ANNA MAE AQUASH 12/RAYMOND YELLOW THUNDER CONTINUED. All excerpts are in italics and are from THE UNQUIET GRAVE by Steve Hendricks.
As I said in the previous post I thought I could move the story of Anna Mae on a little faster but the way that Steve Hendricks intertwines others to tell the story of Anna Mae I cannot skip over the heart breaking story of Raymond Yellow Thunder (if you click on the link it brings up a story about Raymond written by Stew Magnuson click until to page 11 and there is a picture of Raymond Yellow Thunder. I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up. As you can see he is a human being with what looks to be a sense of humor while not being quite at ease having his picture taken.)
Dr. Brown did not claim that exposure was the chief cause of death. Yellow Thunder died, he said, from a massive subdural hematoma-a hemorrhaged pond of blood-that covered the entire right side of his brain. the hemorrhage was caused by a blow to the forehead by some instrument. Brown also recorded several bruises and lacerations on Yellow Thunders head, on his right side, and on his right leg. The wound where Yellow Thunder had been struck on the forehead was visible, but the pond of blood beneath the skin was not. Suspicion was cast on Browns autopsy when Yellow thunders family asked to see the body and was denied until a mortician had touched it up Rumors spread that the authorities had something to hide (that denial of letting the family see the body would never have happened if they were white!)
The county attorney said he pressed charges right away Yellow Thunders family said he dragged his feet.
The charges were not to the Indians liking: false imprisonment and manslaughter in the second degree.
The family begged the government of the Oglala Sioux Tribe to intervene, but the tribe did little.
The charges were not to Indians liking: false imprisonment and manslaughter in the second degree, Nor was the bail: $6,250 a head. Indians said, rightly, that had Yellow Thunder been white and his attackers red, a murder charge would have been brought, the bail would have been beyond paying, and County Attorney Mike Smith would not have been calling the killing a cruel practical joke and the killers pranksters.
> click until to page 11 and there is a picture of Raymond Yellow > Thunder. I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially > for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken > Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up. As you can see he > is a human being with what looks to be a sense of humor while not > being quite at ease having his picture taken.)
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, LIZZY TOOL!
Maybe that's the image of Indians *you* have had a "tendency to conjure up", or maybe that is the image of 'whites' you have a tendency to conjure up. Who knows.
On Mar 25, 3:55 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > click until to page 11 and there is a picture of Raymond Yellow > > Thunder. I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially > > for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken > > Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up. As you can see he > > is a human being with what looks to be a sense of humor while not > > being quite at ease having his picture taken.)
> SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, LIZZY TOOL!
> Maybe that's the image of Indians *you* have had a "tendency to > conjure up", or maybe that is the image of 'whites' you have a > tendency to conjure up. Who knows.
> What nerve.
WHO CARES? Ethnic-hustler is too fucking busy to blame at other for their fucking problem. This is like Mexican fat-ass stupid race is blaming their fucking overpopulation problem at other. Monica is one stupid ethnic-fucking ass browny idiot. Who cares if the dumb idiotic indian man lying in street is human being? We are all human being can't you see that!
I don't give any fuck about what this stupid ethnic-fucking hustler is saying! Just get out of my life you fucking browny idiotic human scum!
On Mar 25, 4:55 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > click until to page 11 and there is a picture of Raymond Yellow > > Thunder. I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially > > for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken > > Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up. As you can see he > > is a human being with what looks to be a sense of humor while not > > being quite at ease having his picture taken.)
> SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, LIZZY TOOL!
> Maybe that's the image of Indians *you* have had a "tendency to > conjure up", or maybe that is the image of 'whites' you have a > tendency to conjure up. Who knows.
> On Mar 25, 4:55 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > click until to page 11 and there is a picture of Raymond Yellow > > > Thunder. I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially > > > for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken > > > Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up. As you can see he > > > is a human being with what looks to be a sense of humor while not > > > being quite at ease having his picture taken.)
> > SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, LIZZY TOOL!
> > Maybe that's the image of Indians *you* have had a "tendency to > > conjure up", or maybe that is the image of 'whites' you have a > > tendency to conjure up. Who knows.
> > What nerve.
> Does the truth threaten you daisy mae?
This looks like one of those no-win situations. If we let a statement like that pass, then we set ourselves up for, "Oh, you didn't say anything, so you must agree. You must think of Indians as drunks just 'asking' for a beating." And if we do protest, we get, "Oh, you must have a guilty conscience. You don't like to be faced with the truth." That's why I didn't respond to this insult last night. But since keeping quiet does not prevent being judged, I might as well speak.
Lizzy can say whatever she wants, like the rest of us. But I certainly don't consider her the authority on how Whites view Indians...even if she does seem to know that Indians worry about cameras stealing their souls. *rolling my eyes* I have never had the "tendency" to "conjur up an image of a drunken Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up." I have never heard that thought expressed by the "White folks" I know. I do happen to already know Indians are human beings. And what's more, they are INDIVIDUALS. I don't go around saying, "You Indians (fill in the blank)" or "What could you know? YOU'RE AN INDIAN!!"
I thought Lizzy was interested in getting the facts out to people who were unaware of the issues. But I guess we should remember, she's not a journalist, she's a blogger. The hit counter still gets run up, whether the goal is credibility earned by presenting unbiased truth, or entertaining folks with button-pushing emoting. I guess as long as she doesn't say anything critical of the wrong person or position and get outed as being FBI, it's all good.
> On Mar 26, 8:50 am, Monica <yano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 4:55 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > click until to page 11 and there is a picture of Raymond Yellow > > > > Thunder. I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially > > > > for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken > > > > Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up. As you can see he > > > > is a human being with what looks to be a sense of humor while not > > > > being quite at ease having his picture taken.)
> > > SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, LIZZY TOOL!
> > > Maybe that's the image of Indians *you* have had a "tendency to > > > conjure up", or maybe that is the image of 'whites' you have a > > > tendency to conjure up. Who knows.
> > > What nerve.
> > Does the truth threaten you daisy mae?
> This looks like one of those no-win situations. If we let a statement > like that pass, then we set ourselves up for, "Oh, you didn't say > anything, so you must agree. You must think of Indians as drunks just > 'asking' for a beating." And if we do protest, we get, "Oh, you must > have a guilty conscience. You don't like to be faced with the truth." > That's why I didn't respond to this insult last night. But since > keeping quiet does not prevent being judged, I might as well speak.
> Lizzy can say whatever she wants, like the rest of us. But I > certainly don't consider her the authority on how Whites view > Indians...even if she does seem to know that Indians worry about > cameras stealing their souls. *rolling my eyes* I have never had the > "tendency" to "conjur up an image of a drunken Indian lying on the > street asking to be beaten up." I have never heard that thought > expressed by the "White folks" I know. I do happen to already know > Indians are human beings. And what's more, they are INDIVIDUALS. I > don't go around saying, "You Indians (fill in the blank)" or "What > could you know? YOU'RE AN INDIAN!!"
