redskin name can be challenged

[nola]

ooh i just found this tim wise essay on counterpunch:


Reflections on Indian Mascots and White Rage
By TIM WISE

All I wanted was a lousy beer. OK, a few lousy beers. Is that too much to ask?

Of course, I suppose it was partly my fault. After all, I had taken my laptop with me into the bar, having just come from the library, where I'd spent the day doing research for a new book. Computer in hand, and being a writer and all, I naturally flipped it open to type in a few random thoughts for a column: not this column, actually. This one emerged from what happened next.

Computers in brewpubs are like steaming piles of shit in a field full of flies: guaranteed to attract attention from the regulars. And so it happened, when a guy who'd gotten a four or five pint head start on me, asked what I was working on.

I could have lied. Maybe shoulda.' Didn't, though.

"I'm a writer, just making a few notes," I answered back.

I hoped that might be the end of it, but I sorta' knew it wouldn't be.

"You a songwriter?" he asked. Made sense, seeing as how this was a bar in the heart of Nashville, just four or five blocks from Music Row: a street lined with recording studios and record label offices.

Once more, I could have lied. Maybe shoulda.' But then again, tell someone you're a songwriter in this town and you'll have to listen to their latest song, which they'll whip out, on an already recorded demo, hoping you know someone to whom it can be passed along.

I didn't have time for that bullshit, so I just told the truth.

"Nope, I'm a political columnist. I write mostly about racism, economics, a few other social issues."

Now here's the thing: Up to this point, I've remained purposely vague, not tipping off my newfound bar mate as to my political stripes, or where I might be coming from when it comes to race.

But here's the thing too: I'm white, and so is he. And there is an unspoken understanding among white folks, especially white men, it seems-and especially, perhaps, in the South-and that understanding goes roughly like this: when people of color aren't around, it's perfectly acceptable to talk badly about them.

As such, I knew what was coming, or at least that something was, though the form it would take was to remain a mystery-at least, that is, for the next three or four nanoseconds; that being the time it would take for the guy on the neighboring stool to formulate his next thought. And here I am using the term "thought" generously.

Apparently, ESPN had just announced that the NCAA had decided to sanction schools that continue to use demeaning, stereotype-laden mascots of American Indians for their athletic teams.

This, as it turns out, was not sitting well with the aging frat boy here, and he figured, I guess, that I would agree with him. It never crossed his mind that I might support the decision; indeed, think the NCAA had let the dozen or so schools in question off lightly. After all, they had only barred them from hosting NCAA tournament games, or displaying their logos at such events, in the latter instance not even until 2008, and all of this, only in basketball.

"What's the big deal?" he huffed. "There's nothing racist about a mascot. Talk about some oversensitive bullshit!"

Easy for him to say, I thought. Folks like us rarely have to worry about being objectified, and turned into dehumanizing caricatures. When people like you run the country and every institution therein, "sticks and stones" takes on a much more truthful ring than it does for anyone else.

Knowing I had an obligation to respond, yet wanting to do so in a way that wouldn't get me thrown out of the bar, I asked if he thought it was really appropriate for those of us who weren't Indian to say what was and wasn't offensive to those who were.

"What?" he replied, clearly not expecting to have been challenged in such a way.

I repeated the question, at which point he suggested that not all Indians found mascots offensive. He even had some Indian blood, he insisted, way back in his family line: a claim that single-handedly proved what little he knows of indigenous culture. After all, the notion of "Indian blood" and blood quantum, were largely concepts created by the white ruling class to limit the scope of land settlements with Indian nations. Indians were not, with a few notable exceptions, biological determinists.

"Take the Seminoles," he thundered. "They actually support Florida State calling themselves that!"

True enough, the official Seminole nation of Florida is on record as supporting the use of their name at FSU. But of course, there are other Seminoles in the region who feel differently, not to mention the black Seminoles who have been all but disowned by those who consider themselves "true" representatives of the tribe. Indian politics are complicated, as it turns out. Much more so, in fact, than the average white guy at a bar, who is nothing if not predictable.

"Understood," I replied. It was at that point I offered what seems, to me, the only logical compromise on the matter: one which, if this guy really felt as though Indians supported mascots, he'd be quick to accept.
"So," I said, "How about we just let Indian folks vote on it. But just Indians, and just those who are either tribally enrolled or otherwise clearly identified and active in Native communities, culture or politics? In other words, let's stay out of it, you and me, and let those who are directly affected make the call."

