White Supremacy

1679111216

Comments

  • No problem. :)
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    It's not that possession equals right. It's that possession doesn't make right; only resolving the claim of the victim against the perpetrator can do that.

    And whereas possessions can be willed to go to one's descendants (or indeed anybody else), moral claims are, I'm suggesting, not the sort of thing that can be inherited.
    Yes. You're not saying that possession confers a right. You're saying that right is irrelevant. That possession is or ought to be the whole of the law, regardless of right.

    Obviously I disagree as to my knowledge does the rest of the world. I won't argue that point on this thread, as Lamb Chopped has asked us not to, and frankly the degree of confusions and self-contradictions in your post is too long. My point is that you ought not to attribute your view as a premise to anybody else unless they've said they agree with you, given that hardly anybody does agree with you.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    edited September 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    For what it's worth, I have never claimed to know what it means to experience my grandmother's experience, not being a complete asshole.
    I'm not saying you did. I'm trying to explore a very confusing post you made. To me, it would seem that hearing your grandmother's experience would give you a different insight than you seem to have.
    lilbuddha, now I'm confused. What insight does @Lamb Chopped "seem to have"? Given her grandmother's history, what insight did you expect her to have? How are these different, and why is her putative current insight a bad one? How do you know she possesses it in the first place, since she has not said that she does? Has she confided in you? Enquiring minds want to know.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    For what it's worth, I have never claimed to know what it means to experience my grandmother's experience, not being a complete asshole.
    I'm not saying you did. I'm trying to explore a very confusing post you made. To me, it would seem that hearing your grandmother's experience would give you a different insight than you seem to have.
    lilbuddha, now I'm confused. What insight does @Lamb Chopped "seem to have"?
    She asks questions I would not expect her to ask.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    She asks questions I would not expect her to ask.
    What is that supposed to mean, pray?


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    She asks questions I would not expect her to ask.
    What is that supposed to mean, pray?
    It means exactly what I said. If she wants to keep the conversation going, she can. I do not feel the need to go into a speculative debate with a third party.

  • I'm here now, and i don't understand you either. Please explain.
  • I'm here now, and i don't understand you either. Please explain.
    For one, you ask how you should address your Cherokee heritage. I would think that navigating this would be more apparent by now. Both from hearing what your gran and great gran went through contrasted to your experiences growing up white and from seeing what your husband and son go through with their more apparent melanin levels.
    We can go through your post from 20 August, if you wish. Though I have already address question one. We can continue with that or move onto number two.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    maybe we could NOT relitigate the whole handbag thingy again?

    Sorry, LC. You're right - that has even less to do with white supremacy.

    Happy to drop it (having clarified to those who like to tell me what I think and get it wrong) and focus on the topic.
    I was more than half serious with my question about whether I dare admit to my Cherokee ancestry in public, unenrolled as i am.

    Of course you can talk about your Cherokee ancestors and what you know of them and what they mean to you.

    I'm sure you'd do that in a way that says that this genetic link motivates you (as someone who has not been brought up in their culture) to learn more about it.

    But some people would use such a fact arrogantly - "you can't tell me anything about the Cherokee - my ancestors were...".

    And it's always a possibility that those who aren't very good at listening may hear the former and take it as the latter.

    Don't let the possibility of being misunderstood stop you from telling your truth. But be forewarned...

    I think lilbuddha is saying that Cherokee blood doesn't equate to the Cherokee collective experience. Which is of course true. But would be better coming from someone who isn't constantly equating a dark skin with experience of racial prejudice.
    under most circumstances, my son (who is multi-racial) passes for white, but only if the people around him are a) inexperienced, b) ignorant of family or name, and c) white themselves. In practice this means he can never predict whether he can pass for white or not. So what, then do you say to him?

    You say to him that there are a small number of people - white supremacists - with a fear & hate of people with different skin colour. They're nutters, and nothing you can say or do will change them. So avoid them as best you can.

    And that there are a large number of people who from their (first- and second-hand) experience have different expectations of people with different skin colour. But that once they know who he is as a person and the subculture that he comes from, race will be an irrelevance.

    And that confusing the two - pretending that these are different aspects of some underlying thing - is untrue and unhelpful.





  • Russ wrote: »
    under most circumstances, my son (who is multi-racial) passes for white, but only if the people around him are a) inexperienced, b) ignorant of family or name, and c) white themselves. In practice this means he can never predict whether he can pass for white or not. So what, then do you say to him?

