Racism Discussion from "My Dad Was Mugged" Thread

[Stark]

In Australia, corporations working with native title holders is so successful for both parties a whole industry of specialists in law and business who bring both parties together to create beneficial outcomes has grown up since the 80s. However, I'm not sure this translates into positive outcomes socially for native title holders in general.

The situation is just a bit more difficult than 'not my problem, the country should change because I'm offended'.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Damn indians with all that land that they are not even productively using...

Wasn't that one of the justifications used for forcibly taking their land in the first place? I am pretty awe-strucked that people actually are still using it today and want to continue breaking treaties.

Yes. Yes it was.

On the other hand, we do have what amount to Third World Autonomous Regions. That isnt cool. Thankfully, there are reasonable solutions other than "Trample all over the Indigenous People, again.".

[kromtar]

I'm a bit of a lurker on these forums, so i'm not exactly sure how to quote other people properly but I'll try to make what I say vs what Alyrium said clear. No offense to Alyrium Denryle but i'm going to counter argue your 9-10 point order of the evil white man (what ever the fuck that means in this historical context.) I want to stress I don't agree with Jud at all on the basis he does not understand treaty law and seems completely oblivious to how the treaties work on a nation by nation basis, not to mention seems to be racists without knowing it.

1. Amerind Tribes (hereafter referred to as Amerinds) live as they had for 10k years. They have natural resources, distinct and interesting cultures, regional governments. Everything one might expect from a conglomeration of different cultural groups with a wide array of levels of development. Some were neolithic pastoralists or hunter/gatherers. Some were up there in Iron Age territory.

Like to point out that the amerind tribes, nations, and empires ( I am assuming you are including south american civilizations into this general sweep correct? If not I shall refer to all groups as First Nations and imply from this point forward that all groups from Central America as the southern tip all the way up Newfounland/Iceland are part of your amerind tribes label.) are for these 10k years killing, looting, waging war and exterminating each other quite frequently due to cultural, economic and political reasons. Just saying this due to your use of pastoralists and hunter/gatherer line as a hint of pacifism, war and exploitation are not inclusive to the "white man" and the first nations of Canada where not in any sense of the word pacifists or peaceful, war did not magically come into existence because the "White Man" showed up, it was always there.

2. The White Man shows up, and for a few years, everything is cool. Amerind people's are a bit wary, but in many cases start to help out these new and interesting people.

Complete and utter generalization. Which White Man landings you talking about? The Vikings settlements getting wiped out in Newfoundland? The Conflicts between the English colonists and Powhatan Confederacy? Or maybe the little cluster fuck the French landed in (The Iroquois expansion period that ended with the bearver wars.) Overall some of the amerind people allied with the various outposts of european nations others opposed, depended on their geopolitical standings and internal leaderships.

3. Until it turns out that The White Man wants something from them other than teaching them that corn exists. It might be gold, or furs, or agricultural land, or timber. Hell, it might even be slaves, because that was a thing. Oh yes, so much slavery. So, The White Man Takes. Unburdened by any sort of moral stricture, because The White Man is christian, and does not accept the humanity of non-christians.
This is great, so let me get this straight slavery only exists in the white man world...............and hey it only exists for Christians too! Aside from the obvious Aztec, Mayan, Incan systems of slavery that predates euro arrival you should read up on how Natives treated their rivals and took prisoners and more importantly why they took prisoners. You should be surprised. The argument that Industrial slavery was worse than Native slavery holds no weight in my eyes since the process of turning one into a slave is always the same, taking someone through social, economical, or physical means and making them fucking property to benefit someone else. I'm curious if you know about the whole picture of the slave trade worked between the "White Man" and the Natives as in how many Africans the Natives bought for their plantations they built. (This would be more in the lower half of North America primarily carried out by the Cherokee not South America where Spain was basically manpower hunger for their mines to support their imperialism in Europe and beyond.)


4. The White Man uses guns germs and steel to ethnically cleans the native people's from the east coast. This creates infighting as refugees go west, only to run into tribes that have enough issues just supporting themselves. The White Man signs treaties with these western tribes, using them to fight their wars (say, between the english and french) by proxy, and using them to help them ethnically cleanse the tribes who wont sign the treaties.

