U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

[Darth Richard II]

14 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Historic in the "brazenness" sense.  

Ahhhh. Yeah.

[Yukle]

24 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Historically, given their treatment by the Russians and later US arrivals, the natives and Eskimos have cause for their dislike.  However, they were always equally unfriendly towards each other.  Area I'm in saw repeated battles - attempted mini-genocides between Eskimo's, Aleuts, and Athabaskan tribes - sometimes with casualties in the lower four digit range (pretty much entire towns).  That infighting actually contributed substantially towards the Russian takeover. 

Also worth keeping in mind (and more relevant to the thread).

Alaska is very much a red state - overall.  However, what with districting and all, the democratic party is pretty potent   A major reason for democratic party success is 'votes from the bush' - aka the various isolated native and Eskimo villages.  That said, these villages are regarded by outsiders as...'welfare camps,' filled with drugs, crime, and alcohol - with some justification.  Little legitimate economic activity. So...is this lifestyle worth preserving? 

Heck...https://www.adn.com/features/alaska-news/crime-courts/2018/06/08/from-criminal-to-cop-and-back-again-in-alaskas-most-vulnerable-villages/

This is a fairly colonialist view. It's common to read a history source and then to come to a conclusion that since a particular civilisation was flawed, it therefore justifies the elimination of its culture.

The counter-point is to say that America's majority culture is extremely broken. Its inequality is enormous, its poverty rate is 1/5 and its Rust Belt isn't just an expression - it's a largely impoverished area. Why wouldn't you therefore also conclude that since large swathes of America aren't producing anything, they aren't preserving?

There's nothing new in human societies being imperfect, and there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. The problem is therefore coming to a conclusion that the conqueror's lifestyle is superior to the conquered. Indigenous Alaskans do not live in welfare camps, for one thing, but the assertion that if there are any problems with the communities they live in makes those communities somehow not worth keeping contains within it an assumption of cultural superiority.

Never at any point would it cross the mind of an average American that since their culture contains many broken aspects, they should therefore surrender it and submit; simply assimilating entirely into whatever, for example, New York tells them to do. They would instead want whatever fundamental causes that create their plight addressed. This is a compassionate and reasonable expectation. It is not, therefore, reasonable to expect an ethnic minority to make such a submission of their culture.

[ThinkerX]

38 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

I'd say that's up to them.

And if your counter argument is not on my dime, I'd be saddened that you couldn't even afford to give that much in reparation. 

Given the prevalence of alcoholism, crime, and flight from the villages and (partial) dissolution into the broader populace,* my assessment is that left unchecked, the current native/Eskimo cultures are in dire danger of collapse.  The past is dead.

*I knew several half natives growing up; one, deceased about 22 years now was one of my closest friends.                              

[JGP]

Maybe. But I think for many who aren't dead, the past is pain.

I know we're kind of diverging off topic here, but indigenous people more than most others have an actual right to their pain. I've often wondered what North America might be like, now, if they'd had the guns, germs and steel rather than the 'settlers.' But we'll never know.

Neither will they.

Still. Self determination, wherever that leads... It's up to them. That's what I think anyway.

[ThinkerX]

33 minutes ago, Yukle said:

This is a fairly colonialist view. It's common to read a history source and then to come to a conclusion that since a particular civilisation was flawed, it therefore justifies the elimination of its culture.

Problem here, though is the Aleuts, Athabaskans, and Eskimos were actively engaged in genocidal campaigns against each other.  Each viewed the others as intolerable.  They'd made your assumption about each other BEFORE the Russians entered the area, and the Russians exploited said divisions to put themselves in power.  The Russian presence was largely commercial - they were after seal pelts.  Except where they had local outposts, they didn't bother much with the local villages - with one broad exception: they took hostages from each tribe to Kodiak Island, one of their major bases.  As long as the natives brought in seal pelts, the hostages were...not abused overly much and the Russians stayed out of the villages. 

 

The US arrivals were so obsessed with gold they barely noticed the natives. 

 

There's nothing new in human societies being imperfect, and there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. The problem is therefore coming to a conclusion that the conqueror's lifestyle is superior to the conquered. Indigenous Alaskans do not live in welfare camps, for one thing, but the assertion that if there are any problems with the communities they live in makes those communities somehow not worth keeping contains within it an assumption of cultural superiority



Currently, flat out: the bush villages require external (government) support to survive.  Again, legitimate economic activity is almost non-existent.  The current situation, left unchecked, will result in demographic disaster. 

 

You mentioned reparations?  North Slope Borough (Eskimo) is effectively an oil company.  Other native groups hold vast tracts of land, mostly vacant. 

