Teacher questions appropriateness of pow-wow - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15318501
Potemkin wrote:As Democritus said, “All that exists is the atom and the void. Everything else is a matter of opinion.” There are differences between hydrogen atoms and helium atoms, just as there are genetic differences between white-skinned people and black-skinned people. But to go beyond that and say that hydrogen atoms belong to a different category than helium atoms and are therefore ‘better’ than helium atoms or that white-skinned people belong to a different race than black-skinned people and are therefore ‘better’ than black-skinned people is to state an opinion rather than a fact. There is a distinction between facts and opinions, @FiveofSwords. I’ve noticed that you often state your opinions as though they are facts.


He has to push the opinions like facts because facts are not about racist hierarchies. They are about scientific methods of analysis. His way of thinking is about bullshit. Mostly. Lies and opinions without substance.

He can't distinguish what is opinion vs what is fact. Maybe you should try to explain it to him. He has a hard time. Start spoon feeding it little by little. Because I can bet on the result. White people invented what is important. They are the ones who have valuable labor. They are the center of the universe. Because without being white the world is going to disappear. Because the 91% aren't the engine that makes the world go around. Only his narrow, and tunnelvisioned concepts work. The world is conspiring to genocide out white people. Stormfront and Don Black and company can't really send their moderators out there in their forum to define whiteness to their aspiring recruits. Because they might wind up losing a huge percentage of people if they are too purist. But purity is the name of the game. Just fake it till you make it.

He can't distinguish between Africans, Latinos, or anyone who is not white. He throws them all into one big pile. The inferior folks. But when you throw every fucked up racist fascist and white nationalist freak organization into one big pile....Timothy McVeigh, Nichols, David Koresh, Ruby Ridge, Sovereign Nation, KKK, David Duke, most of the Republican party, and Skinheads, and so on and so forth like WAR. And just get a laundry list of white nationalists and white supremacists together from the Southern Poverty Law Center Website there....and they are all the same. All of the racist ones are the SAME. Do not differentiate. They look the same, talk the same racist mierda nonstop, think the same hive thoughts and so on...oh, no....we are not the same. We vary. He sees what he wants to see Potemkin.

And it is sheer STUPIDITY. :lol: :lol:
#15318538
FiveofSwords wrote:...Natural selection results in a lifeforms adapting to their habitat over time.


Exactly. But it is important to remember that this "adaptation" is unconscious because humans have no idea what characteristics will enable the long-term survival of his species.

....All this God nonsense ...

The "god concept" is there to remind people that humans don't control their own destiny. It's too bad that humans misused this concept to pretend that they could harness the power of god to steal land and get rich quick.

That's the misused part of the god-concept that lead to the fake science of racism (and many other fake sciences).
#15318543
QatzelOk wrote:Exactly. But it is important to remember that this "adaptation" is unconscious because humans have no idea what characteristics will enable the long-term survival of his species.


The "god concept" is there to remind people that humans don't control their own destiny. It's too bad that humans misused this concept to pretend that they could harness the power of god to steal land and get rich quick.

That's the misused part of the god-concept that lead to the fake science of racism (and many other fake sciences).

Um no...humans absolutrly can control their own destiny. For example, current us policy is to impose circumstances that we know will make the % of the white population drop to zero. Anyone who does not celebrate that future is considered a terrorist. This is all deliberate...and it is humans controlling the future
#15318555
FiveofSwords wrote:... current us policy is to impose circumstances that we know will make the % of the white population drop to zero....

I'm not sure if this is true.

But I am sure that Manifest Destiny was about bringing the "red race" down as close to zero as possible.

Perhaps you're just hungover from all the historical atrocities that your ancestors partook in.
#15318569
QatzelOk wrote:I'm not sure if this is true.

But I am sure that Manifest Destiny was about bringing the "red race" down as close to zero as possible.

Perhaps you're just hungover from all the historical atrocities that your ancestors partook in.

Well based on yout own world view, this is trivial. You don't think there is any difference between 'white' and 'red' people besides culture. And bro...of course modern technology was going to make the native American way of life obsolete and 'genocide' them all. I suppose the European enlightenment likewise was a genocide of all European people. And so was the industrial revolution, etc. Cultures just change all the time on their own...so equating the red man purely with culture makes such a genocide simply not a big deal.

Between the two of us, I am the only one who can actually care about genocide...because I think there is something deeper to a people than simply their culture.
Last edited by FiveofSwords on 18 Jun 2024 12:52, edited 1 time in total.
#15318574
QatzelOk wrote:Exactly. But it is important to remember that this "adaptation" is unconscious because humans have no idea what characteristics will enable the long-term survival of his species.

That's not true. And humans aren't much competing against other species at this point (besides things like bacteria and viruses), humans are competing against other humans both within their own society and between societies. It's usually been pretty clear what behaviours or traits provide more security (resource security, physical security etc) than others. Education, technology, alliances etc. Within society, humans compete for grades, jobs, mates etc.