    You say to him that there are a small number of people - white supremacists - with a fear & hate of people with different skin colour. They're nutters, and nothing you can say or do will change them. So avoid them as best you can.

    And that there are a large number of people who from their (first- and second-hand) experience have different expectations of people with different skin colour. But that once they know who he is as a person and the subculture that he comes from, race will be an irrelevance.

    Isn't "second-hand experience" rumor and prejudice? (i.e. something that's not really "experience" in the way the term is usually understood.) I'm also pretty sure that blaming non-white people for white people's prejudice against them is counterproductive. As is expecting non-white people to have the full-time job of justifying their lives to white people, complete with the understanding that if a white person knows you and still "ha[ s ] different expectations of people with different skin colour" it's just because their non-white acquaintance has a sub-par personality and hasn't been convincing enough.
  • Russ wrote: »
    having clarified to those who like to tell me what I think and get it wrong
    Ummm...if you're going to complain about me telling people what you think, shouldn't you perhaps refrain from telling people what they do or don't like doing?
    In fact, aren't you perhaps guilty of double standards here? How often do you post without telling the other person what they think?
    Also, I'm not sure you have clarified your opinion. You tried on one line, about innocence until proven guilty, and then you tried another line, about the injustice of theft being an aspect of the relationship between the two original parties rather than being anything to do with the ownership of the property - and then you concluded that once either of the original parties is out of the picture none of that matters: the only thing that can be inherited, or that matters, is who is in possession. Which is what I said, yes?

    So why your complaint?

    Let's see how your principles apply when we swap round the supposed political sides.

    Imagine a group of terrorists from the indigenous population, Irish, Poles, Aboriginal, North American, whatever, decide to reclaim land from the settler population. They go and kill the present owners, or just extort the title deeds, and distribute the title deeds to their family members who otherwise have no direct involvement.
    According to you that ought to be an entirely lawful redistribution of property. If they leave the former owners alive, then the original terrorists owe the former owners compensation, but as the original terrorists have passed the land on they can't pay the compensation so that's an end of that. Whereas if they've killed the former owners, they're guilty of murder and can be punished for that, but they do not owe the heirs of the former owners anything at all.
    That's your position, yes? Once the fate of the terrorists and the individuals they terrorised is out of the picture, the terrorists' families, being innocent (and being treated as innocent until proven guilty), have full legal entitlement to the land that they now possess?

  • Lilbuddha,

    Wait a minute. You're doing the shuffle again. Please. Stop. It. Now. and just answer one question at a time, will you? Instead of avoiding the ones where you think you've painted yourself into a corner.

    THIS immediately below is the exchange I would like you to explain:

    For what it's worth, I have never claimed to know what it means to experience my grandmother's experience, not being a complete asshole.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I'm not saying you did. I'm trying to explore a very confusing post you made. To me, it would seem that hearing your grandmother's experience would give you a different insight than you seem to have.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha, now I'm confused. What insight does @Lamb Chopped "seem to have"? Given her grandmother's history, what insight did you expect her to have? How are these different, and why is her putative current insight a bad one? How do you know she possesses it in the first place, since she has not said that she does? Has she confided in you? Enquiring minds want to know.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    She asks questions I would not expect her to ask.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    What is that supposed to mean, pray?
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It means exactly what I said. If she wants to keep the conversation going, she can. I do not feel the need to go into a speculative debate with a third party.
    I'm here now, and i don't understand you either. Please explain.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    For one, you ask how you should address your Cherokee heritage. I would think that navigating this would be more apparent by now. Both from hearing what your gran and great gran went through contrasted to your experiences growing up white and from seeing what your husband and son go through with their more apparent melanin levels.

    So, to summarize:

    I asked a series of questions about how I can, should, and ought to deal with the fact of my Cherokee ancestry in modern society given the firestorm of responses surrounding Warren's apparently transgressive behavior in a very similar case.
    You respond by saying "To me, it would seem that hearing your grandmother's experience would give you a different insight than you seem to have. ... She [that is, me] asks questions I would not expect her to ask. ... I would think that navigating this would be more apparent by now."

    In short, I'm doing it wrong.

    I am navigating my ancestral Cherokee heritage wrong.

