Native Americans are talked about a certain way by mainstream American culture. Some of these ways extend to other people of colour.
This post is an attempt to list some of those ways. It is a stepping stone to doing a more thorough, well thought-post on the subject:
- Vocabulary: Overuse a parallel set of words that exoticizes them and puts them on a level below whites:
- Not house but tepee, longhouse, wigwam, hut, etc
- Not hat but headdress
- Not boat but canoe
- Not shoe but moccasin
- Not doctor but medicine man or healer
- Not soldiers but braves or warriors
- Not woman but squaw
- Not men but tribesmen
- Not nation but tribe
- Not country but tribal lands
- Not king or kingdom but chief or chiefdom.
- Not civil war but fighting
- Not technology but tools
- Not town but village, pueblo, population centre, etc
- Children of Eden: Do not use the words “work”, “farmers”, “politics” or “economic policy”. They were like children living at one with Nature who got by on berries, hunting, cool clothes and ancient wisdom.
- History: Say as little as possible, especially about the Indian Wars and the period before 1492 and after 1890. They are timeless. The Sioux, for example, are frozen forever in time on their horses hunting bisons and fighting Custer. Thus “Dances With Wolves” is set not in the present day but the 1860s.
- Violence: Assume they were all cruel, violent savages. No need to know and understand their history.
- Cultural change: a sign of progress among whites, a sign of destruction of a pure, virgin culture among Indians
- The cold white gaze: Take pictures of them as exotic creatures, objects of study – or at their worst: old, unsmiling men, drunks, falling-apart houses, etc. Do it in the name of an Objective Truth, one that is never applied to whites because it would seem tastelessly cruel and heartless. Because it is.
Legitimizing theft: Notice who gets lines and who does not
- Country names: Never use them. The French have France, the Italians have Italy but the Cherokees had what?
- Maps: Draw maps as if they were wandering herds of animals instead of people who had countries of their own. Avoid using lines, especially solid ones, as if there were never any treaties, as if present-day Indians have no idea just where their countries were.
- The Tragic Indian: Cast them as noble but tragic figures. Their fate could not be helped. It is no one’s fault.
- Speaking: The men should look sad or mean and speak little. When they do speak, it should be in an almost poetic but broken English.
- Laughing: rare.
- Middle age: rare. The women are either 19 or 89 while the men are either 25 or 65.
- Religion: Wise and in tune with Nature, but otherwise do not take it too seriously. See Eden, Children of.
- Romanization: make their words and names look either cartoonish or too hard to say.
In short Indians are either exoticized or they are dehumanized. The trouble is not with Indians but with how White Americans deal with history and with cultural differences.
See also:
- Emerald Triangle Princess: Here’s a roundup of the maps of “North American indigenous territories”
- Charles C. Mann: 1491
- Native Europeans – applies some of this way of talking to whites
- The lies you were taught about Native Americans – at American high school
- A Hidden America: Children Of The Plains – White American television documentary on Sioux children
- Posts based on Indian writing:
- My own writing on Indians:
Abagond 
“It is a stepping stone to doing a more thorough, well thought-post on the subject..”
**********
Abagond –
Good job. You’re ON track! Language (English) is one of the most effective tools used for maintaining white supremacy/racism!
Some of the more obvious and glaring examples:
Not Somali leaders but Warlords
Not fighting but genocide
Not Afghan soldiers but terrorists
Not African politics but corruption
Not patriots/revolutionaries but henchmen
Not the Iranian clergy but Ayatollahs
Not African entrepreneurs/leaders but Bigmen
Not black neighborhoods but ghettos/inner cities
Not young black men but criminals/thugs
Professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva of Duke University calls this “the invisible weight of whiteness.”
“I argue there is something akin to a grammar a racial grammar if you will that structures cognition, vision, and even feelings on all sort of racial matters. This grammar normalizes the standards of white supremacy as the standards for all sort of social events and transactions.”
LikeLike
Very good. This extends also to the rest of the world pretty much in american language and understanding (just check mexicans: from bandits, to panchovillas, from suffering pesants to drug lords and helpless pesants, from drug cartels to helpless victims, from corrupt politicians to helpless victims etc. oh, and some mariachis thrown into the mix).
LikeLike
@ Abag
I’ve got a note “on how not to write about Native Americans.”
Don’t write as if you’re their representative. You’re not. I’ve never noticed blacks having any great love for Indians. You’re just interested in pushing your own racist agenda.
LikeLike
Blacks “love for (um) Indians” is irrelevant since the topic of discussion is white attitude towards them. And for that there is ample evidence and no need to speculate. Furthermore, white “otherization” of those considered non-white follows clearly defined patterns with parallels in their interaction with Africans, Native North/South/Central Americans, Pacific Islanders, East Asians, etc. Simply put, everyone has the same story of some destructive white face. So it’s interesting to “compare notes”, so to speak.
LikeLike
Origin
I’m sure you would very much like to define the parameters of what is and isn’t “relevant”. Just as I’m sure you would like to set up the board with the white pieces on one side and everyone else on the other. But you’re dreaming. And you’re dream will turn into a nightmare for you. If you’ll notice, the tactic of pitting everyone against whites doesn’t work in a multicultural society. Because the same thing that makes you prejudiced against whites will make you turn on the others, as well.
“Simply put, everyone has the same story of some destructive white face. So it’s interesting to “compare notes”, so to speak.”
No they don’t. I certainly don’t. Take this blog, for example. What you have are a lot of racist blacks. And a handful of others who have a chip on their shoulder for one reason or another. That isn’t representative of society at large. I can assure you that there are a lot more asians, arabs, hispanics, whites and even (um) indians comparing notes on blacks.
LikeLike
Abagond:
Language plays a huge role even today. Look at who are called ‘terrorists’ or which governments are called ‘regimes’ and you’ll get a good idea of what’s going down.
Also:
Not ‘finding food’ but ‘looting’
Not ‘typical teenager’ but ‘thug’
LikeLike
duck:
I’m not pitting anybody against whites. Whites did all the pitting of themselves against the so-called other races. In my posts I simply describe reality as honestly as I know how.
