One Degree wrote:It is idealism without a basis in reality.
This is where I think you get lost ... Idealism is not based in reality, it's based on Ideas. Idealism creates reality, it doesn't rely on it for justification.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
One Degree wrote:It is idealism without a basis in reality.
Zamuel wrote:This is where I think you get lost ... Idealism is not based in reality, it's based on Ideas. Idealism creates reality, it doesn't rely on it for justification.
One Degree wrote:So you are free to banish Southern Culture
while idealizing Indian culture even though the ‘civilized tribes’ were aligned with the South?
You seem to know history, but I wonder how many people are aware neither the Emancipation Proclamation nor the 13th and 14th amendments applied to the Indian nations.
Zamuel wrote:Possum belly for dinner washed down with shine = Culture ? Yeah, shotgun it and dump it in the river.
The upper crust breeding children with their slaves and then selling them ...? Yeah, burn it down and plow it under.
Pretty sure those "Civilized Tribes" didn't amount to much and not at all aware that I had "idealized" them. Have you had a few ?
I don't think people focus on what history "does not apply to."
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and I claimed that racism can be perpetuated while the laws are followed, andI also said that does not mean that the laws themselves are racist.
They are simply implemented in such a way that racism is the social impact. I can think of many other examples that have this same dynamic, such as Voter ID laws.
Dog whistle terminology is used to make racism socially acceptable by communicating racism to people who find it socially acceptable, while trying to avoid criticism from those who are opposed to racism.
Obviously, racism is socially acceptable to a large percentage of the population. This is true even if it is not acceptable for another large percentage of the population.
Yes, I listed the residnetial school system.
Here in Canada, we underfund indigenous communities so that they have no hospitals or schools, then we use that as an excuse to take their children away. This then allows us to have indigenous kids raised by white people, which in turn disrupts the passing on of culture.
This is literally cultural genocide.
But we can point to indicators that feudalism ended, such as global capitalism. Do you have any indicators that racism ended?
As I said, please look up “residential school system”.
Let me know when you get to the mass graves and medical experiments without consent.
So you have no argument as to why taking land from indigenous people is not racist. Got it.
No, the social impact of saving a nazi’s life may be completely insignificant. Police support of racism is not.
Yes, the defendant is the Muslim man. He is, after all, the ine being charged with a crime.
So four different studies show that Trump used racism to boost his power, but you dismiss them all because you feel they are leftist.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So no evidence.
Please learn to debate.
Saeko wrote:Racism ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the martyrdom of MLK Jr. This ended racism as both official state policy and mainstream ideology. It is no longer considered acceptable by anybody to harbor racial prejudice.
That's not to say that there are no more racist people.
Unthinking Majority wrote:You can't legislate away how people think. Racism is alive and well, it exists among all races today. Every single one. Tribalism and "fear of the other" is ingrained into our DNA as an evolutionary survival mechanism and can be rid of by using our rational minds rather than our animal instincts (ie: education, critical thinking) and also by exposure, so that we learn to not fear people who are different. Laws will help but not solve the problem alone.
Making a mainstream ideology illegal doesn't destroy it, it drives it underground, and people still think it and discuss it privately amongst their friends and family
Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free to provide evidence.
The evidence, so far, shows that we were ethnically cleansing all land east of the Mississippi.
That whites were awesome and better than everyone else and deserved to have the land and labour of other races for free.
Please note that this has not ended.
One Degree wrote:Okay, I take back saying you appear to know history. Look up ‘civilized tribes’ and see how foolish your comment is. Otherwise, nice to know you are not about to let facts change your blind bias.
Zamuel wrote:Like I said before, this is a historical footnote of little consequence. The records indicate around 25,000 Indians served (on both sides) during the civil war ... That includes over a dozen tribes, not just the two or three of your "civilized" 5 that participated. The "Civilized Tribes" contributed maybe 3-4 thousand.
Indians mostly raided (mostly each other). The most significant battle they fought was the battle of Round Mountain (not to be confused with the battle of Little Round Top). There were around 3,000 troops involved around 1/2 of which it seems were Indians. There were a little over 100 troops killed.It wasn't a strategic fight, the confederates goal was to prevent Union resupply. Big whup ...
Civil War history books generally ignore Indian involvement because it has such minor import and little significance.
One Degree wrote:25,000 is insignificant?
Now, about the idiocy of praising the civilized tribes while hating Southerners? They were allies and both had slaves. How do you explain this other than blind bias based upon fantasy?