    And you know HOW I am navigating it wrong--you know the right insights I should have, and don't--you know why the questions I am asking are the wrong ones--you know why I am failing the test.

    Fine.

    Rossweisse asks you to explain.

    You refuse because she is not I.

    I show up and ask you to explain.

    You refuse to tell ME what the hell I am doing wrong with my heritage.

    Now is this fair? Is this just? Is this any way to treat a human being who comes to you and asks for education? Which I was honestly doing in that great whacking post that started all this, because I have no more desire to be crucified for stepping on modern sensibilities than anybody else. But neither have I any desire to give up a heritage I am proud of.

    So in short, ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME WHAT I'M GETTING WRONG? Or are you just going to sit there and take potshots from the peanut gallery?




  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Lilbuddha,

    Wait a minute. You're doing the shuffle again.
    WTF? Your post that began this was an explosion. I am trying to deal with this on issue at a time because multiple in the same thread just tends to get confused.
    Please. Stop. It. Now. and just answer one question at a time, will you? Instead of avoiding the ones where you think you've painted yourself into a corner.
    Fuck me for trying to be polite.
    I've not said shit about you doing your heritage "wrong" . If you are going to see this in an adversarial light, the I'm not sure we can communicate. I'm not avoiding any questions, I'm simply want to start at the beginning of your https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/181049/#Comment_181049 so that we can make this as easy as possible.
    I would think that speaking to your gran and great-gran about their experiences being Indian, and you knowing your experiences being white, would answer some of your own questions.
    I navigate multiple cultures and they are much closer than 1/8. It is impossible to please everyone, but thinking about how to deal with all that is a near constant.
    Back to the questions:
    1. Am I ever allowed to even mention the Cherokee aspect to my family tree, and if so, upon what occasions?
    You are a white woman with Cherokee heritage. How difficult is that?

    v. minor tidying on URL. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • Why must I identify as white? Serious question. Does blood percentage rule all? Because my euro heritage comes in at least six slices, none of which I have a strong affinity for.
  • Just as a general point about how land claims actually work. An indigenous group discusses, negotiates and frequently ends up in court about the enforcement of treaties made between whatever government and themselves. Where I live these are numbered treaties between first nations and the British crown in the 19th century. Land entitlements were handling in swindling sorts of ways, and the successor governments have been made to agree to land transfers of desirable urban land and other rural lands. Also to fund health care beyond the levels of Medicare including transportation by road and air to hospitals and for services the non-indigenous don't have covered. Also fully funded post secondary education and stipends while in school. All of which pays into attitudes of why some get such funding where settler/colonists don't.

    No one resorts to violence except rarely, and this seems to be usually when the federal gov't wants to do something its legal people have told it that it could get away with. It's slowly improving but slowly.

    A major recent controversy is the feds under a prior Conservative gov't tried to steam roll over indigenous people, then being forced under a successor Liberal gov't to revisit aboriginal title and approvals for a oil/tar sands pipeline.

    None of this has the violence written about in this thread.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    In formal questionnaires here, where there may be an obligation of some sort to collect data re diversity, there’s usually a ‘prefer not to say’ option. But that’s not something that can so easily done in a RL interaction.

    My v. much milder issue is that though English born and educated, and sounding v. English, if push came to shove I’d put down Scots rather than English. 7 out of 8 of my great grandparents were Scots, and the one who was not was half Dutch IIRC. It’s rarely a ‘live’ issue for me, except during Six Nations rugby, or if Scotland goes for independence (which seems more likely than ever atm.
  • As for "I would think that speaking to your gran and great-gran about their experiences being Indian, and you knowing your experiences being white, would answer some of your own questions."--

    My forebears were living in a very different context, and if you re-read the post, you will see that one at least was doing her damndest to pretend she was not Indian at all. Raising the issue with her would have gotten me slapped if not worse. I shit you not.