Good decisions that lead to more of these things aren't just based on luck, people have free will at the end of the day to improve their situations for themselves and their family.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas had some bad luck because they were geographically isolated from the rest of the world until about 500 years ago, and so couldn't benefit from the knowledge, technology, and immunity transfers of other parts of the world until Europeans came, at which point they were far too behind to put up much of a defense to both aggression and disease and are still playing catch up in things like education and economics.

Sub-saharan Africa was also somewhat isolated from other parts of the world due to the Sahara desert and the oceans, not to mention malaria. North Africans and sub-saharan Africans would have to make long dangerous treks by camel across the Sahara to trade with each other. Most of sub-saharan Africa was colonized by European empires centuries later than the Americas because of malaria.
#15318612
Unthinking Majority wrote:That's not true. And humans aren't much competing against other species at this point (besides things like bacteria and viruses), humans are competing against other humans both within their own society and between societies. It's usually been pretty clear what behaviours or traits provide more security (resource security, physical security etc) than others. Education, technology, alliances etc. Within society, humans compete for grades, jobs, mates etc.

Good decisions that lead to more of these things aren't just based on luck, people have free will at the end of the day to improve their situations for themselves and their family.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas had some bad luck because they were geographically isolated from the rest of the world until about 500 years ago, and so couldn't benefit from the knowledge, technology, and immunity transfers of other parts of the world until Europeans came, at which point they were far too behind to put up much of a defense to both aggression and disease and are still playing catch up in things like education and economics.

Sub-saharan Africa was also somewhat isolated from other parts of the world due to the Sahara desert and the oceans, not to mention malaria. North Africans and sub-saharan Africans would have to make long dangerous treks by camel across the Sahara to trade with each other. Most of sub-saharan Africa was colonized by European empires centuries later than the Americas because of malaria.


You forgot China, I guess. And what you mean is that those people were separated from Europe. Because modern technology and modern attitudes were developed in europe.
#15318625
Unthinking Majority wrote:Indigenous peoples of the Americas had some bad luck because they were geographically isolated from the rest of the world until about 500 years ago, and so couldn't benefit from the knowledge, technology, and immunity transfers of other parts of the world until Europeans came, at which point they were far too behind to put up much of a defense to both aggression and disease and are still playing catch up in things like education and economics.


This is a mattering of truth leading to an erroneous conclusion.

While the Americas were isolated from Europe and Africa, there was some trade with the Pacific.

And it is odd to describe infection as a beneficial transfer of immunity.

The idea that Indigenous people were behind is just racist, though. There is no ladder of progress upon which all societies can be ranked. Real life is not a Civilization video game. This is like saying the Palestinians are behind and therefore the ongoing megadeaths of civilians is due to Arabs being behind Jews in development, or that people who died from Covid were behind the survivors.

The fact that you mention education and economics is important, though. Especially in the Canadian context.

This is because the Canadian government deliberately dismantled Indigenous economies and education, and then replaced them with other ones that were deliberately designed to eradicate Indigenous culture.

This is not an interesting side effect of geography but a deliberate and systematic attempt to eradicate Indigenous peoples and cultures.
#15318635
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is a mattering of truth leading to an erroneous conclusion.

Why?

While the Americas were isolated from Europe and Africa, there was some trade with the Pacific.

The trade/contact was limited though. Not comparable to contact between Europe and Asia. Note that east-west trade is typically easier than north/south trade due to the changes in climate when traveling north/south compared to the more similar climates of east-west. This is from the "guns/germs/steel" theory i'm arguing.

And it is odd to describe infection as a beneficial transfer of immunity.

Their lack of immunity from disease exposure caused most of the indigenous deaths upon European contact and decimated many of their societies. Note I'm not denying that colonialism had some significant negative impacts on indigenous peoples and societies.

The idea that Indigenous people were behind is just racist, though. There is no ladder of progress upon which all societies can be ranked. Real life is not a Civilization video game.

In the context of all humans and societies being in competition within and amongst each other per the discussion, there are clear benefits to being more educated and having access to more advanced technology which contributes to things like standard of living, health and life expectancy, resource/physical security etc. In no way am I saying that indigenous peoples were racially inferior. Even some indigenous societies, such as the Aztecs, were more advanced in education and technology compared to other indigenous societies and thus were able to dominate surrounding societies through war/imperialism due to advantages in geography, trade, climate etc.

The fact that you mention education and economics is important, though. Especially in the Canadian context.

This is because the Canadian government deliberately dismantled Indigenous economies and education, and then replaced them with other ones that were deliberately designed to eradicate Indigenous culture.

This is not an interesting side effect of geography but a deliberate and systematic attempt to eradicate Indigenous peoples and cultures.

