27
   

Does political correcteness weaken the fabric of a nation?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 12:40 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I was looking for something a bit more objective, for comparison purposes.
If someone doesn't like to be called this way or another - that's of course not objective if she/he is asked about that.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 07:27 am
@Walter Hinteler,
My interest was in the objectivity of the surveys, not the respondents.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 07:35 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I agree: you usually have 1,000 people questioned for statistical reasons and not just 390 like in this survey.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 08:25 am
re Walter
The number of people sampled depends on the size of the population considered, to get an answere within a certain statistical error (the "plus or minus two or three percent" reported in the survey results), usually within two standard deviations. For the US populatikon, that's around a thousand people. Since Native Americans number far less than that, a smaller sample size yields the same statistical certianties as larger samples of the whole population.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 08:34 am
@MontereyJack,
I should know (and remember some facts from university). But 1,000 is used more often ... even in smaller countries like Germany Wink

(I could offer what I've heard - but that really is anecdotical and restricted mainly to Pueblo tribes.)
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 08:35 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Native Americans


Can't you do better than that? They were originally from Asia, you wouldn't want to offend them. I bet each tribe has an Asian heritage day.http://www.alien-earth.org/images/smileys/koolaid.gif
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 08:53 am
This kind of **** comes from PC.
Quote:
Texas: Man told to take down his US flag, as it’s “a threat towards the Muslim community”

Quote:
WEBSTER, Texas — A Webster man says his apartment complex manager told him his American flag was a “threat to the Muslim community,” and that he has to take it down. But he’s not giving up without a fight.

Stepping onto Duy Tran’s balcony in Webster, one thing is clear: “It means a lot to me,” he said.

He’s talking about his American flag that he proudly put up when he moved in just a few days ago. But then an apartment manager at the Lodge on El Dorado told him he had to take it down.

“What really stunned me is that she said it’s a threat towards the Muslim community,” said Tran. “I’m not a threat toward anybody.”

We tried to ask a manager if that’s exactly what was said, but she just handed us a statement, refused to answer any questions, and called an officer to escort us off the property, before we could press any further:

“While the Lodge on El Dorado admires our resident’s patriotism, we must enforce our property rules and guidelines. Such guidelines maintain the aesthetics of our apartment community and provide for the safety of all residents. The apartment community already proudly displays our country’s flag in a safe and appropriate manner at the entrances to our community.”

But we saw other patriotic symbols hanging from other balconies in the complex, and Tran doesn’t plan to budge.

“I’m gonna leave my flag there, as an American, until she shows me proof that I don’t have the right to leave my flag there,” said Tran.

To Tran it’s about so much more than stars and stripes.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/texas-man-told-to-take-down-his-us-flag-as-its-a-threat-towards-the-muslim-community?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#

Notice the man displaying the flag is a minority himself. Is there irony in there somewhere? I know there is stupidity.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 09:03 am
A lot of politically-correct halfwits are closet commies, there are at least 20,ooo in America, that's the equivalent of about 2 commie army divisions on US soil, plus many more sympathisers-

WIKI- "The Communist Party USA is a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States....It has about 20,000 members today"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA


and needless to say, many of those members have covertly infilitrated their way into positions as teachers, politicians, broadcasters and discussion forums etc to spread their sick propaganda-

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold:
its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life.
If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
- Joseph Stalin


Commies take note of America's border weaknesses-
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/Photos/russ-point-globe.jpg
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 09:18 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold:
its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life.
If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
- Joseph Stalin


That has never been a secret. It has just been ignored. And ignoring something does not make it go away. I believe I have proven that.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 09:19 am
@coldjoint,
The insistence on the use of "Native American" is yet another example of the politically correct notion of a small group of offense-seekers who, in the main, are not even representatives of the group they purport to be defending.

Quote:
But despite the supposed political correctness of Native American, it has not become the preferred term. "The acceptance of Native American has not brought about the demise of Indian," according to the fourth edition of the American Heritage Book of English Usage, published in 2000. "Unlike Negro, which was quickly stigmatized once black became preferred, Indian never fell out of favor with a large segment of the American population."

