Page 1 of 1 pages
I suspect more non-American Indians are bothered by this than those of such ancestry. When my father was a kid the term “Swede” was considered derogatory in his neighborhood. I consider the Minnesota “Vikings” to be a complement.
Playing word games, including “Native American” (No one can be more native than being born here.) benefits nobody and probably increases negativity. Get over it
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 7, 2005 at 8:34 AM
Yeah, I have Indian friends (Eastern variety and American too) and they call me the “white guy” all the time. I don’t see it as a slur against me.
Some of these Indian friends are sports fans and root for the teams with ” racial slur ” names. Does that make them self-hating somehow?
I come from a German heritage and it doesn’t bother me when non-German people get dressed up in lederhosen and get drunk for Oktoberfest
As whattheheck says ; terminal sillyness.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 9:31 AM
I always thought it had to do with the wonderful reddish tint many native americans have to their flesh. Silly me.
I don’t think it’s acceptable to be derogatory to anyone and I consider this issue part of the greater struggle…social justice for all human beings. This small battle is only part of the bigger war. Each has to pick their own battle..some for women’s rights, some for peace,some for workers’ rights, etc etc etc.
I’m glad somebody thinks this battle is important, but I don’t think it’s a battle won that will make much difference.
Posted by robin on Oct 7, 2005 at 10:44 AM
I equate the word “Redskin” to the word “Nigger.” Would the Washington team “honor” African Americans by calling their team the Wahington Niggers? I think not!
Growing up, “Redskin” was one of the kinder terms hurled at me and my fellow students. It is a shame that so few Americans, including American Indians, know very little of the true history of this country. Another common “white” word is “squaw” which refers to female genitalia. I can think of many English words that could be substituted for this “honoring” word and always smile when I think of the public outcry if all landmarks that contain the word squaw were to suddenly be changed to them.
It is time to stop complimenting the American Indian by imitating their dress and beliefs as well. And yes, I grew up cheering Roy Rogers, the Lone Ranger, and all the other cowboys that fought to civilize this country and save it from the dastardly Indians!
Posted by Klamath on Oct 7, 2005 at 11:05 AM
Accordint to http://www.yaelf.com/questions.shtml
(Etymology)
‘Squaw’ is one of a number of words in English that were borrowed from Eastern Algonquian languages, sometimes via French, during the early contact period. The source in this case is conventionally Massachusett squas (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd Edition). The term meant ‘young woman’ in Massachusett and is attested as early as 1624. In fact, related words derived from Proto-Algonquian *et^kwe:wa (t^ represents a theta - a th sound) ‘woman’ occur throughout the Algonquian language family. Mostly they’re fairly similar to the proto-form and each other (cf. Cree iskwe:w), though in a few languages the descendant form is so modified by accumulated sound changes that only someone familiar with the changes involved would recognize it, e.g., Arapahoe h
Posted by robin on Oct 7, 2005 at 11:26 AM
To Whattheheck: You forgot to mention the “Fightin’ Irish” of Notre Dame.
To Dave from Canada: Some of my best friends are Jewish. They tell me that some forms of silliness and word games can lead to REAL problems.Sometimes even terminal ones.
To Robin: The N-Word comes from the Latin “niger”, meaning black. Bright cites Goddard et. al. that it evolved from a color to a deragatory (sic) term of denigration only in the last 200 years. Sic indeed.
To all three: The offender has no right to tell the offendee not to be offended, all anecdotal or etymological evidence to the contrary.
Posted by eucliddave on Oct 7, 2005 at 2:58 PM
eucliddave,
Indeed, silliness, nothing to justify death and violence to be sure.
Regarding the offender and offendee. Was I an offender?
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 3:50 PM
Exactly: the offfender has no right to tell the offended not be offended…Can you imagine a mugger telling his victim to not be outraged? Well, yes I can, because anything’s possible…A father who molests his daughter telling her not to take it seriously? Same gig: yes, I’m offending you, but you’re being silly by actually feeling slimed
Posted by talapuspete on Oct 7, 2005 at 4:38 PM
If so, it was not my intent. As you say, anecdotal and etymological. I do apologize if any offence was taken.
Justified perhaps as I would take none from the same. And somehow saying that makes me feel like an offender. Again, apologies.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 4:48 PM
Here in Cleveland, many of us no longer refer to the local ballclub as the “Indians”. We call them the Cleveland Rednecks. Likewise, the reference to the team has been changed, from the “Tribe” to the “Clan”.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 7, 2005 at 6:09 PM
If you read my first post, you will see I think it IS a battle to be fought.
I was only correcting what the origins of the words seem to be.
However, in defense of etymological origins, I think, for example, squaw used in a derogatory manner is just that.If it was never meant as derogatory…would it still be considered such? Same as Redskin?
(These are questions posed for thought and discussion.)
“Nigger” has always been used in a derogatory manner,even with it’s etymological and so retains that history of a horrible insult.
I was only trying to make the point, that I never associated either term as an insult, and never realized they were an insult, and that the origins of the words were not, it seems, meant to be such.
If they are in recent history, considered such, well, then, the battle to change those slurs needs to be fought.
Am I forgiven?
Posted by robin on Oct 7, 2005 at 6:54 PM
I forgive you.
I find there are very few crimes that others have committed that I have not committed in my own heart.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 7:01 PM
I think it is important to realize that these sterotypes are harmful to children. Research by Dr. Stephanie Fryberg has proven that American Indian children exposed to these and other stereotypes experience negative impact on their self esteem while white children experience a boost to their self esteem. Further the negative impact was experienced whether the images were cartoonish (like Pochahontas or the Cleveland Indians or depictions of the “noble” savage like the plains Indian warrior in feathered headdress used by so many high schools. In addition to Fryberg’s research, the American Psychological Association has written a resolution calling for the elimination of “Indian” mascot stereotypes and an excellent Justification for doing so. We are talking about children and psychological harm to them caused by a form of institutionalized discrimination. Let’s do all we can to stop this proctice from continuing.
Posted by Katehla on Oct 7, 2005 at 7:12 PM
Robin, by the way, not saying you committed any crimes.
When my dark friends call me a light guy (metaphor, analogy, playing with words call it what you will) I recognize it as a facetious reminder of serious consequences of xenophobia. I accept their comments as anecdotal and etymological as most would. Or should.
Actions count, but so do intentions.
Yes, Katehla, stereotypes are harmful. It is important to recognize that stereotypes can be a two way street. Or a 360 degree street. Talking about it is the first step to doing somehting about it.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 7:42 PM
Sheku David,
Intentions count, and the well-intended may be more willing to listen, learna and change behavior that is causing harm. That said well-intended harm is still damaging. It is often difficult for people to understand across the gulf of different cultural perspectives. It is a true act of empathic courage to discuss as we are doing here these matters.
Osk^n^su,
Katehla
Posted by Katehla on Oct 7, 2005 at 8:00 PM
Yo okhale Sheku Katehla,
Thank you for your empathy and encouragement.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 8:41 PM
Rabbit has a mob of “Blackfellers” as they call themselves and such a term can and is used respectfully by Rabbit and “some” white when refferring to or about them. There are stereotypes about Australian natives as there are natives and minorities in any culture.
There is often a history of domination and abuse of the native or minority culture which is the actual source of the anger or resentment. This feeling is merely invoked by the wrong person using such words in the wrong circumstance.
Rabbit might call his best mate, an ugly old basta*d, and he might call someone like Ramjet this and it would be taken as intended in two different ways. No doubt there will be some “White men” among Americans who may be entitled to call their friends Redskins, as they may do among themselves.
Rabbit can call his friends Blackfellers or Boongs and they will not kill Rabbit. You might not be well advised to call them such, they’ll spear you for sure.
Like Robin says it is about respect and WTH is also right thinks Rabbit. The political correctness thing is long since beyond the pale. But we should if we are good be mindful of past racial wrongs and not use Racial sterotypes unless we are sure that no offence will be taken.
True it is up to the subject to decide what is offensive. No one can tell you whether or not to be offended.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 8, 2005 at 2:01 AM
That was meant to say “Rabbit knows a mob of blackfellers”.
David change your hadle to Monk. You know why….............................................................^^.................................................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 8, 2005 at 2:48 AM
Sheku GhostRabbit,
Yes friends can agree on any kind of affectionate teasing. The use of race-based stereotypes in societies institutions is a different matter. While professional sports teams promote these stereotypes it is our educational institutions where we see most of them. And in k-12 schools, colleges and universities they are pernicious because they teach children to tolerate a form of racism and even teach them how to do perform racist acts that are condoned by public schools. Our schools must not be the vehicle for teaching racism. Teach Respect - Not Racism
Posted by Katehla on Oct 8, 2005 at 6:27 AM
eucliddave: “To all three: The offender has no right to tell the offendee not to be offended, all anecdotal or etymological evidence to the contrary.”