You are certainly right. POC show very little tendency to gang up as a single group against white people. White people, however, have organized themselves into a race and played on that “Grand Chessboard” (quot Zbigniew Zbrezinski). Everyone around the world simply fought their own isolated resistances against oppression and explotation. However the disconnected struggles shared a common antagonist.
So it is interesting FOR ME to compare the experiences of various peoples with white racism since I continue to live with it. My post had nothing to do with organizing a gang to attack white people. It’s interesting that your mind went there right away. It’s the great white fear.
LikeLike
By the way, before anyone starts assuming I’m talking about “all” white people I’m aware that there were always some people, who would be considered white, that were opposed to the activities of those around them. Not people in denial, but people who knew the facts and hated it. But it seems that they were never in the majority nor were they the powerful ones. So I feel quite comfortable speaking about the collective behavior of white people.
LikeLike
Well…
1) “Country” is a largely irrelevant term. “country” in English largely refers to the concept of a nation-state, a defined border ruled by a central authority. Most American peoples did not have that same concept. hell, Europe didn’t have it down until about the 1600’s. The Inka had the concept, and called their nation Tawantinsuyu. “Nation” is a more flexible term that can cover people as well as territory and politics, and is appropriate when talking about these societies.
2) The difference between “hat” and “headdress” is that one is a common article of clothing, the other is a ceremonial article. The big feathered headdresses that say, the Cheyenne wore were not all-purpose headgear obtained by anyone, they were signifiers of rank, and skill in leadership and warfare. Calling it a “hat” is like calling a veterans medals “buttons.”
3) similarly, a canoe is a specific TYPE of boat, and it comes from a Native American (Arawak) word for that boat design.
4) “Squaw” is pejorative, and should never be used unless you want a lady to kick you in a sensitive place.
5) “Soldiers” are warriors in a standing professional army. Much as with “country,” this didn’t really exist in most Native American societies; the Triple Alliance (“Aztec”) and Inka both had professional soldier castes, however.
6) A lot of their names ARE hard to say if you’re used to Indo-European languages. There are sounds that do not exist in any language you have likely heard. Check out this Salish-english dictionary; http://www.salishworld.com/Selish%20Dictionary_online.pdf – I have spoken Finnish. I have spoken Swahili. I have spoken Choctaw and god help me, i’m fluent in the crazy mongrel language that is English… i cannot say a single fucking thing in Salish, even WITH a pronunciation guide. I feel like my mouth should be able to open horizontally when I try.
Most of the rest is spot-on. However, there can be a small allowance made… In pretty much every study of Native American society after the first twenty to fifty years of contact, Europeans were basically looking at a post-apocalyptic landscape.
The diseases from Europe (smallpox, influenza, measles) and Africa (malaria, yellow fever) hit the Americas HARD. on the one hand, this tells us that the Americas WERE densely populated; you don’t get a smallpox pandemic from one sick dude landing in Mexico, unless there are a LOT of people in contact with one another, especially at that mortality rate.
In less than a century, two densely populated continents were reduced to nearly a tenth of their population. Imagine, if you will, what would happen if something happened and in the next four decades, the human population of the planet dropped to seven hundred million. Anything resembling society would crumble to nothing. The survivors would form little tribes in the woods, away from former population centers, and would try to rebuild based off what little bits and pieces of the world they knew and carried with them.
Now throw in technologically advanced space aliens that see these survivors as competitors and vermin to be chased away with as much violence as possible.
This is the world encountered by most French and English documentation of the Americas. The Spanish DID talk about kingdoms and countries and religions, cities and civilizations… But it was largely discounted by late-comers who saw a hemisphere in ruin and nothing to support the Spanish claims. So i’m willing to extend a little forgiveness if these Gallic-Anglo latecomers didn’t properly map out the boundaries of nations that were crushed by pandemic before they even really showed up.
LikeLike
@ Origin
“In my posts I simply describe reality as honestly as I know how. “
No. You describe reality in a way that strokes your ego, mitigates your failures, promotes your prejudices & serves your own interests.
“You are certainly right. POC show very little tendency to gang up as a single group against white people.”
Nice try. Even if that had been what I said it wouldn’t be right. Everyone demonstrates a tendency to gang up on others. It just doesn’t work on a large scale without a dictator.
“White people, however, have organized themselves into a race and played on that ‘Grand Chessboard’ (quot Zbigniew Zbrezinski)”
First, you misspelled his name. And, second, you’re taking some serious liberties with Brzezinski’s book. If you had actually bothered to read it then you’d know that wasn’t what it was about at all.
So it is interesting FOR ME to compare the experiences of various peoples with white racism since I continue to live with it.
No, what you live with is YOUR racism. You’re just looking for ways to justify it. That generally takes the form of accepting crackpot theories without bothering to verify them.
LikeLike
Ive seen some great documentaries recently , one about the incredible construction techniques of how some of the Indians built pyramids and other things. They really are advanced and have survived earthquakes and other natural disastars.
Another docu was about the Spanish conquistadors and what they saw. One was about the first Spaniarad to sail down the Amazon, and the river civilisation he saw was just immense and vibrant. There were something like 3 million people at that time living down the Amazon and the number was reduced to severaly hundred thousand
One thing I started to realise and not want to take for granted is the wonderful foods on our plates that comes from Indian concepts, like the potato, tomato, corn, tobaco, green peppers, come from Indian discoveries. Also knowlege of plants and their medicinal purposes
LikeLike
@ duckduckgoofs
I am hardly speaking for Indians. This post should make it clear that I think I have been brainwashed to see them a certain way and that I do not even know all the ways that I have brainwashed – I just listed the ones I kind of know about.
I think NOT talking about this stuff in effect pushes the racist agenda of WHITES.
And, as Origin pointed out and I agree, looking at how whites have othered Indians or ANY people of colour helps you to understand how they have othered YOU, which in turn helps you to fight internalized racism.
I think it is important for whitewashed Americans too since who wants to be brainwashed? And how is NOT truly understanding the history of your country helpful to anyone but those who are pulling the wool over your eyes?
I am not saying I am right about everything in this post – I am just throwing it out there. Later I will write a post along these lines that is as right as I can make it. That is why the title says “Notes on …”.