    I am talking about navigating this world--this Trumpian disaster of an apocalyptic fuckup where such an asshole can go on for years calling a woman "Pocahontas" and get away with it for what appears to me to be quite a minor infringement in social manners. I mean, they disproved that she had ever misrepresented herself to get a benefit from it, right? And she never told anybody she was fullblood or some shit like that? So what precisely was the issue--just claiming Indian ancestry? Because I'm doing that. Treasuring it? because I'm doing that. Not being enrolled? Because that's me. Doing a fucking DNA test? Because that strikes me as a well-intended but politically foolish move, likely caused by extreme irritation at being told she could never "prove it". I am happy to avoid the DNA test if that was the major offense.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Fuck me for trying to be polite.
    I've not said shit about you doing your heritage "wrong" . If you are going to see this in an adversarial light, the I'm not sure we can communicate. ...
    "Polite"? Not really. "Adversarial"? LC isn't, but you - as usual - are definitely being adversarial. You don't really communicate; you dictate. Take off your "Omniscient" hat, please, and stop telling people what they supposedly think and how you think they ought to behave.

    If you like, we can take this to Hell. Your personal thread is pretty far down, but it hasn't disappeared.




  • BroJames wrote: »
    In formal questionnaires here, where there may be an obligation of some sort to collect data re diversity, there’s usually a ‘prefer not to say’ option. But that’s not something that can so easily done in a RL interaction.

    My v. much milder issue is that though English born and educated, and sounding v. English, if push came to shove I’d put down Scots rather than English. 7 out of 8 of my great grandparents were Scots, and the one who was not was half Dutch IIRC. It’s rarely a ‘live’ issue for me, except during Six Nations rugby, or if Scotland goes for independence (which seems more likely than ever atm.

    Yes, I usually go for "prefer not to say" nowadays. It hasn't always been so in my life, but the times, they are a-changing.
  • Why must I identify as white? Serious question. Does blood percentage rule all? Because my euro heritage comes in at least six slices, none of which I have a strong affinity for.
    There is no must. But, practically speaking, you do not have any direct experience about what it is like to be Indian. In America, colour comes before ethnicity, IME. Your heritage is your heritage, but that doesn't translate to experience.
    In my speaking with American Indians of greater percentage, it is that which some have issue with. You get to walk away if you wish, they do not.
  • Are you American?
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    As for walking away... My grandmother looked like a sister of the woman in the famous "Migrant Mother" photo, available here: MigrantMother02.jpg Now that, to me, looks white. And yet she is apparently full-blood. I grant you, my father could only pass white by living in California and appearing permanently sun-burned. But with Cherokee it is not as easy as you seem to think to identify ethnicity by appearance. You'd be better off not to conflate the two.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Are you American?
    I've a decent amount of experience on both sides of the pond, that is a biographical as I will get.
    Argue the point, not the player.
    According to AMERICAN Indians, did you miss that bit?
    Being something other than white in America* comes with a set of experiences that appearing white does not. Are you arguing that this is not true?

    *Being brown in the UK does as well, but we are talking America here.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    edited September 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I've a decent amount of experience on both sides of the pond, that is a biographical as I will get. ...
    And yet you feel free to dictate to others about life and attitudes in their own countries. Fascinating.


  • I am asking YOU because YOU are here, on this thread, and YOU are claiming to speak for America. You have form on this.

    I don't give a shit about your biography. I want to know what background you have only so we can establish if you know what the fuck you are talking about.

    You appear to think that Cherokee cannot pass as white. I have given you a couple of examples to the contrary, one of them full-blood. I am sure there are those who do not or cannot or do not wish to pass for white, and that is not the point. this is what the point is: I am attempting to convey to you the idea that color does NOT equal ethnicity in every time, place and instance you can imagine. Please stop with that. It seems to be your number one interest and the thing you come back to, again and again.

    If you must do looks, I look like an American mutt, all right? Dark brown straight thick long hair, pale skin with a yellow undercast. I get mistaken for Mexican. Happy now?
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    I grew up with a classmate whose mother was full-blooded Cherokee but looked like an ordinary European-American brunette with a high bridge to her nose; my classmate, who was half-Cherokee, didn't stand out in terms of ethnic appearance. The great ballerina Maria Tallchief (with whom I had the privilege of studying) was half-Osage; if she'd claimed to be Russian, no one would have questioned her.

    LC, I figured you were mostly German!

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    I am asking YOU because YOU are here, on this thread, and YOU are claiming to speak for America. You have form on this.
    I'm not speaking for America. I am speaking of my experience in America. There is a large difference.
    You broached a topic* and I am answering with my experiences. It seems as if this is not what you want to hear, I cannot help that.
    You are mistaken for Mexican? Then you should have an idea of what I am talking about.
    A white friend of mine is married to a woman who is part Bolivian Indian. Some of their children are pale, some are dark. Guess which ones have the most problems?
    I've been made to feel an outsider in the place I was born. I've been quizzed as to the authenticity of my nationality, because I do not look like the average resident, even though half my heritage is from there.