I find this looking for racial slurs to be offensive. And stupid. :)
Posted by wolf on Oct 8, 2005 at 7:26 AM
Major Major,
“Here in Cleveland, many of us no longer refer to the local ballclub as the
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 8, 2005 at 9:08 AM
I think it it the way these names are used. The mascot name “Savages” is obviously a bad name to name a team, but if the mascot is named “Braves” that is an ode. I’m a student at the University of Idaho and we’re the Vandals. There aren’t any Vandal descendants up in arms about the mascot name because it is fairly represented. The mascot names that are a tribe name, if fairly represented, is not a bad mascot name. It is all in how the mascot is represented.
Posted by cyberella2002 on Oct 8, 2005 at 2:03 PM
What is it that you folks aren’t getting?
The point is this:
it isn’t up to white people to tell Indians what they should and shouldn’t find offensive. No more than an Italian should tell a Jew what to find offensive, no more than a Jew tell an African-American that Nigger isn’t offensive.
Posted by talapuspete on Oct 8, 2005 at 3:33 PM
Sheku Cyberella,
Consider that Indian people living today are not merely “decendants, they are members of cultures that are living in the here and now. We cary on our cultural traditions and teach them to our children as our ancestors have done for us. We are here and now people, our cultures exist in the present.
Consider this about the English construct “Braves”, it is not what any Indigenous group calls its defenders or its young men for that matter. In Oneida language a male who defends is lask^?haketeha and a young man lanik^htlu? (the ? is a glottal stop). There are words for these male roles in every Indigenous language.
Though you did not mention the term “Chief”, there are few adult American Indian males who have not at sometime been called “Chief” in the same derrogatory way that African American males have been called “Boy”. This is problematic because actual tribal Cheifs have many responsibilities.
Please consider that there a thousands of possible team names that are not harmful, derrogatory or offensive to any living human being. Please also consider that you will be proud of your local team’s accomplishments no matter what it is called. There are people who rally around the “Comets”, “Moquitos”, and “Geoducks”. Why is it so difficult to treat Indian people with dignity and respect.
Osk^n^su,
Katehla
Posted by Katehla on Oct 8, 2005 at 9:26 PM
I still remember when Marcia Clark of OJ fame taught us all that “hysterical” was a sexist term. Now, I’m sure that she had the perception that the defense attourney was trying to demean her because she was a woman. However, it is interesting that most of us native speakers of English would have absolutely no clue that the etymology of the word might have something to do with a uterus.
The reason I find the terms Redskin, Chief, Brave, Squaw offensive really doesn’t have anything to do with their origins. They all basically mean “not like me” and I guess that’s the thing that should bother us the most.
Reconciliation to me seems much more important than semantics.
Posted by GrayArea on Oct 8, 2005 at 11:12 PM
I think the problem for those of us who don’t seem to find these terms offensive, or truly understand why anyone would, is the length of time involved. The time in our history when Native Americans were seen, rightly or wrongly, as threatening, has long passed. It’s just not something people really give much thought to. If America were truly to come to terms with the horrific history of genocide that the European conquerors visited upon the aboriginal peoples of North and South America, then we might have something to talk about. This talk about names and mascots is just fluff. It is indicative only of the fact that the Native American has been relegated to the pages of myth and lore. Not of any intent to defame or demean. Our country is simply suffering a pleasant amnesia about the roots of its creation, because the truth is just too terrible to face. What those who wish to see these changes enacted truly seek will not be accomplished by changing the name of the Atlanta Braves or Washington Redskins. It will only be accomplished when the classrooms and textbooks of this nation teach a true and unvarnished account of the history of this land.
Posted by Phaedrus on Oct 9, 2005 at 8:45 AM
The sooner we outgrow the cult of race, which modern genomic science has debunked beyond redemption, the better. History, sociology, past crimes and modern-day dehumanizations, all evaporate as soon as you realize that in the most fundamental particles of your being you’re cousins with the other-colored chap you’re worried your sister will date.
Not. A. Shred. Of. Reality. Beyond. Hypnotic. Historical. Hysteria.
People probably used “redskin” names originally because they wanted a bad-ass connotation for their team, and the “native Americans” (insert their tribal names for themselves here for greater accuracy) have a reputation for being some pure-D bad-asses, in combat and just in their woodcraft/plainsmanship in wilderness settings that slew most Euro-descended types.
Negate the issue. Just use bad-ass animals as mascots. There’s plenty of them to use as examples, and the four-legged, winged, and finned critters don’t give a damn if we use their images as talismans of fierceness and strength.
Sooner or later we’ll have to come to terms with the true (i.e. not just the historical/propagandistic) reality… We’re all kin, all in it together, like it or not.
Posted by Kuya on Oct 9, 2005 at 8:51 AM
Kuya says,
“Negate the issue. Just use bad-ass animals as mascots.
Right, but what’s that organization
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 9, 2005 at 9:38 AM
All of the above would appear to be grossly and blatantly academic if not for the cultural and anthropological connotations associated with the choice of athletic mascots, or even the psychological and social significance of athletic contests to begin with. Athletic competition, for example, reinforces an ethnocentric “us versus them” mindset; it helps to establish the presence of the “other” in the collective consciousness of the spectators. As such, it is a celebration of survival, a conquest over those predators, real or imagined, which collective social organization was established to defeat. Lions, tigers, bears, eagles and Indians, or, the mother of all mixed metaphors, the Devil, all of whom serve to focus our collective energy to the task of social survival. The celebration of survival is in fact a celebration of work, and in the minds of its spectators the team that wins is the team that works the hardest. So it becomes, in the end, a celebration of the Protestant work ethic, and the rewards which that ethic is expected to produce. It’s no longer the game we played during our collective childhood. It’s become just another (glorified) job, and the people who participate in the event are transformed from players to workers, just as the people who witness the event are transformed from workers to players.
In other words, racism is just one more weapon employed in an arsenal of subconscious social incentives which evolved to ensure the survival of any given dominant culture.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 9, 2005 at 2:27 PM
Sheku Major Major,
Sooooo now that you have brought this dynamic to consciousness, let’s grow up and create positive change.
Osk^n^su,
Katehla
Posted by Katehla on Oct 9, 2005 at 3:05 PM
Major Major was your major psychology or sociology? Or, perhaps, it was a double major.
Briliant!
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 9, 2005 at 3:10 PM
I’ll let PETA work on actual cruelty to animals, whattheheck. Your alphanumeric bit made me chuckle.
There’s a place for political correctness; racial slurs are at least less mainstream than they formerly were (I recall some of the cartoons I viewed as a youth in the 1960s, many of which were actually made in the 1940s! Yikes!
Still, much of the bend-over-backwards-in-case-someone-gets-pissed energy pretty much leaves me behind.
Rah rah rah for the Sacramento Sloths, the Redondo Beach Rheas, the Boston Boa Constrictors!
Posted by Kuya on Oct 9, 2005 at 5:46 PM
Kuya, one of those racist caricatures you viewed in your profligate youth survives to this very day. The photograph you saw at the beginning of this article represents “Chief Wahoo” of the Cleveland Rednecks. Unfortunately, the Clan isn’t the only racist athletic symbol we Cleveland “natives” must contend with. We also celebrate the vicissitudes of our local football franchise, the Cleveland “Browns”.
Posted by Major Major on Oct 9, 2005 at 8:18 PM
Lay off the animals Kuya….Just kidding. Call em the Rabbiots Rabbit does not care.
Most people here make good points and some are merely at a different stage of facing racial stereotypes. I like WTH don’t mind Racial stereotypes and take them for how they are intended. This does not mean I have to be insensitive about how a particular term may be offensive in some company. You do not for example probably use the same language aound ladies and children as that reserved for Male friends or colleagues.
Thankyou Phaedrus. The Rabbit was once among his aboriginal friends in Northwest WA, and was telling them some of the Racist Aborigine Jokes he knew, generally to their amusement, but more often than not at the ignorance of the stereotype.
When Rabbit asked them to tell him some Whiteman Jokes, they just looked surprised.
After a while one of the guys described how he had been in the city (Perth) a year ago and seen all the people driving for an hour or two on these traffic jammed roads from North to south and working at their jobs before driving back through all this for another hour or two to get back North meanwhile all these other people are driving the opposite direction from south to north for exactly the same reason, and returning from whence they came, in the same way.
The whole mob of them cracked up in stitches at his description. Sitting out under the stars in the Kimberley with Rabbit’s favorite people, it was easy to see the joke.
You are not going to get it.