LikeLike
@ Bulanik
I have noticed and wondered about that too – about Apache helicopters and Osama as Geronimo and so on. Afghanistan has even been called “Indian country”. Sick stuff.
LikeLike
@ abag
Yeah. You’ve been brainwashed. You’ve brainwashed yourself into believing that whites are responsible for all blacks’ problems rather than the truth. Which is that whites are responsible for just about everything good that blacks have. If you doubt it then just look at what happens to the black standard of living when there aren’t any whites around. That’s got to sting. Doesn’t it? It’s a lot easier for you to claim whites stole it than to admit what you know deep down to be true.
And THAT is the only reason you’re even thinking about Indians. After all, I haven’t seen you waste much ink on anyone you couldn’t use to push your own racist agenda.
LikeLike
@ Duck
I used to think that racism, direct and internalized, was maybe just 40% of what was holding back blacks – that stuff like fatherlessness was doing far more damage. But then I saw a Sioux Indian reservation. It blew my mind. I started reading about the Sioux. From then on I saw that the black pathology argument was just 100% self-serving white B.S. Because Sioux dysfunction, despite very different genetics and history and all that, was far too close to black dysfunction. It was too much of a coincidence to be an accident. And the only thing the two have in common is white racism in its most savage forms and the side effects thereof.
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/black-pathology/
Not to say that blacks cannot screw up stuff all on their own. There is plenty of that, but by itself it hardly accounts for what is going on.
LikeLike
@ Duck
Furthermore Indian writings, like those of John Trudell, have helped me to understand why whites hate and look down and demonize blacks so much.
For example, a good part of this post:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/why-do-whites-hate-demonize-fear-or-look-down-on-blacks/
pretty much follows from this post:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/john-trudell-when-columbus-got-off-the-boat/
So I am not using Indians to push an agenda. Instead they help me to understand the world I live in.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Thanks for paying homage to another part of my ancestry. Good post and very true.
LikeLike
Abag
Reservations are autonomous and self governed. They’re like a country within a country — including foreign aid from US taxpayers. Whatever conditions exist are the conditions they created.
Your argument that Sioux have dysfunctions similar to blacks is hardly a surprise. Poor whites have dysfunctions similar to blacks, too. Pretty much all ignorant, low-class people are dysfunctional. No one makes someone that way. People do it to themselves. The only thing one can do is avoid them so as not to be influenced by it.
As for whites looking “down and demonizing blacks”… that’s a real hoot coming from a black guy whose dedicated his blog to demonizing whites. Keep it up, buddy. Seriously. I may disagree with your arguments but I really do support your results. You just lack the self awareness to realize what they are.
LikeLike
@ Duck
You have been lied to big time. The world does not work like that.
LikeLike
@duckduckgoofs
Except to my understanding most of those reservations are located in some of the least sustainable and arid regions of the US. How the hell do you expect people to make a living in such environment? Their possibility to practice their traditional way of life was destroyed, and nothing was offered to replace that. Except some measly, merciful charity, known ironically as “welfare”.
Their opportunities to prosper are next to none. And that was the point of the conquest of the west? To rob natives of any productive/valuable land. To make white settles to live long and prosper.
LikeLike
@ Bulanik
Among the Tumblr blogs I follow cultural appropriation and the racism that underlies it is a big issue. I will probably do a post on it at some point.
LikeLike
As if the way they are portrayed isn’t accurate. Furthermore, Native Indians are more racist toward Blacks, then most Whites, nor are they as hated as Blacks. In fact lots of Whites mention their Native Indian Heritage.
LikeLike
@abagond,
The book “Dressing in Feathers” would be a good one to look into for cultural appropriation and misrepresentations regarding Native Americans. It’s basically a collection of essays, ranging from the notion of the Indian as a mystical healer in the 19th century, all the way up to… this
You’ll notice that at least in the US, this appropriation is largely done with Indians – it’s an attempt to “legitimize” colonization, so you end up with people claiming one-48th “Indian blood” or the like, ESPECIALLY in the south. I think the only other culture that comes close is the Celts, with the heavy romanticization of “Braveheart” and stuff.
LikeLike
Abagond,
In old animated features, especially during the 20s on through the 90s Native Americans are always portrayed as almost naked people with a broken language that like to say words like “ugh, how” and have that stereotypical battle cry. Usually, they are seen as violent savages that will attack white characters who are seen as accidental heroes.
duck,
You said, “Whatever conditions exist are the conditions they created…Poor whites have dysfunctions similar to blacks, too. Pretty much all ignorant, low-class people are dysfunctional. No one makes someone that way. People do it to themselves. The only thing one can do is avoid them so as not to be influenced by it.”
So, by that logic, it seems that rich people of any color are more intelligent and have a higher degree of morality as opposed to the dysfunctional poor. As such richer people are more safe to be around than poor people.
It sounds like conservative thinking at its core.
Then, as expected you said, “As for whites looking “down and demonizing blacks”… that’s a real hoot coming from a black guy whose dedicated his blog to demonizing whites. Keep it up, buddy. Seriously.”
Why is it that talking about the TRUE failures, sins, and crimes of white people always seen as demonizing or hate yet, talking about the same when it comes to people of color is not?
Abagond is correct to say that you are lied to, but it’s more sad to know that you support the lie. Whether you agree or not, white racism is the cause of many problems for Native and African American communities. To not say that it doesn’t have a huge part in it is live in extreme denial. That is NOT to say that members of either group can somehow rise above it and succeed in their goals, but for a large part, it is a major factor.
Just because YOU don’t think so, DOESN’T mean that it’s not plausible, possible, or existing.
LikeLike
@Abagond
Yes, the “black dysfunction” argument is a very self-serving one. I call it the “cut off their legs and call them shorty” argument. Seriously, how can a society spend centuries oppressing black people, and in the midst of protest, struggle, and assassinations, write “civil rights” into law in 1964 (this is more recent than WWII and the Jewish holocaust; 60s babies are just in their 40s to early-50s now) then scratch it’s collective head and innocently wonder “what’s wrong with them? I don’t know, do you?” For a culture that prides itself with being rational and scientific it seems totally blind to cause and effect in this particular case. Shocking!
