0
   

I Was a Big "Kramer" Fan...

 
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:12 am
Well, certainly, if you know their tribal name, you could use it, but we in BC have several hundred and it's very difficult to keep track. I think First Nations is the popular version at the moment.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:15 am
Native American. Indian could be someone from India and then has to be followed by "Dot, not feather."

Mom refers to herself as a squaw, but no one else better! Laughing
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:20 am
The Pimas we knew growing up referred to themselves as Indians, and I have heard others do the same since then. I think it's a bit in flux nowadays. Native American may win out. The little bits of Native American in me are referred to as "Indian." They see no conflict.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:27 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I think...


I disagree.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
A saint, I am not. I laugh at racist jokes without remorse if they are funny, and no one who'd be offended is within earshot... and to the extent that makes me a racist; I am guilty.


So you only laugh at black people when they're not around. How proud you must be to be so sensitive.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
However; I cannot fathom a circumstance of any amount of hardship where I'd respond with a hatred I've never felt. Were a black man beating me to death; I doubt the term "nigger" would come to mind... any more than if an Israeli man were beating me to death; "jew" would come to mind, etc... let alone if they were just heckling me. That kind of racism has to exist before you can let it out because you're angry.


Again, I disagree. I don't think you have to have hatred for blacks to know what words and phrases are likely to offend and/or shock them. I don't think you can tell a thing from this one little clip about what's inside the man's head on a daily basis. I know that pro-life people probably are offended by dead baby jokes or flip attitudes toward abortion. But it's possible that I might think of a dead baby joke or two in a combative situation with a pro-life person, and if I'm flustered, I might even say something I regret later, just to shock them. That doesn't mean I have any special hatred for all pro-life people. It just means I know what the hot-button words are.

That being said, I agree that it is entirely possible that he is a vile, hateful racist human being. I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion, given the situation.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Two listens to Richards' rant were sufficient to demonstrate that he wasn't reaching for hurtful words, rather, he was angry enough for his thoughts to come out uncensored. His uncensored thoughts were overtly racist and I've little choice but to assume his apologists are trying to justify identifying with them.


You mean like you did when you told us you laugh at racist jokes?

And for the record, trying to look at the possibility that he isn't just a raving hateful racist is not the same as being an apologist.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:28 am
squinney wrote:
Native American. Indian could be someone from India and then has to be followed by "Dot, not feather."

Mom refers to herself as a squaw, but no one else better! Laughing


Did you see Steven Colbert at the Republican National Convention? When trying to figure out a woman's ethnic identity she replies "Indian" . Steven counters with "Gandhi or Sitting Bull?" (you have to love it).

The Indians around my area refer to themselves as "The Natives" to whites, but the use the expression "Reds" when talking among themselves about themselves. I was told it's NOT ok for non-natives to use the term "Reds". They refer to white people as either "The Whites" or "The Boat People".
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 10:33 am
I never liked the term Native American, because it somehow implies that the rest of us aren't native. I was born in New York--it's not my fault the locals sold Manhattan to the Dutch for 60 guilders worth of glass beads, i'm still a native of North America.

I usually use "Amerindian" which is (or until recently, at least, was) the commonly used term by historians. I also just use "Indian" when the context is understandable.

Cherokee guy i knew in the army used to just say: "I'm an Injun, is that a problem for you?" Oscar was impressively evil-looking--i knew of no one who ever said that was a problem for them.
0 Replies
 
Helmut Roole
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 12:04 pm
Chai Tea wrote:
are you serious?

I really couldn't unstand much...
I could understand it. Maybe I've got a better connection. Who knows? But, eh... yeah, pretty shocking. He said on Letterman that he wasn't a racist, but, apparently he is.

Look, everyone is a racist at some point. It's a natural state of being. I've got some anthropological theories on this if anyone is interested, but bottom line is, at some point in your life you realize that the human species has evolved enough so that racism no longer makes sense as it did back in the way-old days when people of different races were likely carrying different diseases and antibodies and it made sense to steer clear of someone that had different skin color because they likely came from a different place and the contact would likely kill you. Anyway, there comes a point where you say to yourself, that's a word (nigger) that I'm not going to utter out of anger and from that point on you reconcile your irrational feelings until most of the racism that exists in you is gone.

Krammer... he hasn't reached that point yet.
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 02:09 pm
Quote:
......back in the way-old days when people of different races were likely carrying different diseases and antibodies and it made sense to steer clear of someone that had different skin color because they likely came from a different place and the contact would likely kill you.
...............
That could be one reason, the other one is disdain. After the slavery chapter in the US, there was apartheid. Everyone who was looking down on blacks felt good, even if he was white trash. Some people haven't gotten over that period of superiority. They still think that black is lower than pink (white is a misnomer).
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 02:20 pm
detano inipo wrote:
Quote:
......back in the way-old days when people of different races were likely carrying different diseases and antibodies and it made sense to steer clear of someone that had different skin color because they likely came from a different place and the contact would likely kill you.


That doesn't quite work. People were clueless about things like germs and passing illnesses from one body to another until the last century. People were more likely to think they got sick from evil spirits, bad winds, imbalanced "humors" or angry gods. I think we have just always been wary of The Other and happy to dominate and pillage given the ability.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 02:39 pm
I go along with GW's take on that proposition. But more than that, i would point out that we know from the historical record, for example, that the Aramaic merchants traded all over the ancient middle east, and in to central Asia. If there were some sort of innate human tendency for humans to mistrust strangers on a sanitary basis, they could not have succeeded. Furthermore, that's not an isolated example. Archaeology in the United States has shown sea shells very far inland in North America, and stones only found in central Mexico found in the Ohio River valley--wide-spread trade in ancient time is confirmed more and more frequently as having been a commonplace. In Marco Polo's account of his travels, he mentions again and again people who lived very far from the ocean who used small sea shells as currency. I believe, based on my reading, that merchants and long-distance traders have been common for millennia.

