More like “squat with us.” In more ways than one.
4 Likes
You’re saying that Roderique shouldn’t have turned it around on them or that it shouldn’t have been reported that she did so?
He’s just clearing a space…
It’s about integrity in shopping journalism.
Hoo boy - should I summarize my half dozen posts for you again - or do you want to just re-read them?
“Hostage” was in the original article and isn’t accurate - that’s not good reporting. It makes a great headline, though and it was repeated in the BB headline.
Never really brought up the dildo throwing, until someone posted the gif. I indulged in some snark with the “disappointed in BB” meme. I can’t have a little fun? I should have winked.
I disagree. While the term isn’t PC now, I think it is an accurate one for some of the people in the 1700s. It isn’t a nice term, but let’s not gloss over history. While the European’s did horrible things, some Native Americans excelled at cruelty and ghastly acts. Of course you can’t just characterize all Native Americans in one group, as their cultures vary from tribe to tribe. Some were allies in the Revolution and the later War of 1812. To be sure some got totally fucked over in the end, but that doesn’t excuse some of the horrific acts some of them committed (I know some people like a black and white world of good guys vs bad guys, but the fact is the world is grey and full people doing both.)
I think there is a difference between using the word to described people who killed women and kidnapped children 250+ years ago, and using that word to describe people today. It is clear if you read the whole quote that they were referring to a specific group of people at a specific time. If you pull the partial quote as the article did, then you get the sense they are calling people today, 2016, savages, and that isn’t the case.
Just because one doesn’t like what they stand for, doesn’t mean one should manipulate things to demonize them.
Can not un-see. There is a special circle in Hell for people like you!
3 Likes
Also to rid the body of sexual miasmas and balance the humours.
Right, @miasm?
4 Likes
*gargles
3 Likes
They’re not quoting; they are referencing previous moments in history, yes, but you’ll notice they managed to use the word “Indian” near the beginning of the paragraph. (Native Americans is too much to ask, of course.) They CHOSE to use the word “savages” as part of their contemporary statement.
14 Likes
Great minds think alike!
2 Likes
Indian is antiquated, but still used today in various capacities, including by Native Americans and the Government.
1 Like
Okay, so I guess you’re okay with this statement then? And if not, then how exactly does it differ from yours?
“While the term isn’t PC now, I think it is an accurate one for some of the people in before the Civil War. “Nigger” isn’t a nice term, but let’s not gloss over history. While the slaveowners did horrible things, some rebellious enslaved Africans excelled at cruelty and ghastly acts. Of course you can’t just characterize all enslaved Africans in one group, as their cultures vary from plantation to plantation, but you know, some really did act like niggers, so I see no problem with using that term to describe them that way now.”
Aside from my adding a bit of acknowledgement that “cruel and ghastly acts” are a response to equally (and even more) cruel and ghastly acts, I’m not seeing much difference…
And btw, since you’re willing to acknowledge that Europeans back then also commited cruel and ghastly acts, why aren’t you jumping on these paradoxical “patriots” for using “savages” to describe Europeans back then?
[the part left out of the caption: “on a pike”]
7 Likes
You know what would really be helpful?
The text of the letter that Charlotte Roderique sent to the US Attorney and USFWS.
Maybe the safest course of action would be to get a big old excavator and rescue the artifacts from the ground before the cattle come in and the oil drillers extract the rest of the resources.
Oh I’m sure that’s where the origins lie. I just think we can fix that. And it becomes legitimately funnier from the added context. Sort of rehabilitating it.
I don’t know that its insulting to the colostomy bag users of the world. Its just that’s a pretty rough thing to be dealing with. And I don’t think its kind to remind people “you poop in a bag because your colon is broke”, or throw it in their face. Its a bit like calling some one a chemo patient because they’re bald. Its certainly funny for the same body humor reasons whole hosts of things are though, but it makes me kind of sad.
yes, and the empathy you show the wearer is the implied empathy for the forum users who are metaphorically having to deal with one, collectively.
But your literal interpretation adds to the joke, as literalism often does. 
at no point have I recommended throwing poop in anyones face.
Ohhhhh, were you not being literal now? I see.
2 Likes
Perhaps you just need to reread my comment, the one about the use of the word “savages” as being done in a “historical context”. That other stuff, your other comments? I didn’t reply to those, I replied to the one defending the use of “savages”.
Holy fucken hell. So let me get this straight:
- Native American tribes (or some of their members) performed ghastly acts in the 1700s (let’s see…carry the six…let’s say…oh…300+ years ago) in defense of their lands/people/resources.
- Which makes it okay to refer to them as savages, today, in 2016.
- Because the colonizers acted perfectly in defense of truth and honor and virtue.
- Or something.
Do I have that right? White people history:
We were heroes, defending our property against dark-skinned savages.Dark-skinned people history:
We wereheroes, defending our property against white-skinnedsavages.
8 Likes
US Americans, what are the chances of lands being returned to Native Americans as was suggested in 2012 by the UN envoy, James Anaya?
I see change.org petitions and the like but it’s hard to get a good reading of from over here. Is this wishful thinking or has there been some kind of change in general attitudes concerning the subject within the last five years?
1 Like
.[quote=“wrecksdart, post:121, topic:72496”]
Perhaps you just need to reread my comment,
[/quote]
That first part was a reply to someone else. I then added your quote to combine posts. Sorry for the confusion, but BB likes you to not have 202 posts to each reply.
Savages, barbarians, brutes, thugs, vandals, etc are not race specific. There have been white Europeans who have been all those things and worse. I am sure if I gave an example of the British raping and killing women and kidnapping children, no one would give a shit if someone called them savages. Use the term for someone non-white who did the same acts and - gasp - it’s racist. Sorry, I disagree with that. Words mean what they mean and some times their use is completely justified, even if it isn’t current considered PC.
But again - the main point isn’t whether they should or shouldn’t have used the term savages. If the article wanted to use the full quote and criticize the use of the word “savages” to describe their ancestors, then that’s an honest argument. The point is they were disingenuous in their presentation of the quote, selecting only part of the text, which would leave most readers with the impression the quote is calling Native Americans today in 2016 savages.
You may disagree with how appropriate the usage was, but I don’t think one can honestly say my point isn’t valid.
Savage isn’t a racial slur, and even if it is used as such, certainly doesn’t have the same weight. See above.
Well, not to cause a derail, but…
11 Likes
