- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,428
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
If one will share a falsehood, one can do better than you have done by actually giving evidence rather than arguing with a assumption you've yet to show with all things disagreeing with you being "Liberal" - as you are already at odds with several conservatives who've noted the same dynamic and other Republicans have pointed out the issue. Thus, it is a false scenario trying to act as if only the Left has said something when you already are at odds with what the Right has said about not trying to dress-up the past as being better than it was. You can't even show where he said he was speaking of Conservatives outside of ranting on it.
As said again, comment was read - and as with others who've noted the same, you are responding to what was never said. Folks are not going to argue with you on something they didn't say
Context is no more "all over the place" than your logic is centered properly in place since you've argued at several points with ideas that you alone are pushed but no one was saying. Nothing new there...
Seeing that what happened to Native Americans and Blacks was based in racism - unless one wishes to argue that what occurred was not a symptom of racism - it is a moot point ranting over what TFY noted. What he said was that there are a lot of arguments based that both stereotype Blacks and Native Americans - a racial dynamic which is never healthy - and people, as TFY pointed out, need to stop acting as if all things in the past were good and others were always equal in their access. You already ignored TFY in what he said plainly on the issue when it came to the mass experience of Blacks and Native Americans as a WHOLE with racial injustice and hindering success in the world of economics. That was it.
Going on a rant about "Liberals say this!!!" is foolish since Conservatives have already noted the same when it comes to basics in history (even though many say that it was others like the Democrats or the Dixiecrat party as it used to be called that did a lot of damage) - but we already have conservatives noting the extensive history behind damage done to Blacks AND Native Americans in the harm they have experienced and how other organizations had to be made to protect them...
It was already covered earlier - counter to the falsehood you tried here (as usual) - that racism was not the sole or dominant issue since things are done in ignorance.The charge of racism is at the core of TFY's post and at the core of the central argument you have made in this thread.
Noting where land is occupied illegally and asking for fair representation is not the same as making a broad claim/charge of racism - and if you want to go there, you are going to have to do better than you have thus far.
Besides the fact that it is another falsehood since the question was addressed (in addition to reference on what HAS been said here in this thread from earlier on Native Americans who've advocated for the U.S./work for representation), it is foolish, as said before, when one has already noted that even on the site they have noted that dealing with racially based mindsets that did damage (from Manifest Destiny to saying Native Americans are "inferior"/need to be "helped" through being civilized in order to grow, stereotypes in the media with mascots/other products, etc.) are all an issue that deal with racism - that was already noted directly - in addition to SEVERAL OTHER organizations (including from White Americans, Conservative and Liberal) noting the way Native Americans are not represented and myths are said of them.
And as it concerns the focus of the site you brought up, as they said directly:
- All settlers do not benefit equally from the settler-colonial state, nor did all settlers emigrate here of their own free will. Specifically, we see slavery, hetero-patriarchy, white supremacy, market imperialism, and capitalist class structures as among the primary tools of colonization. These tools divide communities and determine peoples’ relative access to power. Therefore, anti-oppression solidarity between settler communities is necessary for decolonization. We work to build anti-colonial movements that actively combat all forms of oppression.
- We acknowledge that settlers are not entitled to live on this land. We accept that decolonization means the revitalization of indigenous sovereignty, and an end to settler domination of life, lands, and peoples in all territories of the so-called “Americas.” All decisions regarding human interaction with this land base, including who lives on it, are rightfully those of the indigenous nations.
- As settlers and non-native people (by which we mean non-indigenous to this hemisphere) acting in solidarity, it is our responsibility to proactively challenge and dismantle colonialist thought and behavior in the communities we identify ourselves to be part of. As people within communities that maintain and benefit from colonization, we are intimately positioned to do this work.
- We understand that allies cannot be self-defined; they must be claimed by the people they seek to ally with. We organize our solidarity efforts around direct communication, responsiveness, and accountability to indigenous people fighting for decolonization and liberation.
- We are committed to dismantling all systems of oppression, whether they are found in institutional power structures, interpersonal relationships, or within ourselves. Individually and as a collective, we work compassionately to support each other through these processes. Participation in struggle requires each of us to engage in both solidarity and our own liberation: to be accountable for all privileges carried, while also struggling for liberation from internalized and/or experienced oppression. We seek to build a healthy culture of resistance, accountability, and sustenance.