By the way, the problems of modern Africa are frequently cited. But the only African country without a European official language is Ethiopia (but the Italians tried). These countries only gained independence in the 1960s after centuries of colonization and the associated slavery, wealth transfers and social disruption. Same thing in the Caribbean except for Haiti which freed itself by slave revolt centuries before anyone else only to come under seige by the combined forces of the USA and France and have a huge sum extorted by it’s former colonial master. It was in debt from the beginning.
The idea that pre-colonial Africans needed white people present to survive is absolutely ludicrous considering that white people were dropping like flies in equatorial Africa due to Malaria. They were only able to penetrate tropical Africa after stumbling upon Quinine’s anti-malarial properties (this is the origin of “tonic water”). And when they did they found centers of culture and commerce there as anywhere else (the layout of cities such as the Kingdom of Benin’s walled capital was recorded by Europeans). Of course, everywhere in Africa wasn’t like that but everywhere in Europe wasn’t Athens, Rome or Cordoba; America has New York City and Appalachia.
So I understand the “black pathology” arguments as white ways to absolve their culture of the role it played in bringing about current realities. White people are free to believe them because they were created to serve white people. If POC believe them, that’s the route to internalized racism and self-destruction. Unfortunately, there is already too much of that.
LikeLike
Compared to blacks, I think Native Americans pulled the the lucky straw when it comes to historical depictions. Native Americans are often romanticized and admired in American culture for being strong, innocent, natural, and pure
LikeLike
And Abagond’s classic deconstruction of white/albinic european hegemony continues
with the ample and excellent help of posters like “Origin”,”Bulanik” the esteemed brothawolf
and as usual the futile opposing view in this case(probably because its not about sex or sex related issues)
one lone troll ;I mean white/albinic aggressor cause that’s the only way a subordinate phenotypic population group can thrive – violence and deceit.
LikeLike
@ Origin
Nice post
LikeLike
@ Abag “You have been lied to big time. The world does not work like that.”
Its hard to argue with “evidence” like that. haha
>>>
@ bro “So, by that logic, it seems that rich people of any color are more intelligent and have a higher degree of morality as opposed to the dysfunctional poor. As such richer people are more safe to be around than poor people.
It sounds like conservative thinking at its core.”
I said ignorant, low class people are dysfunctional. I didn’t say anything about rich, intelligence, or morality. I certainly didn’t mention “safety”. Although its interesting that you automatically made that connection. Was that “internalized racism” or just good, old common sense?
By the way, liberals say that rich people are safer than poor people every time they claim poverty causes crime.
“Why is it that talking about the TRUE failures, sins, and crimes of white people always seen as demonizing or hate yet, talking about the same when it comes to people of color is not?”
That’s what is known as a leading question.
I couldn’t help noticing your emphasis on the word “TRUE”. Why is it “TRUE”? Because you say so and type it in CAPS? I’ve noticed that those who can’t support their arguments are really big on the “TRUTH”. Instead, you just call whatever you like the “TRUTH” and whatever you don’t a “lie”.
>>>
@ origin “Seriously, how can a society spend centuries oppressing black people..”
The irony is that blacks have a higher standard of living when they’re “oppressed” than when they’re not. What’s that tell ya?
“These countries only gained independence in the 1960s after centuries of colonization and the associated slavery, wealth transfers and social disruption.”
LikeLike
@duckduck:
“Reservations are autonomous and self governed. They’re like a country within a country — including foreign aid from US taxpayers. Whatever conditions exist are the conditions they created.”
Ok. Lets say that the chinese would conquer USA, kill off most of the people, destroy all your economics, banks, institutions, order you not to go to church or speak english, and then order the remaining few into some desert land strip and tell you: take care.
According to you, what ever conditions would be, it would be the fault of those few who survived the original genocide and destruction of USA and its whole population, and were herded into those desert land strips.
Are serious, dude, or are you a comic?
LikeLike
@ duckduckgoofs
A grown-ass person who says the Sioux are autonomous is either a troll or too profoundly whitewashed to be reached by evidence and common sense.
LikeLike
Hannu L said:
Driving across South Dakota it is plain as day that whites pushed the Sioux onto some of the worst bits of their old lands. Some of it almost looks like another planet.
LikeLike
@ chulanowa
Thanks for the recommendation and interesting comments.
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
Thank you. Saying anything bad about whites is racist and full of hatred. But saying anything bad about people of colour magically is not. How nice.
LikeLike
@duckduckgoofs
Origin is correct on the point you quoted. If your video is truth, it only proves that conquest was more trouble than it was worth.
LikeLike
@ sam
We know what China would do because they’re doing it in Tibet and Mongolia. I don’t know that the two situations were all that different. The biggest difference I see is that the Tibetans and Mongolians don’t even have the benefit of a reservation to help them maintain their identity.
Regardless, Indians today enjoy full US citizenship along with all the rights and privileges that every other American has. In addition, Indians receive advantages that other Americans don’t. For example, anyone who can prove 25% native ancestry is exempt from paying taxes and receives free health care. There are even grants for education, housing, etc. That hasn’t always been true. But it is now and has been for a long time.
@ Abag “A grown-ass person who says the Sioux are autonomous is either a troll or too profoundly whitewashed to be reached by evidence and common sense.”
Reservations are under federal law but exempt from state law. They are basically independent states just like the “Big 50”. Only they have the power to deny residence and other states don’t. In fact, a number of reservations are larger than some of the smaller states.
“Thank you. Saying anything bad about whites is racist and full of hatred. But saying anything bad about people of colour magically is not. How nice.”
A grown-ass person who would make a straw man argument like that is either a…
@ D. “If your video is truth, it only proves that conquest was more trouble than it was worth.”
That was Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economist. I’m not sure I’d call colonialism “conquest”. The best analogy for colonialism today would be outsourcing. That’s basically what colonialism was — outsourcing production to another state under one’s political influence. Of course, some of the colonies had an advantage in providing some of the products due to climate, natural resources, etc. Indeed, that’s how trade creates wealth. Wealth is created when one trades a good or service they’re better able to provide for a good or service someone else is better able to provide. Both benefit. Although, in the case of colonialism the colonies usually cost the colonial powers more than made back because they were being subsidized.