Nor did the word Indian fall out of favor with the people it described. A 1995 Census Bureau survey that asked indigenous Americans their preferences for names (the last such survey done by the bureau) found that 49 percent preferred the term Indian, 37 percent Native American, and 3.6 percent "some other name." About 5 percent expressed no preference.

Moreover, a large number of Indians actually strongly object to the term Native American for political reasons. In his 1998 essay "I Am An American Indian, Not a Native American!", Russell Means, a Lakota activist and a founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), stated unequivocally, "I abhor the term 'Native American.'"


But what does Russell Means know or care about what is degrading to American Indians. The offense-seekers know better, and maybe they've been successful in persuading majority, or at least a plurality of American Indians to recognize that their prior preference was an inherently racist description and the equivalent of "negro" or "colored."

Quote:
At an international conference of Indians from the Americas held in Geneva, Switzerland, at the United Nations in 1977 we unanimously decided we would go under the term American Indian. "We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians and then we can call ourselves anything we damn please."


source
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 09:25 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The insistence on the use of "Native American" is yet another example of the politically correct notion of a small group of offense-seekers who, in the main, are not even representatives of the group they purport to be defending.
So call them "the people" as they call themselves.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 10:33 am
This has been more fun than I expected from my OP
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 10:54 am
@neologist,

Quote:
This has been more fun than I expected from my OP


Right you are, that Wally guy is a barrel of fun.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 11:02 am
@coldjoint,
Da'alzhin.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 11:05 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Navaho ho ho ho
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 11:06 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Obviously you didn't read the linked article. They call themselves American Indians.

I'm happy to call them whatever they prefer to be called. As blacks in America have made it clear that they find "colored" and "negro" offensive or inappropriate, I don't refer to them, using either word. Also, since they seem to prefer "African-American" to "Afro-American" (although I really don't understand why) I'm happy to use the former rather than the latter. Nothing about the usage of these terms involves political correctness.

This is a thread about political correctness not about what I call American Indians. Unless you dispute that there is an insistence within certain circles on use of "Native American" the matter is germane in that it illustrates how silly and even offensive political correctness can be. If American Indians preferred to be called "The People", it would be just as silly and possibly offensive to insist on they're being called "Native Americans." and I doubt too many people would disagree with that.

The politically correct thinking about "Indian" is that it is not what these people call themselves or want to be called, but a name imposed upon them by an oppressive white culture (and one born of geographical error to boot!). The insistence on using "Native American" rests more with non-Indians than with Indians.

Whatever American Indians think about the oppression of their people by an American government and/or a white culture, it's pretty clear that it's not a majority opinion that the term "Indian" is an offensive reminder of that oppression and that at least a plurality actually prefers the term! The folks who insist on using the alternative "Native American" are not making a stylistic choice, they are making a political statement, based on a determination of what is offensive that is not even shared by the people who, if anyone, would be expected to take offense.

I doubt too many people question the credentials of Russell Means as an American Indian who had strong feelings about past and current oppression of his people, and he was quite clear on what he thought about "Native American." I would have enjoyed seeing a politically correct blogger tell Russell Means that he should only use "Native American" to self-describe, lest he demean himself or his people.

It's the same people who long for offenses to attack and the opportunity to display their enlightened sensibilities who are waging war on the Redskins, and who insist on the use of "Native American". In both cases they are motivated less about the sensibilities of American Indians than their self and public images.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 11:10 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Obviously you didn't read the linked article. They call themselves American Indians.
I did. But I admit that my personal knowledge about it is limited to just a few tribes, and only in the south-west. And from books.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 11:14 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Also, since they seem to prefer "African-American" to "Afro-American" (although I really don't understand why) ...
We were taught here that African-American is similar to German-American or Irish-American or ...
But you should know better.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 11:21 am
I wouldn't mind being referred to as Polack, instead of Polish American.
It's just that most folks would rather just call me 'hey you'

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 11:24 am
@neologist,
Speaking of Polack:

A Polack goes to the eye doctor. The bottom line of the eye chart has the letters:

C Z Y N Q S T A S Z.

The Optometrist asks, "Can you read this?"

"Read it?" the Polack replies, "I know the guy."
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 06:33:33