> I thought Lizzy was interested in getting the facts out to people who > were unaware of the issues. But I guess we should remember, she's not > a journalist, she's a blogger. The hit counter still gets run up, > whether the goal is credibility earned by presenting unbiased truth, > or entertaining folks with button-pushing emoting. I guess as long as > she doesn't say anything critical of the wrong person or position and > get outed as being FBI, it's all good.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Lol! Donna and I will always be on opposite sides. That doesn't mean I can't have my opinion either. IT is very racist here in the Pacific Northwest. Lizzy lives in Oregon. Do you want us to pretend that racism against us doesn't exist so you won't have to feel uncomfortable? You've opened up and grown a lot in Indian issues since you've been here. Remember when you said you didn't know why people were upset about Kennewick man and consider that maybe he was white. Or did I misunderstand you? Now I see you considering that maybe the migration went the other way. White society will always try to minimize the fact that this land was ours. I'm being diplomatic.
> On Mar 25, 4:55 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > click until to page 11 and there is a picture of Raymond Yellow > > > Thunder. I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially > > > for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken > > > Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up. As you can see he > > > is a human being with what looks to be a sense of humor while not > > > being quite at ease having his picture taken.)
> > SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, LIZZY TOOL!
> > Maybe that's the image of Indians *you* have had a "tendency to > > conjure up", or maybe that is the image of 'whites' you have a > > tendency to conjure up. Who knows.
> On Mar 26, 8:07 am, Hope <holleratwal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 8:50 am, Monica <yano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 4:55 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > click until to page 11 and there is a picture of Raymond Yellow > > > > > Thunder. I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially > > > > > for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken > > > > > Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up. As you can see he > > > > > is a human being with what looks to be a sense of humor while not > > > > > being quite at ease having his picture taken.)
> > > > SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, LIZZY TOOL!
> > > > Maybe that's the image of Indians *you* have had a "tendency to > > > > conjure up", or maybe that is the image of 'whites' you have a > > > > tendency to conjure up. Who knows.
> > > > What nerve.
> > > Does the truth threaten you daisy mae?
> > This looks like one of those no-win situations. If we let a statement > > like that pass, then we set ourselves up for, "Oh, you didn't say > > anything, so you must agree. You must think of Indians as drunks just > > 'asking' for a beating." And if we do protest, we get, "Oh, you must > > have a guilty conscience. You don't like to be faced with the truth." > > That's why I didn't respond to this insult last night. But since > > keeping quiet does not prevent being judged, I might as well speak.
> > Lizzy can say whatever she wants, like the rest of us. But I > > certainly don't consider her the authority on how Whites view > > Indians...even if she does seem to know that Indians worry about > > cameras stealing their souls. *rolling my eyes* I have never had the > > "tendency" to "conjur up an image of a drunken Indian lying on the > > street asking to be beaten up." I have never heard that thought > > expressed by the "White folks" I know. I do happen to already know > > Indians are human beings. And what's more, they are INDIVIDUALS. I > > don't go around saying, "You Indians (fill in the blank)" or "What > > could you know? YOU'RE AN INDIAN!!"
> > I thought Lizzy was interested in getting the facts out to people who > > were unaware of the issues. But I guess we should remember, she's not > > a journalist, she's a blogger. The hit counter still gets run up, > > whether the goal is credibility earned by presenting unbiased truth, > > or entertaining folks with button-pushing emoting. I guess as long as > > she doesn't say anything critical of the wrong person or position and > > get outed as being FBI, it's all good.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Lol! Donna and I will always be on opposite sides.
That's your own take on it.
If you're on a 'side', you'll never know the truth of anything. One side never has the entire truth. What's even worse is that you've made it to be about two opposing sides: AIM - FBI.
It's actually three sides (at the very least): CPUSA - AIM - FBI. It's right there like a big pink elephant in the History Room, but you will do anything to keep me from pointing it out - that's what started all this nonsense to begin. The moment i mentioned that the Communist Party was involved, you went ballistic. The rest is history, so to speak.
> That doesn't mean I > can't have my opinion either. IT is very racist here in the Pacific > Northwest. Lizzy lives in Oregon.
BS. When is the last time you've lived anywhere aside from the Pacific Northwest? This place is no more (or less) racist than any other.
> Do you want us to pretend that > racism against us doesn't exist so you won't have to feel > uncomfortable?
That question goes both ways - just like migration paths. Should 'we' pretend that racism against us doesn't exist so 'you' don't have to feel uncomfortable?
> You've opened up and grown a lot in Indian issues since > you've been here. Remember when you said you didn't know why people > were upset about Kennewick man and consider that maybe he was white. > Or did I misunderstand you? Now I see you considering that maybe the > migration went the other way. White society will always try to > minimize the fact that this land was ours. I'm being diplomatic.- Hide quoted text -
> On Mar 26, 9:07 am, Monica <yano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 8:07 am, Hope <holleratwal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 26, 8:50 am, Monica <yano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 25, 4:55 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > click until to page 11 and there is a picture of Raymond Yellow > > > > > > Thunder. I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially > > > > > > for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken > > > > > > Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up. As you can see he > > > > > > is a human being with what looks to be a sense of humor while not > > > > > > being quite at ease having his picture taken.)
> > > > > SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, LIZZY TOOL!
> > > > > Maybe that's the image of Indians *you* have had a "tendency to > > > > > conjure up", or maybe that is the image of 'whites' you have a > > > > > tendency to conjure up. Who knows.
> > > > > What nerve.
> > > > Does the truth threaten you daisy mae?
> > > This looks like one of those no-win situations. If we let a statement > > > like that pass, then we set ourselves up for, "Oh, you didn't say > > > anything, so you must agree. You must think of Indians as drunks just > > > 'asking' for a beating." And if we do protest, we get, "Oh, you must > > > have a guilty conscience. You don't like to be faced with the truth." > > > That's why I didn't respond to this insult last night. But since > > > keeping quiet does not prevent being judged, I might as well speak.
> > > Lizzy can say whatever she wants, like the rest of us. But I > > > certainly don't consider her the authority on how Whites view > > > Indians...even if she does seem to know that Indians worry about > > > cameras stealing their souls. *rolling my eyes* I have never had the > > > "tendency" to "conjur up an image of a drunken Indian lying on the > > > street asking to be beaten up." I have never heard that thought > > > expressed by the "White folks" I know. I do happen to already know > > > Indians are human beings. And what's more, they are INDIVIDUALS. I > > > don't go around saying, "You Indians (fill in the blank)" or "What > > > could you know? YOU'RE AN INDIAN!!"
