Laura Ingalls Wilder in “Little House in the Prairie” (1935) wrote about her White American girlhood on Native American land – Indian Territory. In the 1970s it became an American television series that ran for nine years (pictured). The book is widely regarded as “wholesome”, even educational, one that teaches history and the value of courage.
Yet it is pretty racist stuff:
- Her family of white land thieves takes Indian (Osage) land without permission, yet whites are seen as Basically Good while Indians are seen as bad, wild and threatening.
- Two characters say, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.”
- Later in the book there is a good, still-living Indian: one who is willing to fight his own people to protect white settlers.
- Ma hates Indians. So does Jack, the family dog.
- Descriptions of Indians:
- “wild” (18 times)
- “savages”
- “screeching dev-“
- “Their eyes were black and still glittering, like snake’s eyes.”
- “The wild, fast yipping yells were worse than wolves.”
- “There were no settlers. Only Indians lived there.”
- “Laura thought [Pa] would show her a papoose [baby Indian] some day, just as he had shown her fawns, and little bears, and wolves.”
- Laura: “Pa, get me that little Indian baby … Oh, I want it! I want it! … Please, Pa, please!”
- Ma: “Dear me, Laura, must you yell like an Indian? I declare, if you girls aren’t getting to look like Indians! Can I never teach you to keep your sunbonnets on?”
- “Treaties or no treaties, the land belongs to folks that’ll farm it. That’s only common sense and justice.”
- Laura cries when the American government forces Osages off the land. Ma feels bad too. But not bad enough to change their land-thieving ways.
- The book supports the racist idea of Manifest Destiny throughout.
In 1998 when this book was read at a grade school in Minnesota, one eight-year-old Indian girl came home in tears, having learned from this Beloved Classic that, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Another girl did not cry. When asked why, she said, “I just pretend I’m not Indian.”
Waziyatawin, the Dakota writer, was the mother of the crying child. After she showed the school board how racist the book was, they agreed to stop using it. But when the news got out it was turned into a censorship issue of banning books and the school, backed by the ACLU, changed its mind.
Waziyatawin was told she has a “chip on her shoulder”. Linda Ellerbee on Nickelodeon’s “Nick News” told children across America that all books are offensive to someone. The school defended the book as “history” – yet her daughter’s teacher was not taking apart its racist messages, which has the effect of normalizing them. That, no less, at a white-run school that stands on land stolen from the Dakotas.
The Ku Klux Klan and Nazi Germany are “part of history” too, yet no one thinks of reading their youth literature to schoolchildren without examining their racism. Why is “Little House on the Prairie” any different?
– Abagond, 2013.
Update (2018): The US Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) has removed Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from one of its awards. The “anti-Native and anti-Black sentiments in her work” and “expressions of stereotypical attitudes” were “inconsistent with ALSC’s core values” – BBC.
Update (June 27th 2018): One of my examples: “There were no settlers. Only Indians lived there.” I now find out that before 1953 it did not say “settlers”. It said “people”.
Source: This post is mainly based on Waziyatawin in “Unlearning the Language of Conquest” (2006), edited by Four Arrows (Don Trent Jacobs).
See also:
Subscribed
LikeLike
Abagond, I am glad you wrote this post because I grew up reading these books not knowing the racial context of it and how racist it truly was. I haven’t read it in years and don’t plan to again after this article. I applaud Abagond for telling me to the truth about these book series.
How come many schools regard young children to read these books thus glorifying the wicked past of White America? Don’t get me wrong, White America is still wicked but why let young children read a book that glorifies European settlers killing Native Americans and taking their lands?
LikeLike
It is really important to teach the whole truth about any literature, especially that which is deemed “classic,” as the LIW novels are. I have studied LIW and her life, work, and most importantly CONTEXT for over 20 years. The particular episodes described in the book which gave its name to the TV show, Little House on the Prairie, is a fictionalized account of events which occurred in 1869-1870, when the author was living in the Osage Diminished Reserve as a toddler (LIW was born 7 Feb 1867). There are many racist attitudes displayed by various characters and unfortunately the character of “Ma” in particular is portrayed as fearful to the point of hatred, while the real Caroline Ingalls was in a situation where so many white propagandist stories had circulated during her lifetime of growing up in Wisconsin that I suspect her role as mother and frequent vulnerability in a foreign place made her fiercely protective. I am not excusing the attitudes, merely trying to look at it from the point of view of a woman who has gone along with her husband to this territory which was being touted by US government officials and white newspapers as likely to be open for homesteading under the 1862 Act at any time. There had been so many wars between whites and natives that many people took it on faith that they were at risk. Once married, a woman had little say in where she ended up if her husband wanted to settle somewhere.
Caroline’s fear for her family’s safety would contribute heavily to a racist attitude as she is not privy to much of the truth, only hearsay and white news sources. In addition, Caroline was actually pregnant with her 3rd child for most of the time the Ingalls family lived in Kansas. While the novel portrays the children as older than they really were when living in Kansas, in actuality Mary and Laura were only 3 1/2 and 5 1/2 when the family left Kansas. “Baby Carrie” of the novel actually born 3 August 1870, and the family left the Reserve shortly afterward, likely before word of the Sturges Treaty being signed could reach them, or shortly after. It should also be noted that in the 1870 census, the family is listed as the 89th household and there is a notation of how all are there illegally. These settlers were presupposing the Sturges Treaty would be signed very soon, and there is evidence that some news outlets at the time were encouraging settlers to go there ahead of the signing to “encourage” the Osage to give up the fight (i.e. take a lousy deal of 19 cents per acre!) and sign, and vacate the land.
If taught these details, such as how many whites who were illegally squatting in the area did not leave, and the very unreasonable offers made by the US govt to the Osage which complicated relations and made for a lot of hostility on both sides, the story can certainly be useful for demonstrating not only the outrageous claims of white settlers but also the multifaceted and complex issues of ANY settlers (such as former slaves) trying to find a home as they were being pushed further and further out of the east. The Sturges Treaty (for better or worse) was signed 10 Sept 1870, and the details of that messy affair are well-documented on Penny Turner Linsenmayer’s article on the subject, which appeared on Kansas History, fall 2001, I believe. Linsenmayer digs deep into the US motivations and the political circus involved in this treaty negotiation and how the white settlers were manipulated by the mixed messages of their own government as the Osage were used as pawns against the whites. It’s a sick story that is difficult to digest for teaching elementary- aged kids, but if anyone is going to use the book in a school setting, they should be ready and willing to talk about the ugliness of the real story.
Full disclosure, I present educational programs about LIW in schools, libraries, and museums, and I get this question a lot. I do not shy away from the truth. The family were illegal settlers and their actions were wrong. Also, the book is a fiction in many ways, and recent scholarship shows that the author often changed details to enhance the drama of the stories. Her father was incorrectly described at times as an “Indian fighter,” when in reality that was not the case. Her branch of the family had no direct battles with any Native Americans, but in 1930s and 1940s America, white publishing glorified this sort of reprehensible lore. I am always interested in discussing this with anyone who would like to, and please, if you have further information regarding the events at the Osage Diminished Reserve (particularly in 1860s or 1870s) I would love to learn about it.
Sorry for the rambling post, but thank you so much for writing about this topic. There is a huge opportunity for educators and parents to see the rest of the story if they are willing to do the homework and get a balanced view of actual history instead of relying upon children’s novels, written from a 1930s white nostalgia perspective, for their sole source of history.
LikeLike
Thank you, Abagond for writing this article.
We need more people like you to shine the spotlight on past and present racism in addition to past atrocities as practiced and committed by Whites in this country.
LikeLike
Remember these books from grade school. Didn’t know about the racial context. Then years later learn how racist they were.
LikeLike
Abagond is living on stolen Indian land. He should stop being a hypocrite and leave.
LikeLike
@Da Jokah
Well lookie here, someone has been lurking.
I was 5 minutes away from putting you out on a Milk Carton.
Did you learn anything new while you were gone.
And as for Abagond, unless you did is 23andme kit, you have no idea where Abagond’s ancestors come from.
I DO know that there are a lot of whites out there who are $5 fake Indians, stealing benefits they did not earn (Dawes Rolls).
LikeLike
Hey Da Jokah!
That’s an interesting claim. Perhaps you can direct me to the book Abagond wrote where he extoled the theft and engaged in racist diatribes against Native Americans. Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
@ Melanie S. Appreciated your comments.
LikeLike
@Legion
The short answer is “yes”. However much we’d like to weasel our way out of culpability, Black Americans reap the ill-gotten gains same as White Americans (Asian Americans too). That’s kyriarchy.
LikeLike
@ Jokah:
Even for you that was weak.
Assuming (for I do not know) that Abagond’s heritage is African, then your accusation is plain stupid. Remember that small detail about African people being brought to America (the one that was stolen from its existing population) against their will?
There is no sensible way that the presence of African Americans and whites of European descent can be regarded as equal in guilt for the treatment of Native Americans.
@ Melanie S:
Thanks for the interesting perspective.
LikeLike
@Legion,
Of course it’s a legitimate issue but, Jokah is not raising it legitimately. That we all non-Natives gained by the theft of Native Land is not relevant to whether the LHP book, which glorifies that theft, is racist trash. Jokah is raising it just to take a cheap shot and try and derail the thread.
LikeLike
@Legion,
I answered you but I think I tripped the mod filters though I didn’t say anything rude. Hopefully it will get through at some point. In short, I generally agree but with a big caveat.
LikeLike
This touches on the main problem that I have with US history books. It takes a key theme that has governed US policy and glorifies it.
Some commenters brought up the point that there are some 300 million people now living on stolen American Indian land in the USA. It seems unlikely that the solution could be simply to leave and give it back to its original owners (many of whom are extinct). What can, and should be done, is admit that our “required” literary and history reading is rife with racism, or attempts to cover up atrocities that whites inflicted on non-whites. Of course victors write their own history, so we have to decide are we writing history for only white people or for all Americans. I want us to decide the latter.
@Abagond,
Your headline photo is a little bit confusing – some readers might think that it is actually Laura Ingalls Wilder and not Melissa Gilbert portraying her. I know you mentioned that it is from the TV series, but I even had to read it a couple times to make sure it was clear in my mind.
I think it might be better to have an actual picture of Wilder, followed by the photo of the person playing the TV version so that people will retain the clear images of both in their minds.
LikeLike
Re: Melanie S.’s
Agree that using the book could be used as an opportunity, rather than as something to be banned, to illustrate the effect of writing history from a white point of view and then balance it out with other perspectives.
LikeLike
Yes, we can appreciate the good qualities, interesting lifestyle, and humorous adventures of the Ingalls family while also being aware that they espoused many selfish and ignorant beliefs that were popular at the time. If teachers decide that the definite historical value of the books makes them worth reading in class, then they should be prepared to discuss the darker side of that history too.
LikeLike
Hahaha! OK, before I even read the post I was doubled over laughing at the title and picture!!!
LikeLike
adonis
And as for Abagond, unless you did is 23andme kit, you have no idea where Abagond’s ancestors come from.
I don’t have to. He’s previously said his family is from the caribbean. Ergo, they immigrated.
+
jefe
Of course victors write their own history, so we have to decide are we writing history for only white people or for all Americans. I want us to decide the latter.
On abagond’s blog it’s the losers who write the history..err.. historical fiction. You’re not the worst here by a long shot. But don’t kid yourself. You’re not motivated by a desire for objectivity. Though you’d like to think so.
LikeLike
@Legion,
You teach? Sounds like you do…
LikeLike
Remember that small detail about African people being brought to America (the one that was stolen from its existing population) against their will?
Regardless of how they got here, no one is keeping them here now. It’s hypocritical to claim the land is “stolen” while continuing to squat on it.
LikeLike
You will not like my answer 🙂
LikeLike
Legion
Everyone you agree with is objective. *wink*
LikeLike
@ Jokah and other assorted Manifest Destiny Apologists.
Weak. All of it. You whites wiped out the majority of the natives of the continent. Your hands are covered in that blood. Be it the by diseases you spread that you don’t want to admit, or via the guns you used.
And since you all brought Black People here, you’d have no business sending us all back, complete with a rebuilt infrastructure, and about a billion in ready cash, since this country has no doubt turned quite the profit from free labor. I mean, you’re white right? So it should be easy to do? And preferable, as you don’t want the welfare ticks you think we all are (though there’s more pinks on it than Blacks)?
Or maybe you guys don’t want that free labor in prisoners escaping the plantiations?
Otherwise, stop derailing. There is nothing legitimate about the point and you all know it. Fuckin’ clowns.
LikeLike
Also, there is no context needed to understand LIW.
She’s a white girl, descendant and relative to cold-blooded killers, and she profits from their killing. She grows up in a system of white supremacy as it’s being imposed. But for the sake of saving white minds from truly contemplating the hell they always seem to unleash anywhere they go, they tone down the violence.
But “the only good indian is a dead indian”. Don’t worry. The little white people were mad because their muderer relatives got killed (and rightfully so). Context matters. Otherwise, they’re not racist, right?
Because they got that one Indian friend. The traitor one.
Whites only seek to rationalize their racism; they are not and have never been about ending it. Why you even let them liars post here is beyond me. They’re easy to see through. But your blog is your blog, Aba.
LikeLike
@ Melanie S
Excellent comment! Thank you.
Do you know if there is any Osage counterpart to “Little House in the Prairie” or something close to it, one that would give “the other side” so to speak?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Jefe
I will add a caption to the picture. I used the Melissa Gilbert picture because I think it is 1000x more recognizable than LIW’s real picture and 10x more than any book cover.
LikeLike
did not know this, I used to watch some episodes of this show when I was younger but I never read the book.
LikeLike
@Legion,
“Ks, like it or not, da Jokah’s point remains on the table and is totally worthy of serious consideration. I get that he’s a miserable creep, but a valid point is a valid point.”
Imo, Jokah’s “point” has already been adequately addressed but if you want to keep talking about it being addressed or address it further, that’s up to you.
LikeLike
Thank you folks for your kind words. Average Bee, I am sorry you feel that my whiteness automatically disqualifies me from the discussion.
There are a lot of other points I could make, particularly in the case of the writing and editing process which occurred in order to get LIW’s books in print. Her daughter Rose Wilder Lane was her editor and was known to be…well, the polite term is “elitist” but she at times espoused beliefs in eugenics, etc. Because of this, I am hoping to one day have the privilege of studying the handwritten manuscripts of LHOP and compare them with the typewritten, Lane-edited versions and then to the published piece to attempt a determination of exactly what of the story came directly from Lane’s editing. (Lane was a much more famous author than her mother when LHOP was first published, LHOP only being the 3rd book in the series which eventually became 8 books and, a ninth was edited by Rose’s heir after both LIW and Rose had died. Lane is known as a heavy-handed editor and the means by which her mother was successful at securing a publisher).
In any case, LIW the person had a lot of trouble with her family’s illegal presence in Kansas. She also fell prey to the pressures of poverty and this near constant state of subsistence may have led her to participate in the propaganda surrounding her stories. Lane notoriously insisted that her mother’s stories were 100% true down to the last detail, but we know this is an absolute misrepresentation… plenty of researchers, myself included,have found evidence which disproves Lane’s assertions. LIW herself sometimes told stories publicly which she claimed to be true, but historical evidence proves otherwise. Whether this was a deliberate attempt to add drama to her family’s exploits or whether she honestly believed they happened with her family’s involvement is unknowable. In particular she claimed her father told them he’d had a near-miss with the infamous Bender clan but was lucky enough to be too poor to pay for lodging with them, thus escaped the murderous house. She further claimed that he was part of the posse which “put them out of business,” when in fact the Ingalls family was long gone before the Benders were caught.
Was this an old woman misunderstanding a fuzzy childhood memory, or deliberate glorification of the dangerous and wild west of her childhood?
At the time of LIW’s publishing career, the white world was devouring pioneer saga and countless Oregon Trail diaries and memoirs were the vogue reads of the time. LIW herself answered people’s insistence that her stories be factual by saying “I did not know I was writing history.” I take that to mean that they are novels first and foremost, and that the opinions of various characters are not all hers. As an individual writing for 2 decades for The Missouri Ruralist, her columns regularly reveal that she believed in equality for all people regardless of origin. She disapproved of many of her daughter’s elitist beliefs.
I do not think it makes sense to outright ban any work just because the material is ugly and offensive. I think it needs to be discussed in order to raise children who can learn that actions have consequences and those consequences may affect a lot of people we will never even meet. Responsibility starts with the ability to think critically.