- (Adapted from Unsettling MN‘s Points of Unity)
[/INDENT]
Addressing economic and institutional systems that have harmed Native Americans is the focus - and finding ways to re-structure how the U.S. handles itself. And on that site alone, there are several other organizations pertaining to Native American environmental stewardship groups, resource-gathering for impoverished communities and helping communities stay together in light of all the stereotypes. That's the basis behind it - and they have already pointed out the issue in https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/unoccupy-turtle-island/
By your logic, it seems apparent you're more than fine with the stereotypes of Native Americans (as the unsettling America site alongside others pointed out) - and there's no need trying to deny it when one cannot show at any point where they are truly against stereotypes of Native Americans in the media and everyday life. If you are against stereotypes of Native Americans, then it is upon you to do as others (Red Fox in example) and actually address them - but if you're for it, you'll continue with the rants that try to take attention away from that.
As you've already deflected from earlier with strawmen, the ad-hominem is useless at this point on your part.
Sistrin
Seeing that you already brought up slavery/segregation as well as talking about "evil white people" several times whenever people speak on immigration reform, it is inconsistent trying to talk on what is or isn't "telling" since people addressing issues in history don't react (if they are concerned for history) by assuming it's all about "Evil white people" - but as said before, it is what it is. And as said before, you already argued for the concept when selectively bringing up others who were successful in eras where the mass majority of a group were constantly hindered. TYF brought up a general statement - and your best argument was to try and split hairs by claiming he said "ALL" rather than understanding context with the majority. That's no different than saying "People speeding get tickets!!!" and then trying to argue with saying "Your argument is baseless since there are plenty who DON'T get tickets - what you got to say on that?!".......people making general statements are not making absolute statements
As usual, an assertion made isn't the same as actually making an argument. Unless you can show logically ANYWHERE that someone making a general statement is making an ABSOLUTE statement, you are again arguing past what TYF already said and responding based on what you want to hear rather than what was said. It's no different than having a conversation on the dangers of heat exhaustion and seeing someone say "People die a lot in heat" - only for someone using your logic coming out of nowhere and making that out to mean something foolish like saying "So you're saying people in all hot climates will die? That's ridiculous!!!" when no one was saying that).
People were generally NOT able to succeed or compete in the same way as others did if they were white and this is a basic in history when we see thingss over-all - and other conservatives have pointed that out repeatedly. One film that noted the issue was discussed before - called "Runaway Slave" (which one can see here) when it comes to the history Blacks have gone through and the economic realities that kept them hindered extensively from being on the same level.
Bad argumentation as usual, as the Democratic Party has already noted the differing ethnic groups in existence - and noting differing ethnic groups isn't the same as dealing with ONE in example. Focusing on the Chinese and their battles in the U.S (including moments their rights as U.S citizens were ignored) does not logically mean that one ignores the plight of all other ethnic groups - and those trying to even bring that into discussion generally tend to be people who are not concerned with the group highlighted. The focus in this thread is seeing where the rights of Native Americans have consistently been ignored to their detriment for the sake of other groups - and multiple ethnic groups (i.e. Palestinians, Indians, Chinese, Russians, Kenyans, Aboriginals, etc.) have spoken on the issue in solidarity when seeing the basic history they have.
As said before already, when you actually deal with what was SAID and not what you want to hear, you'll have room to speak on straw-man. Till then, you are continuing with more of the same in ad-hominem
Another falsehood..
No need for the equivocation when caught on the matter, Sistrin - as you already showed unwillingness to actually deal with your own words, as has been said repeatedly whenever you claimed it was justified because Native Americans were already fighting in the U.S. Again, It was already noted where you justified what Great Britain did in eradicating Native Americans/taking land wrongfully when claiming "Well, tribes were already fighting one another and the British practiced no other policy other than what the tribes already had" (as noted here and here) You are already not taken seriously for the re-making of the history of interaction with Native Americans - but it is problematic claiming they deserved to be wiped out and that the British were justified. It's unfortunate if you cannot even keep up with your own words - as it shows yourself in a negative light with where you cannot own up to your words. And I doubt you actually are able to own up to your words since this has happened with other posters
And nothing from the website you gave shows in any way where it was about either removing all Whites from the U.S. - or others who are Non-Native not being treated repsectfully. Thus again, you argue with yourself/your own ideas rather than the content - and one can do better.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