    Colour dominates interactions, I wish this were not so, but it is.

    *Well, an inter-related series of topics, but...
  • Heh. Sure it wasn't the Lutheran that made you think so? :naughty:
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Heh. Sure it wasn't the Lutheran that made you think so? :naughty:
    That was part of it (the MoSyn is a pretty ethnic denomination, in my experience), but not all.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I'm not speaking for America. I am speaking of my experience in America. There is a large difference.

    Who are you that your experience of America matters a rat's?
  • So. I've read your article. And your point is what?

    I've already said I'm not doing the DNA thing, nor am I seeking to benefit from my ancestry in any way. So your point is?

  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I'm not speaking for America. I am speaking of my experience in America. There is a large difference.

    Who are you that your experience of America matters a rat's?
    And who are you that your experience does? And, regarding this American Indian issue, I am speaking of their experience as related by people who are American Indian.
  • So. I've read your article. And your point is what?
    The point is that identity is a variable thing.

  • And???? What are these "understandings" that I'm getting wrong, that you expected me to have that I don't have, and that I really ought to have gotten from my grandparents?
  • And???? What are these "understandings" that I'm getting wrong, that you expected me to have that I don't have, and that I really ought to have gotten from my grandparents?
    Simple. You might have American Indian heritage, but you do not have American Indian experience.
    I know you are not trying to claim anything from this. But because of what American Indians went through and still go through, if you were to say "I'm Indian" I think that would be poorly received.
    If you were to say I have American Indian heritage, ISTM their would be no issue.
    You asked WHen you can claim the heritage. I think the Answer to that is any damn way or time you want. What I am saying is that how you present could get feedback.
    Again, you asked a question. What answer did you want?
  • Has @lilbuddha lost their zen? If ever did have
  • lilbuddha--

    FWIW: Your posts re LC's heritage sound cryptic to me, too. And like you think she *must* know what you mean and is dodging it; you're judging her for that; and you're possibly blaming her for harms to you and others she didn't cause.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I'm not speaking for America. I am speaking of my experience in America. There is a large difference.

    Who are you that your experience of America matters a rat's?
    And who are you that your experience does?

    I never claimed it did. You did just here.

  • I asked a series of questions about how I can, should, and ought to deal with the fact of my Cherokee ancestry in modern society given the firestorm of responses surrounding Warren's apparently transgressive behavior in a very similar case.

    I only know what I hear from the news media about Native American traditions and politics, so anybody who has more experience please feel free to step in and correct me, but it sounds like where Warren went wrong was by publicly claiming Native identity solely by ancestry, without any connection to the community. I heard something on NPR that this is historically touchy because apparently it was the US government who imposed blood quantum membership on Native tribes in the first place when they registered the Dawes rolls in the early 1900s. The tribes didn't always ask for genetic ancestry as a requirement, and apparently it was hurtful when the feds imposed it, sometimes arresting and enrolling people by force.

    So for her to claim Native identity solely on the basis of blood ancestry, without having been raised in a Native community or registering with a tribe, steps on a historical sore spot for them.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    And???? What are these "understandings" that I'm getting wrong, that you expected me to have that I don't have, and that I really ought to have gotten from my grandparents?
    Simple. You might have American Indian heritage, but you do not have American Indian experience.
    I know you are not trying to claim anything from this. But because of what American Indians went through and still go through, if you were to say "I'm Indian" I think that would be poorly received.
    If you were to say I have American Indian heritage, ISTM their would be no issue.
    You asked WHen you can claim the heritage. I think the Answer to that is any damn way or time you want. What I am saying is that how you present could get feedback.
    Again, you asked a question. What answer did you want?

    THIS IS THE FUCKING ANSWER I WANTED, THANK YOU VERY MUCH:
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    if you were to say "I'm Indian" I think that would be poorly received.

    Why could you not just come out and say this? Why all the ridiculous dancing around with "you don't have that experience" (duh) and "you should have asked your grandparents" (and been slapped for it) and "you don't have American Indian experience" (DUH again, didn't we say this umpteen times already, and when did I ever contradict you?)

