europeans? What evidence is there for that hypothesis?

No, only that it was understood in different terms that are difficult to translate into post-Colonial legal systems, and wouldn't be recognized by the international community in any case, because indigenous peoples are not, in fact, treated as the political equals of European nations. If they were, the majority of California (most of which was never ceded by mutually recognized treaty) would now be under indigenous jurisdiction.

On what planet does lack of mutually recognized treaties mean the losers of wars retain jurisdiction? Tell that to the Polish whose country was partitioned by Russia, Prussia and Austria. Tell it to the little German kingdoms like Hanover that Bismarck incorporated when he created Germany -- the Elector of Hanover never agreed to that. And the same goes in the other direction -- Serbia never signed a treaty to lose jurisdiction over Kosovo.

And no trouble ever came of those...

But it's a red herring anyway. Tu quoque arguments are a bullshit line of reasoning in the best of times, but especially in this case, as no one is asking for indigenous land tenure to be adopted in Europe, only the other way around. Hence, the need for an all-purpose label to encompass all peoples and polities canceled but not not entirely erased by the imposition of the colonial systems of law. Indigenous peoples didn't invent that label, it is the label assigned to them in the current system "International Law" (which to no serious degree recognizes their nations at all, be they past or present). The situation of Hanover is a much more interesting and complex than you seem to be implying - the annexation of the province, atrocious and belligerent aa it was, in no wise canceled all existing rights or identities of Hanoverites en masse, nor resulted in the invention of legal fictions to justify their situation - but the whole question has little bearing on the reasoning behind the indigenous label no matter what one thinks of it.

To say nothing of the fact that if atrocities have happened in Europe's past, that's sad but does not require the entire rest of the world to accept similar atrocities without question. Considering the unthinkable horrors that occurred in Hanover less than a century after annexation, I don't think anyone is looking at 19th century Prussian political history and going "oh boy, let's copy THOSE guys, what a perfect standard for every to follow for all time!"

 

[Gospel]

So, in other words, you do think there is a blood debt.

No. I do not. I'd ask where you got that idea but I'll leave that question for someone interested.

 

[Metaphor]

So, in other words, you do think there is a blood debt.

No. I do not. I'd ask where you got that idea but I'll leave that question for someone interested.

Where I got the idea is from the words I bolded when I quoted you.

 

[Bomb#20]

And no trouble ever came of those...

But it's a red herring anyway. Tu quoque arguments are a <blah blah blah> in Hanover less than a century after annexation, I don't think anyone is looking at 19th century Prussian political history and going "oh boy, let's copy THOSE guys, what a perfect standard for every to follow for all time!"

I think Gospel can answer that one for me.

Simply put, I'm not a fan of people that refute arguments on this board that no one in particular made.

 

[Gospel]

So, in other words, you do think there is a blood debt.

No. I do not. I'd ask where you got that idea but I'll leave that question for someone interested.

Where I got the idea is from the words I bolded when I quoted you.

I bolded bullshit. See how easy it is to use bold and make a statement without being descriptive? You need to elaborate.

 

[Politesse]

And no trouble ever came of those...

But it's a red herring anyway. Tu quoque arguments are a <blah blah blah> in Hanover less than a century after annexation, I don't think anyone is looking at 19th century Prussian political history and going "oh boy, let's copy THOSE guys, what a perfect standard for every to follow for all time!"

I think Gospel can answer that one for me.

Simply put, I'm not a fan of people that refute arguments on this board that no one in particular made.

Big words, coming from someone whose artless attempts at strawman construction resulted in both Gospel's post and mine. Seriously, where did I say anything about fucking Prussia? But instead of complaining about your obvious quote-stuffing and leaving it at that, I made an earnest attempt to address the content, not just the form, of your posting. Can you say the same?

If I've misinterpreted your intended point, please explain how, and the conversation can continue. On what grounds was the annexation of Hanover relevant to... whatever point you were trying to make about the term "indigenous"? I know what I thought you were saying, but clearly I did not, so I am now inviting you to fill in your own logical gaps. How does your post relate to the main topic of discrimination?

And speaking of rude forum habits, don't think I failed to notice that you elided the main argument of my post as "<blah blah blah>" so you could complain about the supposed etiquette failure of the damn footnote.

 

[TomC]

Seriously, where did I say anything about fucking Prussia?

19th century Prussian political history

Here.
Have a nice day.
Tom