The jokes about the ABOs are actually built upon some of their most painful experiences, and are remarkably un-funny to the people concerned. Many are still seeking re-dress for past wrongs and can hardly be expected to see any historical perspective. Some fail to realise it is not us the perpetrators of Racist agendas who get to decide when it is past history.
Rabbit posts this in the full knowledge that these experiences translate to those of the American Natives. Those of whom are represented on this page, are greeted in peace and brotherhood by Rabbit.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 10, 2005 at 12:59 AM
WTH you are only right in a society which has dealt with all those issues of Racism. When that time comes, you will know about it. Such debates as this will cease. Then we can all laugh at the stereotypes like my lot, the Scottish can laugh about the English, and the saem goes for the IRis more and more. these things take time, but like I said, the perpetrators are not the ones who call the shots when it comes to re-conciliation. Wishing it, won’t make it so. Ignoring it does not make it go away.
Only education, of ourselves and others is what works. You are not immune to the racial stereotyping, you are still as tied to it as ever anybody was,WTH.
This is proven every time you post about Muslims.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 10, 2005 at 1:03 AM
Oh and by the way, anybody heard any good jokes about the “Septic Tanks” lately?
Take Rabbit’s word for it WTH and any others, there are jokes about USA which are stereotypical and they would be very offensive to you, even though people of other nations would laugh long and loud, and would definately get it.
Somebody is going to ask, and Rabbit will not go there. Google it.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 10, 2005 at 1:09 AM
Kuya,
I think I was recently rooting for The Sloths (in disguise). Love it.
“...cartoons I viewed as a youth in the 1960s, many of which were actually made in the 1940s! Yikes!”
Right. I collect old magazine ads. Some of them are unbelievably insulting! There once was a brad of artist’s white paint and black ink called, “Nig & Chink”!
These ads and packaging examples are super collectables today, but mostly by black people.
Words have a habit of changing their meaning through evolution and a few of the ones objected to in this thread are no doubt among them.
When I first made the switch from a drawing board to a computer in 1990, common terms in my business had made the transfer, but the techs didn
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 10, 2005 at 9:02 AM
WTH the re-defining of words which goes on constantly due to the internet, and youthful ignorance is a never ending source of annoyance to Rabbit too.
Gay was already bent out of shape for homosexuals, now it has been given a new meaning again and has come even further from its roots.
Too many words to begin to list, maybe we’ll have a thread about the subject one day, then lets start. Why the hell can’t they LEARN THE LANGUAGE and then see if after that they need new words.
They usually end up with one word, re-defined to be used in place of twenty other much more precise and nuanced words.
AAAAAAAAARGH! Rabbit loathes talking with empty headed youth who cannot even express themselves in a co-herant fashion.
Jo that’s wicked. Deadly. Thats fully sick. I’m pumped man. Oh wack man, you’re gay.
AAAARGH!
Rabbit’s kids know better, (they are bi-lingual as a matter of fact) and are expected to use words in their proper meanings. Woe betide any Rabbit Child who informs Rabbit something is fully sick or gay. Unless the thing is vomiting, or very happy.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 10, 2005 at 5:32 PM
Has WTH read 1984?
This is why Rabbit is vigilant about use of words. NEWSPEAK is given a foot in the door when words have loosely defined, even shifting meanings.
Since we have not yet mastered telepathy, words are our only form of communication. We would be well advised to guard the meanings of words and ensure they are as clearly and universally definable as possible. To do otherwise is to DEVOLVE. The tower of Babel? Consider this on a grand scale, where nobody can accurately portray their meaning to anybody else. Extreme sure but every vaguely or ill-defined word is a step closer.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 10, 2005 at 5:39 PM
This is a subtle thing but relevant to what Rabbit is saying.
Rense has as a regular feature the weekly south african report, by Jan Lamprecht.
http://www.africancrisis.org/
Rabbit has noticed that as happens once in a while, it includes a couple of African jokes. The jokes are mildly sexist which is rare, but Rabbit thinks he has noticed a pattern to when these type of jokes turn up in a report that typically includes a grim catalogue of human carnage, including a massive number of Rapes, Africa’s greatest shame. These jokes seem to occur on the odd occassion there are no rapes reported, as on this occassion.
Can anybody see the connection here? It is probably done unconsciously, Jan probably hasn’t thought about it. It just shows how distance from the pain, makes it easier to joke about. Hardly an earth shattering idea when you think about it.
But it relates to how those stereotypical images can go from being unnaceptable to becoming “eventually” a cause of universal amusement.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 10, 2005 at 6:59 PM
It must be night time and all Rabbit’s friends are sleeping, down there…................^^...............................Rabbit looks down between his toes at the ground…............................. tries to imagine you all sleeping and walking about, down there, under the ground…...........................Rabbit is hopping about early evening here and going soon to bed.
Posting the following since it is too good not to, but after one joke on another thread it might be taken as being a bit much, two in a row.
————————————————————-
While on vacation in a foreign land, an American happened to chance upon a curious store. The sign outside read: “Brains for Sale”. Intrigued, he went inside and began to wander about its premises.
On the shelves he found a variety of brains. A Chinese brain was priced at $0.95/lb.; a Russian brain at $1.49/lb.; an English at $2.89/lb.; and a French at $4.99/lb. However, he did not see an American brain. After a while of searching he found one. He was amazed by its price: $89.99/lb!!!
Filled with pride, the American exclaimed to the store attendant: “I see that the American brain is the most valuable!” To this the attendant replied: “Sir, do you have any idea how many Americans it takes to produce a pound of brains?”
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5XyuqUtDLikBYFo9EqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBzdXAxcThoBHBndANhdl93ZWJfYWR2X3Jlc3VsdARzZWMDc3I-/SIG=12h1euvjn/EXP=1129118510/**http://www.montrealracing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54110
—————————————————————
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 11, 2005 at 5:19 AM
Very glad WTH appreciates the joke.
The ability to laugh at oneself is a great Aussie tradition, and it protects us from fatal hubris.
What is an American’s idea of foreplay?
“Are you awake, sweetheart?”
What is an Aussie’s idea of foreplay?
“You awake?”
Not good but the best I have just now.
Actually the link was pretty crummy after all, hope you ignored it.
Rabbit’s humour tends to be more of the dry and satyrical type to be sure.
Cannot help but admire the wit and speed of it sometimes.
One day after the Space shuttle Challenger Disaster, NASA === Need Another Seven Astronauts
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 11, 2005 at 5:52 PM
“Considering the title I suppose the author of this article to be upset. I suppose I could be, but it doesn
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 12, 2005 at 1:28 AM
That is only valid if you are a native Indian, are you?
Mongrel.
Half Swedish, the other half a mixture of Scotish, Welsh, English and German. However, if you want to go back a bit add in French (Norman invasion 1099) and Vikings who went to Scotland.
I wouldn’t rule out American Indian with the earliest relatives to land here, or any other nationality.
I have been doing some genealogy research in recent years and find my wife of 44 years and I could come from a common point (not sure yet) in northern Europe about three hundred years ago. A bit more than 7 degrees of separtion, but we are all connected according to current DNA theory not too far apart.
How about you?
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 12, 2005 at 6:26 AM
Sheku Rabbit and WTH,
You are digressing. “Indian” mascots,logos,teamnames are archaic race-based symbols that should have left the culture along with balckface minstrel shows and Sambo’s rrestaurants. This is a form of institutional racism and the institutions promoting it are our universities. This practice will not play well in the 21st century and forward thinking colleges and universities are putting their energy into changing race-based logos not cliinging to racist practices. - Katehla
Posted by Katehla on Oct 12, 2005 at 9:35 AM
OK we are digressing a bit, but WTH and Rabbit don’t often get a chance to be nice to one another so we probably both enjoy it when the opportunity arises. We probably both sense a not vastly different soul on the other side, age and all similar too I’d guess.
Rabbit is Scottish/Irish ancestry, early colonists and convicts to OZ. Some more recent English blood and some french a long time ago.
Mrs Rabbit is pure blood Danish, all the way back to King Gorm den Gamle. (Gorm the OLD)
Also a Mongrel.
Now actually this is not altogether off thread, because we are basically talking about racial bigotry. Does WTH know about the VERY ancient skeleton of modern man which has been found? It predates the earliest known examples of NEANDERTHAL by about 40,000 years. rabbit first read about it in Time magazine a couple of decades ago almost. When living in Europe I got it sent, so I had at least one regular English publication. if you don’t Rabbit can try and find something about it on the net. The French team who made the discovery, nicknamed HER eve. They checked her DNA against modern man and found a perfect match. More importantly they noticed something called a “marker gene” attached to the XX chromosome in such a way that it would be lost if the XX pattern broke. An XY would fail to carry the gene. This meant that the gene would be passed on from mother to daughter, but not mother to son. Thus, provided this woman, judged to be in her forties, had had a daughter, and that daughter had a daughter, etc etc, then theoretically there would exist a group, possibly a whole race who had that particular marker gene among its female population. This is a good bet, since after the first couple of generations the numbers would become self sustaining of probability alone. They decided to check every race on earth before going public.