    So we've gotten a little ahead, finally.

    I can say "I have American Indian heritage."
    I may not say "I am Indian" simplicitur. (As if I would.)

    Now, I might actually say "I am partly Cherokee." Is there a problem with that??????

  • Golden Key wrote: »
    lilbuddha--

    FWIW: Your posts re LC's heritage sound cryptic to me, too. And like you think she *must* know what you mean and is dodging it; you're judging her for that; and you're possibly blaming her for harms to you and others she didn't cause.
    No, not blaming her for anything.
    I am surprised she ask the question of how to approach her heritage. I would have thought her experiences would give her that answer. I'm not trying to be cryptic, I'm trying to be polite. It's not working, she thinks I'm being a bitch, so I might as well be blunt.
    Most of the questions in her first post on this sounds very much like "Why can't I call myself Indian?"
    And the answer is that of course she can. But if she has not gone through the experience of being Indian, she won't get much appreciation of sympathy from those who have.
    I've a mate who is roughly the same percentage as LC. Has family who lived on reservations, has the regalia, goes to powwows and attends sweat lodge ceremonies, etc. She is careful in how she presents herself, though, being very aware that she has the privilege of being white in her everyday world. She has great pride in her native heritage, but also recognises the advantage her colour gives her.

  • I asked a series of questions about how I can, should, and ought to deal with the fact of my Cherokee ancestry in modern society given the firestorm of responses surrounding Warren's apparently transgressive behavior in a very similar case.

    I only know what I hear from the news media about Native American traditions and politics, so anybody who has more experience please feel free to step in and correct me, but it sounds like where Warren went wrong was by publicly claiming Native identity solely by ancestry, without any connection to the community. I heard something on NPR that this is historically touchy because apparently it was the US government who imposed blood quantum membership on Native tribes in the first place when they registered the Dawes rolls in the early 1900s. The tribes didn't always ask for genetic ancestry as a requirement, and apparently it was hurtful when the feds imposed it, sometimes arresting and enrolling people by force.

    So for her to claim Native identity solely on the basis of blood ancestry, without having been raised in a Native community or registering with a tribe, steps on a historical sore spot for them.

    You know, I'd really like to know what her exact words were--I'm afraid by this point they're buried beyond my best Google-fu attempts to unbury them. Did she say "I'm American Indian" simplicitur, in just those words with no qualifications? Did she say "partly" or "have heritage" or any other qualifications? Does anybody remember? Because I'm sure as heck not going to be able to find it under the load of manure Trump has dumped on everything.

    I DO realize that the DNA test was a mistake--though IMHO an understandable one, given that Trump was rattling her about not being able to prove anything. A pity she fell for it.

    But the firestorm started before the DNA test.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I'm not speaking for America. I am speaking of my experience in America. There is a large difference.

    Who are you that your experience of America matters a rat's?
    And who are you that your experience does?

    I never claimed it did. You did just here.
    Not sure what you are on about. I'm giving my experiences as a way of answering LC's questions. They are what they are.

  • Antisocial AltoAntisocial Alto Shipmate
    edited September 2019

    You know, I'd really like to know what her exact words were--I'm afraid by this point they're buried beyond my best Google-fu attempts to unbury them. Did she say "I'm American Indian" simplicitur, in just those words with no qualifications? Did she say "partly" or "have heritage" or any other qualifications? Does anybody remember? Because I'm sure as heck not going to be able to find it under the load of manure Trump has dumped on everything.

    I DO realize that the DNA test was a mistake--though IMHO an understandable one, given that Trump was rattling her about not being able to prove anything. A pity she fell for it.

    But the firestorm started before the DNA test.

    I'm not sure if she'd gotten in trouble about it before the past few years or not, and can't remember any of her exact words about it. (Any Massachusetts shippies remember?)

    Some of the upset recently was because it came to light that she had listed herself as part Native on law school and job applications. Warren herself claims she didn't receive any advantage or affirmative action because of it, although I don't know how she would know whether she did or not.