What's funny here is that you once again lump "white man" into one massive general group again. Each of the Euro Colonial Zones had different goals, French came looking for trade route to China, English came looking for something to counter Spanish Power, Spain came for Gold, Dutch for fur and for prime locations to raid Spanish shipping ect. Many of the Native groups actually worked hand in hand with the new arrivals, Quebec and the Huron being the stand outs, while other powers could care less about proxy wars and treaties Spain being notorious for this, Dutch were terrible at making allies and thus lost their colony, England overall attempted to honor their treaties but a little tea party kinda fucked that up for them. About half of the wars between the native groups up to the american war of independence were natives fighting to control the trade to the Europeans who were trading them prime goods, like steel axes, house goods, guns, cannons, horses, medicine, building materials ect. The other half was just plan old fuck you nation vs nation shit.

5. After that is done, and The White Man then discovers that their former allies have stuff they want. Abrogates the treaties.

This is interesting, The process that you have talked about has happened over generations with governments, ideologies and entire nations rising and falling on both sides of the ocean and you think that treaties are what immortal and never get changed, broken, or run out? Also you realize that this can only be looked at on a Treaty by Treaty basis? And that the reason so many of the First Nations lost out on their former treaties is because of the War of Independence and the fact they allied with the British? Just saying that you are really simplifying this down and furthermore making it seem like every treaty signed was always intended to be broken.

6. Repeat steps 3-5.

7. There are still some Amerinds left. The Cherokee for example in Georgia. Andrew Jackson death-marches them from Georgia to Oklahoma in what is called the Trail of Tears. This sort of thing occurs for every remaining Amerind Tribe that is not living in the high arctic. The White Man even hunts the buffallo out from under the subsistence hunters of the western plains region--even from their own land prior to the (wait for it) abrogation of the treaties that guaranteed the territorial integrity of people like the Lakota.

I'm going to say that "White Man" should be replaced with USA. Your right about all of this, though you skipped a hugh period of time from the initial trade relations, 7 years war, conquest of New France, war of indepence to the Trail of Tears. The middle kinda explains how it got to the point of the trail of tears with the Cherokee and the five civilized tribes.

8. Eventually, the only land remaining for the Amerind Peoples are the types of land no White Man wants. Land with no natural resources, that is difficult to farm, with few (if any) easy trade routes like navigable rivers.

Agree with you here, the First Nations for the most part got a shit deal with the "New" North American Powers of the that treaty period ( United States, Mexico, Dominion of Canada) Overall though a case by case would have to be examined here for me to actually agree that all the land deals given was intentionally useless.

9. When the Amerind People fight back, they are slaughtered and/or demonized by The White Man. Amerind children raised or educated in White society are taught that they are racially or culturally inferior to The White Man (this bit continues well into the 1900s). Even white children are indoctrinated with the belief that Amerind people are to be despised by way of classic childhood games like cowboys and indians and various media sources. Like the entire film genre called "Westerns". Major politicians chastise those in their ranks who might meet with Amerind leaders because "They killed General Custer and it is an insult to that Great American Hero to talk to them", ignoring the fact that the people who killed General Custer were defending themselves from genocide. Education and employment policy is only just recently such that Amerind peoples have a shot at making their lives better--but only if they leave their people and what ancient traditions they still have behind.

I could talk about the various problems between the American Settlers, Frontier Laws, The First Nations attempts at getting a country started, American Manifest Destiny ect. I would also point out at this point it feels like you are talking about almost exclusive US vs First Nations history not Canadian/British vs Fist Nations history. One thing jumped out at me here though. As someone who studied film I have to point out that westerns are not some evil propaganda tool made to discredit and demonize First Nations Peoples. They are made to fucking make money. If knights vs vikings where appealing to paying crowds back then that is what they would have made. There are examples of films made that aim to portray First Nations Peoples poorly but those are more reflective of the times and the directors/producers of those projects than an entire genre. As for your points of education, politicians and such I can only say that needs to be addressed on a case by case since generally my experience and understanding of First Nations is an overall positive one, especially what I learned about them in my entire school period. I do agree about one thing. FUCK CUSTER. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... d8bddd8d2a#

10. The White Man wonders why the remaining Amerind Peoples are so poor and economically undeveloped, and are bitter about how they dont pay taxes and get government subsidy. Said White Man proposes that we abrogate our treaties again and take the last thing we want from the Amerind people. Their cultural identity and autonomy. We have taken everything else. It is just that one last thing. Then .