They went public, hence the article in TIME, after having tested only about 90% of the various races. Some were too remote and hard to track down and the need soon dwindled.
————————————————————————
Every woman they tested, no matter what race, had the marker gene. NOW someone tell Rabbit any race is superior to any other. We are genetically of the same ancestors, all of us.
True story, actually it’s just the tip of the iceberg when our origins come into the discussion.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 12, 2005 at 8:37 PM
Interestingly, Rabbit has noticed a pattern of debate develop since that time which he thinks relates directly .
The whole creation/evolution debate seemed to pick up a serious head of steam ever since. Feels, does Rabbit, that some weakness in evolutionists maybe percieved by creationists who are exploiting it.
The thing is that evolutionists have tried too hard to prove a particular line of reasoning on the origins of man. While the theory of NATURAL SELECTION, is just not debatable, the evidence is in, enough and more than enough to have dispelled any doubt. This does not and nor did it ever prove MAN evolved from the apes. The supposed order of evolution has not been absolutely established. Details are not at Rabbit’s fingertips, just now, but there are some serious dating problems among others. There are too many leaps of faith and there always were for Rabbit ever to have accepted the classic argument for evolution of man. A great deal of Arhaelogical evidence exists which does not fit into any accepted theories of how long man has been on the earth. As the various items have arisen over time which have punched holes in the traditionally accepted route of evolution of man, Rabbit has nodded his head knowingly. He is confident that the real truth is far more surprising. Furthermore, it should be beggining to get a hearing more and more over the next half decade, or less.
So Rabbit, is neither a creationist nor an evolutionist per se. An evolutionist with a bit of intelligent design thrown in at intervals. Not the Christian God, or maybe it was, but then he is definately what Rabbit thinks of as God.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 12, 2005 at 10:30 PM
Mistake.
—definately NOT what Rabbit thinks of as God.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 13, 2005 at 12:35 AM
The difference between human DNA and almost any species is very minimal actually. In the order of a couple of percent.
There as much about animal sentience WTH might find interesting.
Apes are not the most intelligent animals, as it happens, that is a human perception and it is largely based upon the percieved similarities between apes and humans.
Most peoples perceptions about animal intellignece comes from old and outdated research. More recntly it has been realised that a standard form of testing was being used with all species which had been deveolped with only a very narrow percetion in the first place. The test was best suited to dogs. It put dogs quite high on an intelligence scale and cats much lower for example.
Lately testing has been tailored to the individual species and the results have been surprising.
Cats are actually smarter than dogs and Cephalopods are much smarter than we had ever imagined. Most species tested like this have shown much higher awareness and intelligence than previously believed. Apes are smart and you have obviously not heard about KOKO and a few other Gorrillas who have learned complex sign language and can hold discussions with people etc.
Some Parrots have shown they can count, and do mathematics, learn to read and even understand the concept of ZERO.
Link
—————————————————————-
http://www.animalsentience.com/
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 13, 2005 at 6:23 PM
Wow, I purely LOVE this thread! This is the stuff that fascinates me, and the new science about mitochondrial DNA (which doesn’t recombine during sex as chromosomal DNA does, and mutates at an approximately know rate) is way exciting! People can now even trace the migrations of their ancestors, as well as assess the degree of their relatedness, with all the new-fangled goodies. Shows beyond a doubt that Africa is the source of our earliest beginnings, even more vividly than fossil evidence already did. I mean really just DAMN cool.
It’s a big part of the basis for my denial of the cult of race.
I know some of you will be annoyed with that stance, but after all the hate, brutality, and determined underestimation of human beings linked to “race”, I feel duty-bound to good karma to undercut that cult at every opportunity.
‘Bout time we started treating our kin like kin, take care of each other for a f’n change.
While we’re re-naming sports teams into animal talismans, we can abandon hated (by me) terms like “mixed marriage”, “mixed race children”, “people of color”, and all that nonsense.
Nothing but damn monkey-thinking! Hell, it’s f’n reptile-thinking, let’s use the bloody cortex finally and rise above!
(hahaha, although the new stuff about the sophistication of animal’s thinking ability actually puts them one up over us, it’s just too delicious!)
Posted by Kuya on Oct 14, 2005 at 1:50 AM
The things I could tell you about Rabbits.
Does Kuya know about all the archaeological evidence of how long we’ve been on this planet?
There is rock solid evidence that modern man has been walking around Earth since before the dinosaurs.
There are ruins which were ANCIENT at the time of the oldest known civilisations.
Rabbit will be glad to find some links. There are human footprints in 300 million year old Rock. Including the outline of sandles with discernable stitching.
There is all this unused “junk” DNA too. There is speculation that this may include a timeless message to our race. If this were so it seems probable we may soon be able to decipher it.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 14, 2005 at 2:58 AM
Yes Africa is where the “EVE” skeleton was found.
Rabbit has some fairly unusual convictions about the origins of Man, including his history. It has taken a lot of information gathering through a life of curiosity. Included are some personal experiences which also tend to lead to certain conclusions too, and finally there is that special place inside which tells if one is facing an important truth.
Rabbit would love to discuss these matters with Kuya, but fears the trolls will go off the deep end, the confusion and consternation it would cause them is too much to face.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 14, 2005 at 3:08 AM
Rabbit can be e-mailed
sgp1963@hotmail.com
Any of Rabbit’s friends are welcome to drop a PM, some have found Rabbit on other sites via google. Rabbitvoz has a few places where PM are able.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 14, 2005 at 7:08 PM
The topic of evolution is quite complicated. It is far from complete.
This makes it rather easy to attack. Scientists aid in these attacks, particularly if they are honest. Honesty requires us to say “i don’t know” often.
It is not at all clear how life began. This is a mystery that seems unlikely to be well understood, at least in my lifetime (i have decades to go, but the question is a difficult one).
It is not at all clear how large transitions took place. How did the first multicelluar creatures come to be? How did mitochondria come to infest us all? And a lessor but still interesting questionon is what is all that “junk” DNA (introns)?
That said, the key difference between evolution and other non-scientific theories is that science continues to absorb new facts and discard theories that are at odds with the data. Thus what we (scientists) believe today might very well be quite different fromm what we believe tomorrow (or in several decades). Religion has the claim of more stability, but from what history i know, this seems to be a bit of a false claim (that is, they too evolve their ideas, but from one “fixed” set to another).
It is amusing to note that science is often plagued by dogma. One might even say it is a rather conservative pursuit, slow to adopt far reaching changes. . .
Posted by wolf on Oct 17, 2005 at 1:35 PM
Hello wolf,
Far be it from me to accept blindly any idea just because it’s labelled “scientific”. Quite true, as you say, that scientists can become dogmatic and blind to challenges of their theories (e.g. Freud, to the extent he was really scientific in his approach, and even Einstein).
Dogmatically accepting statements from authorities is a singularly unscientific attitude.
The self-correcting mechanism of science as a way of learning is indeed the rub, as you mention. That, and its philosophical refusal to state that learning about a given topic is ever finished, i.e. there’s always more that can be learned.
I do find the modern genomic investigations exciting, if not yet (ever?) thoroughly conclusive. I’m hoping this line of inquiry can offer a better paradigm for the way humans relate to each other, though it will take generations and won’t occur unopposed.
You can see I have an agenda. With luck, it’ll be borne out with data in time.
Hmmm, it might be unscientific of me to have a preferred conclusion up front. I’ll have to give that some thought.
The paradigm of evolving life seems to me to hold water far better than fiat creation of all things within a week (which is an admittedly strictly fundamentalist approach that not even all Christians share). I’m actually encouraged by the debates within the scientific community, rather than dismayed. Means they’re not all just trotting out a party line, which also is way unscientific in spirit.
Posted by Kuya on Oct 19, 2005 at 2:17 AM
Kuya - I don’t think we humans have very more generations left. I say this because i am beginning to believe that we are about to initiate a new revolution in evolution. Two distinct possibilities are: 1) direct genetic modification of our genes (probably before birth or conception) and 2) the merger of computer-like hardware with organic tissue. A third further out (!!!) possiblity is the abandanment of organic for hardware. . .
An entirely other, and much darker, possibility is that we will fall back into another dark age. While i think it is unlikely, it is something we should worry about to ensure it does not happen.