As for the teaching of these books in schools, these days they bare used far less than in previous decades. Homeschooling parents often tell me they use them for history lessons, and that is a great area of concern for me, because I find that very few seem to understand the difference between fiction and fact, and, additionally, they supplement the books with the television show, which, while less racist, is far,far, faaar from being historically accurate. If they told me they used them as a springboard for investigation into how the Homestead Act affected all the people of this country and how harmful it was to the Osage, Pawnee, Lakota, and other natives with which the Ingalls family had contact, I would say that is a great start at understanding how we still are a very racist nation. The very reason I present my history programs is to give the rest of the story…to show the relevance to today’s America and to give people a better understanding of our past that does not sugarcoat the truth. All literature and history must be examined in its context as well as measured by its contribution to our understanding of the current world. The story LIW wrote and published in 1935 would be very different if she had published it in 1895. Or if she had lived long enough to publish it in 1975. The context of the time in which the author writes is nearly as telling as the time in which the story itself takes place, and is colored by the context within which the reader experiences it. The stories take on new dimension each time i read them, because each time I have new knowledge of the context from my other study, as well as having time to mull over questions I have been asked about them.
Abagond, in answer to your question, there have been some studies done but I have not encountered a story per se that was written as an Osage response. There very well could be, as scholarship is very active surrounding LIW’s work even now that few public schools actively include her work in the curriculum. Most curriculums seem to avoid controversial work now…even at the upper levels, which is too bad. I’d love to see a 10th grade lit class dissect this and try to fill in the gaps. Perhaps when I teach college, I will assign it to my students with a directive to gather the rest of the evidence.
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
Whites pointed the gun at the heads of both natives and blacks. Blacks got the worst of it since they lost ALL of their land and ALL of their freedom. To now pin white crimes against natives on blacks is morally twisted in the extreme. To say blacks somehow “benefit” from being kidnapped is sick. Particularly since they are still owed hundreds of years of backpay with interest.
That my family crossed a border within the Americas makes little difference since the countries in question went through the same white history.
America, for its own moral health, needs to pay reparations to blacks and make some kind of settlement with native nations for treaties broken and land stolen. Reparations could take the form of a G.I. Bill sort of thing. Settlement with the nations could take the form of rent of some sort or lump-sum payment. More important than any dollar amount is an admission of wrongs done and a good faith effort to make up for them somehow. No one has to get sent back to Europe or Africa to achieve that. People bring up unrealistic scenarios to dismiss the whole idea.
LikeLike
Legion, I agree.
LikeLike
Likening white settlers to “squatting” might enlighten the issue a bit. We can compare who was squatting vs. who outright stole the land. Then we can analyze the phenomenon of homesteading.
But squatting, homesteading and theft are framed in western legal concepts. We would have to compare them to the alternative viewpoints and models.
LikeLike
Melanie S. well said, I still hate both the book and the tv show. Wanting to gouge both eyes and mind after reading or watching them, it like trying to juxtapose a river and the idea of a river.
I think historical fiction is fine but the schools I went to hero worshipped both the character and author. As if to say this is what we have lost a pioneering soul and how to come out of adversity. I don’t believe in banning or burning books but LIW books made me passionately dislike pioneers, fur traders, horse traders, and most all of early American history as a kid.
LikeLike
The problem is that we are now several generations removed from the original events. The G.I. Bill was compensation directly to the affected persons. Even the Japanese-American Internment reparations went directly to the people affected. It will be difficult to do this now on an individual basis to Native Americans and African Americans. What about individuals who have mixed ancestry?
Do you envision a reparation system involving money or property that would actually work? How would it be implemented to avoid individual moral hazards?
About the only thing I think I push for is a more balanced teaching of history — but that might force us to vilify some of America’s historical heroes. I don’t know how that could be effected well either.
LikeLike
@jefe
Maybe you’d have to prove you had a slave ancestor in order to receive the reparation benefits? The Native American money could go to the tribal nations, obviously.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but that picture of “Laura” is kind of dopey. Here’s a much nicer-looking one: http://images.zap2it.com/showcard/v4/AllPhotos/184223/p184223_n635_cc_v4_aa/little-house-on-the-prairie.jpg
LikeLike
Hey Abagond,
Average Bee used the ethnic slur “pink.”
There were blacks who participated in direct slaughter of American Indians. There were American Indians who participated in slavery. Nothing is so cut and dry. That’s not a deflection- it’s just a mitigating factor in trying to guilt trip modern whites. Though I don’t know what good that will end up doing. American Indians are never going to get their lands back.
Hunter- gatherers throughout the world, on every continent humans have inhabited, have been displaced by sedentary peoples. It’s almost a law of nature.
I feel bad for my American Indian relatives, but you know the Osage were just as guilty of warlike displacement. Ever heard of the Caddo? I do t think whites should feel guilty for scoring the most points. Especially since there’s been a good faith effort to alleviate some of the Osage’s suffering.
LikeLike
@Paige
But that is problematic, as that would be almost 100 million people in the USA, half of them white. I read that even Barack Obama has an African slave ancestor on his mother’s side, yet people like Abagond’s children might not be entitled to anything.
Re: tribal nations, what about the rogue or contested tribal nations that have sprung up in the past. What about those individuals who are descendant of tribes already extinct. I could see a rush or millions of people signing up to join Native American tribes as soon as hint of compensation is coming.
I am not saying that some reparation should not be done, I just don’t see how it could work. For the Japanese-American internment reparation, it did not go to any children or grandchildren born after the war, only to the actual individual internees. And the amount itself was rather paltry. A GI bill is much easier – we can track much more easily who served in the armed forces.
For Native Americans, maybe we can set up heritage sites in the respective homelands and make them national parks. No individual would be compensated, but individuals living near or connected to the park can benefit from it. The parks would commemorate both the native cultures and the atrocities that occurred there.
LikeLike
Jefe – I don’t believe immigrants and their descendants should recieve compensation for lost wages. They may deserve them, but that is a debt their former colonial masters should pay.
And those who are white and have black slaves in their famy tree, should included in a just settlement. In my opinion reparations shouldn’t attemp to impose equality- that would kill the process before it began. Rather, it’s all about compensation for uncompensated labor, which should go to descendants.
Just my two cents.
LikeLike
@Jefe
Do Abagond’s children have slave ancestors from the United States, or would they be from Haiti/Jamaica/whatever?
In order for “White” people to get their slave ancestry reparations, they would have to prove that they are actually part “Black,” and therefore not really “White” according to the One Drop Rule. We couldn’t give out reparations based on appearances. That would be stereotyping. You never know who has what ancestry and whose family was negatively affected by what atrocities of the past. It’s like a board game where if you get held back a turn, it can wreck your chances for the rest of the game unless you finally get a “jump ahead” card or something.
Yeah, I have no idea if I’m actually making sense tonight. I’m up late trying to finish writing a paper and am obviously procrastinating working on it because I’m so bored of it. Writing in Spanish takes forever too (for me, anyway).
LikeLike
@Paige
In that case, black people would have to prove that they are actually part “Black”; just because someone may appear black does mean that they are actually descendant of slaves. What about the freedmen that escaped to Nova Scotia and their descendants, or the ones relocated to Liberia?
It would probably end up that half the people, whether white or black, would have difficulty providing irrefutable evidence that they are indeed descendant of slaves – how reliable is the pre-civil war documentation and all of the succeeding documentation of ancestry down to the present? Much of it has been lost over 6-8 generations.
And even if a white person could prove that they were descendant of both black slaves and Native Americans — would they (as a white person) be eligible for reparations for both slavery and the breaking of Native American treaties?
It is possible that each community may have to devise a way to solve the problem.
There is another problem. Suppose we wanted to compensate for the service of a slave from 1830 to 1860. Should it come from the family that benefited from that slave’s service? And that slave could have 2000 present day living descendants. Should the descendants of that family (or the local government) provide the unpaid wages divided among the 2000 descendants, a quarter of whom could be “white” and both whites and blacks are descendant from the white owning family as well. Any solution that compensates individuals would be problematic.
I want to seek a solution, but how on earth can we implement it?
In any case, first of all, we have to rewrite the historical narrative of the US. We can start by learning the full truth about the historical heroes and analyze standard American literature re: any racism that it glorifies.
LikeLike
I have a vague memory of watching this show with my dad when I was younger.
It’s amazing that they could teach a book so blatantly racist in schools without discussing the racism in it.
If the teachers aren’t willing to discuss the racism in these books they shouldn’t be used in the classroom.
LikeLike
“Why is “Little House on the Prairie” any different?” Could it be because the settlers won and the Nazis loss?
LikeLike
Yeah, no counter-argument here.. That book does glorify “manifest destiny.” For a better little girl’s book, check out “Little Women.”
LikeLike
@ Legion
I do not see any email from you. Please resend.
LikeLike
@ Legion
I see it now. Deleted.
LikeLike
Growing up and even now, I’ve been a big fan of the Little House on the Prairie series. I was never assigned to read them. They were available in the school library. I used to dig the TV show as well, but it’s hard to watch knowing how little the show mirrors they books among other considerations. I like to watch it now as an exercise in melodrama and for childhood memories.
I thought the books were interesting for the comparisons of then and now – life without electricity, before cars and how there was no word for teenagers – you were either a child, big boy or girl, or an adult- able to get married, hold a job, work a farm, become a school teacher or save a starving town in the dead of a hellish winter.
I never understood the racism against Native Americans until I was much older. The racism against blacks hit me smack in the face with the “minstrel show” depicted in the fifth book but it didn’t hurt so much because by that time I had already had to fight for my life. It explained what I had been up against when I went from an all black elementary school to a predominantly white middle school. The culture shock nearly killed me, literally. I tried to commit suicide in the eighth grade.
“To Kill a Mockingbird” explained to me life the way it was. “Little House on the Prairie” taught me, kid fashion, the history of racism.
I would never let white people put that level of burden on my life again.
LikeLike
Another angle to the issue of Europeans living on stolen land is the fact that descendants of Native Americans (South America and Caribbean) are treated as foreigners when they immigrate into that same stolen land. To me it is just a matter of the table being turned. Anyway, maybe fifty years from now there will be another book written about who lives in the old Osage country. Mi Casa en la Pradera? And please don’t turn my comment into some stupid argument about what percentages of people in South America are European, African, etc. just ignore it if that is the only response you have. I don’t like trolls.
LikeLike
Thatdeborahgirl
The culture shock nearly killed me, literally. I tried to commit suicide in the eighth grade
Geez, how old you is the 8th grade – 13? This doesnt bear thinking about.
I would never let white people put that level of burden on my life again.
I’m glad you have come to realise that NO ONE is worth this.
My OH grew up watching LHONP and had memories of some racism towards some black characters from the fat woman in the shop – Mrs Olsun??? and her daughter Sally???? I dont know how much the tv series reflected the book though
LikeLike
kiwi
I have heard whites accuse blacks and Hispanics of stealing university spots from Asians when it is in fact whites who are gearing affirmative action against Asians.
Not true. The difference in acceptance rates between whites and asians is due to legacy admissions and sports not affirmative action. Blacks and hispanics take university spots from both whites and asians. But the biggest sham is intraracial not interracial. Because white and asian spots are limited, less successful groups get screwed. For example, the AA burden is unfairly shifted from wealthy whites to poor whites. However, when it comes to Asians the burden is shifted to malays, hmong, etc while Chinese are admitted at disproportionately higher rates. You’re always whining about how Asians shouldn’t be treated as a single, homogeneous group. I agree. I’m tired of you getting privilege at the expense of other asians.
LikeLike
abagond
There’s no “crime” whites committed that blacks didn’t commit as well. Appropriating land? Blacks were always among the first to move into Indian territory. Slavery? Blacks participated fully in the slave trade both as traders as well as owners. None of this excuses anything. But it highlights your hypocrisy that you wish to single out whites while making excuses for yourself. The most pathetic aspect of your charade, however, is to make indians the vehicle for your bigotry. You don’t care about indians other than how you can use them to promote your hate.
However, I got a chuckle when your attacks morphed into “reparations”. You spend a lot of time dismissing the successes of others and making excuses for your own failures. Maybe you should have spent the last 8 years working instead of playing on the internet?
LikeLike
Da Jokah:
Abagond:
Da Jokah raises an interesting question which I don’t believe that Abagond or others effectively answered.
If “Party A” takes land from “Party B”, is “Party C” entitled to the fruits of the land even if they had been been subjugated by “Party A” at some point?
Also, it’s quite likely that “Party B” appropriated land from previous owners by force in a process that consisted of multiple waves. To what degree should ownership be considered in that context?
If one believes that appropriation of land by force is an immoral act, shouldn’t all parties share the same accountability?
LikeLike
….is “Party C” entitled to the fruits of the land even if they had been been subjugated by “Party A” at some point?
What happens if Party C didnt want to be privy to the fruits of the land and were forced to stay and endure for many many years and then thereafter, Party C had lost that link with its indiginous place of origin – what should happen then?
even if they had been been subjugated by “Party A” at some point
Just reiterating this comment here – ‘at some point’? The individuals in party c would have experienced many generations of their families being subjugated in some way – I am surprised at your phraseology here…or am I !!!!
LikeLike
kiwi
Thanks for proving my point.
The claim on which your point was based is provably false. You can’t make a false claim and then fault someone for disagreeing with it. Are you really that stupid?
LikeLike
kiwi
If someone tries to single out whites for special condemnation then it’s not unreasonable for whites to point out that their accusers have done the same. You can call it a deflection if you like but everyone will still see you for a hypocrite.
LikeLike
Teaching Native American culture/history would be better “acknowledgment” than just telling the true historical events between white settlers and natives. Starting from that point in history still makes it ABOUT white people and makes Native Americans JUST victims. Let’s face it most Americans don’t know a damn thing about Native American Culture/history. So let’s teach the children that native culture isn’t a monolith, that there was major cultural/traditional differences between tribes. Let’s teach the children so they know who the major tribes were and where their traditional lands were. Basically teach them that America didn’t start when the first white “settlers” stepped on the land. That the people there before whites landed had deep cultures that was/is as vital to the identity of this land.
LikeLike
I remember one chapter of the book there was a minstrel show, which Pa Ingles participated in, and Laura using the word “darkies” And there was another episode on the show, I remember where there was an epidemic of some kind and an African American doctor comes to town, and the characters are bigoted towards him.
LikeLike
Kiwi,
Good point. I would also add that when a group of people hold themselves up as being superior to every other group and even go as far as to claim that their success is god given, they open themselves up to criticism. It is disingenuous for any member of this group to claim that they are entitled to defend accusations made against them by deflecting the blame onto other groups who may have committed the same crime. It is not logical that a group claiming to be perfect would be held to lesser standards. If they consider themselves better then they should be above reproach. The fact that so much criticism can be directed at them and that their best defense is that someone else did it, only proves that they are in fact no better than anyone else. The bottom line is that you should ignore them because ” the emperor has no clothes”.
And, just for the record, it is not hypocritical to point out that the country was built on stolen land and stay here because you did not advocate the deportation of anyone. But it is hypocritical to tell immigrants that they don’t belong here if you are descended from the people who actually stole the land from someone else.
LikeLike
kiwi
Nice strawman. I didn’t say Asians had done those things to indians, specifically. But asians have done those things to themselves and others. It hasn’t been that long since Chinese murdered 50 million of their own not to mention spending the last 50 years ethnically cleansing tibetans, mongolians and uyghurs. Just because your parents hopped a plane is no get out of jail free card.
LikeLike
I used see (not watch ,it was even then In my naive and ignorant to lilly white and boring) this tv show when i was young.
Didn’t know what crap I was looking at, no wonder so many of us african american act so ignorant and self destructive – we have definitely been programed. I wonder if visiting blog’s like this contribute to deprogramming ,the way Cognitive behavioral therapy is suppose to help you deprogram or reprogram yourself?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Mbeti's Blog and commented:
racist programing alert!!
LikeLike
I must also thank abagond for his continuing commitment to truth and justice,this is how we african americans should behave and view the world (as should any other oppressed or formerly people) and honor our ancestors and set example for our descendents.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
Right, DJ is pulling a classic fig leaf argument:
LikeLike
@ Anne
Excellent point about superiority. This need to feel superior drives whites to be morally blind. They are incapable of seeing themselves objectively because then their sense of superiority would vanish.
LikeLike
@ Randy
Blacks have not even been paid yet for the work they did at gunpoint. so this “fruits of the earth” argument of yours is somewhere between repulsive and bizarre.