> > > I thought Lizzy was interested in getting the facts out to people who > > > were unaware of the issues. But I guess we should remember, she's not > > > a journalist, she's a blogger. The hit counter still gets run up, > > > whether the goal is credibility earned by presenting unbiased truth, > > > or entertaining folks with button-pushing emoting. I guess as long as > > > she doesn't say anything critical of the wrong person or position and > > > get outed as being FBI, it's all good.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Lol! Donna and I will always be on opposite sides.
> That's your own take on it.
> If you're on a 'side', you'll never know the truth of anything. One > side never has the entire truth. What's even worse is that you've made > it to be about two opposing sides: AIM - FBI.
> It's actually three sides (at the very least): CPUSA - AIM - FBI. It's > right there like a big pink elephant in the History Room, but you will > do anything to keep me from pointing it out - that's what started all > this nonsense to begin. The moment i mentioned that the Communist > Party was involved, you went ballistic. The rest is history, so to > speak.
> > That doesn't mean I > > can't have my opinion either. IT is very racist here in the Pacific > > Northwest. Lizzy lives in Oregon.
> BS. When is the last time you've lived anywhere aside from the Pacific > Northwest? This place is no more (or less) racist than any other.
> > Do you want us to pretend that > > racism against us doesn't exist so you won't have to feel > > uncomfortable?
> That question goes both ways - just like migration paths. Should 'we' > pretend that racism against us doesn't exist so 'you' don't have to > feel uncomfortable?
> > You've opened up and grown a lot in Indian issues since > > you've been here. Remember when you said you didn't know why people > > were upset about Kennewick man and consider that maybe he was white. > > Or did I misunderstand you? Now I see you considering that maybe the > > migration went the other way. White society will always try to > > minimize the fact that this land was ours. I'm being diplomatic.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Diplomatic like Che? Or more like Mao?
More like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, David Crockett, et al.
> On Mar 26, 12:48 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 9:07 am, Monica <yano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 26, 8:07 am, Hope <holleratwal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 26, 8:50 am, Monica <yano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 25, 4:55 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > click until to page 11 and there is a picture of Raymond Yellow > > > > > > > Thunder. I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially > > > > > > > for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken > > > > > > > Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up. As you can see he > > > > > > > is a human being with what looks to be a sense of humor while not > > > > > > > being quite at ease having his picture taken.)
> > > > > > SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, LIZZY TOOL!
> > > > > > Maybe that's the image of Indians *you* have had a "tendency to > > > > > > conjure up", or maybe that is the image of 'whites' you have a > > > > > > tendency to conjure up. Who knows.
> > > > > > What nerve.
> > > > > Does the truth threaten you daisy mae?
> > > > This looks like one of those no-win situations. If we let a statement > > > > like that pass, then we set ourselves up for, "Oh, you didn't say > > > > anything, so you must agree. You must think of Indians as drunks just > > > > 'asking' for a beating." And if we do protest, we get, "Oh, you must > > > > have a guilty conscience. You don't like to be faced with the truth." > > > > That's why I didn't respond to this insult last night. But since > > > > keeping quiet does not prevent being judged, I might as well speak.
> > > > Lizzy can say whatever she wants, like the rest of us. But I > > > > certainly don't consider her the authority on how Whites view > > > > Indians...even if she does seem to know that Indians worry about > > > > cameras stealing their souls. *rolling my eyes* I have never had the > > > > "tendency" to "conjur up an image of a drunken Indian lying on the > > > > street asking to be beaten up." I have never heard that thought > > > > expressed by the "White folks" I know. I do happen to already know > > > > Indians are human beings. And what's more, they are INDIVIDUALS. I > > > > don't go around saying, "You Indians (fill in the blank)" or "What > > > > could you know? YOU'RE AN INDIAN!!"
> > > > I thought Lizzy was interested in getting the facts out to people who > > > > were unaware of the issues. But I guess we should remember, she's not > > > > a journalist, she's a blogger. The hit counter still gets run up, > > > > whether the goal is credibility earned by presenting unbiased truth, > > > > or entertaining folks with button-pushing emoting. I guess as long as > > > > she doesn't say anything critical of the wrong person or position and > > > > get outed as being FBI, it's all good.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Lol! Donna and I will always be on opposite sides.
> > That's your own take on it.
> > If you're on a 'side', you'll never know the truth of anything. One > > side never has the entire truth. What's even worse is that you've made > > it to be about two opposing sides: AIM - FBI.
> > It's actually three sides (at the very least): CPUSA - AIM - FBI. It's > > right there like a big pink elephant in the History Room, but you will > > do anything to keep me from pointing it out - that's what started all > > this nonsense to begin. The moment i mentioned that the Communist > > Party was involved, you went ballistic. The rest is history, so to > > speak.
> > > That doesn't mean I > > > can't have my opinion either. IT is very racist here in the Pacific > > > Northwest. Lizzy lives in Oregon.
> > BS. When is the last time you've lived anywhere aside from the Pacific > > Northwest? This place is no more (or less) racist than any other.
> > > Do you want us to pretend that > > > racism against us doesn't exist so you won't have to feel > > > uncomfortable?
> > That question goes both ways - just like migration paths. Should 'we' > > pretend that racism against us doesn't exist so 'you' don't have to > > feel uncomfortable?
> > > You've opened up and grown a lot in Indian issues since > > > you've been here. Remember when you said you didn't know why people > > > were upset about Kennewick man and consider that maybe he was white. > > > Or did I misunderstand you? Now I see you considering that maybe the > > > migration went the other way. White society will always try to > > > minimize the fact that this land was ours. I'm being diplomatic.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Diplomatic like Che? Or more like Mao?
> More like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, David Crockett, et al.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Hardly. What defense is there really? This is in response to the racist comments made by Lizzy Tool and supported/encouraged by Monica Charles. Trying to justify racism is not 'diplomatic' in any way, shape, form. Just because it's 'whites' instead of black, asians, etc. does not make it more 'right' or 'okay'.
> On Mar 26, 1:17 pm, Melodious Thunk <thunk.melodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 12:48 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 26, 9:07 am, Monica <yano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 26, 8:07 am, Hope <holleratwal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 26, 8:50 am, Monica <yano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 4:55 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > click until to page 11 and there is a picture of Raymond Yellow > > > > > > > > Thunder. I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially > > > > > > > > for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken > > > > > > > > Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up. As you can see he > > > > > > > > is a human being with what looks to be a sense of humor while not > > > > > > > > being quite at ease having his picture taken.)
> > > > > > > SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, LIZZY TOOL!
> > > > > > > Maybe that's the image of Indians *you* have had a "tendency to > > > > > > > conjure up", or maybe that is the image of 'whites' you have a > > > > > > > tendency to conjure up. Who knows.
> > > > > > > What nerve.
> > > > > > Does the truth threaten you daisy mae?
