Is it possible to maintain and respect cultural heritage and not be a racist

[Drich]

You guys are too easy sometimes.
In the movie I referenced "bury my heart at wounded knee" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0821638/
http://www.jacknilan.com/nativeamerican/...heart.html

the stated goal of Henry Dawes http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_L._Dawes
Was to break the will of the plains Indians and put them on reservations. He was the senator who sponsered the Dawes act (in the movie and in real life) which was later found to be the piece of legislation that had illegally stolen land (the Dakotas) from Indians and given it to the goverment.

He was quoted in saying " we will assimilate the Sioux or we will see them extinct."

I've read the book, thanks. The Sioux certainly haven't been assimilated. The were forced onto a reservation -- those who chose to stay in America, that is -- and at greatly reduced numbers due to a campaign aimed at genocide in order to remove them as an obstacle to settlement in the Dakotas, and the exploitation of the minerals therein. They had their lands expropriated, their children taken away from them to be educated in schools run by whites, and were given starvation rations for many years before the 1890 massacre.

That the word "assimilation" was used by the architect of their demise is not an example of correct usage, but rather, of euphemism. It was for all intents and purposes an incomplete genocide but a successful ethnic cleansing.

You didn't get it did you? pun-ie/Pawnee.. (it's this whole other tribe of Indians)

Probably because it's an entirely different tribe, from a different part of the country, with different traditions. It'd be as if I were talking about Koreans, and then made a joke about Vietnamese.

But hey, I guess to some folks, they all look the same, eh?

If you read the book you would have known the Sue were used by the goverment (given guns) to defeat the Pawnee.. I think your thinking of park and receration (it's a TV show, that uses the word Pawnee as a name to the town the show is centered on.) that show takes place in a different part of country.

---

oh and I used the word assimilate correctly again read the defination before you speak.

If I quote reference material to support what I have said. If I provide a link to something I said and you appose, it means you are wrong. If you somehow still feel your right then at that point you must find a more reputible source than the one I have provided to over turn what I am stating. To just say 'nut-uh' and repeat yourself inspite of properly documented source material, makes you look stupid/diminished capasity. Plus I don't need to look any more arrogant or harsh by beating up on someone with a diminished capasity. So please, If I provide a source research before you speak and speak on what I have posted. Not what you think is right. Because again the source material is the 'proof' you are not right.

[Nope]

When you have been taught that a just god rules the world, history can be troubling. Actually, it is troubling even without religion. Good people die. Really evil people sometimes succeed and there seems to be a lot of unnecessary cruelty.People who would want to do good are sometimes hurt and the people who hurt them aren't always brought to justice. I am glad that you are beginning to look at history, Drich but the lessons that you seem to have learned from history are different from what I learned.

To some extent, it is natural for humans to classify each other into groups . Once people are put into groups it is easier to view anyone outside of our own groups as one of the 'others' From there, it is easier to dehumanize the others because they are different from us. Dehumanization leads different groups to do horrible things to one another. The cure for this is to not hide away in your safe sphere but to interact with the "others'

Did you ever answer, Drich, which specific practices your dad kept your mom from following?

[Brian37]

When you have been taught that a just god rules the world, history can be troubling. Actually, it is troubling even without religion. Good people die. Really evil people sometimes succeed and there seems to be a lot of unnecessary cruelty.People who would want to do good are sometimes hurt and the people who hurt them aren't always brought to justice. I am glad that you are beginning to look at history, Drich but the lessons that you seem to have learned from history are different from what I learned.

To some extent, it is natural for humans to classify each other into groups . Once people are put into groups it is easier to view anyone outside of our own groups as one of the 'others' From there, it is easier to dehumanize the others because they are different from us. Dehumanization leads different groups to do horrible things to one another. The cure for this is to not hide away in your safe sphere but to interact with the "others'

Did you ever answer, Drich, which specific practices your dad kept your mom from following?

Dirich does what all humans do when raised with or even picking one. They find something pretty in it and get stuck on it. But a simple google search of the total number of deaths worldwide from everything per year would negate the idea of religion explaining good or bad.