Why then did the colonial powers become so prosperous? Simple. The trading companies became politically influential and demanded middle class property rights from the monarchs. In other words, they created a free market.
LikeLike
@duckduck:
Milton Freedman? You mean the guy whose teachings and ideas have fuked the whole world economy, including the whole economy of USA? Now theres a glaring example of histroical idiots indeed.
LikeLike
@ sam
I don’t see how. The only country I’m aware of that’s really implemented Friedman’s policy recommendations is Estonia. You’ve heard of them, right?
LikeLike
LikeLike
@ Anomymous
Why are you always trying to tell Black people who hates them more than Whites? I noticed that trend in your posts. I’m fairly certain that ALL of the groups that you’ve mentioned that supposedly hate Blacks, hate White people just as much if not more.
LikeLike
You have B&W child-like view of the world. It must be comforting.
LikeLike
Milton Freidman and the “Chicago boys”, have had their policies forced on people in several dictatorships in South America during military dictatorships with not such great results for the people , mainly, Chile under Pinochet and Argentina under their military dictatorship
Some of the basic concepts were pushed on Americans in the Reagon years (busting the unions) and this last Bush administration (heavy deregulation which certainly backfired), and the results are atrocious
LikeLike
The author and a lot of the commentators on this blog are consistently some of the most ignorant, race baiting people I’ve ever seen. This is like the black version of Stormfront. At least over there they admit they’re racists.
LikeLike
duckduckgoofs
Reservations are autonomous and self governed. They’re like a country within a country — including foreign aid from US taxpayers. Whatever conditions exist are the conditions they created.
*****
Abagond, he is no longer worth responding to. His level of ignorance has no remedy.
He doesn’t want to learn. He just wants to argue. He doesn’t want to see any other point of view other than his pathetically racist own.
The only thing he deserves is your disgust is your pity. But trying to educate a fool is a waste of time.
LikeLike
“duckduckgoofs
That was Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economist. I’m not sure I’d call colonialism “conquest”. The best analogy for colonialism today would be outsourcing.”
Linda says,
I like that word_”outsourcing”_ indeed 🙂
That’s a nice, modern-day term to replace the word “Imperialism” (The American’s used the term “Manifest Destiny” to describe their dabblings into imperialism)
The only problem with your “Outsourcing” analogy is that those countries that you are calling “outsource” posts already had large populations living there for hundreds /thousands of years and these native populations had already formed their own countries (Nations/States)
since these native populations lost the many wars fought against the invading European nations, they were Conquered and eventually colonized by the invading armies “white” population from back home; so, the native populaton became displaced –this is not outsourcing–this is Colonialism.
This is what the British and Spanish did in North, Central, South America, Caribbean, and Australia.
The Colonies were the reason the home European countries got rich. If anything, you got it backwards, the colonies were financially subsidizing the home country–the wealth went back to Europe.
Maintaining the Colonies was expensive because a large chunk of money had to go into the Military, which came directly from Europe because the home country had to ensure military domination of the native population.
The relationship between the home country and its colonies was symbiotic.
Unfortunately, the native & slave populations didn’t just lay down and die properly, so it became cheaper for the European home country to let go and allow the new permanent European settlers to control their own military, local government, and wealth.
The home country profitted by maintaining lucrative Trade agreements with the former colonies–win win situation for former colonies and former home country.
LikeLike
@ Big Boss
Where does Stormfront admit it is racist?
LikeLike
@ Big Boss
How is the post ignorant, racist or race-baiting?
LikeLike
duck,
You said, “I couldn’t help noticing your emphasis on the word “TRUE”. Why is it “TRUE”? Because you say so and type it in CAPS? I’ve noticed that those who can’t support their arguments are really big on the “TRUTH”. Instead, you just call whatever you like the “TRUTH” and whatever you don’t a “lie.”
Let me respond to this quickly before it veers off-topic.
First off, that did not answer my question.
Second, why is what you’re saying any more true than what I, Abagond, or anyone else who doesn’t share your world view is saying or has been said? Is your word more important, valuable or valid than ours just because you said so?
I’ve seen some people in this blog alone support their arguments with links to sources for easy research, references to books, and personal testimony. All have made valid points, but the most important probably comes from their own experiences. People of color have experiences that whites do not, and it’s not because of poor choices or lack of personal responsibility. It is because the society they live in not only supports white racism but denies that it exists.
In the case of Native Americans they have their own experiences and stories as a result of white racism and the history behind it. The problems and struggles they go through in this day and age did not come from a vacuum. It was a result of white racism.
Yet, you believe that it is mostly or all their fault that they are living in impoverished nations in America. You don’t believe white racism, or rather white people, have a hand in it. Yet, you’ve haven’t explained your side with anything. All I’ve seen from you is calling blacks racists, snide remarks, and poor sarcasm and humor. No books, no links, and no personal testimony is included. This is why we suspect that you are a run-of-the-mill troll.
You seem to be the type of person that if a person of color were to vent his/her frustrations after dealing with something that is racist without question, you would blame them (the victim).
LikeLike
duck,
So, I’ll ask again, why is pointing out the mistakes, sins, and crimes of white people considered racist, but to do the same to blacks is not only consider true but appropriate?
This has been the norm for far too long, and when mounds and mounds of research point towards white supremacy, it’s time to put an end to the kibosh. It’s time to counter that mindset and tell the world that black people and all other people who are victims of white supremacy that we are not what they think we are.
And on that note duck, we are NOT what YOU think we are.
LikeLike
The practice of Colonialism usually involved domination and subjugation of the original inhabitants by people from another Country; and the transfer of the “conquering” country’s population from the old country to the new territory. (permanent settlers) These new “permanent settlers” usually maintained political allegiance to the home country of origin.
Colonialism and “outsourcing” (aka Imperialism) are not interchangeable because
Imperialism describes the way one country (like Britian) exercised power over other Nation/States (countries), whether through settlement, sovereignty, or indirect mechanisms of control.
Imperialism refers to economic, military or political domination that is achieved without significant permanent European settlement–occupied territories.