> > > > > This looks like one of those no-win situations. If we let a statement > > > > > like that pass, then we set ourselves up for, "Oh, you didn't say > > > > > anything, so you must agree. You must think of Indians as drunks just > > > > > 'asking' for a beating." And if we do protest, we get, "Oh, you must > > > > > have a guilty conscience. You don't like to be faced with the truth." > > > > > That's why I didn't respond to this insult last night. But since > > > > > keeping quiet does not prevent being judged, I might as well speak.
> > > > > Lizzy can say whatever she wants, like the rest of us. But I > > > > > certainly don't consider her the authority on how Whites view > > > > > Indians...even if she does seem to know that Indians worry about > > > > > cameras stealing their souls. *rolling my eyes* I have never had the > > > > > "tendency" to "conjur up an image of a drunken Indian lying on the > > > > > street asking to be beaten up." I have never heard that thought > > > > > expressed by the "White folks" I know. I do happen to already know > > > > > Indians are human beings. And what's more, they are INDIVIDUALS. I > > > > > don't go around saying, "You Indians (fill in the blank)" or "What > > > > > could you know? YOU'RE AN INDIAN!!"
> > > > > I thought Lizzy was interested in getting the facts out to people who > > > > > were unaware of the issues. But I guess we should remember, she's not > > > > > a journalist, she's a blogger. The hit counter still gets run up, > > > > > whether the goal is credibility earned by presenting unbiased truth, > > > > > or entertaining folks with button-pushing emoting. I guess as long as > > > > > she doesn't say anything critical of the wrong person or position and > > > > > get outed as being FBI, it's all good.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > Lol! Donna and I will always be on opposite sides.
> > > That's your own take on it.
> > > If you're on a 'side', you'll never know the truth of anything. One > > > side never has the entire truth. What's even worse is that you've made > > > it to be about two opposing sides: AIM - FBI.
> > > It's actually three sides (at the very least): CPUSA - AIM - FBI. It's > > > right there like a big pink elephant in the History Room, but you will > > > do anything to keep me from pointing it out - that's what started all > > > this nonsense to begin. The moment i mentioned that the Communist > > > Party was involved, you went ballistic. The rest is history, so to > > > speak.
> > > > That doesn't mean I > > > > can't have my opinion either. IT is very racist here in the Pacific > > > > Northwest. Lizzy lives in Oregon.
> > > BS. When is the last time you've lived anywhere aside from the Pacific > > > Northwest? This place is no more (or less) racist than any other.
> > > > Do you want us to pretend that > > > > racism against us doesn't exist so you won't have to feel > > > > uncomfortable?
> > > That question goes both ways - just like migration paths. Should 'we' > > > pretend that racism against us doesn't exist so 'you' don't have to > > > feel uncomfortable?
> > > > You've opened up and grown a lot in Indian issues since > > > > you've been here. Remember when you said you didn't know why people > > > > were upset about Kennewick man and consider that maybe he was white. > > > > Or did I misunderstand you? Now I see you considering that maybe the > > > > migration went the other way. White society will always try to > > > > minimize the fact that this land was ours. I'm being diplomatic.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Diplomatic like Che? Or more like Mao?
> > More like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, David Crockett, et al.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Hardly. What defense is there really? This is in response to the > racist comments made by Lizzy Tool and supported/encouraged by Monica > Charles. Trying to justify racism is not 'diplomatic' in any way, > shape, form. Just because it's 'whites' instead of black, asians, etc. > does not make it more 'right' or 'okay'.
I was just to the "Che and "Mao" comment. However we do hold different definitions of racism.
If it isn't clear, I do not justify racism. I do try to understand it.
I don't like Ms. Tool's writing so I don't read it. Skimming over what she wrote about Raymond Yellow Thunder, though, isn't it clear from context that she's referring to the men who subsequently *did* beat him up? Vine Deloria wrote powerfully on this:
"Early in 1972, five white men captured Raymond Yellow Thunder, a fifty-one-year old Sioux from the Pine Ridge reservation in Gordon, Nebraska. They severely beat him, stripped him of his clothes below the waist, and pushed him into an American Legion hall where a dance was in progress. Yellow Thunder thus became the grotesque amusement of white veterans his own age who had fought in World War II and Korea to protect American rights and liberties, including Yellow Thunder's rights and liberties. But the whites had no concept of these same rights applied to Indians."
So I hardly think Ms. Tool is making a blanket condemnation of whites; she's condemning those particular ones who acted other than as men. Who deserve such condemnation, IMO.
People are free to read it as they wish, however. Maybe you can get her to apologize.
> > > More like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, David Crockett, et al.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Hardly. What defense is there really? This is in response to the > > racist comments made by Lizzy Tool and supported/encouraged by Monica > > Charles. Trying to justify racism is not 'diplomatic' in any way, > > shape, form. Just because it's 'whites' instead of black, asians, etc. > > does not make it more 'right' or 'okay'.
> I was just to the "Che and "Mao" comment. However we do hold different > definitions of racism.
> If it isn't clear, I do not justify racism. I do try to understand it.
> I don't like Ms. Tool's writing so I don't read it. Skimming over what > she wrote about Raymond Yellow Thunder, though, isn't it clear from > context that she's referring to the men who subsequently *did* beat > him up? Vine Deloria wrote powerfully on this:
> "Early in 1972, five white men captured Raymond Yellow Thunder, a > fifty-one-year old Sioux from the Pine Ridge reservation in Gordon, > Nebraska. They severely beat him, stripped him of his clothes below > the waist, and pushed him into an American Legion hall where a dance > was in progress. Yellow Thunder thus became the grotesque amusement of > white veterans his own age who had fought in World War II and Korea to > protect American rights and liberties, including Yellow Thunder's > rights and liberties. But the whites had no concept of these same > rights applied to Indians."
> So I hardly think Ms. Tool is making a blanket condemnation of whites; > she's condemning those particular ones who acted other than as men. > Who deserve such condemnation, IMO.
No, she was referring to 'whites' who had not seen a picture, but needed to see one so as to assure themselves that their *tendency* to imagine that Raymond Yellow Thunder was not a drunk indian lying in the street was all wrong.
Here is the quote:
"I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially for whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up."
How many white people do you know have a 'tendency' to stereotype people instead of seeing them as individuals? As Hope said, i too, don't associate with anyone who does, and of those i know in passing acquaintance - very few.
> People are free to read it as they wish, however. Maybe you can get > her to apologize.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
What good are apologies when the racism continues? If that sounds familiar, it's because it's the EXACT SAME THING as racism that comes from any other person. I don't need any stinkin' apologies from that one, or her 'mentor'.
On Mar 26, 5:16 pm, Melodious Thunk <thunk.melodi...@gmail.com> wrote:.