But if you want to play it that way, then whites are 99% guilty and blacks are 1% guilty for what has been done to Native Americans – since whites as a whole are a hundred times richer than blacks. So to make a big deal about blacks on a thread about racist white land thieves, like DJ is doing, is a hypocritical deflection.
LikeLike
abagond
Right, DJ is pulling a classic fig leaf argument:
You’re pulling a classic hypocrite argument. You want to single out whites while making excuses for your own. You can’t have it both ways.
LikeLike
@Dauphine
that is a start, but we are going to have to do a little more than that.
Maybe we could consider
– settling up a heritage park for each, or most of the Native Americans that were exterminated or removed from an area. It could include model villages recreating some of the culture of the people.
– Have historical stone markers, not of Andrew Jackson, but to commemorate the Native Americans that were killed off or otherwise driven out. It would be best to put them in areas accessible to whites, eg, suburban shopping malls or subdivisions or adjacent to public buildings or in other National parks frequented by whites.
– require that learning about the history and culture of the peoples living on the land that the other people are now living on be a requirement to get a H.S. diploma. The history and culture of the people gone should be written by their descendants, or if their descendants are gone, at least not by a purely white school board.
– revamp the reservation system — something is wrong about isolating people on the worst land with no services, but I have to think about how to fix some of those problems.
This all sounds kind of fake, but better than it being erased. They also will offer economic opportunities to some of the descendants. Individual reparations would be problematic.
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
Whites robbed both natives and blacks. To pin the robbery of natives on blacks in any major way is a troll move.
LikeLike
It seems all the derailment tactics have become “textbook” cases.
Why don’t we focus more on how to make things “right” or at least “better”? instead of deflecting by one group trying to point out things done by another resulting in an attempt to quell any constructive action?
LikeLike
@Mary: you are correct about both references but do not confuse the show with the books. LIW was dead for over 16 years before the pilot was filmed and the show had almost zero relevance to the books other than using a handful of the same character names. The tv characters of Mrs Oleson (and sometimes her daughter Nellie) and usually some other single-appearance characters were openly racist and hostile in various television episode plotlines and the Ingalls family (usually Michael London’s “Pa” character and whoever his male sidekick of the moment was) and their friends were held up as the “good” whites who were not racist.
Later in the tv series, a black woman teacher who worked at the blind school with Mary (and her made-for-tv husband) was introduced. Ketty Lester portrayed Hester Sue Terhune, another invented character but a refreshing addition to the cast. She of course had to play the tough-as-nails woman who’d been a slave as a child. This being the 1970s, pretending to interpret the 1870s, a lot of stereotypes were a big part of her character’s plotlines, but her incredible singing voice was featured several times and her dramatic acting skills are unrivalled on the show.
In real life, and in the novel Little House on the Prairie, there is a black Doctor in the Osage Diminished Reserve who treats the family and their neighbors when they come down with malaria. His name was George A. Tann, and he lived nearby with his parents acting as a doctor to the Osage. His history has been patched together but there is much missing. There is some confirmed evidence that he had medical training and was skilled in homeopathy as well, but was of course not allowed into medical school due to his “race.” He was never a slave, but a free man who, as an adult moved to the ODR from Pennsylvania with his parents but may have left a wife and child behind. This last detail is not well-founded but has been circulated for some time. In any case, Laura mentions him by name in the book and credits him with saving the family. Despite the controversial treaty situation and being amongst many other squatters, he made a career for himself and remained in the area. His gravestone in nearby Independence Kansas is a handsome marker and the LHOP museum site (just outside of Coffeyville) will direct visitors to it.
As for the minstrel show scene in the 7th book, every reader of Wilder that I know has always expressed more than just a little horror at it. I remember the first time I read it as a kid thinking that these Dakota homesteaders needed to get their heads out of their… you know wheres…and this is another scene that feels like it has Rose Lane’s signature all over it.
I’m not apologizing for any of this racism. I’m just reporting what I know from a long and extremely in-depth study of it. And I think the best way to combat racism is to confront it head on and hold those espousing it accountable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
abagond
You’re the one who associated Laura Ingall’s family moving to indian territory with “stealing their land”. As soon as they got the chance, large numbers of blacks did the exact same thing. Especially the Oklahoma territory which wasn’t far from where Laura Ingalls lived. You want to single whites out but make excuses for blacks. You can’t have it both ways.
LikeLike
Such a classic textbook derailment tactic that uses at least 4 broken record arguments:
– black-on-black crime argument
(whites’ treatment of American Indians is not so bad — look at what people do within their own race)
– perpetual foreigner stereotype
(failing to acknowledge that Asian-Americans are indeed Americans so it is not appropriate to use behavior of certain groups of foreigners as an argument to brand the “evils” of Asian-Americans. It is akin to using the Italian Fascist movement of the 1920s-1940s to brand the “evils” of white Americans)
– arab trader argument. (others did it — “we” were not uniquely evil)
– fig leaf argument (others did some things that were bad, maybe not as bad as us, but also bad)
Abagond already had a post about how Japan white-washed its atrocities in the first half of the 20th century.
Now, is it appropriate to say “hey, the Japanese were not so bad, look at what white Americans did to Native Americans and African slaves and to its OWN Asian-American populations! Look at how Americans whitewash their own history!”? If it is really that relevant of an argument, why don’t those commenters post that on the Japanese History textbook thread!
LikeLike
kiwi, jefe, etal
You throw out a string of buzz words like deflection, derailment, black on black crime argument, perpetual foreigner stereotype, yada yada yada. And then say something like “abagond wrote about it!” Yeah, well, good for him. That you circle jerks masturbate to it doesn’t mean anything to me. So don’t expect me to fap along with you. What you can expect me to do, however, is to point out counter examples when you try to smear whites. And I don’t care if you like it or not.
PS: I know your parents are from Taiwan, retard. But if you’re going to treat whites as monolithic in your attacks then I’ll treat you as monolithic in my retort. It makes just as much sense as when you do it.
LikeLike
The reasoned why Jokah’s argument needs to be heard is because it is a critique not of any one point, but of the discourse as a whole. This post, like many, many others, paint white dociety as essentially evil. There have been unspeakable atrocities committed by whites, but the fact that other people’s participated, often in the very historical processes in question, is relevant in critiquing the notion that whites are uniquely evil, and that western civilization is essentially evil. The fact that the ancient mid-west was full of militant Indian groups is relevant. It’s like the conquest of Mexico. Yes the Spanish conquistadors brutally crushed the Aztec empire. But when they did so, they crushed an enemy just as brutal.
This stuff is important because its essential to understanding Western civilization, in my opinion. It’s like discussing democracy. Yes we should point out its flaws, but we really have to discuss other systems to understand why it’s necessary.
Again, my two cents.
LikeLike
Can someone explain to me
– Since when
does this post or any other on this blog paint white people or even western civilization as uniquely evil?
– Since when
is it assumed that the readers of this blog are unaware of, or do not acknowledge evil atrocities done by “other people”?
I believe most have been bombarded by those messages about ‘other people’ all of our lives. It is messages like those found on this blog which are simply trying to fill in a few gaps here and there, ie, those OMITTED from our upbringing and education. They don’t even begin to crack a small dent to counterbalance the messages we have been receiving all of our lives.
Case in point — the very subject of this blog post.
Most readers are familiar with Little House on the Prairie. They already received those messages over and over and over again growing up. Now here is a small argument to counterbalance those previously received messages. Yet some commenters seem to believe that such a counterbalance paints whites as uniquely evil, when I see it as just questioning whether they were always the “good guys of history”. They feel compelled to react with messages we have been receiving already all of our lives, messages that are *almost* off topic.
No post said or even implied that white people or America or even western civilization is uniquely evil. Where on earth do people glean that from?
Sure, even those messages can be heard, but those are the ones that have been heard over and over and over again already. They are nothing new and do not fill the gaps in the same way that the counterbalance narrative does. That discourse is more like the original narrative taught to us, not the counterbalance narrative to balance things a bit more out.
LikeLike
@jefe
I do not think your suggestions are fake at all as long such efforts would be seen as a start. Having such history classes devoted to the different ethnicities that make up America as US History will really reduce this attitude that United States belongs to whites only, despite the contributions/sacrifices from different “races” to its ideals/identity. ::sarcasm:: cause it’s so fun hearing random republicans yelling how they want their country back at random council meetings, heartbreaking really…Beside it would make US History a lot more interesting, and complex. I snoozed through both my first two history classes in high school and still managed an A.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
Thank you.
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
The reason there are posts on those arguments is because commenters like you keep making them. I should not have to explain and dissect them in each thread they occur.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
DJ is turning this thread into a blame game. The post is not about blame. This post, like much of the blog, is about the white supremacist brainwashing that everyone in America receives. “Little House in the Prairie” is this posts’s case in point. Before that it was Washington, and then Columbus and so on.
The sort of arguments that he and other white commenters use, as outlined by Jefe above, are PART of that brainwashing. They are defence mechanisms that keep racism in place and unquestioned. Which is just what Da Jokah is doing in this thread: deflecting attention away from LHOTP onto what? The misdeeds of black people against Native Americans. Wow. That is not “balance”. That is how morally blind people talk: “Waah, he did it too!”
LikeLike
Abagond:
Neither were all the masses of indentured / enslaved peoples throughout history. However, modern industrial nations have been engines of prosperity by which the descendents of such people have benefited.
Abagond:
I don’t think that the “disparate outcome” argument benefits your claim here.
If several people are complicit in a crime, the fact that some are wealthier than others doesn’t alter the moral culpability in regards to the crime itself.
Further, in considering the degree to which appropriation of land by force is to be judged morally objectionable, shouldn’t we consider how the previous residents of the land came to occupy it themselves?
If you “steal” something from someone who themselves “stole” it, who are the real victims?
Finally, how is all of this relevant to the post?
These discussions address normative morality. If “everybody does it”, then by what grounds are such actions determined to be morally objectionable?
One might argue that considering such actions to be morally objectionable is itself a sign of moral progress.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Be Young & Shut Up.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
“Uniquely evil”: where did you learn that argument?
LikeLike
@ Randy
Those are not sound ethical principles. They would excuse most invasions. New York state is 98% stolen land. Does that make it all right for Canada to invade? Or for me to build a house there wherever I want in the 98% – a la Pa Ingalls?
If “Everyone does it” is good enough as a guide to behaviour, then there is no need for morality. Unthinking conformity would do the trick.
LikeLike
Native Americans still have to deal with white people infringing on their land, and forcing their will with bigger gun power. It’s happening right now with the Mi’kmaq, here is the link:
http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2013/10/military-assault-on-mikmaq-29-messages.html
LikeLike
@Da Jokah
@Asplund
The time is NOW for Whites to stop avoiding responsibility for the deeds of the past.
We, as Whites, have to acknowledge that we still as a group are benefiting materially from the heinous White practices of the past.
We, as Whites, have to make amends.
We morally must pay this debt by repairing the damage that STILL exists today that was caused by slavery, by the corrupt convict leasing system, by disenfranchisement of our fellow Black citizens, by the practices of Jim Crow, by racist practices in hiring, by stereotyping and profiling, etc. and by the embedded White structure system that still exists today.
Until Blacks and other minorities possess the same benefits and advantages that Whites enjoy, we as Whites have not accomplished the work that needs to be done. Until all of White society tosses its White privilege out….. and demands AND secures equality for all of our citizens, our work is not done.
Avoiding discussions about the factual wrongs (by derailing techniques) committed by Whites in the past as well as the present serves NO moral purpose and, to me, is just a covert message of racist avoidance.
LikeLike
abagond
DJ is turning this thread into a blame game.
Your whole blog is a blame game. You wish to portray whites as uniquely evil, notwithstanding your claims to the contrary. Pointing out others have done similarly undermines your attempt to do so. Otherwise, you wouldn’t care whether it was were pointed out. If that weren’t so then you’d agree and welcome the input rather than trying to shut others down.
Claims that your blog merely provides “balance” and “fills in the gaps” are absurd. Who hasn’t heard that Thomas Jefferson had children with Sally Hemmings or that whites owned slaves, etc? Those things aren’t being “white washed” as you frequently (and falsely) claim with that racist slur. What’s been ignored are arguments that Thomas Jefferson probably wasn’t the father of Sally Hemming’s children or that arabs, blacks and indians often participated as much or more in slavery as whites; or, in this case, that blacks settled indian territory right along with Laura Ingall’s family. You say blacks and others are just as American as whites and that they’re marginalized in history. Yet you wish only to include blacks in the positive aspects while marginalizing their role in the negative ones. If you want to own it then own it all and stop trying to have it both ways. No one is always the victim and no one is always the bad guy no matter how much you wish to portray them as such.
Does any of this excuse anything? Of course not and no one has said it did. But it is evidence that whites were not unique in whatever you’re trying to smear them with at the moment. And that IS a valid argument.
LikeLike
NatureBeautiful
Your comment was a legacy of slavery/jim crow argument claiming any difference in outcome is the result of past discrimination. If that were true then illegitimacy, crime, unemployment, poverty and business ownership rates would be improving the further away from those events we got. They’re not. They’re worse Your misplaced compassion scapegoats whites while denying blacks moral agency. It presupposes blacks are incapable of personal responsibility and must be saved by “good white people” such as yourself. Pardon me, but that kind of paternalistic attitude smacks of extreme arrogance and self-righteousness. Whatever faults I may have, at least that’s not one of them.
LikeLike
kiwi
If I hurt your feelings with my colorful analogy and calling you a “retard” then I apologize. Cheer up. At least I didn’t call you a “shlthead” the way abagond called me. Personally, I find it funny. You need a sense of humour about those things. hehe
LikeLike
@Legion
You know you are addressing this to someone who professes to be a lecturer in history. This is what scares the sh*t pants off me. 😮
LikeLike
abagond
I believe yahtzee and naturebeautiful may be sockpuppets.
LikeLike
@DaJokah
What you fail to realize is what is going on TODAY with the help of the manipulations of White racists in positions of power.
Where is my “misplaced compassion,” Da Jokah.\
I was NOT claiming to be compassionate nor was I bestowing any compassion.
I was talking RESPONSIBILITY. Please reread my comment.
LikeLike
Good try, Da Jokah.
I simply (out of habit) signed in for that comment by hitting the capital “Y” as I do regularly on other WordPress blogs.
Here I am “NatureBeautiful” and will remain so as long as I stay alert.
I am sorry, Abagond, that I was careless. You may erase my post under the “Yahtzee” name. I will be more careful in the future.
LikeLike
Now, Da Jokah.
Exactly how many years do you think have elapsed since the time that you describe as “past discrimination”?
It is my contention that discrimination, stereotyping, profiling, racism still exist in the power structures of our society.
LikeLike
It is my contention that …
That’s great. But if you want to discuss that we should do it on the Open Thread or a post dealing with a particular aspect of that. I’m the last one to claim something is off-topic, but in this case it really is.
LikeLike
DaJokah,
Can you give me a link to the open thread?
I am new here…..just over a week or so.
LikeLike
There’s a direct link in the tabs at the top.
LikeLike
Thanks, Da Jokah.
I just posted to you over on the open thread.
LikeLike
Abagond et al:
First of all, Abagond you made a post in which you absolutely did assert that whites are uniquely evil, and let’s not forget about the hundreds of comments that assert that atrocious behavior is inherent in Western values. There are too many examples to note. Look at all the various topics: whites, and particularly white males, are accused of all sorts of contradictory and ridiculous actions.
The general tenor of the post, and the blog in general, is anti- western and anti-U.S. Describing that can’t just be dismissed as a “deflection.”
Jefe- what’s so scary about me? That I know enough about the peoples of the world that I don’t walk around with my head held down, accepting that in the source of all the evil in the world?
Acting like this post didn’t have a specific agenda. “He did it to” is very relevant when only one ethnicity is hailed out to condemned post after post. The fact that western societies attempted to change for the better has no meaning on this blog.
It matters whether or not the Osage slaughtered white settlers, Caddo Indians, etc. It doesn’t take away wrongs done by whites but it also destroy the ridiculous end- game of it all- that contemporary whites have to tear their shirts and walk around with ashes on their foreheads. No one should have to do that.