This fits your “outsourcing” analogy. The British/European occupations in India, other Asian and African countries allowed them to form and expand their capitalist “free markets” that they originally formed through Colonialism.
Europe created and maintained it’s own financial markets by trade within their own triagle –home country, former/current colonies and occupied imperial territories.
European countries could maintain trade and profit substantially between each other due to practically monopolizing certain Industries.
That’s why competition was always so fierce between the big players like England, France, Dutch (and eventually America) because who ever could hold and dominate the foreign region or country with the natural resources, would control the market, such as what Belgium and Dutch did with precious gems and diamonds.
http://www.indepthinfo.com/history/imperialism.htm
I’m sure the native populations (Nation/States) in North and South America, New Zealand and Australia would have preferred to deal with ‘imperialism’ rather than the invasion, wars, cultural displacement, destruction of their way of life, and outright Colonization of their countries.
LikeLike
@Abagond
A wonderful, truthful post. I’ve always been bothered by how clinical, alien and dehumanizing the descriptions and discussions of Native Americans felt, as if the writers were terrified of seeing them as human and had to stay distant and unfeeling about it or risk seeing the atrocities of the past for what they were.
And Duck, honestly, why do you even bother coming here? No one that reads abagond’s stuff agrees with your insane worldview, so stop wasting your time.
LikeLike
Interesting post Chulanowa:
I just happened to hear an interview with the author of the book “Uncovering the New World Columbus Created” that echoed much of what you said, in a much more passive voice (of course). He was asked a question at the end: “What would he like students to take away from the history of Columbus’ explorations”? His answer was two pronged:
1) The immense die off of native peoples due to diseases Europeans introduced. (He didn’t mention deliberate genocide but the book seemed to be more about the ecological aspects). ME: This is an absolutely massive consequence that is often glossed over. Native North American, Caribbean Taino, Central American Maya and Aztec, South American Inca…all basically gone as people.
2)The demographic change in the New World…not so much due to Europeans but Africans. According to the author the number of Africans in the New World outnumbered Europeans 3-to-1 in the first 100 years after colonization (due to slavery). He went on to say that later immigrants from Europe (like the people he descended from) came to a New World with cities built by African hands, boats operated by African crews etc. ME: So when the came they saw a completely different world from what the first Europeans would have seen.
LikeLike
@duckduck:
“The only country I’m aware of that’s really implemented Friedman’s policy recommendations is Estonia. You’ve heard of them, right?”
Yes I do, and it is in terrible state right now. Prostitution is everywhere, one of the worst HIV situations in EU, poverty is rampant, people are actually scavaging for food, organized crime is very strong, crime is very high, alcholism and drug abise very high etc.
But they implement Freedmans ideas in USA, in EU, in WTO etc. And that is the reason why we all are in a such a mess right now. Directly. Like the big boys in Meryl Lynch stated in a confidental letter to their biggest customers: unfortunately there is still democracies because the interests of the people are dorectly opposite of the interests of the big companies and banks, but, they said, there is hope that in the next ten to fifteen years the world moves to plutocracy. That letter was sent in 2008. That is happening right now.
LikeLike
In other words, they created a free market.
The free market is hardly free, and outsourcing hasn’t helped former colonies:
LikeLike
I apologize for letting this gem slip:
I’m not sure I’d call colonialism “conquest”. The best analogy for colonialism today would be outsourcing. That’s basically what colonialism was — outsourcing production to another state under one’s political influence.
Yeah, sounds like conquest to me.
LikeLike
Thanks for another great post, Abagond! This blog has really been instrumental in helping me dissect what plagues the U.S.!!
LikeLike
To B. R.
Off Topic.. I’ll make one post about Friedman and if you wish to continue the discussion we should do it on the open forum:
Milton Freidman and the “Chicago boys”, have had their policies forced on people in several dictatorships in South America during military dictatorships with not such great results for the people , mainly, Chile under Pinochet and Argentina under their military dictatorship
The reforms suggested by the Chicago boys in Argentina came under the democratically elected regime of Carlos Menem in the early 90s as a response to hyperinflation, not under the dictators.
Friedman’s response to critics regarding his visit to Chile:
“I must say, it’s such a wonderful example of a double standard, because I had spent time in Yugoslavia, which was a communist country. I later gave a series of lectures in China. When I came back from communist China, I wrote a letter to the Stanford Daily newspaper in which I said, ‘It’s curious. I gave exactly the same lectures in China that I gave in Chile. I have had many demonstrations against me for what I said in Chile. Nobody has made any objections to what I said in China. How come?'” He points out that his visit was unrelated to the political side of the regime and that during his visit to Chile he even stated that following his economic liberalization advice would help bring political freedom and the downfall of the regime.”
LikeLike
To Abagond and Bigboss:
Bigboss said:
“This is like the black version of Stormfront. At least over there they admit they’re racists.”
Abagond said:
“Where does Stormfront admit it is racist?”
It’s common for individual posters on Stormfront to state that they are racist… sometimes with the phrase “proudly racist…” I believe that was Bigboss’ point that many participants if not the site itself often openly admit they are racist.
One key difference between Stormfront and Abagond’s site is that if you follow the rules you will not be banned here. I was banned from Stormfront after exactly one post. (They don’t like my “kind” since my father is Jewish…)
LikeLike
I just deleted some posts. Duck has completely derailed this thread with his idiotic theories that have nothing to do with the OP.
Also: An update to my comment policy: comments with Mock Ebonics (except in direct quotes) will be deleted. They amount to a racial slur.
LikeLike
African colonialism and Milton Friedman are off topic here.
LikeLike
I was typing while you deleted posts. Sorry
LikeLike
Yup, that sounds like ol’ ducky! Glad I missed those posts.
LikeLike
I personally feel that the Native American culture of today is in a perpetual stasis, frozen in history as once noble, exotic, mother earth and father sky worshipping, romantic savages. Stoic people living in harmony with the nature. Whites appreciate their history, but have no use for them in today’s industrialized world.
For the progressive, euro-american way of life, natives were totally useless peoples, who just happened to roam the land that white settlers from the beginning acclaimed theirs, if for no other reason but their technological, military advantage. Like indians were just camping on the land whites thought of their own from the get go. “Manifest destiny”, the holy god-given responsibility to educate the savages and wipe them away, because they did not understand how to exploit the land to the max.