Okay this is where you pissed me off. Fighting motherfucking racism with motherfucking racism is not fucking cool. I agree that people who don't understand the issues and history that lead up to this point and the current issues within the First Nations are stupid and to be honest not worth debating due to said stupidity but really Alyrium lumping every single "White Man" into a group and saying we are "bitter" and i'm not sure "everything will be solved" seems to hint at the "White Mans" final solution. My point is that implying that the "White Man" is evil, manipulative, and pure evil is just as bad as anything Jub's said so far. Also what the fuck is "White Man" that is like me saying "Black Man" or "Yellow Man" be clear, in historical context they where Western Europeans for the most part and in modern context would be North American.

On another Note, Zor I hope your Dad gets over it quickly, being mugged is fucking scary and it sucks.

[Straha]

I think it's interesting to see how young a kneejerk defense of privilege can be inculcated.

Defense of privilege is traditional. In fact, it can be explained by evolutionary psychology- by defending privileges against those who would take it away, we better our chances of surviving to breed to the next generation, and/or the chances of our children surviving to breed to the next generation. Those who felt guilty over having privileges had lesser chances of doing either.

Lulz. You think evopsych is real. How cute.

[Lagmonster]

Lulz. You think evopsych is real. How cute.

This is not an argument. Do you have one?

[Straha]

Lulz. You think evopsych is real. How cute.

This is not an argument. Do you have one?

A. Evopsych is tautological and unfalsifiable. The logic behind Evolutionary Psychology is that since evolution is the most powerful driving force in determining biological existence any existing norms must be traceable to evolutionary benefits. This leads to the tautology of "Why do we have it? Evolution. How do we know it evolved? Because we have it." The deeply unscientific thing here is that once you start looking at it through this mindset nothing can ever not be explained by evopsych's surface level analysis, it's just that your surface level analysis must be wrong and be replaced by a different analysis.

B. It's a nest of contradictions. Humanity is so different in the various areas of the world, and at various moments in time, that Evopsych can't produce the near universal proscriptions that it tries to offer, and especially like the ones amigocabal seems to proffer. If you were to try and analyze society through evopsych's lens (and what is Evopsych but the attempt to seemingly expand Freud's couch so that it's big enough for everyone to fit on at once) but slid that lens back at fifty year intervals you'd get radically different readings of society. See, for instance, the concept of social mobility. This means that the results of evopsych are either so unbearably vague as to be useless ('People like to have children, mostly.') or so intensely and dogmatically specific as to be created out of context and solely to fit pre-existing notions of how everything must be explained via evo psych (see three posts back.) This habit of Evopsych slams home its unscientific nature too, in order for a hypothesis to be considered scientific it must, at the least, be falsifiable but evopsych's tenents mean that can never be done.

C. I think Foucault's literature is a useful guide here. Archaeology of Knowledge, Discipline and Punish, and History of Sexuality all show how the concepts that Evopsych tries to latch into are more or less recent creations, and how they come about as a result of shifting desires of power in various forms. Once you accept the thesis that society shapes how we view knowledge production then Evopsych becomes useless as a tool. The kneejerk response here is, of course, "What shapes society? Evolution." but if this were true than we would should see remarkably similar societies with similar social values/desires across the world, and instead we see a hodgepodge patchwork quilt of different peoples across the world. Which leads to...

D. I think Evopsych is so pernicious to me because it's the ultimate form of biopolitical control. It trains us to only view the world through whether or not we're productive in the strict biological sense, and inculcates a desire to view the world only as "how can I ensure that the greatest amount of X group's genetic material can be passed on at the direct trade off of anything that might stand in the way. Shit's fucked.

[Havok]

I have a question. How long did it take the Gauls to become French? Or in general, how long did it take conquered cultures back when to integrate and become one with the cultures that conquered them or to become their own distinct cultures again with the new shiny integrated stuff?

[Edi]

This discussion has been split from here.