LikeLike
Abagond, I have no bone in this thread argument, I am definitly not ideologicly aligned with Da Jokah, Randy, or, Asplund, you dont see us high fiving on here…and, by all means , lets pile up on white racism, any, and all ways…
But, , if this was an international affairs only blog, I wouldnt be on here…
The Arab Trader argument means nothing to me anymore, you carded me about it , when I explicitly said the Atlantic slave trade was worse…
and, after Kiwi, sided and agreed with Sondis about feeling uneasy about seeing Asian women with white men , and basicly biting off of the black nationalist militant positions from the 60’s, which i proved with out a doubt that that rhetoric (note , Im specificly saying the rhetoric about interracial couples excactly from that era…I saw it come in and was differant than the diolougue inn the black general political position before that)
and, the more you research, by gosh, the exact people who formulated this rhetoric, and you have seen the hollowed reminants regurgitated on here from various commentators
;
“white people are the oppresors”
“white people oppress all poc and have done more damage than anyone in history (I think the truth is, white people have done more damage to POC than POC have done to white people)”
“white people are the enemy, dont sleep with them”
“negro bed wench”
“house negro feild negro”
‘black loyalty in sexual relations”
the small amount of extreme people , who etched this rhetoric in the currant black american diologue, were spouting m a o phrases and praising the r e d b o o k, at the same time 50 million people were dying…which is like Noam chomsky saying they had better health care back then when 30 million were starving to death because of marxist policies (western concepts , to be sure)
Yes, its extremly relevant that the people so against interracial relationships in the militant sector, should be reminded that among these doctines and the philosophies they are touting are wraped into a flawed agenda that includes, philosophies and concepts coming from a place that that kind of inhumanity is going on…its valid
I understand your point of view is what runs the thread subjects…and, i have huge agreements with most of what you say
but, it seems the rush to shout derailment and use your threads as though they automaticly pronounce judgements, with fables , likethe cookie jar to deal with complex international subjects, sometimes seems done too hastily
The america described on here is not the america I see when i hit the ground passing through…in racist florida, with out even trying, I make a few calls and am working with two black owned video production businesses, teaming up with white people to make it work…i love coming to see black Americans so integrated into middle class life, traveling and staying in upper end hotels in sheik areas…seeing some kind of presence in themedia, though totaly agreed.its racist, but, compared to Brazil, on all these accounts, black Americans are slicing and dicing..yet , you wouldnt get that from reading here…the system is racist, unfair, unjust but, by gosh, many black Americans have played this system
dont change anything, Abagond, but , i feel i have the right to bring this to you and jefe and Kiwi’s attention about my use of the r e d c u l tu r e r e vo l u t i o n
the constant flow deserves to be stepped back from every once in a while…how many times have i heard “only in America..” when it just wasnt true
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Life in Anglo-America.
LikeLike
@ Melanie S. Thanks for the clarification, I just remember these book from 4th grade and I remember these characters. I watched the show as well. I just remember, there was some racism. It’s been years since I watched the show. And I just remember our homeroom teacher Miss Hunter reading the books to us. I am impressed with your research on this subject.
LikeLike
And yet, DJ, this point seems to be lost on you and so many others like you. If you substitute “blacks” for “whites,” then you’ll understand precisely why Abagond writes this blog — particularly if you consider the expansiveness of The Vast Talking Machine, and how little there is to counter it.
Most of us who’ve grown up in the United States (and indeed much of the Western world) have been presented such a one-sided view of history and culture — one which posits that whites are largely responsible for all the achievements in civilization, while the “dark” others have done nothing but hinder it and serve as parasites and pariahs hellbent on destroying it all. We’re expected to recognize and celebrate the supreme greatness of whites, while casting a blind eye to the consequences of white supremacy, which has largely affected us (POC and, yes, poor whites, too) in a negative way.
The point of this post and so many others on this blog is to help us recognize the results of those actions, and to give us a more complete view of what passes for “reality.” That the Little House series of books was (and continues to be) pushed in schools without critically examining the results of “homesteading” and the Western expansion is a travesty.
LikeLike
@Asplund
This is something I simply don’t get. The blogger and the vast majority of the readers are Americans and Westerners. I have never seen this post or this blog as particularly anti-western or anti-US AT ALL. They are not full of self-hatred for being American or being westernized.
All I see it doing is questioning whether the West, the USA, or white people were always “the good guys of history” as is currently rammed down our throats in schools and the media (ie, brainwashing). Americans are taught that the “bad guys” are “injuns” (19th century),Chinese (late 19th century),J*Ps (1940s), communists (mid-late 20th century), Muslims (early 21st century), and in our cities and suburbs, the “black” boogeyman. Maybe you grew up finding that normal – I found it disturbing.
Now if you want to discuss exactly how you see this blog as a smear campaign against whites or the West (I don’t see it that way – not even in the current post) and why that would disturb you in the first place — that might make a more meaningful exchange. I see it as highlighting how the current educational system, media and politics are designed to maintain a white supremacist framework and to try to understand how we can get brainwashed by it (and we means both whites and non-whites). It is not smearing whites per se or calling them uniquely evil.
But, please, why does one feel compelled to bring up matters such as blacks squatting on land formerly occupied by Native Americans or about how many died in the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution, about how the Japanese killed and raped the people in its neighboring countries or about how Han Chinese treat Uighurs and Tibetans (or a host of other examples) as a counterpoint to an alleged “smear campaign against whites”? If anything, by bringing up those “counterpoints” it strengthens Abagond’s original premise — social systems (home and abroad) are designed to keep certain groups of people on top (the “good guys”) and oppress others (the “boogeyman”). The US system is not particularly unique in that regard. But for some of us who have been “brainwashed”, we are trying to unravel how the system in the USA works. By looking at some of the overseas systems, that can also help enlighten us.
If anything, bringing up those “counterpoints” strengthens Abagond’s argument even further. The Han oppression of the Uighur – it looks eerily similar to how Native Americans and blacks were treated in the USA. Now how does the Han side maintain this system? Among several things, they claim that the land is “theirs” and they are the rightful owners. They vilify Uighurs in the media and the educational system as criminals and thugs. They restrict them from practising their religion (in what is basically an “atheist” state). Most Uighurs do not become fluent in Mandarin – seen as uneducated and barbarian by Han, but those Uighurs who do become proficient in Mandarin and work and live in the Mainstream Han society are also seen as some kind of “sellout” to other Uighurs. Those that contemplate self-governance are treated as terrorist extremists trying to overthrow the country. Han view Uighurs as ungrateful for all the “improvements” done in their communities and ask why any tax money should be spent on them.
I get it. The Han are oppressive and have portrayed themselves as the “good guys of history”. But if I mention that to a Han Chinese they think that I am trying to “smear” them or that I am a traitor or something. Crazy.
Whites are not uniquely evil. The USA is not uniquely evil. The West is not uniquely evil – Abagond has never taken that position. There is plenty of evil around the world and throughout history. But for those of us who have been brainwashed in the US system (both whites and non-whites), we might not have fully understood how it happened in the USA. This post only illustrates how a children’s book does that very thing.
But, by bringing up those “counterpoints”, you and a few other commenters are actually strengthening Abagond’s arguments, not counterbalancing them.
You have read and researched a lot about history. The scary part is that you convey that knowledge from a decidedly white-centric and Euro-centric viewpoint. Not only that, you identify so closely with this viewpoint that when it is pointed out, you feel it as a personal attack on your very person or being (ie, your ego), and that you need to defend yourself against it. The thing is — it is not a personal attack, just an observation of your viewpoint.
If I were a student in your class, by the 2nd session I would feel something was “not quite right”. But if I raised my hand trying to clarify the standpoint, you would jump down all over me. I would probably have to drop out by the 3rd class and see if there was another class I could take. The other students, not wanting to rock the boat or who are desperate to get that course credit would just sit there and accept it. There are times when I feel like I am reading from a 1950s encyclopedia — is it full of knowledge? YES. But some of the viewpoints are well, a bit disturbing.
My parents bought a 2nd hand World Book Encyclopedia when I was in elementary school for my brother and I to use in school. It was a 1959 edition. At my mother’s parents’ house they had a 1951 edition that my mother presumably used when she was in school. I pretty much read both editions cover to cover. I did notice that some topics had been revamped between 1951 and 1959, perhaps influenced by some of the political changes during the 1950s. These were all full of volumes of knowledge, but . . . . gee. I even sensed something amiss when I was 10-11 years old, esp. their portrayal of Native Americans.
My family subscribed to the Time Life series of books on countries, most of which was published around 1964-1967. Later on, we subscribed to National Geographic 1970 – 1977 — I read all of these. They were not quite as extreme as the World Book Encyclopedia, but they also had a point of view.
LikeLike
^sorry for the bolding — I meant to bold only a word or two, not full paragraphs.
LikeLike
@g&bi,
I wrote my reply before reading yours. I guess it is an expansion to a similar train of thought.
But what I really don’t get is how it gets interpreted as a smear campaign against whites, and on top of that, why so many take it so very personally.
But then again, if I mentioned about Han oppression of Uighurs (or Tibetans) to a Han Chinese, they think I am trying to smear “them” and some of them take it very personally. They bring out all sorts of statistics and news reports about how Uighurs are criminals and thugs and terrorists. I then have a couple Han Chinese friends who then lecture to me about how the USA is so racist, esp. towards blacks and even towards Asians, and how the Chinese are not nearly as bad.
It’s a lost argument with both white Americans and Mainland Chinese. They both feel compelled to lecture me as though I am clueless to what is going on.
BTW, When I went to Xinjiang, both Han and Uighurs told me that they thought I could pass as Uighur. But, I have to speak to them in Mandarin. I know how many Han hate Uighurs and how many Uighurs hate speaking Mandarin. I find Xinjiang fascinating , but there is no completely safe way to navigate.
LikeLike
I know I’m always late for the party. But it seems that certain commenters – as expected – have turned another topic into a “blame the white man” trope they seem to can’t stand. However, as always, blaming the black man seems more reasonable to those guys. They don’t see the double standard because they are trained to avoid it since goodness knows when.
I haven’t watched LHOTP myself. Yet, the open sequence alone portrayed a family of white pioneers. As I see it, it’s trying to portray whites – and ONLY whites – as good and wholesome by nature. Think about it.
I’ve been talking about the media for a while now, and I admit I’m no expert, but shows like LHOTP are seen on religious stations, and that helps with that wholesome image of the past many white people believe. And the only thing not wholesome about the past, according to American television, was the Native Americans who were always seen as primitive savages out to scalp innocent pioneers. Look at all the western shows, all produced by white males.
It’s no different than the image of the black male thug out to rob, beat up, rape and kill innocent whites. And that seems to matter more to a lot of white people as opposed to seeing it as a crime by individual human beings against individual human beings.
But switch around the races of the criminal and victim, and white people STILL find fault in the situation, either with the black victim or with the reaction of disgust and frustration. Again, no double standard enters their minds because they’ve been taught not to see it.
I don’t believe white people are evil, and this blog is not saying that they are. However, whiteness, white supremacy, white racism and whiteness are products of evil that devalues and destroys human lives based on skin color at the core. That’s the absolute truth. LHOTP is a product of it. Period.
No one is saying that it’s wrong to be white or white people are uniquely evil. But, why is the everyday message is that it’s wrong to be nonwhite?
LikeLike
“Whites only seek to rationalize their racism; they are not and have never been about ending it.”
The history of America and the World.
Truf
LikeLike
“But what I really don’t get is how it gets interpreted as a smear campaign against whites, and on top of that, why so many take it so very personally.”
Look at your most recent post about me. The whole thing consists of assumptions about me that can’t be gleaned from any of my comments.
The knee-jerk reaction is to call someone a racist for disagreeing with all sorts of opinions, regardless of whether or not that person is racist. In the worldview of most of these comment writers, the default white person is a severe racist.
Think about my arguments: arguing that western liberalism produced the first and only abolition movement on a global scale, Look at the lengths people went to to attack that notion. After their arguments were exhausted, I was called a racist, then I was banned.
Same thing with my comments regarding the Almoravids, Almohads, etc. I’ve never uttered a racist statement. If you deny that Socrates was black, however, you might as well be an Aryan superwarrior according to this community, or at least that’s the vibe I’ve gotten.
You have little to no knowledge about me. For example, I strictly follow Confucianism in my personal life. My father’s family is Indian. Not really relevant for any one argument, but it debunks the idea that I’m one of the evil golf-playing, satan-worshiping white Anglo-Saxon Protestants who are colluding with each other to make black women feel bad about their hairstyles and prevent black males and black women from getting together.
LikeLike
“You have read and researched a lot about history. The scary part is that you convey that knowledge from a decidedly white-centric and Euro-centric viewpoint. Not only that, you identify so closely with this viewpoint that when it is pointed out, you feel it as a personal attack on your very person or being (ie, your ego), and that you need to defend yourself against it. The thing is — it is not a personal attack, just an observation of your viewpoint.”
I identify as white. I am white. I don’t think I’m as Eurocentric as you are claiming though. I do teach from a Western (American) viewpoint though. I’m an American.
“If I were a student in your class, by the 2nd session I would feel something was “not quite right”. But if I raised my hand trying to clarify the standpoint, you would jump down all over me. I would probably have to drop out by the 3rd class and see if there was another class I could take. The other students, not wanting to rock the boat or who are desperate to get that course credit would just sit there and accept it. There are times when I feel like I am reading from a 1950s encyclopedia — is it full of knowledge? YES. But some of the viewpoints are well, a bit disturbing.”
Ha man you really do not know me at all. First of all, I’m happy when they don’t fall asleep, let alone dispute the material. Any student who read this blog would be in the top 5%, easily. Secondly, if you think I’m a harsh person, that’s really funny, because it’s totally the opposite. There’s no way I would punish any student for any opinion ever. I’m known as the most laid-back person around.
1950’s encyclopedia? How? Where are you getting that idea? That I am curious about.
The only time we had a dispute is when I described parts of Sub-Saharan Africa as “harsh.” Yes it’s the viewpoint of someone with a different experience than a native of say, Central African Republic. But at the same time, losing 40% of your national GDP each year due to malaria is a serious environmental challenge to overcome. And considering I was talking about civilizations developing pre-industrial revolution, think of the challenges presented to the monarchs of these states. It’s certainly more difficult to engineer urban environments with malaria and sleeping sickness running rampant, and no, the natural resistance to these diseases and herbal medicines have not kept pace with the evolution of the diseases. Large numbers of Africans die from malaria, sleeping sickness, and many other environmental disease each year.
Acknowledging that surely doesn’t make me a racist does it?
LikeLike
Back to my original assertion.
Certain counter-arguments are called “Memes,” “Derailments,” “Deflections,” etc., but in reality that’s an attempt to take away defenses of white commentators.
It’s only natural to point out the universality of a practice like slavery, when you are being called out for it over and over again. Guilt is certainly there culturally. I personally think reparations are in order. But America also deserves credit for abolishing slavery, just like the other Western societies which spearheaded abolition in the 19th century.
The terms “memes,” “derailments,” etc. are used in the same way Abagond enforces his comment policy. People say “Pinks” and “pink skins” all the time, and Abagond even once stated that if a white person got his teeth kicked in, deep down he’d feel that he deserved it. Jefe you yourself made a joke about lynching whites for dating Asian women. I didn’t take offense at that, but given the general climate of that irr thread and the hostility many bigoted people have against irr, it’s something that we should be mindful about.
People have been calling me “Assplund.” I do think it’s kinda funny. I don’t really care about the name calling- more that Abagond instantly jumped on me, trying to ban me for doing it.
LikeLike
Kiwi,
Not very cordial, are you?
LikeLike
@Asplund
I never said that.
I made a comment about the white-centric western-centric viewpoint that you already admitted to. I was not referring to an evaluation of racism. Are you colluding comments you have received from others?
Any comment about you personally is not a smear campaign against whites. And any observation about how history and media in the USA has shaped a white supremacist structure of society is not a personal attack on any white person. I don’t see why things need to get extrapolated like that.
So, what is a bit scary is what Legion referrred to — how you extrapolated the subject of the post into
– an attack or smear on whites, as something “uniquely evil”
– a *personal* attack
– something that needs to be counterbalanced by a diatribe of what atrocities “others” have committed as an attempt to diminish (sorry, “counterbalance”) the subject of the post
True, I don’t know that much about you, but those 3 items feel a bit *scary* and make me wary about whether I should sign up for one of your classes. If you welcome feedback from students, why do you interpret the blog posts and the comments like that? That was not a laid-back reaction.
LikeLike
Jefe,
My comment addressing all of that is in moderation.
LikeLike
Those defenses were never taken away. They have always been recognized — – as broken record arguments. Those are the arguments that we all had to learn in school and watch on TV yet they are the ones that those argument supporters viciously defend.
The point is, we all know those defenses and arguments – -there is no need to take them away from anyone. No one ever said or insinuated that white people were uniquely evil. Using a broken record argument (that everyone knows already) to remind people that white people are not uniquely evil does not add anything to the argument (as no one was denying it in the first place). The defense is still there, and has been heard, it is just not effective and doesn’t accomplish anything (as it is being used to prove a point that no one was making in the first place).