He didn't like that much, as was made evident by how quickly he changed the subject.

"What about Notre Dame?" he shot back. "The Fighting Irish. What about that? My ancestors were Irish," he continued (ah yes, one of those Irish Indians), "and it doesn't bother me one bit!"

Of course, the comparison was utterly unconvincing. To begin with, to be called a fighter is not the same as to be called, or typified visually as a "savage." There is a qualitative difference, made all the more evident by the history of this nation: a history in which fighting Indians were slaughtered, and for whom their willingness to fight back at those who sought to exterminate them, provided their murderers with what the latter thought the ultimate justification for the perpetration of a Holocaust. Fighting Irishmen, meanwhile, got to be viewed as perfect candidates for the Union Army, or for your local police force.

In other words, one group of fighters had to be eliminated, the other, assimilated. If we can't discern the yawning chasm between these two things, well, we really should stop drinking, be it at the local brewpub, or anywhere else.

Secondly, indigenous persons, unlike Irish Americans, continue to be marginalized in the United States. A substantial percentage have been geographically ghettoized and isolated on some of the nation's most desolate land, while those off the rez have largely been stripped of the cultures, languages and customs of their forbears by a boarding school policy implemented against their families, which policy's stated purpose from the 1800s through much of the twentieth century was to "Kill the Indian and save the man."

To be Irish American is to be a member of the largest white ethnic group in the nation, and one of the most accepted and celebrated at that. It wasn't always that way, to be sure, but it is now. For Irish folks to be stereotyped as fighters simply doesn't have the same impact-given the power and position of the Irish in this society-as when stereotypes are deployed against subordinated groups. Objectification only works its magic upon those who continue to be vilified. For those on top, it can become a source of amusement, laughter-a good time.

"Yeah," I responded. "But when Notre Dame chose to call themselves the Fightin' Irish, the school was made up overwhelmingly of Irish Catholics. In other words, it was Irish folks choosing that name for themselves. How many Indians do you think were really in on the decision to call themselves 'redskins,' or to be portrayed as screaming warriors on someone else's school clothing?"

Again, silence, and again a changing of the subject.

"Yeah but what really galls me," he continued, "is that a bunch of these schools are just trying to honor Native Americans. They're just trying to pay respect to the spirit of the Indians. It's like nothing we can do is ever enough for those people."

Aside from how calling indigenous folks "those people" jibes with a true desire to honor them (let alone his claim to be one at some remove), this particular nugget-offered by far more than just one drunk guy at a Nashville bar-has always struck me as especially vile.

If schools wanted to honor first nations people, after all, they could do it in any number of more meaningful ways. They could establish Native American studies programs and fund them adequately. They could step up their recruitment of Indian students, staff and faculty, rather than retreating from such efforts in the face of misplaced backlash to affirmative action. They could strip the names off of buildings on their campuses that pay tribute to those who participated in the butchering of Native peoples. Here in Nashville that process could begin by renaming, without delay, any building named after Andrew Jackson, of which there are several.

Perhaps most importantly, we could begin by telling the truth about what was done to the indigenous of this land, rather than trying to paper over that truth, minimize the horror, and, once again, change the subject. You know the kind of people I'm speaking of: the ones who refuse to label the elimination of over ninety-five percent of the native peoples of the Americas "genocide."

Folks like conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, who, in a debate with me at Western Washington University in May, insisted that terming the process genocide was absurd. It was, to him, merely an emotional appeal on my part, devoid of content; calculated to gain applause at the expense of honesty. To Dinesh, genocide was an inappropriate term because most of the Indians who perished died from diseases, not warfare waged by whites.

That Dinesh has never read the definition of genocide, readily available in the United Nation's 1948 Genocide Convention, certainly was no surprise. But had he done so, he would have seen that in order to qualify as genocide, one does not have to directly kill anyone per se. Rather, genocide describes any of the following acts, committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the group's destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring the children of the group to another.