> I was just to the "Che and "Mao" comment. However we do hold different > definitions of racism.
> If it isn't clear, I do not justify racism. I do try to understand it.
> I don't like Ms. Tool's writing so I don't read it. Skimming over what > she wrote about Raymond Yellow Thunder, though, isn't it clear from > context that she's referring to the men who subsequently *did* beat > him up? Vine Deloria wrote powerfully on this:
It isn't clear to me, and I spent good money for an English degree! Do I need to ask for a refund? *LOL* She said, "I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially for whites whose tendency WILL BE [my emphasis] to conjur up an image of a drunken Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up."
How would her use of future tense in talking about White people's refer to the past event? It seems more logical to me to assume that she is referring to people who will be reading her account of this crime without having any idea of who Raymond the human being was.
The men who beat him up would hardly need to see a photo of him to form an accurate opinion of what happened. If that's who she was referring to, it would have been much less convoluted to simply say, "The White men who beat and abused Raymond Yellow Thunder apparently thought he was just another drunken Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up." She didn't limit her statement to *some* Whites, or *those Whites who might.*
I find it curious that she limited the idea of inaccurate stereotyping to Whites in the first place. If she reads here as Monica says, she has seen plenty of evidence that Asians can stereotype. And that Asian posts articles about Hispanics being racists. So why limit it to Whites, and further show disdain by not capitalizing one race and capitalizing the other? If all that is just an innocent misunderstanding, I think she must have too high an opinion of her writing skills.
> "Early in 1972, five white men captured Raymond Yellow Thunder, a > fifty-one-year old Sioux from the Pine Ridge reservation in Gordon, > Nebraska. They severely beat him, stripped him of his clothes below > the waist, and pushed him into an American Legion hall where a dance > was in progress. Yellow Thunder thus became the grotesque amusement of > white veterans his own age who had fought in World War II and Korea to > protect American rights and liberties, including Yellow Thunder's > rights and liberties. But the whites had no concept of these same > rights applied to Indians."
> So I hardly think Ms. Tool is making a blanket condemnation of whites; > she's condemning those particular ones who acted other than as men.
I disagree. I think you are trying too hard to be diplomatic.
> Who deserve such condemnation, IMO.
Of COURSE they do! Was that ever the question? What they did was WRONG and they should have been PUNISHED. That would be true whether they were White or purple with green stripes. Race/color should NOT have been a factor in the punishment they received. I take exception to someone implying I would feel otherwise because of my race.
> People are free to read it as they wish, however.
As we have ALL demonstrated.
>Maybe you can get > her to apologize.
That was not my intent. Do you really think that would "fix" everything, like a band-aid on a boo-boo, or a trophy to prove I "won" something? I have never been a big fan of the "Do what you want. You can always apologize and make it go away" school of behavior.
I expressed my truth about the matter. It will have an affect or it won't. I don't need an artificial "closure."
> > > > More like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, David Crockett, et al.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Hardly. What defense is there really? This is in response to the > > > racist comments made by Lizzy Tool and supported/encouraged by Monica > > > Charles. Trying to justify racism is not 'diplomatic' in any way, > > > shape, form. Just because it's 'whites' instead of black, asians, etc. > > > does not make it more 'right' or 'okay'.
> > I was just to the "Che and "Mao" comment. However we do hold different > > definitions of racism.
> > If it isn't clear, I do not justify racism. I do try to understand it.
> > I don't like Ms. Tool's writing so I don't read it. Skimming over what > > she wrote about Raymond Yellow Thunder, though, isn't it clear from > > context that she's referring to the men who subsequently *did* beat > > him up? Vine Deloria wrote powerfully on this:
> > "Early in 1972, five white men captured Raymond Yellow Thunder, a > > fifty-one-year old Sioux from the Pine Ridge reservation in Gordon, > > Nebraska. They severely beat him, stripped him of his clothes below > > the waist, and pushed him into an American Legion hall where a dance > > was in progress. Yellow Thunder thus became the grotesque amusement of > > white veterans his own age who had fought in World War II and Korea to > > protect American rights and liberties, including Yellow Thunder's > > rights and liberties. But the whites had no concept of these same > > rights applied to Indians."
> > So I hardly think Ms. Tool is making a blanket condemnation of whites; > > she's condemning those particular ones who acted other than as men. > > Who deserve such condemnation, IMO.
> No, she was referring to 'whites' who had not seen a picture, but > needed to see one so as to assure themselves that their *tendency* to > imagine that Raymond Yellow Thunder was not a drunk indian lying in > the street was all wrong.
> Here is the quote:
> "I think it is good to see a photo of the person. Especially for > whites whose tendency will be to conjur up an image of a drunken > Indian lying on the street asking to be beaten up."
Were I writing it, to get the effect you're implying, I'd've added a comma:
"Especially for whites, whose tendency..." But I'm a stickler. Perhaps just as many people interpret her paragraph your way, as interpret it my way.
However, then you say:
> How many white people do you know have a 'tendency' to stereotype > people instead of seeing them as individuals?
Did you take that Harvard quiz? The answer is, the overwhelming majority. Same for other "races."
> As Hope said, i too, > don't associate with anyone who does, and of those i know in passing > acquaintance - very few.
> > People are free to read it as they wish, however. Maybe you can get > > her to apologize.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> What good are apologies when the racism continues? If that sounds > familiar, it's because it's the EXACT SAME THING as racism that comes > from any other person. I don't need any stinkin' apologies from that > one, or her 'mentor'.
See, this is a problem I've had every time I've discussed racism here on alt.native. It is all well and good to say that there should be no racism. Fine words; reasonable people would not disagree (except for LL, and she was probably making a broader point). However, racism still exists. Hate still exists. It is the reality that trumps everything else.
After Lennon said, "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world," he was shot and killed. After MLK dreamed we could "all get there," he was killed. This is the world as it is. It is the one we live in.
You should read about this town, Gordon, in Nebraska, where this incident occurred; this is a usually-reliable source:
If Port Angeles is, I can't find your quote but you implied no worse and no better, well perhaps you should reconsider this place you live in.
So, given that this racism still exists, I have to go back to my definition of racism: The damage [of racism] is, one people having power to *limit* another. Everything else is just words but that power has destroyed literally billions of lives. Maybe Raymond Yellow Thunder himself was a racist; maybe he called one of those five white men a "rice-buttering, mayonnaise-eating, white man." The power, though, resided in those five men, who extracted a high price with their, power-backed, racism. And the power that let them get away with it, for a nominal price.
I'm part white, I don't like that [some] whites have such power over others, I don't have personal power over others, you probably don't either. But that is the way of this Nation. How you can avoid understanding that, I just don't get. I can certainly agree that it hurts your feelings to be called, or implied to be, a racist. How you can argue that its the same when a person of color calls you racist as when you call a person of color racist, that's ignorance of history, and of reality, Donna.