LikeLike
jefe
No one ever said or insinuated that white people were uniquely evil.
Then why repeatedly single out whites while making excuses for others? If it’s okay to point out white misbehavior then it’s okay to point out others’ misbehavior. That you object suggests malicious motives.
LikeLike
@Asplund
You said:
And yet, you identify as white. Why do you suppose that is?
LikeLike
@ Asplund
WHERE did I ever say that? WHERE??? If you and DJ want to keep banging that drum you need to back it up. Otherwise it IS a straw man argument, it IS a derailment. Nothing else.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
Of course “atrocious behavior is inherent in Western values”. The values in question are racism, militarism and materialism:
The one this blog goes into is racism.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
Let me get this straight: LHOTP normalizes racism, enables genocide, excuses land theft, goes against the Western Enlightenment and American ideals of freedom, equality and democracy, but it is not anti-American or anti-Western. Instead I am the anti-Western one. I am the anti-American one.
You need to break this one down for me.
LikeLike
@abagond,
Funny how American Exceptionalism only applies to the “uniquely” good things, eh?
LikeLike
WHERE did I ever say that? WHERE??? If you and DJ want to keep banging that drum you need to back it up.
Your comment was to Asplund but it mentions me so I’ll opine. I haven’t said you wrote a post castigating whites as “uniquely evil”. In fact, I said you wrote a post in which you specifically said you don’t believe whites are uniquely evil. However, the disingenuousness of that post was evidenced by this little gem, “I have not even said that whites are the most evil people in history. Maybe the Mongols are worse. Who knows?” So whites are possibly tied with mongols for the “most evil people in history”? But you’re not really sure. How generous.
Your obvious purpose for the disclaimer, however, was to inoculate yourself against the charge. But you’re charged with it because it’s so obvious when you write posts attempting to maximize the negatives of one group then turn right around and minimize the same acts when done by others. So, for example, when others practiced slavery it may have been bad… but it really wasn’t that bad. Wtf?
Any rational, objective human being reads things like that and sees you and this blog for exactly what it is. Now, you will deny it and your other readers who are attracted to your blog specifically because they share your bigotry will, of course, agree with you. But it won’t keep rational people from noticing it.
LikeLike
Da Jokah,
Then why repeatedly single out whites while making excuses for others? If it’s okay to point out white misbehavior then it’s okay to point out others’ misbehavior. That you object suggests malicious motives.
Because a lot of white people, especially those in power who don’t really care for poorer whites, ALWAYS scapegoat nonwhites in society and the world for the problems they caused on others, especially the same people they’re scapegoating. And it seems that when white people screw up badly, no one can ever acknowledge them without someone going “There you go, blaming the white man again!” as if white people are blameless or cosmically innocent. THEY’RE NOT. If we are supposed to take responsibility for our problems, which a lot of us do – even ones in which we are not directly responsible for, why can’t they?
LikeLike
Da Jokah,
And besides, it’s past time white people are held accountable for their sins. If everyone else in the world has to, they are not by any means exempt. White people are not uniquely evil. No one has ever said that here. But at the same time, they are not special either. They need to be held accountable just like everyone else.
LikeLike
Brothawolf
Your sentence…
Because a lot of white people, especially those in power who don’t really care for poorer whites, ALWAYS scapegoat nonwhites in society and the world for the problems they caused on others, especially the same people they’re scapegoating.
Should read…
Because a lot of white people, especially those in power who don’t really care for poorer whites, ALWAYS scapegoat [whites] in society and the world for the problems they caused on others, especially the same people they’re scapegoating.
+
And besides, it’s past time white people are held accountable for their sins.
Collective guilt, eh? It doesn’t get any more racist than assigning a population “collective guilt”. If someone tried to assign blacks collective guilt you’d throw a fit.
LikeLike
Abagond, I agree with your position on this, and Jefe, its not that you are leaning in any hostile direction
Opinions on here are not monolithic blocs, and, Ive said, Abagond, I agree with a huge amount of your posts
commenters on here change a lot over a period of time…and, in the last year or so, there have been a group of people who will say “all white people are the oppressor”, “you shouldnt sleep with the enemy”, you did state “America wages war on POC..”, Abagond…and, there are implicatons that its poc against white people…there are passing commenters that take some pot shots, as well as the passing white racists
I have no problem bashing white racism, as seeing “whiteness”, as something that needs to be let go of…
Jefe , all your stories and facts about Asian American history, from Kiwi , too, is extremly welcome
But, how can you deny that there have been commenters who do imply white people are all the oppressors? Of course not all commentors, there are a huge amount of commentors who I agree with
but, I have serious issues with blatent “all whites are this’ (meaning the actual people who do say this on here…or feeling queasy about seeing white people with people of the background they have, with huge steryotypes and generalisations
Abagond, you challenged me to go find the origins of the anti interracial political agenda, since i was paraphrasing it, since I knew what went down then…well i did lookj in cyber space, and , it definitly opened a can of worms , to prove without a doubt that there was an origin for some of the exact rhetoric you hear stated by many commentors , the stuff that says “all white men are the oppressors, they wage wars against POC, black women have to stay loyal…” and the more leaning towards a violent revolution, among these militants in the 60’s (and I emphasise there were huge nuances and differances throughout the movement) were also aligning themselves with Mao, and quoting the little red book…I kept bumping into this..over and over, just rereading what i already knew
Its painfully obvious that definite phrases, that I described above, you hear from commentors right now, in 2013, can be traced to these militants..
These are flawed political agendas, they sounded funny back then and they sound worse now
So, when I hear Kiwi, align himself with Sondis, how he feels seeing a white man with a black women, and agreeing with him that seeing an Asian woman with a white man, makes him feel queasy
for all the political agendised reasons Sondis uses…which Kiwi then regurgitates
that date back exactly to these militants who beleived in mao, quoted the red book, and marxism…then I have every right to let him know 50 million people died from this ideology in China, that these militants are aligning themselves up with, and they are the ones running the anti interracial sex political agendas, and the dogma and rhetoric, that seeps into today
these agendas are flawed and intertwined…it is definitly relevant
and , jefe, when you defended kiwi’s position on the anti interracial position, and , made your thought experiment joke, (joke or thought experiment? you tried to explain its each one), and when you actualy tried to run the fable of hiding behind my poc wife and son, you stepped off your suposed benign position with me..and you and kiwi tried to pass my points off as jive stereyotypes, and you mischaractoised what i said
No, I dont find these “derailing’ accuasations, or the Arab Trader argument aply to me at all, and ive been acused of them…at least you have to refute the points Im making,about this rhetoric and the origins with people who did align up with mao, the Red Book, and Marxism not just sluff it off
LikeLike
@ B.R.
I am not sure what you are saying. Commenters speak in their own behalf. I do not control what Kiwi or Sondis say any more than I control what you or Da Jokah say. I do not believe in shutting people up. It is not a good way to fight ideas.
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
You are reading this post and this blog in completely the wrong spirit. This post and much of the blog is about examining racism, but you are making it about blame. It seems like you are reading it through a heavy layer of defensive white guilt. Either that or you are just a troll.
LikeLike
@DJ,
Sure it’s OK. Haven’t you been doing that too? No one has shut you up yet! I never objected to your doing that. You’re still doing it, right? No one has banned you.
However, it is like the little boy who hears his parents complaining about how the big factory or the government is stealing land from homeowners by paying them a pittance so that they can install their infrastructure project and the boy then tells his Mom “Hey, you steal too, I saw you take that glass from the restaurant”, an observation that may indeed be true, but really a bit “out there”. It doesn’t support or contravene the original argument and it detracts from the original subject. No one is shutting the little boy up but one just rolls his eyes,
But the young boy probably doesn’t know what he is doing. If it were a grown man doing that on purpose one would wonder if it was HE who had the malicious motives.
LikeLike
Sat 19 Oct 2013 by abagond
sorry about my typos in comment-198145
correction –
it was even then In my naive and ignorant youth too lilly white and boring
–
Interesting topic morph to the subject of reparations
I don’t think reparations per say in the traditional sense is a good idea,esp with native americans and african americans, for many of the reasons stated,too costly and difficult to specify who should get what.
I think a better solution is for the general and specific acknowledgement of past crimes
as crimes ,and policy changes that make allowances for how they have impacted current population groups.
We should work toward actually enacting policy according to the universal declaration of human rights (just claims) of which the united states is a signature of.
We should work toward a culture that respects all people foreign and domestic,indeed we should work toward developing a culture that respects all life.
side note: I wonder if abagond has done a post on reparations?
also yet again many the antagonistic commentors are still using many of the standard arguments refuted by quite few of abagond’s posts.
He even created a post/page named the broken record dept – https://abagond.wordpress.com/broken-record-dept/
perhaps in the future he may want to include links to posts where he has refuted these standard arguments whenever he posts on related subjects.
LikeLike
jefe
Sure it’s OK. Haven’t you been doing that too? No one has shut you up yet!
True. But you guys sure did twist and shout and try to discredit me for doing so. Your “little boy” analogy is but another example of that. So apparently you don’t like it, either.
However, I’ll proffer an analogy. I’m walking along and you attack me. After a few punches I start to hit back. You can say I’m doing the same thing you are but the circumstances are very different. You attacked someone who posed no threat whereas I hit someone who was attacking me.
+
abagond
You are reading this post and this blog in completely the wrong spirit.
Then maybe you should do a better job of writing posts in the right spirit?
It seems like you are reading it through a heavy layer of defensive white guilt. Either that or you are just a troll.
I’m not a troll and I don’t feel guilty about anything. Though the suggestion gives me a profound insight into your psyche. Apparently, you feel that I should.
LikeLike
You know that is not what happened. You were not directly attacked, a better analogy would be about the couple above expressing displeasure about how the factory got the govt approval to expand their factory and pay the displaced homeowners a paltry amount. You overhear it, and you are one of the nephews of one of the factory bosses and try to pick a fight with the people expressing their displeasure.
LikeLike
Why are most of you folks falling for Da Jokah’s nonsense? He started this latest campaign with and irrelevant, snide cheapshot that was meant to distract attention from the point of the original post and when I pointed it out I was told that while he as being an a.. he was raising a “legitimate issue” that should be discussed. Uh huh. Right.
Now see where you are at? Chasing him down the rabbit hole just like he wants you to do.
LikeLike
Da Jokah
Because a lot of white people, especially those in power who don’t really care for poorer whites, ALWAYS scapegoat [whites] in society and the world for the problems they caused on others, especially the same people they’re scapegoating.
+
And besides, it’s past time white people are held accountable for their sins.
Collective guilt, eh? It doesn’t get any more racist than assigning a population “collective guilt”. If someone tried to assign blacks collective guilt you’d throw a fit.
American society in the past has scapegoated whites from certain European nations like Ireland and Italy, among others. Today, the scapegoat has black wool. How many times have pundits blamed black people and black culture for their own problems and everyone elses? All the time, mostly from the conservative side.
No one is putting collective guilt on anyone. All I’m saying is that whites should be held accountable for their actions. I don’t see why that’s a problem with you.
No one wants to be lumped in one category that takes away their humanity and value. The problem is society has been doing that for years when it came to nonwhites while making whites seem normal, superior and basically good and almost Christ-like for years. That is why shows like LHOTP are shown on family and religion-based networks along with “The Rifleman” and “The Lone Ranger”.
People have always tried to assign blacks collective guilt, and in many cases, it has proven fatal for some us. Only someone detached from reality wouldn’t see that. And that seems to be your whole view.
LikeLike
Abagond , I was trying to validate what you said about your position , and show that there are people who do use the rhetoric Im talking about , of course , I dont want them silanced, but , it explains my use of Mão referances…
I am not derailing,
LikeLike
The whole labeling something a “meme” or a “derailment” is a function of a narrow-minded climate. Same with banning people, calling people “trolls,” etc. An actual troll is someone trying to disrupt discourse or insult people, not someone who disagrees with the premise of a post.
“He did it too” can be a valid argument in some circumstances. The faults of the Osage ARE relevant to this post. The Osage were not pacifists who didn’t understand warfare for territorial gain. If they didn’t they wouldn’t have been able to slaughter the Caddo and drive them out of Eastern Missouri. The post, like many posts, is designed to present whites as the predators preying on a blameless population. Trying to point out otherwise is a “meme” and “derailment.”
And finally, the way that the labels of white supremacist/racist, etc. are tossed around works the same way. I don’t agree with one aspect of a post- that means all sorts of other wild assumptions can be made about my views. That’s a way of trying to control the climate by making dissenters uncomfortable.
LikeLike
@Asplund
You really should check out the different type of trolls and trolling habits. There is a such thing as a concerned troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
You worry more about what people say about you and less about stating your case. What can a person do other than get frustrated if you continue to state your case and ignore their supposed nonsense? You go on a whine campaign and fill the whole thread crying and whining about what someone did or said to you. Have you heard of sticks and stones? Where was all this protest when you started talking to me about your man parts and cheapness?
LikeLike
@Legion
I agree. Da Jokah is going to comment regardless of how people feel. They either need to address him in kind, address him on an intellectual level, or don’t address him at all.
@Da Jokah
I enjoy a good joke every now and then but if I did not know any better I would say you enjoy the arguments….
LikeLike
Sharina
It ain’t about my feelings supposedly being hurt or some ridiculous idea like that. It’s about trying to use force to crush dissent. If we can label disagreement trolling- that’s just a way to silence disagreement. I’m not seeing DJ fitting the bill regarding trolling.
LikeLike
@Asplund
How can anyone force you to do anything? Especially over the internet. If you have a valid point on something then state it and stop allowing people to silence you. If you are silenced that easy then your claim was weak to begin with.
As for DJ. He can make valid points but he also engages in trollish behavior at times.
LikeLike
You are always silenced when you end up banned. This is Abagond’s blog, his private property and he can ban anyone he wants for any reason. That’s fine, but it is what it is.
LikeLike
Sharina,
I believe you’re right about Da Jokah. A lot of trolls have some twisted enjoyment ruining discussion just because.
LikeLike
@Asplund
If his banning you from this site silences you then again….you claim was weak to begin with. Besides I have not know him to ban a person for no reason.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
Grow up. This is an Internet forum about racism. People are going to be labelled trolls and racists. That is the nature of the thing. People have the right to call out those behaviours. It hardly means they are right or that everyone agrees with them.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
If you are going to avoid the topic of the post and make it about something else, like whites being “uniquely evil”, some will think you are a troll trying to kick sand in everyone’s face.
If you are going to defend or excuse theft of Native lands by Whites, some will think you are racist.
You have the right to speak your mind, so long as you are civil about it. But so does everyone else. That means people can call you on your shit.
LikeLike
Abagond
I don’t think it’s immaturity on my part to note the nosedive.
The concern with trolling here is unnatural.
That’s just my opinion though. Ill leave it at that.
LikeLike
@Legion,
“That sounds like an angry child who can’t control their emotions enough to focus on an issue.
You have made yourself pretty clear. Your negative feelings about Jokah’s tone or mean spirit make you not want to discuss anything with him/her or address anything he’s pointed out. Okay, you are free to do that. Jefe, is at a more mature level of discourse than you are and now you want to continue yelling, “waahh!” and wish for Jefe to stop. Many commenters have cliche, sarcastic, pre programmed responses to some things that touch a nerve. Jefe is engaging Jokah at a much higher level of discourse than just cliche smart alecky sarcasm.
If you can’t appreciate part of the discourse in the comment section fine, but don’t tell people to stop talking in a certain way because you prefer that everyone adopt the smart alec response that you believe is normal and natural. Their are a sea of individuals out there and not always the clique that apparently you’d prefer to see.”
That’s absolute, utter, nonsense. Putting your silly insults and pompous lecturing aside, what has happened to this conversation was utterly predictable and I called it. So now you’re trying to go in on me because I was right and pointed it out while you wanted to go down this road and are now trying to salvage the few nuggets of gold from the mountain of sh… I haven’t said anything about asking or telling Jefe, or anybody else, to stop anything. That’s your weak strawman. I simply pointed out the obvious about how most of this conversation is going. We are now to the point that folks are defending themselves against bogus charges that they are claiming that whites are uniquely evil. Yeah, that’s a real legitimate issue that demands mature and thoughtful discourse and it’s totally relevant to whether the LHOTP books are racist. Of course it is!