Again I'm not denying that colonialism had some significant negative impacts on indigenous peoples and societies.
#15318638
Unthinking Majority wrote:Europe and Asia both benefited from technology and knowledge transfer from each other.

Not really, dude. There is no east Asian equivalent to Issac Newton. So daoists liked to mix a lot of random stuff together in search for the potion of immortality consumed by their jade emperor, and they accidentally discovered gunpowder. People like to act like this was a big deal. But at least 99.999% of the stuff humanity has accomplished was accomplished by Europeans. Science, nathenstics, philosophy, the arts, technology, exploration, etc. Europeans historically absolutrly dominated all of these things. That is just a pedestrian fact really...that I think everyone secretly knows is true but they cannot bring themselves to be honest about it, lol.

Maybe China will have its ascendancy in the future? I honestly have no idea. But no, their past is nothing special. The great wall of China does not actually compare with landing on the moon.

The best contribution from China might be the dark forest hypothesis, and I enjoy musing about whether there is some real truth to it. What if aliens are behind a lot of this anti white crap we see today because they want to prevent the human space age?
#15318672
Unthinking Majority wrote:Again I'm not denying that colonialism had some significant negative impacts on indigenous peoples and societies.


You clearly ignored the ongoing colonialism and its ongoing effects.

This is why Canadian teachers having misconceptions about powwow is problematic: because most Canadians ignore this issue.
#15318692
Pants-of-dog wrote:You clearly ignored the ongoing colonialism and its ongoing effects.

No, I specifically acknowledged it, twice, which you ignored because it doesn't suit your narrative. You ignore everything doesn't suit your narrative. Facts are often irrelevant to you, this is called confirmation bias.

You ignore, deny, and romanticize the history of the Americas pre-1492. Because you want to see yourself and others as simply victims because it feels good and absolves yourself and others of any individual or collective responsibility for anything. I guarantee you that your feelings of racial hatred and resentment towards Caucasians don't feel good or is constructive. @QatzelOk hating technology and the modern world probably doesn't feel good either. You either adapt to your environment or fall behind those that do, that's how the natural world has always worked.

Some individual teacher being ignorant of powwows makes @QatzelOk feel good because he gets to see himself as a victim again. That teacher might be an ass but that teacher isn't forcing Qatz to waste his day complaining on the internet instead of doing constructive things to actually improve his lot in life while others do.
#15318694
Unthinking Majority wrote:No, I specifically acknowledged it, twice, which you ignored because it doesn't suit your narrative. You ignore everything doesn't suit your narrative. Facts are often irrelevant to you, this is called confirmation bias.

You ignore, deny, and romanticize the history of the Americas pre-1492. Because you want to see yourself and others as simply victims because it feels good and absolves yourself and others of any individual or collective responsibility for anything. I guarantee you that your feelings of racial hatred and resentment towards Caucasians don't feel good or is constructive. @QatzelOk hating technology and the modern world probably doesn't feel good either. You either adapt to your environment or fall behind those that do, that's how the natural world has always worked.

Some individual teacher being ignorant of powwows makes @QatzelOk feel good because he gets to see himself as a victim again. That teacher might be an ass but that teacher isn't forcing Qatz to waste his day complaining on the internet instead of doing constructive things to actually improve his lot in life while others do.


@Pants-of-dog and @QatzelOk's politics is based on appropriating the victimhood of the indigenous peoples in the Americas. It's easier to do that than acknowledging the failures of their actual ideologies to deliver on its promises and/or be actually implemented and supported by most people, possibly with dire personal consequences that make such defeat personal and not merely philosophical or ideological.
#15318705
Unthinking Majority wrote:No, I specifically acknowledged it, twice, which you ignored because it doesn't suit your narrative. You ignore everything doesn't suit your narrative. Facts are often irrelevant to you, this is called confirmation bias.


No,

There is no mention of colonialism here:

Unthinking Majority wrote:That's not true. And humans aren't much competing against other species at this point (besides things like bacteria and viruses), humans are competing against other humans both within their own society and between societies. It's usually been pretty clear what behaviours or traits provide more security (resource security, physical security etc) than others. Education, technology, alliances etc. Within society, humans compete for grades, jobs, mates etc.

Good decisions that lead to more of these things aren't just based on luck, people have free will at the end of the day to improve their situations for themselves and their family.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas had some bad luck because they were geographically isolated from the rest of the world until about 500 years ago, and so couldn't benefit from the knowledge, technology, and immunity transfers of other parts of the world until Europeans came, at which point they were far too behind to put up much of a defense to both aggression and disease and are still playing catch up in things like education and economics.

Sub-saharan Africa was also somewhat isolated from other parts of the world due to the Sahara desert and the oceans, not to mention malaria. North Africans and sub-saharan Africans would have to make long dangerous treks by camel across the Sahara to trade with each other. Most of sub-saharan Africa was colonized by European empires centuries later than the Americas because of malaria.