> On Mar 26, 5:16 pm, Melodious Thunk <thunk.melodi...@gmail.com> > wrote:.
> > I was just to the "Che and "Mao" comment. However we do hold different > > definitions of racism.
> > If it isn't clear, I do not justify racism. I do try to understand it.
> > I don't like Ms. Tool's writing so I don't read it. Skimming over what > > she wrote about Raymond Yellow Thunder, though, isn't it clear from > > context that she's referring to the men who subsequently *did* beat > > him up? Vine Deloria wrote powerfully on this:
> It isn't clear to me, and I spent good money for an English degree! Do > I need to ask for a refund? *LOL* She said, "I think it is good to see > a photo of the person. Especially for whites whose tendency WILL BE > [my emphasis] to conjur up an image of a drunken Indian lying on the > street asking to be beaten up."
> How would her use of future tense in talking about White people's > refer to the past event? It seems more logical to me to assume that > she is referring to people who will be reading her account of this > crime without having any idea of who Raymond the human being was.
> The men who beat him up would hardly need to see a photo of him to > form an accurate opinion of what happened. If that's who she was > referring to, it would have been much less convoluted to simply say, > "The White men who beat and abused Raymond Yellow Thunder apparently > thought he was just another drunken Indian lying on the street asking > to be beaten up." She didn't limit her statement to *some* Whites, or > *those Whites who might.*
I will yield to you and Donna. I did not even attend high school; and in college, English was the last thing on my mind. (As a composer/ percussion performance major, I spent my years playing the triangle in orchestras. Beat that, ding-ding!)
> I find it curious that she limited the idea of inaccurate stereotyping > to Whites in the first place. If she reads here as Monica says, she > has seen plenty of evidence that Asians can stereotype. And that > Asian posts articles about Hispanics being racists. So why limit it > to Whites, and further show disdain by not capitalizing one race and > capitalizing the other? If all that is just an innocent > misunderstanding, I think she must have too high an opinion of her > writing skills.
Well I don't think much of her writing skills, but that was a quickly- formed impression from the 1st thing Monica reposted over here. I've changed my mind on the paragraph in question based on your response, Donna's, and re-perusing the context. And besides, I don't have no English degree and am not edumacated.
> > "Early in 1972, five white men captured Raymond Yellow Thunder, a > > fifty-one-year old Sioux from the Pine Ridge reservation in Gordon, > > Nebraska. They severely beat him, stripped him of his clothes below > > the waist, and pushed him into an American Legion hall where a dance > > was in progress. Yellow Thunder thus became the grotesque amusement of > > white veterans his own age who had fought in World War II and Korea to > > protect American rights and liberties, including Yellow Thunder's > > rights and liberties. But the whites had no concept of these same > > rights applied to Indians."
> > So I hardly think Ms. Tool is making a blanket condemnation of whites; > > she's condemning those particular ones who acted other than as men.
> I disagree. I think you are trying too hard to be diplomatic.
> > Who deserve such condemnation, IMO.
> Of COURSE they do! Was that ever the question? What they did was > WRONG and they should have been PUNISHED. That would be true whether > they were White or purple with green stripes. Race/color should NOT > have been a factor in the punishment they received. I take exception > to someone implying I would feel otherwise because of my race.
Now I'm curious whether you took the Harvard quiz?
> > People are free to read it as they wish, however.
> As we have ALL demonstrated.
> >Maybe you can get > > her to apologize.
> That was not my intent. Do you really think that would "fix" > everything, like a band-aid on a boo-boo, or a trophy to prove I "won" > something? I have never been a big fan of the "Do what you want. You > can always apologize and make it go away" school of behavior.
> I expressed my truth about the matter. It will have an affect or it > won't. I don't need an artificial "closure."
On Mar 26, 11:07 am, Monica <yano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lol! Donna and I will always be on opposite sides.
That's a shame, IMO. But obviously it ain't up to me!
> That doesn't mean I > can't have my opinion either.
No, it doesn't. But I was talking about *Lizzy's* opinion...or at least I thought I was. If you identify with that and feel the need to defend her, that's fine with me. I'm not going to tell you to keep your nose out of this because it's between two White women, and you're an "Indian woman," so you can't really understand. ;-p
> IT is very racist here in the Pacific > Northwest. Lizzy lives in Oregon. Do you want us to pretend that > racism against us doesn't exist so you won't have to feel > uncomfortable?
No. Nor do I want to be lumped in with every racist White person. I will not let erroneous statements that all Whites are racists go unchallenged just so YOU don't have to feel uncomfortable either. The same standards of conduct and rights to express opinions need to apply to everyone involved. And if you can make blanket statements about all Whites worldwide based on what is going on in your corner of the world, then I can make blanket statements about all Indians based on what's going on here in eastern Oklahoma. How likely is that to be fair and accurate?
> You've opened up and grown a lot in Indian issues since > you've been here. Remember when you said you didn't know why people > were upset about Kennewick man and consider that maybe he was white. > Or did I misunderstand you?
It's entirely possible you did. We seem to misunderstand each other a lot. *lol* What I was trying to say was that I don't see why TRUTH upsets people, no matter what that truth is. I don't know why people find truth threatening. I don't like to see people ignoring facts because they don't fit their agenda. And I do not limit that to Whites, Indians, or anyone else.
Personally, I don't care if the Kennewick man was Indian, Caucasian, Asian, Martian, or anything else. I don't have a vested interest in the outcome, and I'm not basing any personal self-esteem on it. The history of our planet and our species is sacred to me. I care that the archaeological evidence is preserved and treated with respect, and I care that the truth is told and the remains are properly settled, no matter who "wins" the genetic issue. If he was Indian, then I feel his descendants should have the say as to his final resting place and proper rites, IMO.
I feel the same about my beloved Egyptian artifacts. I don't have the right to go plunder and tomb there and haul my loot back to my home just because I would care for it and love it and treasure it just as much or more than anyone else in the world. It ain't about me. The people of Egypt have a right to decide issues of their history and land.
> Now I see you considering that maybe the > migration went the other way.
As I said, truth is truth, and IMO, it trumps anyone's personal agenda. Why should I want to lie about it, as if I could enhance my personal value if the "right" theory of what happened 10,000 years ago "won"? I make a lot of mistakes because of ignorance or short- sightedness or subconscious bias. I can at least work not to make my faults in that regard worse than they need to be. Dishonesty is dishonorable. So how can it truly enhance me in any way?
I AM making an effort to learn and grow in regard to Indian issues. That's why I came here, after all. And thank you for acknowledging that.
> White society will always try to > minimize the fact that this land was ours. I'm being diplomatic.