What’s happened here for the most part is post after post after post of derailment and diversion as some of you all chase him down his twist and turns as he laughs at you and insults you. It’s a bad faith tactic. Stop acting like you don’t know that or that how an issue is raised often determines how it is discussed. That the tone often frames the subsequent discussion. You’re being purposely obtuse here but you’re not dumb.
“If Jokah wasn’t a commenter some one else would say what he has said. If he/she is ever banned someone will replace him/her. This is about addressing a claim.”
I said the original issue (remember what that was?) he raised was legitimate but, more importantly, was also irrelevant to the point of Abagond’s post and l also said that the issue had been addressed and it was rather well. We are now discussing the uniquely evil garbage. Gee, I wonder how that happened? It’s such a mystery. Insofar as the “somebody else” argument goes, that’s such weak tea reasoning that I don’t feel the need to comment. .
LikeLike
I think Da Jokah knows exactly what he is doing. He understands the topic of the post, but deliberately brings up points that are not relevant to the subject of the post (eg, insinuating that the fact that blacks have also moved onto and occupied dead indian land is a case of the pot calling the kettle black), just to stir things up. He pushes the limits of comment policy just to see what it takes to get banned, etc. etc. In other words, he is acting trollish.
I can’t say the same thing about Asplund. At times I thought he suffers from 3rd grade reading comprehension skills, but I have finally concluded that he is covered in several thick, callous, keratinized layers or white guilt. That is why it devolves into a blame game that is propped up by broken record arguments. How else can he get diverted off into the wide blue yonder with so many points that have nothing to do with the post. It’s as if he is trying to protect his self-image.
@Asplund, in case I am wrong about this guilt and blame game hypothesis, and you truly misread the post because of your reading comprehension skills, I’ll try to recap for you (with excerpts from the post).
In other words, the point was that a children’s book that is used as standard educational fodder in the USA to teach history, courage and role models for children contains elements that are used to teach and maintain the white supremacist hierarchical structure in America and to normalize THAT experience, which has the effect of denormalizing others’ experiences (ie, indicating that there is something “wrong” with their experience, hence the “chip on the shoulder”). The Nazi and KKK role models have been denormalized by white Americans, so educators would not consider using their children’s educational materials in a modern curriculum. KKK role models were normalized at one time in the past — look at the themes in Birth of a Nation (1915). But why hasn’t the LHOP series been denormalized yet?
The point of the post was not about whether
– whites were more evil or less evil than the Osages,
– whether whites are uniquely evil
– whether whites were the only ones who did something morally wrong or not.
ie, it is not a blame game about who did what worse.
The fact that you even suggest that “The faults of the Osage ARE relevant to this post. ” shows that you completely missed the point of the post. Whether the Osages were docile pacifists or conniving evil savages that took every opportunity to slaughter their opponents to seize their land, that would not have any effect on the point of the post at all. Since the actual situation of that aspect has no effect on the post’s premise, bringing it up all the time and harping on these sidebars only serve as a derailment.
I think Da Jokah realizes that and that is why he does it. But you – I actually believe that you are not trying to be a troll. The only other explanations appear to be either poor reading comprehension skills or thick layers of white guilt.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Black Supremacy Love and Unity.
LikeLike
“I can’t say the same thing about Asplund. At times I thought he suffers from 3rd grade reading comprehension skills, but I have finally concluded that he is covered in several thick, callous, keratinized layers or white guilt. That is why it devolves into a blame game that is propped up by broken record arguments. How else can he get diverted off into the wide blue yonder with so many points that have nothing to do with the post. It’s as if he is trying to protect his self-image.”
Lol- My poor reading comprehension skills. One thing to note about me is that I’m really stupid/uneducated. It’s a common joke among people I know.
Look how rude this is.
Man I didn’t really care about this specific post. The discussion of this specific issue is not what drew me in. I couldn’t care less. It’s just another carefully selected way to attack white society, just like the post before it and the second one after it, and dozens of others. I only entered this discussion because of what was said in the comment section. My bringing up the Osage was an attempt to demonstrate something relevant regarding the “Arab Trader Argument,” or “Broken Records” or whatever stupid term is used to dismiss logical counter-arguments on this site. One thing that makes Hitler/The KKK so bad is that they preyed upon innocent people, not an enemy nation at war. If the situation could have possibly been different with the Osage (and I’m not necessarily saying it was) your own use of those two as an analogy doesn’t work. Thus the relevance of what I was attempting to introduce to the discussion. It was an example of how “He did it too” can be important. My argument is larger than this one specific post. I’m discussing the blog as a whole. If you recall I didn’t initiate this. I jumped into the comments, discussing what was said there.
That’s why using all this discussion of “Memes” and “Derailments” is just a Stalinist-style tactic. If that doesn’t make sense I don’t know what will.
LikeLike
Yes to what Jefe said! Every single one of us who’ve had a Western Civilization class have read Mein Kampf. But…it was read with a critical eye, rather than a celebratory one. Could you imagine if that book was presented in the same regard as the Little House books? Would any school district even think of telling Jewish parents and others offended by such a notion, to just get over it? It’s unthinkable.
LikeLike
jefe
You were not directly attacked, a better analogy would be…
For you’re analogy to be accurate you would have to acknowledge that you’re not merely talking about the individual factory owner but also his family, descendants and anyone who shares his race. So the factory owner’s nephew is, in fact, being attacked. And he has every right to defend himself from the unwarranted attack.
I think Da Jokah knows exactly what he is doing. He understands the topic of the post, but deliberately brings up points that are not relevant to the subject of the post
What I’m doing is pointing out hypocrisy. What you’re doing is trying to ‘splain why singling out one group while ignoring another isn’t hypocrisy.
+
brothawolf
How many times have pundits blamed black people and black culture for their own problems and everyone elses?
People are usually responsible for their own problems. That’s not unique to blacks. Nor is it unique for people to blame others for their problems.
No one is putting collective guilt on anyone. All I’m saying is that whites should be held accountable for their actions. I don’t see why that’s a problem with you.
You want them held accountable for actions they were not personally responsible for. That’s collective guilt.
No one wants to be lumped in one category that takes away their humanity and value.
Indeed they don’t.
People have always tried to assign blacks collective guilt, and in many cases, it has proven fatal for some us.
And yet violent interracial crime is overwhelmingly black on white. Do you think that perhaps the kind of racial agitation found on blogs like this plays a role in inciting that level of violence?
LikeLike
The KKK and Hitler are hardly far-fetched analogies.
Hitler drew inspiration for the Holocaust in part from how Americans dealt with Indians.
As BrothaWolf noted, there are parallels between white views of blacks and natives, particularly the idea of their men as being savage, out of control, threatening, a danger to Good White People.
The main reason LHOTP is read to American children and Klan and Nazi stuff is not is because the Klan and the Nazis are the losers of history while those behind wiping out Native Americans are still in power and still benefiting from that history and still need the racist ideology in LHOTP.
Thus the need by some on this thread to deflect, deflect, deflect.
Thus the blame game, which suggests white guilt.
Thus the morally blind reasoning: “everyone does it”, “blacks are just as guilty”, “whites are not uniquely evil”, etc.
LikeLike
Part of what makes LHOTP seem so “wholesome” is that it makes whites feel good about themselves.
LikeLike
@ grin and bear it
Right, no one would tell the Jewish parent that they have “a chip on their shoulder”, that every book offends someone, that they want to “ban” books or “wipe out history”.
LikeLike
Da Jokah,
Apparently, you really like to argue just for the fun of it. So…
People are usually responsible for their own problems. That’s not unique to blacks. Nor is it unique for people to blame others for their problems.
What about the problems they cause others – on people who did nothing to contribute to the issue, have been tricked into it or were forced? You can’t tell nonwhites in a racist society that their problems with racism is theirs to fix. It’s not unique to scapegoat, but it’s no excuse to keep the blame game going.
You want them held accountable for actions they were not personally responsible for. That’s collective guilt.
And yet, they still benefit from it. A lot of them don’t think it’s their problem. A lot more don’t think it is a problem. And too many say and do nothing. It’s not collective guilt being imposed. It’s a wake up call.
And yet violent interracial crime is overwhelmingly black on white. Do you think that perhaps the kind of racial agitation found on blogs like this plays a role in inciting that level of violence?
And so, what you’re doing is assign collective guilt on the whole black population because you think we’re out in droves committing crime against you, and you process that as a form of oppression against whites. Don’t make me laugh.
What does that even have to do with “Little House” anyway?
For real, you must really be enjoying your “save the white man” trolling here. Otherwise, no sane person would come to a blog they know was not made for their feelings. I won’t say anymore because when you bring the tired, old black-on-white crime argument, it’s a sign of derailment. Unless you can say something about THIS topic, I will not respond, at least not here.
LikeLike
You can’t tell nonwhites in a racist society that their problems with racism is theirs to fix.
And yet, they still benefit from it.
You spout that like an article of faith. Fortunately, I’m not a member of your cult. I live in the real world where you can’t just claim something because it fills you with tumescence. You need some evidence to support it.
+
abagond
Right, no one would tell the Jewish parent that they have “a chip on their shoulder”
When Jews engage in the same types of demonization you do then people will. As it is, your analogy is backwards. You’re more the nazi than the jew. You even make many of the same arguments against whites that nazis made against jews ie. cheating, conspiring, keeping them down, etc. Though perhaps Ferdinand Nahimana might be a better example. Like you, he claimed RTLM was founded primarily to counter the propaganda against his people. That’s essentially the same reason you claim you founded this blog.
LikeLike
“The KKK and Hitler are hardly far-fetched analogies.
Hitler drew inspiration for the Holocaust in part from how Americans dealt with Indians.”
I’m going to have to disagree with the first statement. I agree with the second because it’s a fact.
I don’t see the “blame game” as a deflection. It’s more of a mitigating factor.
The nature of the two events were different. The attacks against the Osage are more analogous to the fire-bombing of Tokyo than the Holocaust. They were a function of warfare, conquest, and expansion, not extermination for its own sake. Furthermore the Osage were combatants waging their own struggles. They were not necessarily more legitimate. When we say “they did it too,” we’re arguing against a good guy/bad guy paradigm, with whites as the inveterate bad guys.
I personally don’t feel much guilt. I really don’t see Indian nations as being more moral than the U.S. A lot of that is based on flawed ethnography by Marxist baby boomers- really outdated and not based on the reality of North American politics in the colonial era. There was plenty of backstabbing, aggression, etc. on the part of various Indian nations. Plenty of Indian populations attacked white populations first, without provocation, wiping out men, women, and children. I feel bad for my ancestors but the presentation of them as saintly victims is just not true. They fought with the European settlers, they were defeated. They mixed with the new population. They were never just minding their own business when evil whitey jumped them from behind.
My thoughts.
LikeLike
So that explains why they were exterminated? (“The only good Indian is a dead Indian.”) or why the majority of their descendants are now white people?
LikeLike
We are talking the about how children’s books are used to reinforce racial hierarchies and normalize certain experiences which are taught to other people.
Whether the Osage were “evil” or not is irrelevant to the point of this post. We are not arguing about a good guy / bad guy paradigm. Only you are.
The only way you can claim a “they did it too” argument is if the Osage taught their children using educational material teaching them a racial hierarchy which puts the Osage on top and depicts white people as a group that needs to be exterminated. Actually, not only teaching Osage children, but also white children not yet exterminated. Any white children who are hurt by being forced to read it just need to “get over it” and remove the “chip on their soldier”.
If the Osage were doing that, I would 100% agree that “they did it too.”
LikeLike
“You spout that like an article of faith. Fortunately, I’m not a member of your cult. I live in the real world where you can’t just claim something because it fills you with tumescence. You need some evidence to support it.”
************
@Abagond, (since you’re now entertaining super-idiot-trolls)
Have you written a post focused on the CURRENT day EVIDENCE of RACISM/WHITE SUPREMACY?
This post might look like a assorted collection of academic research, polls, data, empirical facts, experiments, studies and so forth on the evidence of this apparently invisible phenomenon (racism/white-supremacy) that remains supposedly elusive to a great number of WHITE naysayers.
Not that it would really matter to any of the millions of WHITE racist diehards who wouldn’t accept any evidence that counters their delusional mindset, even if it were written clearly on their face.
LikeLike
Asplund
Abagond was mistaken when he claimed the Holocaust was based on America. Siberia was however compared to the American west in that they were both sparsely populated areas suitable for migration.
jefe
So that explains why they were exterminated? (“The only good Indian is a dead Indian.”) or why the majority of their descendants are now white people?
No one exterminated anyone. There are more pure blooded indians alive today than there’s ever been. In addition. there are 100 million more Americans with at least some indian ancestry.
LikeLike
Abagond……I made a mistake again and sign in as “Yahtzee” instead of NatureBeautiful……………Please do not approve that post.
Here is the one I would like approved:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PWZsQ-ovkCY)
LikeLike
And we’re derided as “fake Indians” by this movement, despite the fact that we have blood ties to pre-colonial cultures on the continent and have immediate family members darker than some black Americans.
Jefe- The atrocities committed against the Osage aren’t a source of morality. You can be a victim and a victimizer at the same time. Of course, I don’t see most cultures in a good/evil dichotomy.
As for the Osage having an educational system that marginalizes whites, I don’t know if they do or they don’t. I don’t think it’s wise to assume they don’t. My education in the Choctaw tribal system was not hostile, but that’s a southern tribe, southern Indians are MUCH more open to black and white tribal citizenship/cultural participation than other groups. Plains/Western tribes in particular have had a much different experience than southerners regarding the federal government, settlement, etc. I don’t know how the Osage maintain their identity, and if they have a strong anti-European political orientation.I think the Osage maintained O-Kee-Pa, if I’m not mistaken. I wonder how that’s interpreted now.
LikeLike
Of course relatives being darker than some black Americans can come from black ancestry, which a significant portion of white Americans have.
LikeLike
Asplund, here’s something I don’t understand. In your own words, you’ve identified as white. Yet, you also claim your “father’s family is Indian.” Do you only flip that switch when it’s convenient?
LikeLike
And what does any of that have to do with how the Little House series of books contribute to a white supremacist hegemony?
LikeLike
I don’t flip that switch ever. I’m always white. My father’s family is always Indian.
It may not have too much to do with the post on the long run. Again, my participation in the comment section is on response to comments, not so much the thread itself.
LikeLike
Da Jokah,
You spout that like an article of faith. Fortunately, I’m not a member of your cult. I live in the real world where you can’t just claim something because it fills you with tumescence. You need some evidence to support it.
I don’t have a cult. I live in the real world. And I can’t prove white racism to someone who won’t see it. So, why bother?
When Jews engage in the same types of demonization you do then people will.
Ever heard of Israel, Da Jokah, only theirs is straight up xenophobia against Palestinians and Africans?
LikeLike
I wonder if Little House on the Prairie is still airing. I know it’s likely either on a religious, family or classic TV network.
LikeLike
Congratulations! You have candidacy for TROLL has been confirmed and this honorary title is awarded today. Please wear this badge proudly,
Warning: This is a lifetime award and you do not have to do anything to maintain the title. However, if it is discovered that you engaged in meaningful thoughtful discourse, this award may be referred to the committee. You will receive repeated warnings about the effect on your award. The committee may consider removing the title if too many instances of meaningful thoughtful discourse are detected.
LikeLike
Read the comments on (Asian) Indians by posters on YouTube. We are recognized not only by our color and mannerism, but also by our bad smell. Even videos posted on that channel concerning events, so localized in content, which should utterly be of interest only to Indians, draw these comments. Just like toilet graffiti. The comments section should be called youtoilet.
LikeLike
Da Jokah,
No one exterminated anyone. There are more pure blooded indians alive today than there’s ever been.
And you said you live in the real world. Now I know you’re full of it.
LikeLike
Da Jokah,
Would you please inform me as to why you chose the name “Da Jokah” to use on this blog?
LikeLike
Abagond:
I think the “hypocrisy criticism” is a fair one. Clearly the espoused principles of American society have historically been denied to various groups.
As for a supposed “editorial bias”, your concern for social-justice issues seems conspicuously limited in scope to situations where white people are the antagonists, despite non-white peoples often having similar practices, but that’s certainly your prerogative.
LikeLike
To Brothawolf:
And besides, it’s past time white people are held accountable for their sins. If everyone else in the world has to, they are not by any means exempt.
Why would you want to be held accountable for the sins of someone who shares your phenotype..? I am of the opinion that when I was assaulted by several Black men in Oakland a few years ago that you, as a Black man who lives on the other side of the US, should not share blame for my injuries, or do you disagree,..?