Indians, unlike black slaves, weren’t even suited work-force since very few tribes /nations were accustomed to working on the fields. Nomadic indians were just useless hobos tramping white man’s fields.
SInce indians were useless for the white man’s progress, natives were pushed to the most isolated and deprived places, where they were unable to hunt or grow crops, making the totally dependent of the white man’s mercy. And when young, frustrated warriors escaped the confines of the struggling borders of those pathetic little reservations, the us cavalry retaliated with maximum force. Blaming indians for not being able to survive in inhospitable environment. Forcing them in poverty, to live in areas where making a normal living was virtually impossible.
It is outrageous that the US government has done nothing to improve the conditions of the original owners of North America.
Very little is to expect that the white elite would want to improve the living conditions of african-americans or other minorities. What could be expected from people who are guilty of the most horrible genocide in the human history.
LikeLike
Since Abag deleted my replies to BR, Sam and Linda for being “off topic” I’m reposting them on the Open Thread where nothing is off topic.
LikeLike
“Native Indians are more racist toward Blacks, then most Whites, nor are they as hated as Blacks. In fact lots of Whites mention their Native Indian Heritage.’
I agree. And many Native Americans are very proud of their white blood.
Native American women have a very high rate of IR marriage with white men. So clearly they don’t hate white people as much as some blacks want to believe.
Also, some Native American tribes owned black slaves.
And what about the Cherokee Indian tribe, which voted to expel it’s black members? Native Americans really do dislike blacks more than whites. I don’t feel sorry for them.
Black people need to stop talking about “people of color”. None of the non-white groups in this country care about black people and all of them prefer whites more than blacks, in spite of white oppression. They can move more easily in white society than black people and whites are more willing to intermarry with them. They don’t need our sympathy or concern. If they were in positions of power, they would treat black people worse than whites do.
LikeLike
abagond
in browsing your blog site over the months scince I’ve discovered you I noticed you did at least one post about Noam chomsky.
I mention him in this context because he was the first person I read that mentioned the phenomena of the us miltary naming many of its weapons systems and opertions after native american tribes.
I don’t remember which of his many books he mentions this – so if you don’t recall I’ll have to post about it specifically later.
LikeLike
Hi Abagond, I just ran across your blog and have found many of your articles interesting, whether I agree with certain aspects or not. In this post, however, I find that I do not understand what you mean to say by ‘exoticizing vocabulary’. Yes, I do see where you may have been coming from with regard to the colonial mindset that either originated or used these words. However, I hardly think that most of these words should fit under the topic of ‘how not to talk about Indians”.
Your list —
“Exoticizing vocabulary: Overuse a parallel set of words that exoticizes them and puts them on a level below whites:
Not house but tepee, longhouse, wigwam, hut, etc — This is not exoticizing, this is being specific. In much the same way as saying yurt, bungalow, tent, apartment… These are specific names given to specific types of dwellings. I suppose the only real offense this ‘exotic vocabulary’ can have, is when someone is ignorant to think that this type of dwelling is Exclusive.
Not hat but headdress – again, it a specific term. A hat has a certain connotation of being a baseball-hat, a boweler hat. I full-head covering with a certain design. A headdress connotates a different design and construction.
Not boat but canoe – Again, this is absurd, and I have completely lost your point. Raft, boat, kayak, canoe, submarine… Why do we have these distinctions?
Not shoe but moccasin – Same as above – high heels, slippers, flip-flops, rubber boots, really?!
Not doctor but medicine man or healer – This I can see some relevance in, and find this entry very interesting. The use of ‘doctor’ carries a certain air of authority, respect, and status. The legitimacy of the work a so-called ‘medicine man’ or ‘healer’ does is somewhat degraded in the sense that it is historically connected with colonial conceptions of ‘savages’. Again, however, there is a difference between a doctor in an average clinic in Toronto, for example, and a shaman in northern Siberia. How can we establish an understanding of this without stripping the ‘legitimacy’ (for lack of a better word) of what the shaman does? I don’t know if I make sense here…
Not soldiers but braves or warriors – I can agree here.
Not woman but squaw – also agree.
Not men but tribesmen – agree.
Not nation but tribe – A little more difficult for me to agree with completely. I think this has to do with differences in sociopolitical understandings of nations. And this differs not only from culture to culture, but from individual to individual. An anarchist, for instance, will have a very different definition of a nation than a nationalist. This effect will be seen in any culture. This nation/tribe is an interesting point to explore.
Not country but tribal lands – Same as above, but again, I am torn. However, tribal lands just sounds juvenile.
Not king or kingdom but chief or chiefdom. – This I disagree with. Russia, for instance, never had a king. There was a Tsar. Japan never had a king. There was an Emperor. These terms differ. The term is not offensive, it is the derogatory use of ‘chief’. I don’t believe that I had heard ‘tsar’ used in a derogatory way, but then again, ‘tsar’ is an internal term, which Russians use. The use of king might not even be appropriate with regard to political organization.
Not civil war but fighting – Agree.
Not technology but tools – Again, there is a distinction. Tools are a form of technology. However, sometimes it is necessary to be clear when communicating. Technology is an exceedingly vast term, no?
Not town but village, pueblo, population centre, etc – Again, these are distinctive. I am not sure about pueblo or population centre, the latter of which just sounds ridiculous, but village is a certain classification. It differs from town, as town differs from city.
In conclusion, I find this post to be a fascinating point of debate. There are many issues that come with contemporary vocabulary, however you have raised this concern with words that are hardly derogatory. There is a distinction between ‘identifiers’, which classify and distinguish, and simply ignorant terminology. Your contrasts are rather vague, as well, as you have chosen to use words that are categories, and have many-many distinguishable sub-categories.
I would rather dispute your choice of use for Indian. This is much more offensive than anything else.