Anyway, that concludes my wild eyed speculations for the future. Remember when star trek communicators were the stuff of fiction? Seems to me that cell phones have far exceeded them already. . .
Posted by wolf on Oct 19, 2005 at 8:39 AM
This thread is mostly nonsense! If we never used a noun that had at some time, in the near or distant past offended someone, we’d never be able to speak! My wife is a lady (though I’d probably not qualify as a gentleman) and I occasionally tell her so. I suspect that would be an offensive description to some of the Lesbian persuasion. They are certainly entitled to that opinion, but not the right to object to my usage. During the past few decades we have seen the term ‘Black’ rise from obscurity to be the Politically Correct description for a group of people, then as quickly fall from favor. Consider the following mascots (an off-the-cuff sampling from the NFL and MLB): Angels, Braves, Buccaneers, Chiefs, Cowboys, Forty-Niners, Giants, Indians, Mariners, Packers, Patriots, Pirates, Raiders, Redskins, Saints, Steelers, Texans, Vikings, Yankees. Most of these names have been used, in various times and in various places as terms of disparagement. For example, Saints fans describing the Forty-Niners and vice versa. It appears that team choose their names to represent something that they consider admirable as a representation of the team. It seems to me that the fact that the Braves, Chiefs, Indians, and Redskins are included with the Angels, Saints, Patriots, and Yankees, while there are no Japs, Nazis, Negroes, Niggers, Polacks, or Slopes, is significant.
Posted by yankeepatriot on Jan 17, 2006 at 11:21 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
I suspect more non-American Indians are bothered by this than those of such ancestry. When my father was a kid the term “Swede” was considered derogatory in his neighborhood. I consider the Minnesota “Vikings” to be a complement.
Playing word games, including “Native American” (No one can be more native than being born here.) benefits nobody and probably increases negativity. Get over it
Yeah, I have Indian friends (Eastern variety and American too) and they call me the “white guy” all the time. I don’t see it as a slur against me.
Some of these Indian friends are sports fans and root for the teams with ” racial slur ” names. Does that make them self-hating somehow?
I come from a German heritage and it doesn’t bother me when non-German people get dressed up in lederhosen and get drunk for Oktoberfest
As whattheheck says ; terminal sillyness.
I always thought it had to do with the wonderful reddish tint many native americans have to their flesh. Silly me.
I don’t think it’s acceptable to be derogatory to anyone and I consider this issue part of the greater struggle…social justice for all human beings. This small battle is only part of the bigger war. Each has to pick their own battle..some for women’s rights, some for peace,some for workers’ rights, etc etc etc.
I’m glad somebody thinks this battle is important, but I don’t think it’s a battle won that will make much difference.
I equate the word “Redskin” to the word “Nigger.” Would the Washington team “honor” African Americans by calling their team the Wahington Niggers? I think not!
Growing up, “Redskin” was one of the kinder terms hurled at me and my fellow students. It is a shame that so few Americans, including American Indians, know very little of the true history of this country. Another common “white” word is “squaw” which refers to female genitalia. I can think of many English words that could be substituted for this “honoring” word and always smile when I think of the public outcry if all landmarks that contain the word squaw were to suddenly be changed to them.
It is time to stop complimenting the American Indian by imitating their dress and beliefs as well. And yes, I grew up cheering Roy Rogers, the Lone Ranger, and all the other cowboys that fought to civilize this country and save it from the dastardly Indians!
Accordint to http://www.yaelf.com/questions.shtml
(Etymology)
‘Squaw’ is one of a number of words in English that were borrowed from Eastern Algonquian languages, sometimes via French, during the early contact period. The source in this case is conventionally Massachusett squas (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd Edition). The term meant ‘young woman’ in Massachusett and is attested as early as 1624. In fact, related words derived from Proto-Algonquian *et^kwe:wa (t^ represents a theta - a th sound) ‘woman’ occur throughout the Algonquian language family. Mostly they’re fairly similar to the proto-form and each other (cf. Cree iskwe:w), though in a few languages the descendant form is so modified by accumulated sound changes that only someone familiar with the changes involved would recognize it, e.g., Arapahoe h
To Whattheheck: You forgot to mention the “Fightin’ Irish” of Notre Dame.
To Dave from Canada: Some of my best friends are Jewish. They tell me that some forms of silliness and word games can lead to REAL problems.Sometimes even terminal ones.
To Robin: The N-Word comes from the Latin “niger”, meaning black. Bright cites Goddard et. al. that it evolved from a color to a deragatory (sic) term of denigration only in the last 200 years. Sic indeed.
To all three: The offender has no right to tell the offendee not to be offended, all anecdotal or etymological evidence to the contrary.
eucliddave,
Indeed, silliness, nothing to justify death and violence to be sure.
Regarding the offender and offendee. Was I an offender?
Exactly: the offfender has no right to tell the offended not be offended…Can you imagine a mugger telling his victim to not be outraged? Well, yes I can, because anything’s possible…A father who molests his daughter telling her not to take it seriously? Same gig: yes, I’m offending you, but you’re being silly by actually feeling slimed
If so, it was not my intent. As you say, anecdotal and etymological. I do apologize if any offence was taken.
Justified perhaps as I would take none from the same. And somehow saying that makes me feel like an offender. Again, apologies.
Here in Cleveland, many of us no longer refer to the local ballclub as the “Indians”. We call them the Cleveland Rednecks. Likewise, the reference to the team has been changed, from the “Tribe” to the “Clan”.
If you read my first post, you will see I think it IS a battle to be fought.
I was only correcting what the origins of the words seem to be.
However, in defense of etymological origins, I think, for example, squaw used in a derogatory manner is just that.If it was never meant as derogatory…would it still be considered such? Same as Redskin?
(These are questions posed for thought and discussion.)
“Nigger” has always been used in a derogatory manner,even with it’s etymological and so retains that history of a horrible insult.
I was only trying to make the point, that I never associated either term as an insult, and never realized they were an insult, and that the origins of the words were not, it seems, meant to be such.
If they are in recent history, considered such, well, then, the battle to change those slurs needs to be fought.
Am I forgiven?
I forgive you.
I find there are very few crimes that others have committed that I have not committed in my own heart.
I think it is important to realize that these sterotypes are harmful to children. Research by Dr. Stephanie Fryberg has proven that American Indian children exposed to these and other stereotypes experience negative impact on their self esteem while white children experience a boost to their self esteem. Further the negative impact was experienced whether the images were cartoonish (like Pochahontas or the Cleveland Indians or depictions of the “noble” savage like the plains Indian warrior in feathered headdress used by so many high schools. In addition to Fryberg’s research, the American Psychological Association has written a resolution calling for the elimination of “Indian” mascot stereotypes and an excellent Justification for doing so. We are talking about children and psychological harm to them caused by a form of institutionalized discrimination. Let’s do all we can to stop this proctice from continuing.
Robin, by the way, not saying you committed any crimes.
When my dark friends call me a light guy (metaphor, analogy, playing with words call it what you will) I recognize it as a facetious reminder of serious consequences of xenophobia. I accept their comments as anecdotal and etymological as most would. Or should.
Actions count, but so do intentions.
Yes, Katehla, stereotypes are harmful. It is important to recognize that stereotypes can be a two way street. Or a 360 degree street. Talking about it is the first step to doing somehting about it.
Sheku David,
Intentions count, and the well-intended may be more willing to listen, learna and change behavior that is causing harm. That said well-intended harm is still damaging. It is often difficult for people to understand across the gulf of different cultural perspectives. It is a true act of empathic courage to discuss as we are doing here these matters.
Osk^n^su,
Katehla
Yo okhale Sheku Katehla,
Thank you for your empathy and encouragement.
Rabbit has a mob of “Blackfellers” as they call themselves and such a term can and is used respectfully by Rabbit and “some” white when refferring to or about them. There are stereotypes about Australian natives as there are natives and minorities in any culture.
There is often a history of domination and abuse of the native or minority culture which is the actual source of the anger or resentment. This feeling is merely invoked by the wrong person using such words in the wrong circumstance.
Rabbit might call his best mate, an ugly old basta*d, and he might call someone like Ramjet this and it would be taken as intended in two different ways. No doubt there will be some “White men” among Americans who may be entitled to call their friends Redskins, as they may do among themselves.
Rabbit can call his friends Blackfellers or Boongs and they will not kill Rabbit. You might not be well advised to call them such, they’ll spear you for sure.
Like Robin says it is about respect and WTH is also right thinks Rabbit. The political correctness thing is long since beyond the pale. But we should if we are good be mindful of past racial wrongs and not use Racial sterotypes unless we are sure that no offence will be taken.
True it is up to the subject to decide what is offensive. No one can tell you whether or not to be offended.