In fact, each of these categories has been met in the case of American Indians. And had it not been for conquest, those diseases to which Indians had no resistance-and which colonists praised as the "work of God," clearing the land for them-wouldn't have ravaged the native populations as they did. To imply that such deaths were merely accidental or incidental would be like saying the Nazis bore no responsibility for the 1.6 million or so Jews who died of disease and starvation in the camps, rather than having been gassed or shot. But try saying that at your local neighborhood synagogue and see how far you get-with good reason.

Once again I suggested that if Indians thought mascots were a form of flattery and tribute, then surely they would vote that way in an Indian-only plebiscite. So, I repeated, why not just let them vote on it, and keep out of their way? After all, that would be honoring them too: trusting the wisdom of Indian peoples to prevail, one way or the other.

"But this is America," he shot back. "And I've got a right to my opinion too! I shouldn't be disallowed from having my say on it, just because I'm white. That's reverse discrimination."

Ah yes, reverse discrimination. Not being able to turn other people into a cartoon for your own enjoyment is now to be seen as a form of oppression. One wonders, indeed, how white folks can stand such a burden placed upon our shoulders.

Just as I was about to respond, he pulled out some money to pay his bar tab. And as he slapped down his bills upon the bar-twenties as it turns out-and I had the occasion to glance down, my eyes fixing on the eternal gaze of this nation's pre-eminent Indian killer, I wondered out loud, why it is that white folks get more upset about taking offensive Indian imagery down, than we do about the normalization of white male imagery like that on this particular greenback. Why do we not find that image, on one of our most common monetary denominations enraging: an image that we're supposed to revere; a man we're supposed to praise; a "hero" we're supposed to view as a national role model of sorts.

In other words, why do we allow ourselves, as white men, to be turned into a caricature too-into a stereotype?

I'd like to think that most white guys are better than Andrew Jackson.

I'd like to. But on days like this, I just don't know.

Tim Wise is the author of two new books: White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull Press, 2005), and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He can be reached at: timjwise@msn.com


http://www.counterpunch.org/wise08102005.html

[BeTheReds]

I'd like to let them vote about it. That would be great. However there would probably be a lot of people who simply claim to be native american without having much connection to native american-ness. Afterall whatever you put on your census is what you are, and I guarentee that there are non-indians writing that they are indians.

[haplesshobo]

Originally Posted by nola

"So," I said, "How about we just let Indian folks vote on it. But just Indians, and just those who are either tribally enrolled or otherwise clearly identified and active in Native communities, culture or politics? In other words, let's stay out of it, you and me, and let those who are directly affected make the call."

Oh, I agree that we should let NA determine this issue. But, that's really dishonest for him to say that only NA who are active in community, culture, or politics should decide this matter. What he's doing is carefully selecting the participants to the very activists who are the ones opposed to nickname even though that may not reflect the larger NA opinion. Its kind of like saying that an asian issue should be determined only by participants on yellow world, and that the opinion found here might not necessairly match the larger asian community. He's doing this cause two national polls found that NA community at large didn't have a problem with these issuses. Or, that OK, with a large NA population, you'll find plenty of NA mascots. Why is he so afraid to simply let those who identify themselves as NA to determine whether or not they find it offensive?

Originally Posted by nola

Of course, the comparison was utterly unconvincing. To begin with, to be called a fighter is not the same as to be called, or typified visually as a "savage." Fighting Irishmen, meanwhile, got to be viewed as perfect candidates for the Union Army, or for your local police force.

well, we really should stop drinking, be it at the local brewpub, or anywhere else. To be Irish American is to be a member of the largest white ethnic group in the nation, and one of the most accepted and celebrated at that. It wasn't always that way, to be sure, but it is now.

Actually, only of the names banned used 'savage'. Some of the other ones were more innocous like simply the name of a tribe. If we have problems with that, should we also get rid of Miami, Illinois, etc.. which are also named after NA tribes.

And, he also needs to do some further research into Fighting Irish. It was chosen in the early 1900s, when that term was still used as a slur and it was co-opted by the irish americans themselves.

He decides to treat the whole fighting sterotype as if its a positive sterotype for irish americans, but he's really pushing his luck here. I always thought the one of the underlying things about the Fighting Irish was drunkness and how they get so liquored up, they start to fight.