LikeLike
@Asplund. Here is the problem I have with your so-called “arguments”:
That’s what you said, even as you proceeded to take up at least 10% of the comment section talking not about Laura Ingalls Wilder, The Little House series of books, and the way in which they are presented to American schoolchildren, but about how this blog paints whites as evil, excuse me, *uniquely evil*, and how the Osage were savages too, and how people are derided as “fake indians” (even after they loudly proclaim and identify as white). When told that you are derailing the discussion, you then go on to talk about Stalinist tactics and being banned from this blog.
First off, how can you be banned from the blog yet still comment so profusely? Secondly, how does any of what you posted relate to Laura Ingalls Wilder, Little House on the Prairie, the racist indoctrination of American schoolchildren, Waziyatawin or anything else mentioned in the text of the original post? Thirdly, even if Abagond wanted to use HIS blog to paint white people as uniquely evil, that’s his prerogative. It’s his blog, and if he does not want it to contribute to the great white myth making machine that keeps folks feeling good about themselves, that’s HIS option. There are millions of other web sites, magazines, books, newspapers, movies, TV shows, cultural institutions, educational curricula, etc. that do just that, and if he’s found a niche that allows him to paint an alternative universe, so be it. It really shouldn’t cause you so much concern — especially since you don’t “care about this specific post” or discussing “this specific issue.”
Furthermore, since, this blog not only offends your sensibilities and puts you on the defensive, but also renders you indifferent to the topics being discussed, why are you here? Sane, rational people don’t spend time commenting on topics that don’t interest them or visiting blogs that offend their sensibilities. For example, I don’t visit Storm Front or read the comments on YouTube because that brand of nonsense doesn’t interest me. I don’t learn anything from them, I don’t care about what they have to say, I don’t feel I can be enlightened by any of
it, I’m not even curious. I don’t try to correct their assertions, disrupt their discussions or even offer my two cents. I’m also not trying to shut them down or point out what I perceive to be their hypocrisy. Because I don’t care about them. And that’s what it means to be indifferent.
LikeLike
Ever white country and only white countries are pushed to take millions of third world immigrants. Then they are forced by law to “integrate” I.e. assimilate/intermarry with all these non-whites. That is supposedly to end “racism”.
If the same were done to black countries, i.e. pour tens of millions of non-blacks into every black country and only into black countries, and then pass laws for all these non-blacks to be “assimilated” it wouldn’t take anyone here long to realize it wasn’t about ending “racism” but about the final solution to the “black problem”.
Yet if I point out mass immigration and forced assimilation as it is being pushed on every white country and only white countries is a program of genocide against whites, then I’m a racist, solely for wanting my people to continue to exist.
LikeLike
@phil white
I would say you are more ignorant than racist (at the moment atleast)
“Then they are forced by law to “integrate” I.e. assimilate/intermarry with all these non-whites. That is supposedly to end “racism”.”—Please state one law that claims this? I mean take your time even.
“If the same were done to black countries, i.e. pour tens of millions of non-blacks into every black country and only into black countries, and then pass laws for all these non-blacks to be “assimilated” it wouldn’t take anyone here long to realize it wasn’t about ending “racism” but about the final solution to the “black problem”.—Ummm do you live under a rock? This has already happened before. I don’t think those involved were too pleased with the results.
LikeLike
Sharina:
Forced integration of schools, forced integration of neighborhoods, out lawing white only clubs.
Worse than the actual laws are the media campaigns. If a white character on a tv show objects to his daughter dating out side her race he is a “BIGOT!”
The whole intent and net effect of media is to gradually eliminate white’s through mass third world immigration, which is not forced on any non-white countries.
People are more controlled by cultural intimidation than by actual laws, but those who can stand up to the social intimidation are forced to integrate by law.
LikeLike
@Sharina:
Using the word “racist” is not an argument. “Racist” is no more than a liberal curse word. It was invented by Leon Trotsky.
“Racism” is not a crime (other than thought crime if you think racist thoughts while harming someone).
Genocide is a crime under the U.N. convention on genocide, and the program to gradually eliminate white births is genocide.
LikeLike
Just shaking my head in sheer amazement at the incredibly asinine arguments and other BS presented by the endless queue of TROLLS standing by awaiting their turn to belch their cockeyed (white gaze) delusions HERE in their ZOMBIE like manner.
It’s becoming more and more INTOLERABLY ludicrous!
LikeLike
@phil white
“Forced integration of schools, forced integration of neighborhoods, out lawing white only clubs.”—I am aware of this, but you are claiming ” I.e. assimilate/intermarry” which is what I am more curious of which laws so happen to be on the books. And kkk is still a white only club so not much outlawing there. As for schools…..home school.
I don’t look at much tv, but most characters are with a character of there same color and of those that date out I have yet to hear any being called a bigot.
“People are more controlled by cultural intimidation than by actual laws.”—“cultural intimidation” is not law. You claimed this was all law so please quote that law or stop making it up as you go.
“Using the word “racist” is not an argument”—Good to know but I did not call you one nor have I implied it so this little tidbit would have better been served with you presenting a more reasonable argument.
“Genocide is a crime under the U.N. convention on genocide, and the program to gradually eliminate white births is genocide.”—Did white women stop having babies?
LikeLike
As to forced schools the government taxes you to support government schools. Then when you don’t like the result you get to fund your own kids schooling in a private school while still paying taxes.
As to using the R word you said I was probably “ignorant” rather than the R word. Implying you were reserving the R word for possible later use.
Never call someone the R word and think that is an argument. Call them out for a specific violation of Political Correctness.
The R word is no more an argument than “conspiracy theorist” is.
Any club or private organization that gets any kind of pay back of federal tax dollars is forced into integration. The only reason KKK is white is they don’t get federal funds.
The Boy Scouts found out they couldn’t keep male homosexuals from taking scouts on camping trips.
The U.N. resolution doesn’t say you have to totally stop the women of a targeted group from having babies, it says a program to reduce births in the targeted group is genocide under their legal definition.
If you don’t like the genocide law take it up with the U.N.
White women in the U.S. are slightly below replacement birth rate as I recall. In most white countries they are averaging about 1.7 births per woman, partly due to Islamic/African immigration driving up cost for white families and driving down wages.
It’s Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, white countries for everyone.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton,
Why would you want to be held accountable for the sins of someone who shares your phenotype..? I am of the opinion that when I was assaulted by several Black men in Oakland a few years ago that you, as a Black man who lives on the other side of the US, should not share blame for my injuries, or do you disagree,..?
If you share the privileges and say nothing about the racism in this nation or anywhere else, that is contributing to the sins of racism. If you help perpetuate the system that implements racism, that is contributing to the sins of racism. If you choose to be ignorant of the reality of racism, that is contributing to the sins of racism.
Some white people have made that call. Some refuse to.
I know I shouldn’t have to share the blame of the attack, but prejudice and racism makes it so that a story like that would most likely be on the news as opposed to a story about a black person saving someone’s life. The former would have way more coverage than the latter.
And a lot of people watch a lot of TV, including whites. Here’s what could happen as a result.
Some whites will see the attack as “typical behavior” and will be further afraid of blacks. Those in power, if they heard that, would put more police in black neighborhoods, start a curfew, build more surveillance, and police will be more aggressive towards blacks. It’s just a theory however.
Besides, trolls that come here will use any and as many news reports of black-on-white crime to illustrate their point and attempt to assign guilt.
LikeLike
@matari:
“Just shaking my head in sheer amazement at the incredibly asinine arguments and other BS presented by the endless queue of TROLLS standing by awaiting their turn to belch their cockeyed (white gaze) delusions HERE in their ZOMBIE like manner.
It’s becoming more and more INTOLERABLY ludicrous!”
From your above post I get it you don’t like pro-white dissidents making arguments.
But did you also have an argument in there that I just missed??
LikeLike
“…your concern for social-justice issues seems conspicuously limited in scope to situations where white people are the antagonists, despite non-white peoples often having similar practices…”
@Randy
In what universe do you reside in?
Please tell us where and when black people (in THIS universe) have used the law (or de facto practices) to collectively mistreat/abuse/mistreat/oppress/marginalize white people??
Apparently the definition of “similar” is different (in your universe).
LikeLike
P White
“But did you also have an argument in there that I just missed??”
************
Yep, quite a few arguments in fact. You’ll find them in some of the comment sections of the many posts (old and new) Abagond has written. You should READ them learn some truth and expand your horizons!
(You could also start at the Broken Record Department)
LikeLike
@phil white
“As to using the R word you said I was probably “ignorant” rather than the R word. Implying you were reserving the R word for possible later use.”—If I use it later then it is a reserved right that I have, but arguing or trying to form an argument based on if I might use it is ridiculous. Not to mention wasted words on your part and a possible deflection.
“Never call someone the R word and think that is an argument. Call them out for a specific violation of Political Correctness.”—Yet I have not called you this, so this is deflection. You want to argue over something I never said or you want to actually support the claim you made?
“The only reason KKK is white is they don’t get federal funds.”—Neither did many other all white organizations…. Possibly because they had the money to fund it.
I took the liberty of looking up Genocide as defined by the U.N.
“Genocide is defined in the treaty as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, such as: a) killing members of the group; b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/033199kosovo-genocide.html
I would ask where you got your definition but I wager you made it up to suit your own delusion. Now I ask again…Have white women stopped having babies?
“In most white countries they are averaging about 1.7 births per woman, partly due to Islamic/African immigration driving up cost for white families and driving down wages.”—I know white women having 4 to 5 children even with cost rising. It is called learning to spend and plan. You would have a better argument blaming it on birth control or women rights.
“t’s Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, white countries for everyone.”—I think maybe you should start asking the individuals on the continent of Africa how they felt about a mass of whites moving in and taking over their lands.
LikeLike
Oh and phil…now is the time to present an argument. Your rants and deflections are only going to hold for so much longer. 🙂
LikeLike
To Brothawolf:
I know I shouldn’t have to share the blame of the attack, but prejudice and racism makes it so that a story like that would most likely be on the news as opposed to a story about a black person saving someone’s life. The former would have way more coverage than the latter.
Of course, you had nothing to do with it. Let’s discuss what actually happened. There was no story in the local news because assaults in Oakland (where I used to live) are a dime a dozen. Typically if someone is assaulted, robbed, raped, what have you.. nothing will appear in the press at all. Even if it does.. you’ll read something like “an Oakland man was assaulted in front of his in North Oakland home, the assailants were described as wearing holdings and athletic shoes..” Some murders make the local press and when the perps are caught you may see their photo or maybe not. The situation of course may very well be different in your area.
Those in power, if they heard that, would put more police in black neighborhoods, start a curfew, build more surveillance, and police will be more aggressive towards blacks.
I am pretty sure those in power do not give a flying rats backside about me.The officers expressed sympathy as they took my statement, as I was bleeding on my shirt and onto my front porch, but never followed up with the investigation. (Nor responded to messages I left since I had no new information..) Basically I was asked – did you know your assailants.. when I said no.. the case was apparently filed and forgotten. My story is very common. As for beefing up patrols, the reverse has happened as the Oakland PD has seen pretty severe cutbacks in police staffing. Police are predominantly for the gentry not the peasants.
LikeLike
To Abagond:
Part of what makes LHOTP seem so “wholesome” is that it makes whites feel good about themselves.
I read the first 3 or 4 books in the series about 40 years ago. It didn’t make me feel good about being White, because I thought their lives sort of sucked. The Ingalls were basically compelled to move several times due to crop failures, lack of employment, or by government directive. Laura’s older sister was blinded by illness, her infant brother died, and the entire family became very ill. FWIW in the book, Laura Ingalls, credits Dr. George Tann, a black man with saving the lives of her family. When “Pa” got a job with the railroad as a surveyor their lives improved and became boring for me so I stopped reading the series.
The wholesomeness of the story I think refers more to the sanitized TV show that started in the 1970s when networks were generally doing their damnedest to put salacious bits (for the time) in their stories to increase their viewing audience. LHOTP, Hee Haw, and the Waltons were about the only Prime Time TV shows in the 70s that had approval from the religious right.
LikeLike
Matari:
I stated the scope of Abagond’s objections with regards to social justice issues seems limited to those where white people are the antagonists.
I’m not referring simply to black v. white race issues. In fact, I’d argue that “racism” is but a small subset of the greater taxonomy of group “oppression”.
Clannism, tribalism, sectarianism, and the like were and are likely far more prevalent. If one purports to value higher-moral treatment of others, stopping at “race” is rather arbitrary and a bit bizarre.
To cite but one example, in the Mount Rushmore post, we are told that white people desecrated a mountain sacred to the Sioux. No mention is made of the previous native occupants whom the Sioux had rather recently driven out by force. Was that not also a theft of sacred land deserving of sympathy and moral concern?
Also, there is the 1000 year long ethnic cleansing of Khoi and San peoples from central and southern Africa by so-called “Black Africans” (Bantu), and the race-based oppression and genocide of Pygmy peoples in central and eastern Africa which continues to this day.
LikeLike
@g&bi re: your comment
I thought it might have something to do with reading comprehension skills, so I tried to point out the subject of the post again. Again, those other topics which are rather irrelevant to the post topic were brought up. So, it is not a problem of reading comprehension at all, but a case of Fragile Ego syndrome and the need to present whites as the good guys of history as that is what he does in his job (ie, reinforce the “racist” or at least “Western” indoctrination of his own students), such that any hint that one might be attempting to deconstruct that indoctrination is affront to the personal ego.
Others, though, just get a kick out of trolling. 😛
LikeLike
Randy,
Nice try at attempting to derail, deflect and move the goal posts. I see you’re still engaging in your regular/normal Randy patterns & behaviors.
Yes, the world is full of evil. However, the WHITENESS versus COLOR dynamic is at the top of the list. Clannism, tribalism, sectarianism and the like come in a distant last, relative to racism/white supremacy.
But then members of the oppressor group (such as you) love to tell those who are oppressed that the racist mistreatment they’re receiving from the systems developed, maintained and refined by white people aren’t really all that bad.
LikeLike
@Sharina:
That’s the exact definition we use over at http://www.whiterabbitradio.net.
Inflicting conditions of life (mass immigration lowering wages, offshoring jobs lowering wages,) to destroy in whole or in par.
Programs to reduce births like pushing white women to date blacks (this is mostly done by media, which accurately calls itself “The Permanent Government”) , pushing abortion and homosexual relationships, forcing states to legally recognize interracial marriage, and of course mass non-white immigration, including to Ireland and Iceland etc.
As to masses of whites, the colonial period ended 50 years ago.
And you are using colonialism to try and justify genocide. There is no way to justify genocide of white’s or anybody else.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton
Of course, you had nothing to do with it. Let’s discuss what actually happened. There was no story in the local news because assaults in Oakland (where I used to live) are a dime a dozen. Typically if someone is assaulted, robbed, raped, what have you.. nothing will appear in the press at all. Even if it does.. you’ll read something like “an Oakland man was assaulted in front of his in North Oakland home, the assailants were described as wearing holdings and athletic shoes..” Some murders make the local press and when the perps are caught you may see their photo or maybe not. The situation of course may very well be different in your area.
I seriously doubt it over there. Violent crime would have some news coverage in the front page of newspapers and during the first few minutes of the local news, and since yours was a case of “black-on-white”, it would definitely have been reported somewhere. But I really can’t understand why yours was passed over.
I am pretty sure those in power do not give a flying rats backside about me.The officers expressed sympathy as they took my statement, as I was bleeding on my shirt and onto my front porch, but never followed up with the investigation. (Nor responded to messages I left since I had no new information..) Basically I was asked – did you know your assailants.. when I said no.. the case was apparently filed and forgotten. My story is very common. As for beefing up patrols, the reverse has happened as the Oakland PD has seen pretty severe cutbacks in police staffing. Police are predominantly for the gentry not the peasants.
Of course they don’t, but they would care enough to use it for their political agenda. For example, a white college student was jumped by a group of black males in my state’s capital. After that incident, the student had a chance to appear on “Good Morning America”. A curfew was issued in that area after the attack. And it got a lot of reporting. I think one article mentioned the words “racial tension”. It was all because of a group of wannabe thugs who chose a white male to beat up for reasons unknown, at least according to the articles.
Those black males are the kinds of black males the news media are highly attracted to because they were violent against a white person. And since this is South Carolina, a red, racist, backwards state, those black males represent the whole race, and as such, the whole race is to be held accountable, according to them.
I dunno how it is in Oakland, but from what I’ve heard, I would think the police over there would be more militaristic against black and brown neighborhoods, and more vigilant on behalf of white victims.