[Ziggy Stardust]

A. Evopsych is tautological and unfalsifiable. The logic behind Evolutionary Psychology is that since evolution is the most powerful driving force in determining biological existence any existing norms must be traceable to evolutionary benefits. This leads to the tautology of "Why do we have it? Evolution. How do we know it evolved? Because we have it." The deeply unscientific thing here is that once you start looking at it through this mindset nothing can ever not be explained by evopsych's surface level analysis, it's just that your surface level analysis must be wrong and be replaced by a different analysis..

This is a complete misrepresentation of evolutionary psychology. Your tautology is a complete strawman, for one thing. No evolutionary psychologist is going to claim that each and every psychology/social factor is traceable to evolutionary benefit. In fact, most researchers in the field focus specifically on universal human psychology traits (memory, perception, and language).

Humanity is so different in the various areas of the world, and at various moments in time, that Evopsych can't produce the near universal proscriptions that it tries to offer, <snip> If you were to try and analyze society through evopsych's lens (and what is Evopsych but the attempt to seemingly expand Freud's couch so that it's big enough for everyone to fit on at once)

That is not what evolutionary psychology is attempting to accomplish. Are you sure you even know what Fruedian psychology is? Or psychology in general? Because it really doesn't seem like you do.

This habit of Evopsych slams home its unscientific nature too, in order for a hypothesis to be considered scientific it must, at the least, be falsifiable but evopsych's tenents mean that can never be done.

Also wrong. Spectacularly wrong. Actually learn something about the topic before you start spewing this bullshit all over the place. Here, start with this.

Once you accept the thesis that society shapes how we view knowledge production then Evopsych becomes useless as a tool.

No, it doesn't. Because evolutionary psychology is not inherently at odds with what you are talking about.

The kneejerk response here is, of course, "What shapes society? Evolution." but if this were true than we would should see remarkably similar societies with similar social values/desires across the world, and instead we see a hodgepodge patchwork quilt of different peoples across the world.

This is not only a misrepresentation of evolutionary psychology, but of evolution in general. And of science. And of logical thought. In fact, this is just an incredibly stupid comment. By the same logic, you could say evolution is wrong because animals in different places are different. Seriously, are you really so stupid as to believe this?

I think Evopsych is so pernicious to me because it's the ultimate form of biopolitical control. It trains us to only view the world through whether or not we're productive in the strict biological sense, and inculcates a desire to view the world only as "how can I ensure that the greatest amount of X group's genetic material can be passed on at the direct trade off of anything that might stand in the way. Shit's fucked.

So you dismiss a branch of science because your bizarre and inaccurate conception of what it means offends you. Gotcha.

EDIT: To clarify a bit, there ARE people that use the term "evolutionary psychology" to try and justify their stupid bullshit. However, that is not reflective of the field itself. Heck, it is an incredibly broad field, with lots of different methodologies and foci. Attacking it is almost as pointless as attacking "biology" - it is so broad a generalization as to be completely meaningless. Basically, if some asshole is trying to use vague biological reasoning to justify his racism, you don't say that biology in and of itself is bad, you say that guy is an asshole and not a scientist. Same thing with evopsych in this instance.

[Stark]

I have a question. How long did it take the Gauls to become French? Or in general, how long did it take conquered cultures back when to integrate and become one with the cultures that conquered them or to become their own distinct cultures again with the new shiny integrated stuff?

While its difficult to generalise over thousands of years of world history, before the idea of nationalism took off the situation was quite different and people didn't always think of identity they way they do today. Amusingly, I think many past politicians and conquerors approached the issue of integration and assimilation in a more constructive and long-term focused way than modern leaders.

[Guardsman Bass]

"Integration" meant something quite different back when your primary loyalty was to particular leaders and families. You could have a highly diverse patchwork of territories under the control* of a single family because of war, marriage, etc. House Hohenzollern in Prussia ruled a mix of German-, Polish-, and Lithuanian-speakers in central and eastern Europe. Charles V ruled a huge chunk of Europe in the 16th century (Spain and the Holy Roman Empire).