Originally Posted by nola

Perhaps most importantly, we could begin by telling the truth about what was done to the indigenous of this land, rather than trying to paper over that truth, minimize the horror, and, once again, change the subject. You know the kind of people I'm speaking of: the ones who refuse to label the elimination of over ninety-five percent of the native peoples of the Americas "genocide."

Folks like conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, who, in a debate with me at Western Washington University in May, insisted that terming the process genocide was absurd. It was, to him, merely an emotional appeal on my part, devoid of content; calculated to gain applause at the expense of honesty. To Dinesh, genocide was an inappropriate term because most of the Indians who perished died from diseases, not warfare waged by whites.

That Dinesh has never read the definition of genocide, readily available in the United Nation's 1948 Genocide Convention, certainly was no surprise. But had he done so, he would have seen that in order to qualify as genocide, one does not have to directly kill anyone per se. Rather, genocide describes any of the following acts, committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the group's destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring the children of the group to another.

In fact, each of these categories has been met in the case of American Indians. And had it not been for conquest, those diseases to which Indians had no resistance-and which colonists praised as the "work of God," clearing the land for them-wouldn't have ravaged the native populations as they did. To imply that such deaths were merely accidental or incidental would be like saying the Nazis bore no responsibility for the 1.6 million or so Jews who died of disease and starvation in the camps, rather than having been gassed or shot. But try saying that at your local neighborhood synagogue and see how far you get-with good reason.

And, this is the part where its pretty clear the guy is a idiot and has no idea what he's talking about.

For whatever reason, he's bringing up the genoicide card and using the UN defintion.

However, if you actually read it, its pretty obvious the guy has no idea what he's talking about: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/gncnvntn.htm

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"

He actually uses a definition which disproves his argument! NA were wiped off primairly due to diseases, yet nobody at that time knew that was going to occur so its not really intent. Read Jared Diamond's book which explains why NA were wiped out, but the europeans weren't by NA diseases although NA did give them syphillis. The largest NA civilization in what is now america was wiped out by diseases before colonists even had a chance to conquer it. When they first saw it, all they were large mounds and all the NA were already dead.

[nola]

Totem or taboo?
After decades of controversy, the National Collegiate Athletic Association is considering a total ban on sports teams’ use of Native American nicknames and mascots. How did these names come to be considered objectionable?
7/22/2005

How did Indian nicknames arise?
It started back in the 1920s, with the convergence of two social trends. The final and complete subjugation of Native American peoples around the turn of the century had led, predictably, to a wave of nostalgia for the noble simplicity of their way of life. People flocked to “Wild West” shows featuring lasso-twirling cowboys with taciturn Indian sidekicks—direct precursors of the Lone Ranger and Tonto. At about the same time, colleges—once attended primarily by a small, aristocratic elite—began to attract ambitious students from the middle-class masses. Between 1917 and 1937, U.S. college enrollment tripled. For the wealth of new colleges looking for names for their sports teams, as well as established colleges looking to expand their regional fan bases, the values of the fierce yet honorable Indian warrior seemed a perfect fit.

How many colleges adopted Indian nicknames?
Eventually, more than 100. Most went the generic route, calling themselves the Redskins, Redmen, Warriors, Chiefs, Indians, or Savages, while other colleges adopted the names of local tribes, such as the Seminoles, Hurons, Chippewas, and Fighting Illini. High schools followed the colleges’ lead: There are currently about 2,500 whose sports teams have a Native American theme. Pro teams also went native: the Boston (later Milwaukee and Atlanta) Braves, the Cleveland Indians, the Golden State Warriors, the Kansas City Chiefs, and the Washington Redskins. Many of these teams expanded on their native themes by adopting colorful mascots, such as the Atlanta Braves’ “Chief Nokahoma,” who would emerge from a teepee behind the outfield fence to do a war dance every time a Brave hit a home run.

How did Native Americans react?
They said very little about it for decades. But in the late 1960s, the American Indian Movement began challenging the use of Indian names and mascots. “Redskins” and “Savages,” activists said, were racial slurs that reduced a complex culture to a stereotype of bloodthirsty warriors—no different, really, from calling a team the “Darkies,” “Coolies,” or “Dagos.” The activists—and, over time, a growing number of pale-skinned sympathizers—also pointed out that ethnic-themed mascots such as the Michigan State Spartans or the Minnesota Vikings are modeled after cultures that no longer exist. The use of Indians as mascots thus sends the same message about Native American culture—that it is foreign, quaint, and, worst of all, over.