 

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

A fair interpretation.  And I have a pile of similar anecdotes.

But, the question I was pondering after today's encounter was this:

 

Yes, the natives and Eskimos made their disdain for whites (and pretty much everybody else)  pretty clear.  But, were M and Ex-Pat wrong (racist) to be a bit peeved?

 

Historically, given their treatment by the Russians and later US arrivals, the natives and Eskimos have cause for their dislike.  However, they were always equally unfriendly towards each other.  Area I'm in saw repeated battles - attempted mini-genocides between Eskimo's, Aleuts, and Athabaskan tribes - sometimes with casualties in the lower four digit range (pretty much entire towns).  That infighting actually contributed substantially towards the Russian takeover. 

 

Also worth keeping in mind (and more relevant to the thread).

 

Alaska is very much a red state - overall.  However, what with districting and all, the democratic party is pretty potent   A major reason for democratic party success is 'votes from the bush' - aka the various isolated native and Eskimo villages.  That said, these villages are regarded by outsiders as...'welfare camps,' filled with drugs, crime, and alcohol - with some justification.  Little legitimate economic activity. So...is this lifestyle worth preserving? 

 

Heck...https://www.adn.com/features/alaska-news/crime-courts/2018/06/08/from-criminal-to-cop-and-back-again-in-alaskas-most-vulnerable-villages/

 

 

 

Never been up your way, but spent quite a bit of time in native communities, longest up at a Moose Factory on James’ Bay, so I assume there’s a bit of crossover. Anyways, this take isn’t new, but it’s really fucking depressing that a people can destroy 7/8ths of a cultures way of life and then, years later, stand in judgment on how useless that 1/8th appears to be from the other perspective. Yeah, you don’t get it. Neither do I really. But I don’t expect to, nor do I think that the fault in what I don’t get is theirs.

Few peoples in history have been as collectively fucked over as native Americans, and when their little patches of the great wide open leave them without a foot in either world, I think maybe less condescension and more either empathy or admission of limitations is in order. Or, you know, write off an entire way of life as ‘over’ and express mild frustration that they don’t get it, like a boss. Also, the ‘I have black friends’ was a nice touch.

[Seli]

4 hours ago, Capseis said:

So, no one is going to address @Chaircat Meow‘s post?  That seems...cowardly.  You guys have always enjoyed the strength of numbers, and have never shied away from claiming intellectual and moral superiority; so why not address the post?

It is the basic 'it is not racist just protecting culture' argumentation that tends to boil down to racism in the end.

But more importantly it is utterly irrelevant for a nation built on immigration such as the US. One that has centuries of people claiming the current crop of immigrants is horrible and will destroy the country.

[Bonnot OG]

Trump: "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever."

Conservatives: "Haha. Did you see those snowflakes flip out?"

Trump: "Shithole countries"

Conservatives: "Oh man did you watch the libt*ards lose their shit?"

Trump: "Get that son of a bitch off the field!" 

Conservatives: "Did you see the liberals loose it?"

Trump: "Grab em by the pussy."

Conservatives: "Pffft. Awww did de wocker woom tawk twigger you wittle feministas."

Trump: "Crazy Joe Biden" "Rapists" "Crooked Hillary" "Shady James Comey" "Pocahontas" "No talent news." "You should see this guy. [mocks Kovaleski] "Fake news." "Fake news" "Fake News."

Conservatives: "You know we wouldn't even love him that much if he didn't bother you so very much. Why don't you go back to your safe spaces and cry about it."

Robert DeNiro: Fuck Trump.

Conservatives and moderates (clutching pearls): *GASP* OMG, how disgusting! What happened to the discourse in this country in?

 

GOP / Republicans: the party of thin skinned bigoted hypocrites that constantly deflect and project. 

[DMC]

15 hours ago, كالدب said:

That assumes that the goal is to change their mind. 

Given that 27% of the US population (roughly) voted for Trump, whereas 40% of the population that could didn't vote at all, it's far more productive to go after that 40%. And one way to do that is to show them that the people who are in office? Are racists. 

This is a much more difficult assumption than how it's posed.  Persuading non-voters to vote is at least as hard as persuading swing voters to vote Dem.

12 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

Is this Simultaneously Change Your Username and Avatar Week or something? Da fuck. 

Yes.  That's exactly what it is.

11 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

America was built in systematic Racism based on White Supremacy is historical accurate and not ideological drivel. Your semantics statisfied?

Sure was!  As opposed to all those European or any white-dominated nations that weren't built on racism at all.