Are you? ;-p You just said I am growing and changing my awareness. Then you ended the post with another blanket statement about all Whites. As you keep pointing out, I am (mostly, at least) White. So I probably don't see that statement as being as diplomatic as you do. What would you think if I said, "Monica, you have befriended and championed a White woman, so obviously you are doing some growing. But you know, Indian society will still always try to blame everything bad that happens to them on Whites." How diplomatic does that seem to you? *LOL*
It seems pretty clear that Indians were here long before Whites, and it would take some major and radical FACTUAL evidence to the contrary to stand that paradigm on its ear. Indians may in fact have been here before the continents split, and maybe evidence will turn up to support that. I have no problem with these possibilities. But even if I did, truth does not care about my opinion and is not dependent upon my approval for its existence.
Since I have ancestors on both sides of the land issue, I can empathize with both mindsets, though I have opinions as to which ancestors had the stronger and more just claim. Don't assume you know how I feel about it all just because I happened to be born when and where I was to my particular parents.
As for land ownership...it seems like an artificial concept to me. Earth is our Mother. We don't own her. She doesn't belong to us, we belong to her. ALL of us. And if we disrespect her badly enough, she can shake us ALL off as a dog does fleas and start over. We aren't all bad, and we have potential to be a lot better. But let's get real. Human beings ain't all that. ;-p
On Mar 26, 8:10 pm, Melodious Thunk <thunk.melodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will yield to you and Donna. I did not even attend high school; and > in college, English was the last thing on my mind. (As a composer/ > percussion performance major, I spent my years playing the triangle in > orchestras. Beat that, ding-ding!)
*LOL* It sounds like a lot more fun than studying dangling participles. And BTW, perhaps you noticed that my having an English degree did not prevent me from leaving out a word after "people's." I give myself plenty of opportunities to get humble. ;-p
> Well I don't think much of her writing skills, but that was a quickly- > formed impression from the 1st thing Monica reposted over here. I've > changed my mind on the paragraph in question based on your response, > Donna's, and re-perusing the context. And besides, I don't have no > English degree and am not edumacated.
Yeah, you're pretty sad in that regard. 'Cause we all know the only education that really counts takes place in officially-approved classrooms. *straight face #13*
> Now I'm curious whether you took the Harvard quiz?
I took several of them, in fact. Not all of them were based on race. I didn't agree with all the conclusions that were reached by their format and criteria, but they were all interesting. According to them, my greatest (though moderate, for whatever that's worth) hidden bias is toward African-Americans. That was no great shock, considering where I live and the still-prevalent and sometimes not so subtle attitudes that abound. But it still disappointed me.
Can I assume from your references to this that you took one or more of the quizzes and found the results enlightening?
On Mar 26, 8:29 pm, Hope <holleratwal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I was trying to say was that I don't see why TRUTH > upsets people, no matter what that truth is. I don't know why people > find truth threatening. I don't like to see people ignoring facts > because they don't fit their agenda. And I do not limit that to > Whites, Indians, or anyone else.
After sleeping on this, I realize I need to revise it. I do understand that truth can be upsetting and threatening, depending on the issue and the people. This particular one just isn't threatening to me personally. That doesn't mean others can't react to it much differently.
Truth can be very uncomfortable. It can hurt. And it takes courage to shine the light of truth into the dark corners, especially when the darkness is in our own hearts and heads. But nothing is going to change unless we are willing to do that.
On Mar 26, 7:49 pm, Melodious Thunk <thunk.melodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, given that this racism still exists, I have to go back to my > definition of racism: The damage [of racism] is, one people having > power to *limit* another. Everything else is just words but that > power has destroyed literally billions of lives.
Words do have power. Tell a kid of any color (including White) for the first six years of his life that he's a worthless piece of shit and see if any damage is done by "just" words. You have rightfully said the definition you gave of racism is *yours*, and it is shared by many. But it is not the only definition, and many others don't accept that one. I personally think it is too limited.
Last week someone sent me a video of an African-American speaker at a conference calling for the extermination of Whites from the planet as the only way to save it. The person who forwarded it was outraged and wanted to know why this wasn't considered a hate crime, subject to the laws about that. The video came with a "Please forward this to everyone you know!" blurb. I deleted it instead, for my own reasons.
Okay, those were "just words." However, if the people at the conference acted on them and started blowing people away for being White, and I happened to be in the line of fire, I think that would make them pretty powerful in my world. My "superior power" would be "limited" pretty effectively, even though as African-Americans they are supposedly not capable of being truly racist, by your definition. How are you going to say, "Okay, you killed this person for no other reason than that she is White. But that's not really racist, because you aren't White, and only Whites can be racists in America. So it can't really be a hate crime. Her family can take comfort in that."
> Maybe Raymond Yellow > Thunder himself was a racist; maybe he called one of those five white > men a "rice-buttering, mayonnaise-eating, white man." The power, > though, resided in those five men, who extracted a high price with > their, power-backed, racism. And the power that let them get away with > it, for a nominal price.
And of course that was wrong, in every sense of the word. It is one more proof of the sickness here. And yes, if it had been reversed and five Indians had killed a drunk White boy, things would have been different. It would not have been fair.
But it is also true that while it might not have been considered "power-backed" racism, it would have been some form of racism just the same. Would the victim's White blood have been completely beside the point, when obviously Raymond's Indian blood was not? I don't think you can use a sliding scale for one side of the equation but not the other. In fact, I think the whole problem is that the same scale is NOT used for everyone, isn't it? There is no equality. And that can't be fixed by more inequality. If that's wrong for one person, it's wrong for all people.
> I'm part white, I don't like that [some] whites have such power over > others, I don't have personal power over others, you probably don't > either.
I understand what kind of power you are talking about. And I don't like it either. It's unjust and it SHOULD anger people. But I disagree that some of us don't have *personal* power, in the sense that it is within our power to help or harm. I think we all have that kind of power. More about that below.
> But that is the way of this Nation. How you can avoid > understanding that, I just don't get. I can certainly agree that it > hurts your feelings to be called, or implied to be, a racist. How you > can argue that its the same when a person of color calls you racist as > when you call a person of color racist, that's ignorance of history, > and of reality, Donna.
It's not the same. But it is still wrong. Robbery is wrong, and assault is wrong. They are different, yes. But they both cause damage to one person by another. And how you can say that those of us who are working hard NOT to be racist should meekly accept being accused of that and lumped in with everyone else with similar skin or hair color? I don't get *that* either. It is not truth. So it is dishonest to say, and it's dishonest to accept as if it were truth.
What would you have us do when we are falsely accused? Lie and claim to be guilty? Say, "Oh, I know you have been mistreated. So even though I personally would not consider mistreating you, and even though we know it is wrong for White people to act this way, we will accept a lower standard of behavior from you, because you are Indian/ Black/Asian/etc."