How did colleges respond?
At first, by insisting that their teams’ nicknames were a tribute to—not an exploitation of—Native American culture. “No athletic team chooses a name or mascot in order to bring contempt or disrepute on itself,” said Charles Barnes, who heads a group of alumni supporters of the Florida State Seminoles. “We selected the triumphant human spirit as our symbol. That unconquered spirit is perfectly characterized in the Seminole tribe of Florida.”

Is that accurate?
It sounds nice, but no. At nearly every college, the nuance and diversity of actual Native American culture has been generally ignored in favor of the whooping, tomahawk-chopping, face-painted cliché. Real Seminole Indians who attend Florida State football games, says Jason Edward Black in American Indian Quarterly, find themselves bewildered by unfamiliar “war chants, tomahawks, crooked noses, smoke signals, teepees, leather-fringed pants, and Western movie-style war drums”&3151;none of which have any basis in historical fact.

Have any colleges relented?
Many. In recent years, with students and faculty applying strong pressure, dozens of colleges have reluctantly decided their nicknames were indefensible. The St. John’s University Redmen, for example, became the Redstorm. Multiple teams of Redskins have rebranded themselves Redhawks. Kentucky’s Cumberland College exchanged Indians for Patriots. But 28 universities are holding out, including such heavyweights as the Florida State Seminoles and the Illinois Fighting Illini. Most of them are trying to answer the critics by making their portrayals of Native Americans and individual tribes more accurate and culturally sensitive. Central Michigan University—home of the Chippewas—has taken the spear tips and Indian head off its football helmets, banned fans from doing the tomahawk chop, and now even requires its student-athletes to tour a Native American museum and give sports clinics at tribal high schools.

Is this tactic working?
Not very well. Authenticity brings its own problems. At the University of Illinois, for example, experts have been enlisted to ensure the historical accuracy of the school mascot, the flaming-spear-waving Chief Illinewek. The Chief’s buckskin jacket and halftime dance moves have been brought into accordance with the Illini tribe’s customs. But the Illini have not been appeased. The eagle feather in Chief Illiniwek’s headdress is a sacred Indian symbol, and some are understandably upset to see it reproduced on ashtrays, shot glasses, and even University of Illinois toilet paper. As Clem Iron Wing, a member of the Illini tribe, put it: “We would like to know how many persons of faith would like their religious symbols used to wipe human excrement?”

So why not just change nicknames?
Money is at stake. Team logos and identities have, in many cases, become powerful brands in their own right, generating millions in merchandising revenues every year. Colleges are also under tremendous pressure from their alumni, who tend to be deeply attached to the symbols of their college years. When a University of North Dakota alumnus heard the school was dropping its “Fighting Sioux” nickname, he threatened to withdraw his offer of a $100 million hockey arena. Still, change may be inevitable. After reviewing reports from each of the 30 colleges still with Indian-themed sports teams, the NCAA is due to make a ruling at the end of August.

What is a redskin?
The word “redskin” is often thought of as the Indian N-word, but most historians say the term actually has nothing to do with skin color. Some believe “redskin” originated as a reference to the bloody scalps Indian warriors used to take as souvenirs from their victims; others say it comes from the Plains Indian custom of smearing warriors in red river mud before riding into battle. Whatever its original meaning, the NFL’s Washington Redskins are fighting hard to keep the name, insisting that it’s no racial slur. The Redskins claim they were named in honor of their original coach, “Lone Star” Dietz, a supposed Oglala Sioux who in the 1930s prowled the sidelines in an eagle feather headdress, deerskin jacket, and buckskin moccasins. But Indian activists aren’t appeased. Dietz, they say, was a fraud, inventing his Indian background as a cynical marketing tool.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.asp?id=1037

[nonamerasian]

Originally Posted by haplesshobo

And, this is the part where its pretty clear the guy is a idiot and has no idea what he's talking about.

For whatever reason, he's bringing up the genoicide card and using the UN defintion.