Believers would have us believe that on average 50 million deaths per year are all bad people, including the deaths of children from famine or disease?

50 million deaths per year. That is half a billion in 10 years and 1 billion deaths every 20 years. That doesn't indicate to me a guiding force. It justs looks like death, just like trees die and cockroaches die.

[Thumpalumpacus]

oh and I used the word assimilate correctly again read the defination before you speak.

You should probably learn what a "euphemism" is before we converse any further, because while your cited definition is right, his usage of that word is not.

If I quote reference material to support what I have said. If I provide a link to something I said and you appose, it means you are wrong. If you somehow still feel your right then at that point you must find a more reputible source than the one I have provided to over turn what I am stating.

I've studied it at the college level, thanks. What is the basis of your insight, outside of a television show?

To just say 'nut-uh' and repeat yourself inspite of properly documented source material, makes you look stupid/diminished capasity. Plus I don't need to look any more arrogant or harsh by beating up on someone with a diminished capasity.

"Capacity" is the proper spelling, first of all, something which someone of your exalted intellect ought to know.

Secondly I'm not interested in providing you any sources, because thankfully, your education is not my business. Furthermore, even were I to go to the trouble, you'd spend five hundred more words why you're right despite some good primary source material such as Census data and whatnot.

In short, I know better than to hope for intelligent discussion from you, and only raise the issues I did hoping that another member will present more interesting discussion than your misapprehensions can possibly provide.

please, If I provide a source research before you speak and speak on what I have posted. Not what you think is right. Because again the source material is the 'proof' you are not right.

Sure, as soon as you do the same. You will have to earn your resect and consideration with me, and let's face it, you've dug yourself a pretty deep hole as matters stand.

Until you redeem yourself of your copious cuntish shitposting, you merit nothing more than my abject contempt.

[Drich]

When you have been taught that a just god rules the world, history can be troubling.

And it can be trouble free, it just depends on the ears and heart who receive this message.

Actually, it is troubling even without religion. Good people die. Really evil people sometimes succeed and there seems to be a lot of unnecessary cruelty.People who would want to do good are sometimes hurt and the people who hurt them aren't always brought to justice. I am glad that you are beginning to look at history, Drich but the lessons that you seem to have learned from history are different from what I learned.

"History" is one of the only subjects i did not completely fail at. It was story telling, they created pictures that I could understand and draw from, so I've been a fan of History from very early on.
The reason what I see and you see in a given historical period seems to be different is because you seem willing to except the spin of the one telling the tale. Every Story has 3 sides, The winning side the loosing side and the truth. Knowing History in such away as to not be doomed to repeat it, demands one dig deeper than what the 'winning side' would have you see.
When i draw on History to create an example it rarly from the point of the 'winning side' perspective. It is usally from a little of both sides if both are avaiable.

To some extent, it is natural for humans to classify each other into groups . Once people are put into groups it is easier to view anyone outside of our own groups as one of the 'others' From there, it is easier to dehumanize the others because they are different from us.

Every preamble to war starts with a dehumanization propaganda campain. Look at what we said about the indians. (Savages/cavemen, Joey Smith called them the sons of Satan) Again with Hitler and the Jews. He had his scientists reclassify them as a different sub species. Look at what we said about the Japanese, Koreans, Veitnamese, Iraqies, Taliban, ISIS fighters and the next 10 opponets we will face...

Now look at what members of this board say about hard core theists who do not support things like gay rights, or abortion, or support whipping their kids...

Deumanization is alive and well in soceity. it's targets however have been selected to fit a 'Vanallia assimilation' that has no other tollerance for those who do not want to live the vanallia lifestyle.

Did you ever answer, Drich, which specific practices your dad kept your mom from following?

I didn't see that question. Her orginal religion was the biggest thing. She was made to cook two dinners one for us, and one for him (would not eat 99% of korean food.) He would not allow my mother to serve her sibblings at dinner. (she was the youngest of the group and a woman, therefore serving the dinner party fell to her.) In fact there were several occasions where he made the men serve the women. He beat a korean man bloody for disiplining his daughter for comming home too late. (His fault, he was not a respector of anyone elses rules) and 50 other little things that made her friends and family not want to come around, which seemed alright with him.