How often is the ‘trail of tears’ brought up, but no one mentions they went on to support the South?
Zamuel wrote:On both sides, over the course of the entire war, yes ... Especially considering few of them ever left their own territories, yes ... Tell me about (any) Indian units that were formed? Any major battles they fought in. You tell me what is significant about them ?
Explain what? I have no idea what "Praise," "Bias," or "Fantasy" you refer to ... Indians had slaves, so what?
As many of them fought for the North as fought for the south ... Evidently one tribe even had an internal fight and shed blood about which side to support. The relocations were significant, a blot on the government of that era (no argument). They were driven by greed and politics more than by racism.
If there's some point to this ranting about Indians and the civil war? Perhaps you could clarify it? Nothing can ever redress the crimes committed against Native Americans. Awareness of what was done to them and comprehension of the genocidal duplicity perpetrated against them has become an educational factor, as it should be. Prejudice against them has greatly diminished. Under American "Multiculturalism" their tribal heritage is preserved. So? what's the beef? Chief?
One Degree wrote:The first battles of the civil war were fought in Indian territory against Indians.
Why do you hate white Southerners but not their Indian allies who shared the same slave culture?
To believe one was great and the other terrible is illogical.
It was a war. The winner wrote the history. To continue to punish Southerners for a war their ancestors lost is just silly.
Zamuel wrote:No, the first battle (aside from the bombardment of fort Sumter) was the "Battle of Philippi" a 30 minute skirmish that resulted in 10 or 12 men wounded, none killed. The first "Major" engagement was the 1st Battle of Bull Run (near Manassas Virginia). Not Indian territory and AFAIK no Indians involved.
Why don't you show me where I ever said I "Hated" anybody, or even disliked southerners? Or that I loved Indians ... Stop making shit up ...
To think I ever expressed either one is insane ... are you nuts?
Who is punishing southerners? Are you're rambling about the "statue" issue? It's southerners themselves wanting those statues removed. Really you sound like you're drunk ... have some coffee, sleep it off.
One Degree wrote:Please note: @Pants-of-dog is actually refusing to accept the wording of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th and 14th amendments as evidence. Lmao
Edit: @Pants-of-dog did you even see my edit above showing the obvious way slavery had to be abolished in the Indian nations?
Saeko wrote:So we are agreed that the laws themselves are not racist. Great.
This depends on what counts as support for racism. I will continue that argument below.
Racism, a way of thinking so socially acceptable that, even though it is believed by a large percentage of the population (supposedly), its adherents are forced to communicate in coded language and secret handshakes, lest they be exposed.
Oh for fuck's sake. This is literally MUH WHITE GENOCIDE for indigenous people.
Civil Rights Act.
What? In the last 50 years? Show me the evidence. Put up or shut up.
I've already given you the argument, you've just chosen to ignore it.
Both can be socially insignificant and both can be socially significant. You just chose to believe which is which when it suits your argument, and besides that you have no good reason for believing why saving the life of a (as I said many times before) PROMINENT Neo-Nazi is of no social significance.
And for the umpteenth time. What is the name of the prosecutor? Are you saying that the defendant (the Muslim man) cooperated with the prosecution in his own trial? Why can't I get a goddamn straight answer out of you on any of these questions?
I haven't dismissed them at all. I've showed you way they do not prove your claims or are seriously flawed.
Verv wrote:... We literally made treaties with them to preserve settlements and tried to come to precise deals to avoid bloodshed and the likes.
I just.. don't know why you would think that what you've described was this official policy proceeding forth from us.
That is pretty silly. That would not describe a classical view at all. While there would be some minority concept of the right to slave labor of Africans and perhaps the need to genocide, these were often tempered by the majority of people that even if they supported slavery as an institution they supported eventual manumission of slaves. Moreover, there were countless attempts (and so many successful) to convert the Natives to Christianity, and to reach good conclusions.
A classical view of race would be that there is a clear separation of groups but that there is not some global entitlement to absolutely everything.
Just check out the 16th century Valladolid debate:
You really just overplay your hand and then you add to it this note like... Oh yeah, wypipo still believe they can enslave everyone & take their land and have zero universal obligation to treat others well.
This isn't a discussion -- this is just being audacity of zealotry on display.
Even if that were true, the studies verifying raci[…]
Yes. Limbaugh was often supporting these lethal […]
Ah sorry I was in error here, I hadn't noticed th[…]
The history of the partition of Korea is signific[…]