That was meant to say “Rabbit knows a mob of blackfellers”.
David change your hadle to Monk. You know why….............................................................^^.................................................
Sheku GhostRabbit,
Yes friends can agree on any kind of affectionate teasing. The use of race-based stereotypes in societies institutions is a different matter. While professional sports teams promote these stereotypes it is our educational institutions where we see most of them. And in k-12 schools, colleges and universities they are pernicious because they teach children to tolerate a form of racism and even teach them how to do perform racist acts that are condoned by public schools. Our schools must not be the vehicle for teaching racism. Teach Respect - Not Racism
eucliddave: “To all three: The offender has no right to tell the offendee not to be offended, all anecdotal or etymological evidence to the contrary.”
I find this looking for racial slurs to be offensive. And stupid. :)
Major Major,
“Here in Cleveland, many of us no longer refer to the local ballclub as the
I think it it the way these names are used. The mascot name “Savages” is obviously a bad name to name a team, but if the mascot is named “Braves” that is an ode. I’m a student at the University of Idaho and we’re the Vandals. There aren’t any Vandal descendants up in arms about the mascot name because it is fairly represented. The mascot names that are a tribe name, if fairly represented, is not a bad mascot name. It is all in how the mascot is represented.
What is it that you folks aren’t getting?
The point is this:
it isn’t up to white people to tell Indians what they should and shouldn’t find offensive. No more than an Italian should tell a Jew what to find offensive, no more than a Jew tell an African-American that Nigger isn’t offensive.
Sheku Cyberella,
Consider that Indian people living today are not merely “decendants, they are members of cultures that are living in the here and now. We cary on our cultural traditions and teach them to our children as our ancestors have done for us. We are here and now people, our cultures exist in the present.
Consider this about the English construct “Braves”, it is not what any Indigenous group calls its defenders or its young men for that matter. In Oneida language a male who defends is lask^?haketeha and a young man lanik^htlu? (the ? is a glottal stop). There are words for these male roles in every Indigenous language.
Though you did not mention the term “Chief”, there are few adult American Indian males who have not at sometime been called “Chief” in the same derrogatory way that African American males have been called “Boy”. This is problematic because actual tribal Cheifs have many responsibilities.
Please consider that there a thousands of possible team names that are not harmful, derrogatory or offensive to any living human being. Please also consider that you will be proud of your local team’s accomplishments no matter what it is called. There are people who rally around the “Comets”, “Moquitos”, and “Geoducks”. Why is it so difficult to treat Indian people with dignity and respect.
Osk^n^su,
Katehla
I still remember when Marcia Clark of OJ fame taught us all that “hysterical” was a sexist term. Now, I’m sure that she had the perception that the defense attourney was trying to demean her because she was a woman. However, it is interesting that most of us native speakers of English would have absolutely no clue that the etymology of the word might have something to do with a uterus.
The reason I find the terms Redskin, Chief, Brave, Squaw offensive really doesn’t have anything to do with their origins. They all basically mean “not like me” and I guess that’s the thing that should bother us the most.
Reconciliation to me seems much more important than semantics.
I think the problem for those of us who don’t seem to find these terms offensive, or truly understand why anyone would, is the length of time involved. The time in our history when Native Americans were seen, rightly or wrongly, as threatening, has long passed. It’s just not something people really give much thought to. If America were truly to come to terms with the horrific history of genocide that the European conquerors visited upon the aboriginal peoples of North and South America, then we might have something to talk about. This talk about names and mascots is just fluff. It is indicative only of the fact that the Native American has been relegated to the pages of myth and lore. Not of any intent to defame or demean. Our country is simply suffering a pleasant amnesia about the roots of its creation, because the truth is just too terrible to face. What those who wish to see these changes enacted truly seek will not be accomplished by changing the name of the Atlanta Braves or Washington Redskins. It will only be accomplished when the classrooms and textbooks of this nation teach a true and unvarnished account of the history of this land.
The sooner we outgrow the cult of race, which modern genomic science has debunked beyond redemption, the better. History, sociology, past crimes and modern-day dehumanizations, all evaporate as soon as you realize that in the most fundamental particles of your being you’re cousins with the other-colored chap you’re worried your sister will date.
Not. A. Shred. Of. Reality. Beyond. Hypnotic. Historical. Hysteria.
People probably used “redskin” names originally because they wanted a bad-ass connotation for their team, and the “native Americans” (insert their tribal names for themselves here for greater accuracy) have a reputation for being some pure-D bad-asses, in combat and just in their woodcraft/plainsmanship in wilderness settings that slew most Euro-descended types.
Negate the issue. Just use bad-ass animals as mascots. There’s plenty of them to use as examples, and the four-legged, winged, and finned critters don’t give a damn if we use their images as talismans of fierceness and strength.
Sooner or later we’ll have to come to terms with the true (i.e. not just the historical/propagandistic) reality… We’re all kin, all in it together, like it or not.
Kuya says,
“Negate the issue. Just use bad-ass animals as mascots.
Right, but what’s that organization
All of the above would appear to be grossly and blatantly academic if not for the cultural and anthropological connotations associated with the choice of athletic mascots, or even the psychological and social significance of athletic contests to begin with. Athletic competition, for example, reinforces an ethnocentric “us versus them” mindset; it helps to establish the presence of the “other” in the collective consciousness of the spectators. As such, it is a celebration of survival, a conquest over those predators, real or imagined, which collective social organization was established to defeat. Lions, tigers, bears, eagles and Indians, or, the mother of all mixed metaphors, the Devil, all of whom serve to focus our collective energy to the task of social survival. The celebration of survival is in fact a celebration of work, and in the minds of its spectators the team that wins is the team that works the hardest. So it becomes, in the end, a celebration of the Protestant work ethic, and the rewards which that ethic is expected to produce. It’s no longer the game we played during our collective childhood. It’s become just another (glorified) job, and the people who participate in the event are transformed from players to workers, just as the people who witness the event are transformed from workers to players.
In other words, racism is just one more weapon employed in an arsenal of subconscious social incentives which evolved to ensure the survival of any given dominant culture.
Sheku Major Major,
Sooooo now that you have brought this dynamic to consciousness, let’s grow up and create positive change.
Osk^n^su,
Katehla
Major Major was your major psychology or sociology? Or, perhaps, it was a double major.
Briliant!
I’ll let PETA work on actual cruelty to animals, whattheheck. Your alphanumeric bit made me chuckle.
There’s a place for political correctness; racial slurs are at least less mainstream than they formerly were (I recall some of the cartoons I viewed as a youth in the 1960s, many of which were actually made in the 1940s! Yikes!
Still, much of the bend-over-backwards-in-case-someone-gets-pissed energy pretty much leaves me behind.
Rah rah rah for the Sacramento Sloths, the Redondo Beach Rheas, the Boston Boa Constrictors!
Kuya, one of those racist caricatures you viewed in your profligate youth survives to this very day. The photograph you saw at the beginning of this article represents “Chief Wahoo” of the Cleveland Rednecks. Unfortunately, the Clan isn’t the only racist athletic symbol we Cleveland “natives” must contend with. We also celebrate the vicissitudes of our local football franchise, the Cleveland “Browns”.
Lay off the animals Kuya….Just kidding. Call em the Rabbiots Rabbit does not care.
Most people here make good points and some are merely at a different stage of facing racial stereotypes. I like WTH don’t mind Racial stereotypes and take them for how they are intended. This does not mean I have to be insensitive about how a particular term may be offensive in some company. You do not for example probably use the same language aound ladies and children as that reserved for Male friends or colleagues.
Thankyou Phaedrus. The Rabbit was once among his aboriginal friends in Northwest WA, and was telling them some of the Racist Aborigine Jokes he knew, generally to their amusement, but more often than not at the ignorance of the stereotype.
When Rabbit asked them to tell him some Whiteman Jokes, they just looked surprised.
After a while one of the guys described how he had been in the city (Perth) a year ago and seen all the people driving for an hour or two on these traffic jammed roads from North to south and working at their jobs before driving back through all this for another hour or two to get back North meanwhile all these other people are driving the opposite direction from south to north for exactly the same reason, and returning from whence they came, in the same way.
The whole mob of them cracked up in stitches at his description. Sitting out under the stars in the Kimberley with Rabbit’s favorite people, it was easy to see the joke.
You are not going to get it.
The jokes about the ABOs are actually built upon some of their most painful experiences, and are remarkably un-funny to the people concerned. Many are still seeking re-dress for past wrongs and can hardly be expected to see any historical perspective. Some fail to realise it is not us the perpetrators of Racist agendas who get to decide when it is past history.