I think contempt for the outsider is a far more likely explanation. After all, you could easily trade with someone for desirable items while remaining contemptuous of someone you considered to be subhuman or simply unsavory, while that merchant could as easily ignore your contempt so long as he or she were making a profit. Many of the names of American Indian tribes mean "the humans" or "the true humans." I'm sure there are examples of this from other times and places as well, although i don't necessarily recall them at the moment.

People commonly look at their life-long neighbors with contempt and consider themselves superior, how much more likely to take the same attitude toward strangers.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 02:45 pm
I was very impressed with Detano's speculation about the inherent xenophobia of ancient and primitive peoples, but I think Green Witch's repudiation is well taken. Is it not possible, however, that various peoples have had different "theories" of the dangers to health of contact with strangers? Is it not possible, for example, that agents (natural or supernatural), different from but functionally equivalent to "germs" might have been part of various ethnomedical theories? I know peoples in southeastern Mexico who knew nothing of germ theory until quite recently but thought that socerers could kill others by means of "dirt" (suciedad, in spanish).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 02:49 pm
Certainly such a thesis is plausible, but keep in mind that at this point, the discussion (seems to me, at least) to be how to explain what appears to be a universal human tendency to adopt racist attitudes. I don't suggest that i've offered a plausible explanation, but i don't think a "theory of the unclean" cuts is as a universal explanation for a human propensity to express racism.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 03:03 pm
It's not just race, I think it's human nature to want to be at the top of the heap. It probably started with cave envy. You can have people of the same race like the Hutus and Tootsies battling it out, or Irish Protestants vs. Irish Catholics, or New Yorkers taking on the rest of country - it's all the same base human emotion that is witnessed in the playground: " Na Na, I'm better than you are, I'm better than you are..."
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 03:21 pm
I agree, Green Witch; its more a matter of "ethnicity" (a matter of social definitions) than racism as an term referring to objective physiological differences. Anthropologist, by the way, have rejected the notion of race. There is no such reality as distinct racial entities. There are genes but they do not organize naturally into races. But "social race", the ethnicity process of differentiation on the basis of fictive physiological traits does exist.
Given this, I wonder if the Hutus and Tootsies distinguished themselves on physical as well as cultural grounds.
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 05:16 pm
During the Hippy years things changed for the better. The races mingled, the pot made everybody smile. The rednecks didn't like it one bit.
.
White people from New York, mostly Jewish, went South to help blacks get some equality. They were idealistic and brave. Vicious dogs bit their legs and brutal policemen kicked in their ribcages.
.
White people were killed because they were 'nigger-lovers'. A very sad time for all of us.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 05:50 pm
detano inipo wrote:

.
White people were killed because they were 'nigger-lovers'.


Whites were killed in the South, because they were from the North, and were intent on minding the business of the South instead of their own.

If New Yorkers really wanted to help "mankind", they should have stay in NY and cleaned up their own garbage dump, instead of venturing South.

I hope you realize that the North is far more racist than the South could ever be and some of the most liberals of liberals were stinking slave owners.

North and South shall never see eye to eye.

END OF STORY
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 06:11 pm
I have always considered humans a territorial breed that will start wars over land (posessions) and religion; why not ethnicity also? We don't see nearly the animosity for the Oklahoma City terror bombing we see for anything connected with Muslims.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 06:18 pm
Quote:
A very sad time for all of us.


But you just said you were full of POT!

Exclamation
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 06:18 pm
Quote:
A very sad time for all of us.


But you just said you were full of POT!

Exclamation
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 06:25 pm
detano inipo wrote:
During the Hippy years things changed for the better. The races mingled, the pot made everybody smile. The rednecks didn't like it one bit.
.
White people from New York, mostly Jewish, went South to help blacks get some equality. They were idealistic and brave. Vicious dogs bit their legs and brutal policemen kicked in their ribcages.
.
White people were killed because they were 'nigger-lovers'. A very sad time for all of us.


Translation--you weren't around then, and you don't know what you're talking about. Many, many people other than Jews from New York went south to work for civil rights. Two Jewish men from New York were murdered, Goodman and Schwerner--it was a claim by segregationist propagandists that all the civil rights workers who came south were "Jews from New York." Too bad you fall for such propaganda. The vast majority of civil rights activists murdered in the 1960s were blacks, both from the South and the North. The year following the murders of Goodman, Schwerner and James Chayne (a black man from Mississippi), Viola Gregg Liuzzo, a housewife from Michigan, was murdered, and the case became particularly vicious, because an FBI informant was in the car with the murderer, and the FBI response was to launch a smear campaign against Mrs. Liuzzo.

Saying that "the races mingled" during the "hippy era" equally shows your ignorance. Black and white people came together as a result of the civil rights movement--it had nothing to do with pot or hippies. A great many other blacks and whites developed deep antipathies because of the civil rights movement, and because of race riots in American cities in the 1960s. Smoking pot never solved any social problems, and only created other, personal problems for those who smoked it. The times were very unpleasant and polarized--for hippies and "red necks."

You don't know what the hell you're talking about much of the time, but this was a particularly idiotic post.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How a Spoon Can Save a Woman’s Life - Discussion by tsarstepan
Well this is weird. - Discussion by izzythepush
Please Don't Feed our Bums - Discussion by Linkat
Woman crashes car while shaving her vagina - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Genie gets sued! - Discussion by Reyn
Humans Marrying Animals - Discussion by vinsan
Prawo Jazdy: Ireland's worst driver - Discussion by Robert Gentel
octoplet mom outrage! - Discussion by dirrtydozen22
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 08:25:38