Just typical american 'our way is the right way B/S and if your here you will do things our way.'

[The Grand Nudger]

It's all much easier to understand now. Apples and trees......

[Drich]

You should probably learn what a "euphemism" is before we converse any further, because while your cited definition is right, his usage of that word is not.

[quote=Drich]If I quote reference material to support what I have said. If I provide a link to something I said and you appose, it means you are wrong. If you somehow still feel your right then at that point you must find a more reputible source than the one I have provided to over turn what I am stating.

I've studied it at the college level, thanks.
What is the basis of your insight, outside of a television show?

Then get your money back. Because they should have taught you the same thing I just did. That you need reference material to support your assertions. That speaking on faith and having those whom you are speaking to to accept your words on faith is not an accidemic practice.

Yet look at the logical fallacy this whole post is based on 'appeal to authority' (your collage education verse a 'tv show.')
If the 'tv show can be supported with documentation then it becomes a viable source, and your collage 'education' becomes the unreliable joke.

speaking of jokes, What do you call a "collage educated man" who is caught in a accidemic delima, between what he thinks is true and what is historical fact, but refuses to acknoweledge or look up anything he is speaking on, and just assumes because he got a degree that anything he thinks is automatically true????

Yep, a douche bag.

Ohh, ohh hear comes the knock out blow/final nail in the coffin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_Canyon

The above link was the last great battle between the pawnee and the Sue.
In truth the fought like cats and dogs till the "american Goverment backed Sue" in the Massacre canyon battle whooped them so bad them move out of the dakotas into the Ok terrotiry.

So are we done douche bag? can you admit my 'tv show' was right and you and all of your great collage educated guessing was wrong? If not know If you let this go I won't bring it up again. Just next time remember I do indeed carfully research EVERYTHING before I speak on it. If I reference a TV show or movie it is because I know it to be factual. Again I start with tertiary material and move backwards to secondary and then primary source material. (Something they teach in collage) even though I never went. Oh, the Irony i love it! (victory lap complete)

To just say 'nut-uh' and repeat yourself inspite of properly documented source material, makes you look stupid/diminished capasity. Plus I don't need to look any more arrogant or harsh by beating up on someone with a diminished capasity.

"Capacity" is the proper spelling, first of all, something which someone of your exalted intellect ought to know.

Secondly I'm not interested in providing you any sources, because thankfully, your education is not my business. Furthermore, even were I to go to the trouble, you'd spend five hundred more words why you're right despite some good primary source material such as Census data and whatnot.

Or you tried to google it and found out I was right, so you can't post any source material, and your pinning all your hopes on the idea that if you put enough red herring and appeal to your authority out there, that I won't know any better, or you can just simply bully me off topic...

Too bad I actually research what i talk about before I speak on it or you could have Bill Marr/Richard Dawkins' me into silence.

In short, I know better than to hope for intelligent discussion from you, and only raise the issues I did hoping that another member will present more interesting discussion than your misapprehensions can possibly provide.

Sure, as soon as you do the same. You will have to earn your resect and consideration with me, and let's face it, you've dug yourself a pretty deep hole as matters stand.

Until you redeem yourself of your copious cuntish shitposting, you merit nothing more than my abject contempt.

[Thumpalumpacus]

blahblahblah

Yes, Drich. We already knew you are an idiot ... you can rest your case now.

Or did you not read my last sentence? You are unworthy of anything other than my contempt.

Now, go type five hundred more idiotic words. Go on, child. But before you do so, apply some of that marvelous intellect to learning how to quote someone so that your posts don't look even shittier than they read.

Hard to believe someone so stupid can remember to breathe regularly.

[abaris]

Hard to believe someone so stupid can remember to breathe regularly.

Or as one of my favorite (German) comedians used to put it: You don't need a highschool diploma to know how to take a shit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hard to believe someone so stupid can remember to breathe regularly.

Or as one of my favorite (German) comedians used to put it: You don't need a highschool diploma to know how to take a shit.

I'm thinking someone in this thread did have to study that subject.