However, if you actually read it, its pretty obvious the guy has no idea what he's talking about: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/gncnvntn.htm

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"

He actually uses a definition which disproves his argument! NA were wiped off primairly due to diseases, yet nobody at that time knew that was going to occur so its not really intent. Read Jared Diamond's book which explains why NA were wiped out, but the europeans weren't by NA diseases although NA did give them syphillis. The largest NA civilization in what is now america was wiped out by diseases before colonists even had a chance to conquer it. When they first saw it, all they were large mounds and all the NA were already dead.

How wrong is he?

There were the forced sterilizations of American Indian women.

American Indians have been punished for taking part in cultural practices. For speaking their languages.

Families were split and children were removed to be "civilized."

There were episodes of the deliberate spread of diseases.

Tribes were relocated to blighted areas unable to sustain them.

And there were massacres.

[haplesshobo]

NCCA Lifts Ban

The NCAA will allow Florida State to use its Seminoles nickname in postseason play, removing the school from a list of colleges with Native American nicknames that were restricted by an NCAA decision this month.

The NCAA said it was recognizing the relationship Florida State has long enjoyed with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, which assists the university with its pageantry and celebration of its culture and supports the school's use of its name.

The staff review committee noted the unique relationship between the university and the Seminole Tribe of Florida as a significant factor," NCAA senior vice president Bernard Franklin said in a statement Tuesday. "The decision of a namesake sovereign tribe, regarding when and how its name and imagery can be used, must be respected even when others may not agree."

Florida State President T.K. Wetherell had threatened to sue the NCAA immediately after its Aug. 5 announcement that the school's highly visible nickname, Seminoles, was defined as "hostile and abusive" by a committee.

The NCAA said it would handle reviews from other schools on a case-by-case basis.

Under the NCAA restrictions, teams with Native American nicknames would not be able to display them on uniforms or have their mascots perform in postseason tournaments.

[nola]

How was he wrong? The definition of genocide according to the UN below and, of course, Dinesh D'souza:

Perhaps most importantly, we could begin by telling the truth about what was done to the indigenous of this land, rather than trying to paper over that truth, minimize the horror, and, once again, change the subject. You know the kind of people I'm speaking of: the ones who refuse to label the elimination of over ninety-five percent of the native peoples of the Americas "genocide."

Folks like conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, who, in a debate with me at Western Washington University in May, insisted that terming the process genocide was absurd. It was, to him, merely an emotional appeal on my part, devoid of content; calculated to gain applause at the expense of honesty. To Dinesh, genocide was an inappropriate term because most of the Indians who perished died from diseases, not warfare waged by whites.

That Dinesh has never read the definition of genocide, readily available in the United Nation's 1948 Genocide Convention, certainly was no surprise. But had he done so, he would have seen that in order to qualify as genocide, one does not have to directly kill anyone per se. Rather, genocide describes any of the following acts, committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the group's destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring the children of the group to another.

In fact, each of these categories has been met in the case of American Indians. And had it not been for conquest, those diseases to which Indians had no resistance-and which colonists praised as the "work of God," clearing the land for them-wouldn't have ravaged the native populations as they did. To imply that such deaths were merely accidental or incidental would be like saying the Nazis bore no responsibility for the 1.6 million or so Jews who died of disease and starvation in the camps, rather than having been gassed or shot. But try saying that at your local neighborhood synagogue and see how far you get-with good reason.

[haplesshobo]

Originally Posted by nonamerasian

How wrong is he?

I just found it funny that he attacks Denesh over the the definition of genoicde and then uses the UN def. to define genoicde which disproves the very definition he's trying to use. He states that Denesh must have never read the UN def, but then its pretty clear that he hasn't read it carefully himself. You could argue that the UN def. is incomplete and needs to be changed, but why use that to prove your argument when it disproves the very argument you're trying to make? Why not use another source with a different definition? How can I take this guy's arguments seriously when he does something as stupid as that?

Originally Posted by nonamerasian

American Indians have been punished for taking part in cultural practices. For speaking their languages.

Families were split and children were removed to be "civilized."

Look, nobody denies that some horrible shit happened to NA in this country, but that doesn't mean it was necessairly genoicide,
with the defintion of genocide he was using.

This guy is the one who uses the UN's definition of genoicde to prove his point, and that definition does not include the concept of cultural cleansing of a culture.

Originally Posted by nonamerasian

There were episodes of the deliberate spread of diseases.