[Stark]

Yah, but whole military and political strategies could revolve around building or changing those low-level loyalties and swaying the common people away from their traditional leaders etc, especially in the ancient world where identifying as 'space Welsh' or whatever was not really an issue. This sort of approach doesn't seem common in the modern ideological conversion world, but this could just be because the old tools like relocation, colony planting, rights management etc are not available.

[hongi]

So how long do we care for them, keeping them just above water, before we can expect them to take over and start swimming on their own?

As long as it takes.

Yes, it does take self-responsibility on the part of the disadvantaged minority and numerous indigenous people have acknowledged that. But it is easier said than done. It's outrageous for someone who was born into a better situation just because he happened to be born into a non-indigenous ethnic group to ask them to just get over it. The problems are so deep that you need help to do it.

Where does that disadvantage come from? All across the world, the players are different but the results are still as devastating. Indigenous peoples whose lands have been taken away from them and colonised rate lower in any demographic statistic you care to name. It cannot be the case that it's due to 'race' or 'culture', since there is no one culture or race that unites people who live in places as far apart as Canada and the United States and Mexico and New Zealand and Australia. The only thing they have in common is their history of dispossession and genocide and their current relative poverty, poor health, unemployment and overepresentation in crime.

[hongi]

double post, apologies.

[amigocabal]

Basically, if some asshole is trying to use vague biological reasoning to justify his racism, you don't say that biology in and of itself is bad, you say that guy is an asshole and not a scientist. Same thing with evopsych in this instance.

It is important to know that evopsych, like other sciences, provide reasons, not necessarily justifications.

"She was cute" can be a reason for rape; it does not justify rape.

The harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty is a reason for the Holocaust; it does not justify the Holocaust.

[Ultonius]

Irrelevant, because the Mongols are gone. They no longer exist as a distinct people, let alone a state.

Are you saying that the Mongols of Mongolia aren't really Mongols?

[Zor]

Just a question here Alyrium Denryle, but what native culture developed ironworking?

Zor

[ArmorPierce]

Irrelevant, because the Mongols are gone. They no longer exist as a distinct people, let alone a state.

Are you saying that the Mongols of Mongolia aren't really Mongols?

No they're not. The mongols were a mix or turk andd mongolian tribes and ghenghis khan himself was a turk ethnically and the conquerors were mostly absorbed into the cultures they conquered.

[Ziggy Stardust]

No they're not. The mongols were a mix or turk andd mongolian tribes and ghenghis khan himself was a turk ethnically and the conquerors were mostly absorbed into the cultures they conquered.

Genghis Khan was not a Turk. First of all, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "Turkic," which is actually quite distinct from "Turk."

Although the Mongols share many similarities with the Turkic peoples to the west of their traditional homelands, there is no evidence that this is anything but the result of later syncretic blending. Genghis himself was a Shiwei; they most likely originated from the Donghu confederation, which was destroyed by invading Turkic tribes around 150 BCE. The exact origins of the Mongols with respect to the Chinese and the Turkic peoples they cohabited the region with are unclear.

In any case, modern Mongols still trace their genetic ancestry back to the Mongols of Genghis day, so it is still fallacious to claim modern Mongols aren't "true" Mongols.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just a question here Alyrium Denryle, but what native culture developed ironworking?

Zor

Probably the Hittites circa 4000BC, if you had to pick one culture to have developed ironworking. Although a variety of cultures in geographically disperse locations had at least some primitive form of ironworking by that time (the Hittites were just the most sophisticated and modern).

[spaceviking]

I think he was referring to Native (North Americans).

[Stark]

I think you mean he was ignorantly making odious value judgements

It's fascinating to think that otherwise normal people are a single event involving a few individuals away from being a racist shithead

No wonder being racist is so popular politically lol

[CaptHawkeye]

It's easy to attribute events like that to the stereotyping many of them have been brought up with their whole lives. Shit, substantial numbers of people can't even interact with the opposite sex properly much less other races.

[Stark]

Yeah, but it's funny when people can't recognize those beliefs as racist or don't believe there's anything wrong about their racism and thus go to lengths to justify it

Not being racist actually isn't hard, you've just got o be rational

I know I know it's zor

[CaptHawkeye]

Well there's a lot of external pressure to keep being racist even if you know it's wrong. It can be institutional or social, though either way that doesn't excuse it.