You only started discussing colonialism after I explained that you left it out.

Note that colonialism also contradicts the claim that Indigenous problems are due to being “behind” in education and economics.
#15318713
Pants-of-dog wrote:No,

There is no mention of colonialism here:



You only started discussing colonialism after I explained that you left it out.

Note that colonialism also contradicts the claim that Indigenous problems are due to being “behind” in education and economics.

Wtf. Why can't people be both colonized and behind? Not logical, dude.
#15318715
Unthinking Majority wrote:...humans are competing against other humans both within their own society and between societies. It's usually been pretty clear what behaviours or traits provide more security (resource security, physical security etc) than others. Education, technology, alliances etc. Within society, humans compete for grades, jobs, mates etc....

We might understand how to buy security, but we humans still have no idea which traits or behaviors will enhance our species' odds of long-term survival.

Previous to Darwin, elites taught everyone that the things you listed above would "enhance humanity's odds of survival" by "pleasing God." Then Darwin came along and demonstrated that this was bullshit. The elites turned around and invented the expression "Social Darwinism" in order to keep their debunked worldview alive-looking. And so many people still fall for it.

But Europeans didn't do something fantastic for humanity by committing genocides while believing it was social darwinism. They did something horrible by eliminating other survival strategies from the human vocabulary. Darwin would say that humanity "narrowed its chances of survival" by eliminating the less violent nations and less technologically-invasive cultures. Humanity lowered its chances of survival, and this is what obsesses me. The victimhood of the First Nations is humanity's victimhood.

wat0n wrote:...politics is based on appropriating the victimhood of the indigenous peoples in the Americas. It's easier to do that than acknowledging the failures of their actual ideologies to deliver...

Back to Darwin please...

When a person takes over your house by aggressing the family inside it with a flame-thrower (the way Europeans took over the Americas using genocide), that same house is likely to eventually burn down on top of its new owner. That flame-thrower tech person had the technology to kill - not the technology to save. His killing technology will also kill him - not prolong his survival Darwin-style.

The Europeans were excellent killers. So good that the entire Earth might soon die of them and their wonderful technological world. This doesn't enhance our security at all.

So we're back to Darwin's idea that "Natural" selection means that humans like us don't have a clue what attributes will enhance our species' chance of survival. Nuclear weapons and climate change certainly won't help our species survive. So why are you still harping on about how superior these "ways" were? Do you believe that our extinction is the ultimate progressive act?
#15318727
QatzelOk wrote:But Europeans didn't do something fantastic for humanity by committing genocides while believing it was social darwinism. They did something horrible by eliminating other survival strategies from the human vocabulary. Darwin would say that humanity "narrowed its chances of survival" by eliminating the less violent nations and less technologically-invasive cultures. Humanity lowered its chances of survival, and this is what obsesses me. The victimhood of the First Nations is humanity's victimhood.


You can't you make your attempt to claim oppression more transparent, can you?
#15318730
Pants-of-dog wrote:Note that colonialism also contradicts the claim that Indigenous problems are due to being “behind” in education and economics.

Colonialism has caused many significant problems amongst indigenous peoples who have had to suffer them and had generational trauma, everyone knows that. Never did I say all of indigenous peoples problems are from pre-1942, that would be ridiculous.

All indigenous societies in Canada pre-1492 were illiterate, they didn't have an alphabet or similar writing systems. They had art and oral histories, but that's not the same as a printing press to spread knowledge. They were still using stone-age technology. That isn't their fault, its not because they are racially or culturally inferior or less intelligent, it's because of geography and climate and circumstance.

They had a subsistent hunter-gatherer economy in 1492. Compared to Europe and Asia and many parts of Africa they were much poorer at the time and well behind in technology. Indigenous people may or may not have more wealth today had no country ever colonized the Americas. It's impossible to say. They would have far more access to land and natural resources, but someone would also have to build the roads, railroads, power plants, and all other infrastructure and had the education to do it.

Once some indigenous groups got their hands on firearms and better transportation via trade some groups likely would have started attacking and conquering the weaker groups (especially ones without guns) for domination and power, including some genocides. It would have been a bloodbath filled with war not any different than any other part of the world throughout history. That's just how the world and nature works without a strong central government to enforce rules and peace, which the Americas obviously didn't have, it was made up of a large number of competing societies including some empires like the Aztecs, who were not exactly humanitarians to their neighbours. So not having European colonialism would have traded one set of problems for another set of problems. The final results are unknown.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

The Cannon woman really is a piece of work — A Tr[…]

It is indeed. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali documents in &q[…]

Trump shot (grazed) at rally

I find it odd that you guys are choosing to argue[…]

It seems some people are upset that the ICJ did no[…]