Rabbit posts this in the full knowledge that these experiences translate to those of the American Natives. Those of whom are represented on this page, are greeted in peace and brotherhood by Rabbit.
WTH you are only right in a society which has dealt with all those issues of Racism. When that time comes, you will know about it. Such debates as this will cease. Then we can all laugh at the stereotypes like my lot, the Scottish can laugh about the English, and the saem goes for the IRis more and more. these things take time, but like I said, the perpetrators are not the ones who call the shots when it comes to re-conciliation. Wishing it, won’t make it so. Ignoring it does not make it go away.
Only education, of ourselves and others is what works. You are not immune to the racial stereotyping, you are still as tied to it as ever anybody was,WTH.
This is proven every time you post about Muslims.
Oh and by the way, anybody heard any good jokes about the “Septic Tanks” lately?
Take Rabbit’s word for it WTH and any others, there are jokes about USA which are stereotypical and they would be very offensive to you, even though people of other nations would laugh long and loud, and would definately get it.
Somebody is going to ask, and Rabbit will not go there. Google it.
Kuya,
I think I was recently rooting for The Sloths (in disguise). Love it.
“...cartoons I viewed as a youth in the 1960s, many of which were actually made in the 1940s! Yikes!”
Right. I collect old magazine ads. Some of them are unbelievably insulting! There once was a brad of artist’s white paint and black ink called, “Nig & Chink”!
These ads and packaging examples are super collectables today, but mostly by black people.
Words have a habit of changing their meaning through evolution and a few of the ones objected to in this thread are no doubt among them.
When I first made the switch from a drawing board to a computer in 1990, common terms in my business had made the transfer, but the techs didn
WTH the re-defining of words which goes on constantly due to the internet, and youthful ignorance is a never ending source of annoyance to Rabbit too.
Gay was already bent out of shape for homosexuals, now it has been given a new meaning again and has come even further from its roots.
Too many words to begin to list, maybe we’ll have a thread about the subject one day, then lets start. Why the hell can’t they LEARN THE LANGUAGE and then see if after that they need new words.
They usually end up with one word, re-defined to be used in place of twenty other much more precise and nuanced words.
AAAAAAAAARGH! Rabbit loathes talking with empty headed youth who cannot even express themselves in a co-herant fashion.
Jo that’s wicked. Deadly. Thats fully sick. I’m pumped man. Oh wack man, you’re gay.
AAAARGH!
Rabbit’s kids know better, (they are bi-lingual as a matter of fact) and are expected to use words in their proper meanings. Woe betide any Rabbit Child who informs Rabbit something is fully sick or gay. Unless the thing is vomiting, or very happy.
Has WTH read 1984?
This is why Rabbit is vigilant about use of words. NEWSPEAK is given a foot in the door when words have loosely defined, even shifting meanings.
Since we have not yet mastered telepathy, words are our only form of communication. We would be well advised to guard the meanings of words and ensure they are as clearly and universally definable as possible. To do otherwise is to DEVOLVE. The tower of Babel? Consider this on a grand scale, where nobody can accurately portray their meaning to anybody else. Extreme sure but every vaguely or ill-defined word is a step closer.
This is a subtle thing but relevant to what Rabbit is saying.
Rense has as a regular feature the weekly south african report, by Jan Lamprecht.
http://www.africancrisis.org/
Rabbit has noticed that as happens once in a while, it includes a couple of African jokes. The jokes are mildly sexist which is rare, but Rabbit thinks he has noticed a pattern to when these type of jokes turn up in a report that typically includes a grim catalogue of human carnage, including a massive number of Rapes, Africa’s greatest shame. These jokes seem to occur on the odd occassion there are no rapes reported, as on this occassion.
Can anybody see the connection here? It is probably done unconsciously, Jan probably hasn’t thought about it. It just shows how distance from the pain, makes it easier to joke about. Hardly an earth shattering idea when you think about it.
But it relates to how those stereotypical images can go from being unnaceptable to becoming “eventually” a cause of universal amusement.
It must be night time and all Rabbit’s friends are sleeping, down there…................^^...............................Rabbit looks down between his toes at the ground…............................. tries to imagine you all sleeping and walking about, down there, under the ground…...........................Rabbit is hopping about early evening here and going soon to bed.
Posting the following since it is too good not to, but after one joke on another thread it might be taken as being a bit much, two in a row.
————————————————————-
While on vacation in a foreign land, an American happened to chance upon a curious store. The sign outside read: “Brains for Sale”. Intrigued, he went inside and began to wander about its premises.
On the shelves he found a variety of brains. A Chinese brain was priced at $0.95/lb.; a Russian brain at $1.49/lb.; an English at $2.89/lb.; and a French at $4.99/lb. However, he did not see an American brain. After a while of searching he found one. He was amazed by its price: $89.99/lb!!!
Filled with pride, the American exclaimed to the store attendant: “I see that the American brain is the most valuable!” To this the attendant replied: “Sir, do you have any idea how many Americans it takes to produce a pound of brains?”
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5XyuqUtDLikBYFo9EqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBzdXAxcThoBHBndANhdl93ZWJfYWR2X3Jlc3VsdARzZWMDc3I-/SIG=12h1euvjn/EXP=1129118510/**http://www.montrealracing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54110
—————————————————————
Very glad WTH appreciates the joke.
The ability to laugh at oneself is a great Aussie tradition, and it protects us from fatal hubris.
What is an American’s idea of foreplay?
“Are you awake, sweetheart?”
What is an Aussie’s idea of foreplay?
“You awake?”
Not good but the best I have just now.
Actually the link was pretty crummy after all, hope you ignored it.
Rabbit’s humour tends to be more of the dry and satyrical type to be sure.
Cannot help but admire the wit and speed of it sometimes.
One day after the Space shuttle Challenger Disaster, NASA === Need Another Seven Astronauts
“Considering the title I suppose the author of this article to be upset. I suppose I could be, but it doesn
That is only valid if you are a native Indian, are you?
Mongrel.
Half Swedish, the other half a mixture of Scotish, Welsh, English and German. However, if you want to go back a bit add in French (Norman invasion 1099) and Vikings who went to Scotland.
I wouldn’t rule out American Indian with the earliest relatives to land here, or any other nationality.
I have been doing some genealogy research in recent years and find my wife of 44 years and I could come from a common point (not sure yet) in northern Europe about three hundred years ago. A bit more than 7 degrees of separtion, but we are all connected according to current DNA theory not too far apart.
How about you?
Sheku Rabbit and WTH,
You are digressing. “Indian” mascots,logos,teamnames are archaic race-based symbols that should have left the culture along with balckface minstrel shows and Sambo’s rrestaurants. This is a form of institutional racism and the institutions promoting it are our universities. This practice will not play well in the 21st century and forward thinking colleges and universities are putting their energy into changing race-based logos not cliinging to racist practices. - Katehla
OK we are digressing a bit, but WTH and Rabbit don’t often get a chance to be nice to one another so we probably both enjoy it when the opportunity arises. We probably both sense a not vastly different soul on the other side, age and all similar too I’d guess.
Rabbit is Scottish/Irish ancestry, early colonists and convicts to OZ. Some more recent English blood and some french a long time ago.
Mrs Rabbit is pure blood Danish, all the way back to King Gorm den Gamle. (Gorm the OLD)
Also a Mongrel.
Now actually this is not altogether off thread, because we are basically talking about racial bigotry. Does WTH know about the VERY ancient skeleton of modern man which has been found? It predates the earliest known examples of NEANDERTHAL by about 40,000 years. rabbit first read about it in Time magazine a couple of decades ago almost. When living in Europe I got it sent, so I had at least one regular English publication. if you don’t Rabbit can try and find something about it on the net. The French team who made the discovery, nicknamed HER eve. They checked her DNA against modern man and found a perfect match. More importantly they noticed something called a “marker gene” attached to the XX chromosome in such a way that it would be lost if the XX pattern broke. An XY would fail to carry the gene. This meant that the gene would be passed on from mother to daughter, but not mother to son. Thus, provided this woman, judged to be in her forties, had had a daughter, and that daughter had a daughter, etc etc, then theoretically there would exist a group, possibly a whole race who had that particular marker gene among its female population. This is a good bet, since after the first couple of generations the numbers would become self sustaining of probability alone. They decided to check every race on earth before going public.
They went public, hence the article in TIME, after having tested only about 90% of the various races. Some were too remote and hard to track down and the need soon dwindled.
————————————————————————
Every woman they tested, no matter what race, had the marker gene. NOW someone tell Rabbit any race is superior to any other. We are genetically of the same ancestors, all of us.
True story, actually it’s just the tip of the iceberg when our origins come into the discussion.
Interestingly, Rabbit has noticed a pattern of debate develop since that time which he thinks relates directly .