LikeLike
*** I apologize, the last sentence was my mistake — when I read the article the first time, this is a term that came into mind as being one that you could have listed, and as I read the article and started writing my response, I confused this with having been your title. I left the room and came back later without checking the title again. But, here is a perfect example of how vocabulary can be parasitic! ***
LikeLike
my grandpa buck is native american he is the sweetest guy to me and my mom he said the other night they native americans do indian pow-wows every year and he told native american meds it very importain to our indian warriors people do not make fun of native american people and warriors
LikeLike
A few more observations:
teepee–a specific type of dwelling–a conical leather TENT.
moccasin–a specific type of shoe; and by the way, one that is not limited to
native americans. Similar shoes are used all over eastern Europe, but they
are called “opanke”, not “moccasins”. Most, but not all, human cultures had
shoes of some type, but in many of those, they were not used daily; only
for traveling over rough ground or when it was very cold. Polynesians,
living on sandy beaches in a tropical climate, for example, usualy went
barefooted–but when they went out on coral reefs or inland and over sharp
volcanic rocks, they wore rope sandals (sandal–another specific type of
shoe).
LikeLike
Humans seem to be an incredibly violent species, and no one group of humans
has a monopoly on violence. The latest form of inter-human
violence,although used only twice in human history is nuclear weapons.
Four of the countries that have built nuclear weapons are inhabited by what
white racists call “people of color” (China, India, Pakistan, North Korea) which
just goes to show that Europeans do not have a monopoly on technological
know how–or moral stupidity. A nuclear war in which as few as 100 nukes
were detonated could bring on “nuclear winter” due to the soot injected into
the atmosphere from the firestorms generated by the bombs with resulting
mass starvation, plus destruction of the ozone layer which protects the planet
from harmful ultraviolet radiation, plus global fallout resulting in increased
cancer, sterility and possibly harmful mutations. If enough bombs were used,
it could result in the end of the human race, and possibly all other higher forms
of life.
LikeLike
I noticed the word “squaw” is still used. I would think this word is offensive. Once in the fashion world the moccasin boot that is a form of cultural approriatiation, was called squaw boots. There are places here in the United States still using this word. Squaw Valley. I wonder how the Native Americans feel about this. I would think they would be offended. The athletic teams have mascots with Native American names.
LikeLike
The Oneida Indian nation want the NFL to change the mascot. Washington Redskins is very offensive. If it offends then the NFL needs to listen and not disregard how a group feels and do the right thing and change the name.
LikeLike
Is the word native offensive? Should we be using that word in reference to First Americans? What do they want to be called?
LikeLike
“Four of the countries that have built nuclear weapons are inhabited by what
white racists call “people of color” (China, India, Pakistan, North Korea) which
just goes to show that Europeans do not have a monopoly on technological
know how–or moral stupidity.”
******* ******* *******
Ah, but Europeans have a monopoly when it comes to controlling/policing/invading other non European countries.
The last time I checked it was the EUROPEANS who unleashed this nuclear horror (unnecessarily) upon POC in Japan. Perhaps I missed an event where one of the four above non European nations lobbed a WMD on:
Israel
USA
Great Britain
France
USSR
(and other countries with whom the USA shares nuclear weapons)
If I lived in a village where my larger neighbors were all armed with, let’s say “arrows,” it would behoove me to have “arrows” too with the same capabilities as the “arrows” possessed by my power grabbing neighbors. Otherwise I’d be subject to every unkind ambition coming from these well armed neighbors.
LikeLike
@MB, How do you feel about the term used in Canada, “First Nations”?
LikeLike
@ jefe: It really doesn’t matter what I think, I was concerned with how they feel. I guess “First Nations is fine. But it’s not about what I think or feel. But thank you for enlightening me. I always learn from you. Your input is valuable to me.
LikeLike
@MB, you asked, “What do they want to be called?”
I bet that there are a thousand different answers to that question, There wouldn’t be a single answer to fit everyone.
LikeLike
@jefe: I guess I have to be satisfied with that answer, thanx for that.
LikeLike
Most of the First Nation people I know, prefer to be called by the particular nations they belong to. Anishinaabe or ‘nish’ for short, is another term I hear them using. Those that refer to themselves as such, Ashinaabe, usually hail for the Algonquin language family. Since most of the First Nations people I have come across happen to be Ojibwe, I am not that familiar with how other First Nations people refer to each other. I have met some Mohawks, but believe they belong to the Iroquois language groups. They refer to themselves as Mohawks, that is the ones I know. I would hazard a bet that they refer to themselves just as the nish do, by their nation(s). In any case, they may refer to themselves as they wish as I have heard some refer to themselves as ‘indians’ as a political statement.
LikeLike
@ Herneith: Thanx, that was helpful as well.
LikeLike
@ mary, some years back I heard something quite similar to what Herneith said from a Canadian woman (who because she was a blue-eyed blonde, looked white, to me, but she assured me her heritage was mostly Malyseet or Malicite, if I recall, not sure of the spelling).
She used “Indian” as a political word, too.
I remember her calling a Full-Blooded Indian an FBI!
LikeLike
@ bulainik: FBI, lol!
LikeLike
[…] Notes on how not to write about Native Americans […]
LikeLike
Most importantly, do not give your native characters a personality.
It is sad that in most stories about indigenous peoples (that were written by a non-indigenous person) the characters only serve as tools to the oh so noble hero of the story. They do not develope. Their characters are what you see. Just a boring, predictable surface. No iceberg beneath the water…
Ye know, i´m just going to continue the story i haven´t been working on for the past months!
LikeLike
“Your argument that Sioux have dysfunctions similar to blacks is hardly a surprise. Poor whites have dysfunctions similar to blacks, too. Pretty much all ignorant, low-class people are dysfunctional. No one makes someone that way. People do it to themselves. The only thing one can do is avoid them so as not to be influenced by it.”
Ever hear of Indian boarding schools? There’s a chapter in this book
http://www.amazon.com/Native-American-Voices-3rd-Edition/dp/0205633943
that describes how as a result of being abused as a child in Indian boarding schools, a Native American family had three generations of horrible abuse between the grandmother, mother, and grandchild, including breaking each others’ bones.
LikeLike
[…] From Abagond: Say as little as possible about history, especially the Indian Wars and the period before 1492 and after 1890. They are timeless. The Sioux, for example, are frozen forever in time on their horses hunting bisons and fighting Custer. […]
LikeLike