11 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

To me it's insane that you're not automatically registered on the day you're old enough to vote. But hey, I want everyone to vote, because I know my side will almost always win. If you don't want people to vote because you're afraid of losing, you're playing the wrong game. 

Yeah same-day registration is one of the most important things I continue to push for.  Alternatively, simple automatic registration - like the rest of the developed world - would be nice.  Turnout looks pretty similar to the rest of the world once you control for registered voters.

8 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Sorry, how is Amazon liberal? I’m not even saying it’s conservative...though it’s lobby hires are pretty heavily shared with companies like Exxon...but how have you gone about deciding it’s liberal?

Yeah I definitely don't get how Amazon is considered liberal, at all.

[Fragile Bird]

But...but...but....the Washington Post!

[Errant Bard]

45 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

Sure was!  As opposed to all those European or any white-dominated nations that weren't built on racism at all.
 

Huh, just for clarity, so, you mean that since other countries had racism ingrained in their culture at one point or another in their history, that makes widespread racism in your own country ok? Or not worth looking at?

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

Huh, just for clarity, so, you mean that since other countries had racism ingrained in their culture at one point or another in their history, that makes widespread racism in your own country ok? Or not worth looking at?

No, it's saying those that critique the US for its systemic racism should look in their own back yard.  And that's not just a historical point, but rather a warning about the consistent rise of far-right parties in Europe over the past 20 years.

[The Anti-Targ]

Isn't Eskimo racist, and the correct name Inuit?

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Isn't Eskimo racist, and the correct name Inuit?

I was gonna bring that up, but didn't because I've never met a Native Alaskan and didn't want to apply my understanding of Canadian Inuit peoples to them uninformed.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 minute ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

I was gonna bring that up, but didn't because I've never met a Native Alaskan and didn't want to apply my understanding of Canadian Inuit peoples to them uninformed.

I had a Canadian colleague who worked in Nunavut with Inuit communities. That's what she told me, and I had no reason to think she was misleading me.

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 hour ago, DMBouazizi said:

No, it's saying those that critique the US for its systemic racism should look in their own back yard.  And that's not just a historical point, but rather a warning about the consistent rise of far-right parties in Europe over the past 20 years.

Well, I am an American so it is my backyard.

I am in agreement that Europeans come off they do not have Racist issues when it can very much depends where an individual comes from. France comes to mine for when many Black American (I am thinking mainly 1920s-50s) were able to travel and went there they had a very positive experience, and some moved there (most famous Josephina Baker) Yet there is a lot issues when African immigrant from Algiers and their (former) colonies came over. 

The U.S had a far higher percentage of Africans (especially in the South) during its history then Europe every had in theirs and the U.S system formed was by design for them to be a permanent underclass and there is still impact from that today.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, SweetPea said:

Ah, I see. So how much of a logistical problem does it create for people? When can they reregister if their state doesn't have same day registration?

Every state is different, but it doesn’t matter, if there’s no same day registration, you’re screwed if you find out you’re not registered on Election Day.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, DMBouazizi said:

Yeah same-day registration is one of the most important things I continue to push for.  Alternatively, simple automatic registration - like the rest of the developed world - would be nice.  Turnout looks pretty similar to the rest of the world once you control for registered voters.

Yeah I said in a different post yesterday that people should be registered automatically on their 18^th birthday. I also think we should have compulsory voting, so long as there’s a none option, and frankly, if none wins a plurality of the vote, there should be a new election like six weeks later with new candidates. And while we’re at it, can we please shorten the **** out of our election cycles. These long, expensive elections force EOs to constantly be fund raising rather than legislating and governing.  

[Fragile Bird]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Isn't Eskimo racist, and the correct name Inuit?

It’s used in Canada, along with First Nations, not Indians, cuz, you know, just because some idiot European 600 years ago didn’t know where the hell he was does not make them Indians. The actual tribe name is also used. Inuit means ‘the people’ and it’s what they always called themselves.

It puzzles me that such racially charged names are still used in th....wait, what am I saying, oh, right.

[Vin]

26 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Yeah I said in a different post yesterday that people should be registered automatically on their 18^th birthday. I also think we should have compulsory voting, so long as there’s a none option, and frankly, if none wins a plurality of the vote, there should be a new election like six weeks later with new candidates. And while we’re at it, can we please shorten the **** out of our election cycles. These long, expensive elections force EOs to constantly be fund raising rather than legislating and governing.  

While certainly interesting ,the moment you say the word compulsory things usually turn bad . People just don't like it by nature . 

But out of curiosity what would be the punishment for not voting ?