That kind of false pity is insulting, IMO. I would never accept being told that I was not expected to be courteous to others, because I'm a woman, and women are discriminated against by some men, so allowances will be made for my rudeness. That's just another way of being told I'm incapable of *truly* being equal. And let's be real. How can I realistically think I can be as rude as I "deserve" to be, and people are not going to be rude to me in return? I can be as outraged as I want when it happens, but it's not reality to expect anything different. My behavior either helps keeps the cycle going or helps break it.
In discussing the definition of racism, consider that there are different types of power. There is institutional power and "who's got the money" power, and we all understand that. But there is also personal power. I don't care what color you are, you have the power to inflict deep wounds on other people, and even kill them.
I think in many cases members of oppressed minorities decide that they are going to fight back the only way they can, which is with that personal power. And on one level I understand that inclination, especially since I have been the victim of violence and have felt that urge toward retaliation. But my personal opinion is that one wrong cannot be balanced by heaping another wrong upon it. What sense does it make to mimic the thing I hate?
I asked you what your reaction would have been if the man who verbally abused you in Hawaii had done that to your sons on the playground and I had allowed it and validated him with my "teacher authority," because he had a right to express his outrage at the social injustices he had endured. I am still interested in your response.
Do you not think he had any power to "really" hurt your sons with his words and his hate? Would the "superior power" of being part White have made them immune? Do you think they should understand that because of their genetics, they are *obligated* to allow others to abuse them? How is that different from the very attitude that has condoned the abuse of minorities? Does that really redress any wrongs or make anything better? What if the guy decided he needed to add some *physical* abuse to really make himself feel better about what had been done to him? Still okay?
I would never demand that your sons or anyone else accept being abused or blamed for something they did not do. Nor will I accept it for myself. If you want to make that choice and feel it makes things better somehow, that's up to you.
> [....] > Last week someone sent me a video of an African-American speaker > at a conference calling for the extermination of Whites from the planet > as the only way to save it.
I'd be interested in knowing who this neofascist Nigger was.
Information appreciated, either here or in private.
> "Hope" wrote >> [....] >> Last week someone sent me a video of an African-American speaker >> at a conference calling for the extermination of Whites from the planet >> as the only way to save it.
> I'd be interested in knowing who this neofascist Nigger was.
> Information appreciated, either here or in private.
> Dan
^^^^^^^
Nd.just WHY ..in the heck..no-body ever sends me STUFF...is beyond me....?? See Dan....were all in the same *boat*....putting your hand up in the air and saying..HEY..!!! I'm over here.............ain't gonna get far...cause the stupid *ones* will look at the other *stupid ones* nd say.HEY..??..did you hear sompin..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> "1X2Willows" <nos...@least.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gqja0l$olv$1@news.motzarella.org...> "Hope" wrote > >> [....] > >> Last week someone sent me a video of an African-American speaker > >> at a conference calling for the extermination of Whites from the planet > >> as the only way to save it.
> > I'd be interested in knowing who this neofascist Nigger was.
> > Information appreciated, either here or in private.
> > Dan
> ^^^^^^^
> Nd.just WHY ..in the heck..no-body ever sends me STUFF...is beyond me....?? > See Dan....were all in the same *boat*....putting your hand up in the air > and saying..HEY..!!! > I'm over here.............ain't gonna get far...cause the stupid *ones* will > look at the other *stupid ones* nd say.HEY..??..did you hear > sompin..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Wayne George
> ^^^^^^^
?? Are you trying to say you want the link? All ya gotta do is ask (preferably without any cuss words,) and ye shall receive. Ya don't gotta go callin' a gal stupid...
On Mar 27, 2:39 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@least.invalid> wrote:
> "Hope" wrote
> > [....] > > Last week someone sent me a video of an African-American speaker > > at a conference calling for the extermination of Whites from the planet > > as the only way to save it.
> I'd be interested in knowing who this neofascist Nigger was.
> Information appreciated, either here or in private.
> Dan
Actually, he did get compared to Hitler, by the African-Americans who set up the event. Apparently his "final solution" was a surprise to them and was WAY off topic. But I still don't like racial slurs, even in reference to the genocidally inclined.
> "1X2Willows" <nos...@least.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gqja0l$olv$1@news.motzarella.org...> "Hope" wrote > >> [....] > >> Last week someone sent me a video of an African-American speaker > >> at a conference calling for the extermination of Whites from the planet > >> as the only way to save it.
> > I'd be interested in knowing who this neofascist Nigger was.
> > Information appreciated, either here or in private.
> > Dan
> ^^^^^^^
> Nd.just WHY ..in the heck..no-body ever sends me STUFF...is beyond > me....?? > See Dan....were all in the same *boat*....putting your hand up in the air > and saying..HEY..!!! > I'm over here.............ain't gonna get far...cause the stupid *ones* > will > look at the other *stupid ones* nd say.HEY..??..did you hear > sompin..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Wayne George
> ^^^^^^^
?? Are you trying to say you want the link? All ya gotta do is ask (preferably without any cuss words,) and ye shall receive. Ya don't gotta go callin' a gal stupid...
^^^^^^^ Now..where do you see ..me callin you stupid..??? nd as for the *link*..no thanks.. I got enough links to surround myself with a.....A HIGH FENCE to last till the end.......
"Hope" wrote On Mar 27, 2:39 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@least.invalid> wrote:
> "Hope" wrote
> > [....] > > Last week someone sent me a video of an African-American speaker > > at a conference calling for the extermination of Whites from the planet > > as the only way to save it.
> I'd be interested in knowing who this neofascist Nigger was.
> Information appreciated, either here or in private.
> Dan
Actually, he did get compared to Hitler, by the African-Americans who set up the event. Apparently his "final solution" was a surprise to. them and was WAY off topic. But I still don't like racial slurs, even in reference to the genocidally inclined. ~~~~~~~~~~~
It's just that such frustrated utterances by one individual or another can be understood, yes even excused with a little compassion for the inacceptable treatment of many a 'minority' group by 'whites' in the past.
When it comes to open calls for violence like this however, and not only by your random numbnut in the street but by leaders and other figures of authority at an official event, I'd like to make absolutely sure there are none of these or their followers anywhere in my immediate surroundings. If there are, I will take appropriate precautions and if necessary, even preemptive ones. I consider that my duty for the safety of our children, our old and healthy society in general.
History has proven many times over, this kind of rhetoric is not to be taken lightly or brushed off as merely someone's slip. It caters to "movements". You let 'em get away with it, they come back even stronger next time.
There ought to be zero tolerance for scum like this in the 21st Century anymore, be they of the White Trash and Cracker variety, reverse-racist Niggers or cloudy Chinks for all I care (pun intended) and many more. In fact there is no slur offensive enough for the mindset and it is this mindset which needs to be eradicated by all possible means and to the last one standing, not people of any given colour.
"No mercy", this one sez. Neither verbally nor physically.