The whole creation/evolution debate seemed to pick up a serious head of steam ever since. Feels, does Rabbit, that some weakness in evolutionists maybe percieved by creationists who are exploiting it.
The thing is that evolutionists have tried too hard to prove a particular line of reasoning on the origins of man. While the theory of NATURAL SELECTION, is just not debatable, the evidence is in, enough and more than enough to have dispelled any doubt. This does not and nor did it ever prove MAN evolved from the apes. The supposed order of evolution has not been absolutely established. Details are not at Rabbit’s fingertips, just now, but there are some serious dating problems among others. There are too many leaps of faith and there always were for Rabbit ever to have accepted the classic argument for evolution of man. A great deal of Arhaelogical evidence exists which does not fit into any accepted theories of how long man has been on the earth. As the various items have arisen over time which have punched holes in the traditionally accepted route of evolution of man, Rabbit has nodded his head knowingly. He is confident that the real truth is far more surprising. Furthermore, it should be beggining to get a hearing more and more over the next half decade, or less.
So Rabbit, is neither a creationist nor an evolutionist per se. An evolutionist with a bit of intelligent design thrown in at intervals. Not the Christian God, or maybe it was, but then he is definately what Rabbit thinks of as God.
Mistake.
—definately NOT what Rabbit thinks of as God.
The difference between human DNA and almost any species is very minimal actually. In the order of a couple of percent.
There as much about animal sentience WTH might find interesting.
Apes are not the most intelligent animals, as it happens, that is a human perception and it is largely based upon the percieved similarities between apes and humans.
Most peoples perceptions about animal intellignece comes from old and outdated research. More recntly it has been realised that a standard form of testing was being used with all species which had been deveolped with only a very narrow percetion in the first place. The test was best suited to dogs. It put dogs quite high on an intelligence scale and cats much lower for example.
Lately testing has been tailored to the individual species and the results have been surprising.
Cats are actually smarter than dogs and Cephalopods are much smarter than we had ever imagined. Most species tested like this have shown much higher awareness and intelligence than previously believed. Apes are smart and you have obviously not heard about KOKO and a few other Gorrillas who have learned complex sign language and can hold discussions with people etc.
Some Parrots have shown they can count, and do mathematics, learn to read and even understand the concept of ZERO.
Link
—————————————————————-
http://www.animalsentience.com/
Wow, I purely LOVE this thread! This is the stuff that fascinates me, and the new science about mitochondrial DNA (which doesn’t recombine during sex as chromosomal DNA does, and mutates at an approximately know rate) is way exciting! People can now even trace the migrations of their ancestors, as well as assess the degree of their relatedness, with all the new-fangled goodies. Shows beyond a doubt that Africa is the source of our earliest beginnings, even more vividly than fossil evidence already did. I mean really just DAMN cool.
It’s a big part of the basis for my denial of the cult of race.
I know some of you will be annoyed with that stance, but after all the hate, brutality, and determined underestimation of human beings linked to “race”, I feel duty-bound to good karma to undercut that cult at every opportunity.
‘Bout time we started treating our kin like kin, take care of each other for a f’n change.
While we’re re-naming sports teams into animal talismans, we can abandon hated (by me) terms like “mixed marriage”, “mixed race children”, “people of color”, and all that nonsense.
Nothing but damn monkey-thinking! Hell, it’s f’n reptile-thinking, let’s use the bloody cortex finally and rise above!
(hahaha, although the new stuff about the sophistication of animal’s thinking ability actually puts them one up over us, it’s just too delicious!)
The things I could tell you about Rabbits.
Does Kuya know about all the archaeological evidence of how long we’ve been on this planet?
There is rock solid evidence that modern man has been walking around Earth since before the dinosaurs.
There are ruins which were ANCIENT at the time of the oldest known civilisations.
Rabbit will be glad to find some links. There are human footprints in 300 million year old Rock. Including the outline of sandles with discernable stitching.
There is all this unused “junk” DNA too. There is speculation that this may include a timeless message to our race. If this were so it seems probable we may soon be able to decipher it.
Yes Africa is where the “EVE” skeleton was found.
Rabbit has some fairly unusual convictions about the origins of Man, including his history. It has taken a lot of information gathering through a life of curiosity. Included are some personal experiences which also tend to lead to certain conclusions too, and finally there is that special place inside which tells if one is facing an important truth.
Rabbit would love to discuss these matters with Kuya, but fears the trolls will go off the deep end, the confusion and consternation it would cause them is too much to face.
Rabbit can be e-mailed
sgp1963@hotmail.com
Any of Rabbit’s friends are welcome to drop a PM, some have found Rabbit on other sites via google. Rabbitvoz has a few places where PM are able.
The topic of evolution is quite complicated. It is far from complete.
This makes it rather easy to attack. Scientists aid in these attacks, particularly if they are honest. Honesty requires us to say “i don’t know” often.
It is not at all clear how life began. This is a mystery that seems unlikely to be well understood, at least in my lifetime (i have decades to go, but the question is a difficult one).
It is not at all clear how large transitions took place. How did the first multicelluar creatures come to be? How did mitochondria come to infest us all? And a lessor but still interesting questionon is what is all that “junk” DNA (introns)?
That said, the key difference between evolution and other non-scientific theories is that science continues to absorb new facts and discard theories that are at odds with the data. Thus what we (scientists) believe today might very well be quite different fromm what we believe tomorrow (or in several decades). Religion has the claim of more stability, but from what history i know, this seems to be a bit of a false claim (that is, they too evolve their ideas, but from one “fixed” set to another).
It is amusing to note that science is often plagued by dogma. One might even say it is a rather conservative pursuit, slow to adopt far reaching changes. . .
Hello wolf,
Far be it from me to accept blindly any idea just because it’s labelled “scientific”. Quite true, as you say, that scientists can become dogmatic and blind to challenges of their theories (e.g. Freud, to the extent he was really scientific in his approach, and even Einstein).
Dogmatically accepting statements from authorities is a singularly unscientific attitude.
The self-correcting mechanism of science as a way of learning is indeed the rub, as you mention. That, and its philosophical refusal to state that learning about a given topic is ever finished, i.e. there’s always more that can be learned.
I do find the modern genomic investigations exciting, if not yet (ever?) thoroughly conclusive. I’m hoping this line of inquiry can offer a better paradigm for the way humans relate to each other, though it will take generations and won’t occur unopposed.
You can see I have an agenda. With luck, it’ll be borne out with data in time.
Hmmm, it might be unscientific of me to have a preferred conclusion up front. I’ll have to give that some thought.
The paradigm of evolving life seems to me to hold water far better than fiat creation of all things within a week (which is an admittedly strictly fundamentalist approach that not even all Christians share). I’m actually encouraged by the debates within the scientific community, rather than dismayed. Means they’re not all just trotting out a party line, which also is way unscientific in spirit.
Kuya - I don’t think we humans have very more generations left. I say this because i am beginning to believe that we are about to initiate a new revolution in evolution. Two distinct possibilities are: 1) direct genetic modification of our genes (probably before birth or conception) and 2) the merger of computer-like hardware with organic tissue. A third further out (!!!) possiblity is the abandanment of organic for hardware. . .
An entirely other, and much darker, possibility is that we will fall back into another dark age. While i think it is unlikely, it is something we should worry about to ensure it does not happen.
Anyway, that concludes my wild eyed speculations for the future. Remember when star trek communicators were the stuff of fiction? Seems to me that cell phones have far exceeded them already. . .
This thread is mostly nonsense! If we never used a noun that had at some time, in the near or distant past offended someone, we’d never be able to speak! My wife is a lady (though I’d probably not qualify as a gentleman) and I occasionally tell her so. I suspect that would be an offensive description to some of the Lesbian persuasion. They are certainly entitled to that opinion, but not the right to object to my usage. During the past few decades we have seen the term ‘Black’ rise from obscurity to be the Politically Correct description for a group of people, then as quickly fall from favor. Consider the following mascots (an off-the-cuff sampling from the NFL and MLB): Angels, Braves, Buccaneers, Chiefs, Cowboys, Forty-Niners, Giants, Indians, Mariners, Packers, Patriots, Pirates, Raiders, Redskins, Saints, Steelers, Texans, Vikings, Yankees. Most of these names have been used, in various times and in various places as terms of disparagement. For example, Saints fans describing the Forty-Niners and vice versa. It appears that team choose their names to represent something that they consider admirable as a representation of the team. It seems to me that the fact that the Braves, Chiefs, Indians, and Redskins are included with the Angels, Saints, Patriots, and Yankees, while there are no Japs, Nazis, Negroes, Niggers, Polacks, or Slopes, is significant.
register a new account »Posting Security