    It is a plus for Harvard as an institution to have her listed as a minority, because it makes their abysmal diversity numbers look better.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    I've just listed my son on the Common College Application website as tri-racial, but declined to specify the tribe on the grounds that it would raise more trouble than it's worth. AND naturally we also specified "unenrolled."
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...I'm not trying to be cryptic, I'm trying to be polite. It's not working, she thinks I'm being a bitch, so I might as well be blunt. ...
    ...as always, except when you're being obscure -- and bitchy.
    Has @lilbuddha lost their zen? If ever did have
    Not in my experience. Her lack thereof is part of what makes her hard to deal with: She Knows Everything, but she's always terribly, terribly intense, and not necessarily correct, on any subject one can name.

    Carry on, @Lamb Chopped! This is your heritage, and you don't have to put up with any crap from anybody.


  • I had a wonderful experience with an American Indian woman in Page Arizona. I think many Indians in that region are Navajo, but I don't know. I reckon most of the people I saw in that town were of Indian or Latino extraction. The best Mexican food I have ever had was in a family-run restaurant there.

    Anyway, I went inside to pre-pay my petrol and the woman gave me a novelty flower pen to sign the chit. I expressed my joy and surprise at the pen, and asked if there were any for sale because I wanted to present one to my wife, a pen collector. She said no, and out I went to fill my tank. A few minutes later, she runs out to the car with the pen, hands it to me and runs back. It was such a small yet wonderfully surprising thing that the pen now has pride of place in my office. I ask God's blessing on that woman whenever I think of her. The memory still brings tears to my eyes.

    I have an idea that ethnicity is in broad terms a choice, particularly in countries derived from colonial conquest and countries with many immigrants. In my case, my options include Australian, English, Irish, European, White and Western. If I want to be a smart-arse I could try to claim Norman or Flemish, but that would be drawing a long bow (yuk yuk). I choose Irish-Australian despite the fact that I am (going by grandparents and surnames) half English. So really, my ethnicity is an assumed identity, and my relationship with Ireland is a fictive one.

    I suspect that these choices I have are in part because of how I look. With the exception of Chinese immigration, and the first Australians (kind of an ironic title given the constitutional history) most people from non-European backgrounds are first or second generation. Many identify strongly with their country of origin, certainly the people I know well do. That's natural, and that's what people from the British isles did too. There will come a time when their children and grandchildren will consider themselves primarily Australian. But will those kids, with Asian or Indian or African or Islander features be allowed to claim Australian identities?

    This Pollyanna says yes, although with some hesitation. I think the Chinese experience suggests not, but I hope that in an Australia where people are of all sorts of appearance, the Australian 'look' will no longer be exclusively European. Please note that this Australia is coming into being, but is strongly opposed by many Australians of European heritage. I think time is on the side of the good guys though.
  • Simon Toad--

    If I may ask, how do the Australian aboriginal peoples fit into the scheme of things these days?

    (NOT poking at you or Oz. The US has a similarly bad history.)

    And cool story re the pen.

    Thanks.
  • No worries GK. I have been mulling over how to respond to this from my position as a white Australian without misrepresenting Aborigines. I think the best way is to say that Aboriginal Australians have multiple ethnic identities like the rest of us, but that their choices are more like those of a people who have lived in one area for thousands of years, utterly different from immigrant societies. So its extended family, tribal group, overarching tribal group, and then maybe Australian. Again, I stress my ignorance here.

    So I think that it is a bit artificial, for all of us, to say that we have this specific identity and we wear it in all circumstances. When I want to bag English people, my Irish identity comes to the fore, when I want to tell Americans what to do, I identify as a member of the Western cultural group. If I want to have a go at New Zealanders, I'm Australian. Obviously, I am fibbing, but only a bit because of my combative personality. But I imagine it might be similar for Aborigines, that there are whole lot of identities floating around that come to the fore in various situations.

    In terms of how aborigines are treated in general, there is still alot of racism around. I was tutored in it by one of my uncles, and can still remember one schoolyard joke I found particularly funny as a child. I forgive myself but don't forgive myself for that if you know what I mean. Have a look at the thread on Australian Racism for a link to a video about the long-running bullying of a top footballer in hell.

    I want to finish by sharing some of the identities that I reckon Aboriginal people have shared with us in music and dance.

    Tiddas - My Brother and Koori Woman

    Tiddas means sister or sisters in one of the Aboriginal languages. Koori is the name of a people from NSW I think.

    Kev Carmody - I've Been Moved

    Yothu Yindi Timeless Land These guys are from Arhnem Land in the far north. Their body of work is well worth exploring.
This discussion has been closed.