This guy must have no idea about how diseases. His point is that the NA were killed off by diseases because of the european conquests. But, NA would have been killed off by any contact with the europeans, irregardless of the intentions of the europeans. Look at the black plague or other diseases from asia that wiped off large numbers of europeans. No conquests were behind those diseases, but trade and simple contact. Even if Europeans came here to help the NA, NA would have been killed off by contact.

In what is now USA, I don't think there's evidence of repeated, or mulitple dileberate acts of infection. There's no evidence that the Spanish tried to dilebrately infect indigenous tribes in america. There's only been one documented case, by the British in 1763 at Fort Pitt. I can only think of another alleged incident suggested by the controversial professor Ward Churchill (the one who's been accused of supporting 9/11) concerning the Mandan Indians in 1837. However, Churchill's cited sources do not support this claim. And, during that time period, the US gov. had implemented a program for small pox vaccinations for indians during the period of the alleged Mandan incident so that would seem counterproductive. Why try to infect them with small pox after you've innoculated them against it?

Originally Posted by nonamerasian

There were the forced sterilizations of American Indian women.
And there were massacres

Again, some bad shit has happened to NA. But, there were other groups targeted for forced sterilization in america as well. Do we then make the claim that there was a genoicide against those groups as well?

What happened were war crimes or crimes against humanity. But, you can't pick out a few war crimes, and then try to argue that genocide occured. It would be like americans accusing the british of genocide for the boston massacre.

This guy is more or less blaming the 95% reduction in NA population on genocide. The logical error I've seen made by others is that there were all these NA, now there isn't, so they must have been 'killed' by europeans. However, the vast majority of the numbers wiped out were due to disease from small pox, measles, influenxa, etc.. which the indigenous tribes had no immunity to. This is widely accepted by most scholars, and some have suggested that it was up to 80% of deaths were due to diseases. The Mound Builders of the lower Missiplly valley which had one of the most advanced civ. in the united states and which could have supported a large population had already been wiped out from disease before the first white settler ever saw it.

Killing and genocide is a crime of intent, and the Europeans had little understanding of how their germs were going to devastate the indigenous tribes. A tragedy, yes. But, to call these deaths 'killings' or genocide seems irresponsible. It would be like holding the indigneous tribes responsible for all the cases of syphyllis in Europe, and suggesting that the indigenous tribes intended to do that.

[nola]

...Graduate race professor (he's Jewish) said the most successful genocide in history was of NAs in the United States...95% of NAs were exterminated... 80% of Jews were exterminated during the Holocaust...

[DragonKnight]

"haplesshobo...doesn't care...about Native American peoples..."

[haplesshobo]

Originally Posted by DragonKnight

"haplesshobo...doesn't care...about Native American peoples..."

So, instead of addressing my argument whether or not genocide has to premediated, you take a cheap shot about something you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm saying that we should listein to NA about whether or not they are actually offended by this issue. In cases where NA tribes have come out and say that they don't have a problem, then I say we shouldn't push our own agenda onto them.

[DragonKnight]

Originally Posted by haplesshobo

So, instead of addressing my argument whether or not genocide has to premediated, you take a cheap shot about something you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm saying that we should listein to NA about whether or not they are actually offended by this issue. In cases where NA tribes have come out and say that they don't have a problem, then I say we shouldn't push our own agenda onto them.

Google Search

Oh c'mon, should I even mentioned the television programs, news reports of various NA speaking passionately on how much it sucked being made into a 'mascot', a footstool in so-called 'American history'? Get out more, read more...you really are a haplesshobo. Har, har!

...now that's a cheap shot btw.

[hooligan]

Heck, if you all think having a name like Redskins is ok for sake of historical argument. We MUST support a team called the Fighting Yellowskins!

Fuck yeah, it'll be a soccer team, or maybe a greek wrestling team.

[DragonKnight]

Originally Posted by hooligan

Heck, if you all think having a name like Redskins is ok for sake of historical argument. We MUST support a team called the Fighting Yellowskins!

Fuck yeah, it'll be a soccer team, or maybe a greek wrestling team.

I was thinking Genocidal-Happy Euro-Mutts would be a better team name.

[hooligan]

Originally Posted by DragonKnight

I was thinking Genocidal-Happy Euro-Mutts would be a better team name.

Haha, nice.