One more example. A few years ago, the Student Body President of UNC Eve Carson was robbed and murdered by two black males. They ultimately got life in prison. The youngest one could’ve gotten the death penalty, but he was 17 when he killed her.
The news about her murder spread all over the country. Even CNN got wind of it because she was a white woman, a SBP of a good college, came from a privileged background, and was killed by young black males. Again, the words “racial tension” appeared in some articles.
Today, North Carolina has helped placed restrictions on voting laws which will have a huge racial impact against black communities. North Carolina is also a red, racist state.
Now, has murders like Eve Carson’s had something to do with this backwards policy? I don’t know. I can only theorize that negative stereotypes of black people influence policy making. And black crime is one of those stereotypes.
It’s parallel to the stereotype of the Native American being a savage that must be either controlled or exterminated to preserve (white) peace.
LikeLike
@ Randy
How many times Randy are you going to promote here and try to sell this false, nonsensical, pseudo argument about natural white supremacy?
These issues have already been dealt with quite extensively in other Abagond threads. Why not re-visit them? The information and histories you point out have been dissected there already.
Reading your contribution here provides a clear illustration of your unwillingness and inability to learn. You project a stubbornness and brick wall mentality in the face of mounting clear non-contestable historical evidence. Yet you still refuse to accept or take any of this evidence on board. Preferring to continue, year after year, espousing your own distorted, twisted and disingenuous ignorant views?
I’d call that “Racist” (R word) or white supremacist ideology in my book. Its definitely not “unconscious” because you’ve been called out on this many times before already. You’ve just chosen simply to ignore it…
LikeLike
Matari:
Kwamla:
I’ve yet to read a single refutation of those points. Feel free to contribute the first one.
For the record, simply “name checking” a type of argument or fallacy is not the same thing as actually producing an effective argument.
LikeLike
@Randy
Enlighten us what you know about that. How did that mountain figure into the sacred beliefs of the pre-Sioux occupants? Have you found verifiable research on that?
You do know, however, that as interesting and important that may be, it is actually incidental to the point of the post – ie, how LHOTP, a widely read Children’s book is used to reinforce white supremacist ideology. The sacred beliefs of native peoples other than the Sioux toward the mountain that white Americans call Mount Rushmore is quite off topic from the racist messages contained in LHOTP, but it could still be interesting (as a “by the way” off-topic sort of note).
Even if you managed to uncover some educational material used by the Sioux to denounce and marginalize the tribes with warred with and subdued, it would be less off topic, but still a strawman argument as that just devolves into “See, they weren’t exactly goody two shoes either” – a variation of the fig leaf broken record argument that does not disprove or detract from the original premise of the post.
LikeLike
To Brothawolf:
We are starting to get off topic but I will reply to your comment.
Brothawolf said:
I seriously doubt it over there. Violent crime would have some news coverage in the front page of newspapers and during the first few minutes of the local news, and since yours was a case of “black-on-white”, it would definitely have been reported somewhere. But I really can’t understand why yours was passed over.
Are you saying that you think a White guy being assaulted by Black people in a town of 400,000 (in an urban area of over 5 million..) would make the front page of a local newspaper? There’s is way too much going on in Oakland for the press to pay any attention and I never expected such coverage. Most assuredly I was never contacted by anyone in press.
If you don’t believe me you can Google the two local newspapers for Oakland sfgate and insidebayarea.
In them you will find little coverage for robbery or assaults.
I have a comment in moderation (Abagond you can delete it..) that was more lengthy but we are definitely getting off topic. If you would like to continue the discussion we can do so on the open thread.
LikeLike
@ Phil White
“That’s the exact definition we use over at http://www.whiterabbitradio.net.”–Yet my visit to this site did not yield that definition nor was that definition used when you attempted to paint it as something else above. I prefer if we not play games here as I assumed you were an adult.
“Inflicting conditions of life (mass immigration lowering wages, offshoring jobs lowering wages,) to destroy in whole or in par.”—Everyone in this country is experiencing this. So that does not prove your idea of genocide against white people. Better argument would be genocide against Americans.
“Programs to reduce births like pushing white women to date blacks (this is mostly done by media, which accurately calls itself “The Permanent Government”)”—That is not reducing birth. These women are still having kids…just not the lily white ones and these women are not forced to date these men they obviously want to. Take it up with the white women. Oh and you now have to provide proof to these said programs as you have made the claim they exist.
“pushing abortion and homosexual relationships”—Not just a white thing . If I am not mistaken it is blacks who have the highest abortion rates, but I could be wrong.
“forcing states to legally recognize interracial marriage”—So this does not stop or force marriages of the same race to stop.
“of course mass non-white immigration, including to Ireland and Iceland etc.”—Or dare I say mass white immigration. Gasp. People do it for a variety of reasons but not forced. I see whites have no problem immigrating into Africa. Yet to hear that complaint.
“As to masses of whites, the colonial period ended 50 years ago.”—Perhaps but that has not stop whites from moving to Africa and taking land in Africa. Dwelling on land that they ran Africans off of etc.
“And you are using colonialism to try and justify genocide. There is no way to justify genocide of white’s or anybody else.”—No, but yet you have yet to realize that based on your idea of genocide you have just justified it for non whites. My how those contradictions catch people up.
LikeLike
Jefe:
Recall that the point being made was about editorial bias. The sacred beliefs of the pre-Sioux and the Sioux seem equally non-relevant. To choose the Sioux in the Dakotas as the people/place/time to begin considering social justice claims (out of a continuous, unbroken historical narrative) seems rather arbitrary and indicative of a partisan perspective.
LikeLike
@Phil White
It’s the moron mantra guys, nothing to see here.
Seriously guys, you don’t have to feed every troll that meanders into this blog just because Abagond doesn’t ban them. He’s basically saying “get out of America”. Most of us would happily comply, I don’t want to live in a country with a troglodyte like him for one, but there’s nowhere else to go right now. (and don’t mention “The Motherland”. We don’t have a Motherland and you gotta deal with it. http://www.modernghana.com/news/12934/1/for-african-americans-in-ghana-the-grass-isnt-alwa.html )
LikeLike
@D.
But Phil is trying so hard. LOL
LikeLike
@Sharina
Yes, but there’s no winning a debate with someone who operates on base emotion, because there is no debate to be had. He’s simply going to give us an intriguing glimpse into the minds of the paranoid, but there is no unraveling the Fractal Wrongness of his beliefs. You’d be here until Judgement Day; don’t waste your energy.
LikeLike
@Randy
I think that was the point of the post itself, not so much about YOUR point about the post.
We all have received one side of the narrative about the experience from Laura Ingalls Wilder. Abagond asks us to look at the narrative from a different angle. Sure, the alternate narrative has editorial bias, on purpose. But it has no less editorial bias than Little House on the Prairie. Yet LHOTP is heralded as a heroic children’s book, teaching children about courage and persistence. It does it by inserting editorial bias that teaches and maintains white supremacist racial hierarchy. Now what would happen if we flip the script? is it “more objective”? maybe, maybe not. But it shows us that LHOTP is in no way wholesome, honest or objective either. We can still use the book to educate children if we also alert them to that editorial bias and racist ideologies that it teaches. It can help children to be more critical.
Regarding the Lakota Sioux, I really don’t think the point of Abagond’s post was specifically about social justice claims (but correct me if I am wrong). Regarding claims for social justice, there will be alternative or even opposing viewpoints. We are taught the US Govt perspective. I think Abagond is not arguing for the unequivocal social justice claims to benefit the Lakota Sioux. But we need to have an honest debate about it. The flip side narrative is no less objective or less reasonable than the one-sided narrative we have heard all our lives.
LikeLike
In Addition to deconstructing American history and Contemporary american media ,the comments especially have brought into focus groups of native americans I was total unfamiliar with nor motivated to find out more about.
And another issue presents itself – you can either call the collective b.a.e (before the arrival of europeans) population of the american continent native americans or indians, even though the multiple tribes/peoples/societies probably had no name for the continent nor a collective name for the people of the continent.
The same maybe said of africa and south america ,as well as many locations and societies globally.
LikeLike
@D.
True, but it is interesting none the less watching how unstable people like him really are. It amazes me how much they truly believe what they believe. With a passion no doubt.
LikeLike
@ Randy
You are the one who brought up the Sioux. And Da Jokah is the one who made it about social justice claims, which in turn became “Abagond thinks whites are uniquely evil.” Wow. The post itself is pretty simple: it is about the racism of one book, “Little House in the Prairie”. It is whitewashed commenters who are squirting their squid ink all over it – for reasons that are not hard to guess.
LikeLike
I was at a pow-wow a couple years ago, and some folks told me that “Sioux” was considered derogatory, that it meant “Snake” and that it was a name given by the Blackfeet to the Lakota, who resent it still.
LikeLike
to :grin and bear it
“@Asplund. Here is the problem I have with your so-called “arguments”:”
That was one of the best reasoned counters I’ve read so far in regards to these antagonistic commentors.
I have a hypothesis that the white population is very vigilant for any expressions of resistance and rejection of their hegemony.
Abagond’s blog represents such expression ,whereas in the past and still very much in the present ,direct violence is used ,it is not always the most effective ,efficient or even possible means of suppression and subjugation.
Thus the persistent and continuous resorting to a sophisticated form of deception and harassment.
However what keeps me coming back are two things above and beyond abagonds skillful writing and interesting and meaningful topics for discussion.
They are the numerous intelligent and insightful commenters and the victories attained at the expense injustice and irrationally.
LikeLike
To Grin and Bear it, Abagond, and Jefe:
Yes to what Jefe said! Every single one of us who’ve had a Western Civilization class have read Mein Kampf. But…it was read with a critical eye, rather than a celebratory one. Could you imagine if that book was presented in the same regard as the Little House books? Would any school district even think of telling Jewish parents and others offended by such a notion, to just get over it?
Are you familiar with Charles Dickens’ villainous character Fagin (Jewish) in Oliver Twist or Shakespeare’s Shylock (the character whose name became an ethnic slur for Jews..) in the Merchant of Venice? Fagin is clearly a villain and his behavior included many stereotypes that were directed towards Jews in Victorian Britain. Shylock is somewhat of a villain but we see why he became one. (Because of his treatment by gentiles..) Both of these books are read in High Schools and Colleges around the country and have been made into movies many times.
Clearly Ma’s comments towards Native Americans were flagrantly racist, even by the standards of the time.. but Pa’s character acted a foil towards Ma’s racism by expressing sympathy and understanding toward the plight of the Osage. That said I would agree that the book probably should not be taught to children, or at least not without some clear guidance.
LikeLike
Mbeti- Since you love it so much I decided to write a rebuttal:
“That’s what you said, even as you proceeded to take up at least 10% of the comment section talking not about Laura Ingalls Wilder, The Little House series of books, and the way in which they are presented to American schoolchildren, but about how this blog paints whites as evil, excuse me, *uniquely evil*, and how the Osage were savages too, and how people are derided as “fake indians” (even after they loudly proclaim and identify as white). When told that you are derailing the discussion, you then go on to talk about Stalinist tactics and being banned from this blog.”
I was responding to comments- if I was derailing it was those commenters. Doesn’t matter now, as Abagond created a post for that specific issue to be discussed.
“First off, how can you be banned from the blog yet still comment so profusely? Secondly, how does any of what you posted relate to Laura Ingalls Wilder, Little House on the Prairie, the racist indoctrination of American schoolchildren, Waziyatawin or anything else mentioned in the text of the original post? Thirdly, even if Abagond wanted to use HIS blog to paint white people as uniquely evil, that’s his prerogative. It’s his blog, and if he does not want it to contribute to the great white myth making machine that keeps folks feeling good about themselves, that’s HIS option. There are millions of other web sites, magazines, books, newspapers, movies, TV shows, cultural institutions, educational curricula, etc. that do just that, and if he’s found a niche that allows him to paint an alternative universe, so be it. It really shouldn’t cause you so much concern — especially since you don’t “care about this specific post” or discussing “this specific issue.””
Of course it’s his option. If he wants free and open discourse, everyone has to deal with folks like me, who have may apply a critical voice. As far as I know, we have to the right to comment as well, until Abagond takes it away that is.
“Furthermore, since, this blog not only offends your sensibilities and puts you on the defensive, but also renders you indifferent to the topics being discussed, why are you here? Sane, rational people don’t spend time commenting on topics that don’t interest them or visiting blogs that offend their sensibilities. For example, I don’t visit Storm Front or read the comments on YouTube because that brand of nonsense doesn’t interest me. I don’t learn anything from them, I don’t care about what they have to say, I don’t feel I can be enlightened by any of
it, I’m not even curious. I don’t try to correct their assertions, disrupt their discussions or even offer my two cents. I’m also not trying to shut them down or point out what I perceive to be their hypocrisy. Because I don’t care about them. And that’s what it means to be indifferent.”
I’ve been following this blog for almost two years bro. I’ve only begun to speak up recently as I felt this was a new trend. I’m not a racist, nor am I anti-Abagond. I’m a long-term fan of the blog. Sometimes things are more complex than they appear on the surface.
LikeLike
Jefe:
So how is it a benefit to replace one biased, myopic narrative with another biased, myopic narrative of a different polarity?
Jefe:
I’d guess that nearly every story of courage and persistence throughout history was told by people living on “stolen land” who were biased towards those in outgroups. I don’t see how that’s a particularly relevant detail or one which diminishes lessons on overcoming hardship.
Jefe:
I’m all for teaching children to be more critical, but the opposite of a “narrow, biased history” is not a narrow, biased history with a different polarity. The opposite of that is a comprehensive, holistic viewpoint which thusfar seems to be missing from the debate.
LikeLike
All it was was the account of Laura ingalls wilders life. It was different times and people had a different perspective. It’s a part of American history, and History isn’t fair it just is. Just be thankful you live in a time that people are starting to open their minds.
LikeLike
Whites did the right thing. Those savages got what they deserved.
LikeLike
@ Bobby M
You’re a bit ‘savage’ yourself, mate.
Come on, you are just wasting your time and everyone else’s with your inane, lazy and racist comments.
LikeLike
How am I savage? I’m white.
LikeLike
“If anything, some of them recognize that white privilege is at play when whites control the system to disadvantage Asians with the Model Minority stereotype.”
Well, that certainly does destroy the stereotype of “smart Asians” if they aren’t even smart enough to take over the system where they’re under a disadvantage.
You can always tell a leftist is grasping at straws when they blame microaggressions for macroproblems. Your status anxiety is clearly off the charts.
LikeLike
These are the books I learned to read on starting from when I was 5. I remember noticing the racism against Native Americans and Blacks (in one of the last books they have a blackface show). This happens a lot in books written before the Civil Rights Movement, and yeah it’s uncomfortable for people of color because you have to accept that the author of this book that you’re enjoying would have looked down on you. Edward Said writes about this. One way I deal with it is by imagining what the story was from the people of color’s perspective.
LikeLike
[…] make settlements out of wilderness (Wilderness where there were already people living, of course. This story makes me not want to re-read the novels, because hello, […]
LikeLike
@Kiwi
“However, unlike Asians, the Jews have a card that the Asians do not. And that is their whiteness. Because they benefit from white privilege, they have become much more successful than Asians.”–What magnificent circular reasoning!
“You can always tell a dumb person is grasping at straws when they call anyone they disagree with a leftist.”– I can certainly tell when a butthurt leftist is butthurt once they equate proper observation of left-wing critical tropes with stupidity.
“Your stupidity is clearly off the charts.”–Projection apparently isn’t just for movie theaters.
LikeLike
I happen to be near Mansfield, MO and looking for a historic site to visit I came across Laura Ingalls Wilder’s farm museum. Reading the website description, I came across the words “Laura excelled as a parent, teacher, cook, journalist, farmer, activist and a staunch democrat” so I decided to look up what the hell “staunch democrat” actually meant when the books were written. Anyway, thanks for the new view from different eyes. It’s always refreshing to hear other’s views.
LikeLike
[…] The whiteness of Laura Ingalls Wilder by Abagond […]
LikeLike
You shouldn’t get salty over something being accurate to the time. The story is viewed through the eyes of Laura, so of course she sees them as the good guys. Also it was not considered ride to call the Indians savages because they were viewed as such, just like the Romans and barbarians. The final thing is that, by fact, no human is native to the land of America and therefore the right of conquest rules supreme, in that day and age the advanced took from those with less, that was just the way the world worked back then.
LikeLike
@ GodSend8467
“…no human is native to the land of America and therefore the right of conquest rules supreme”
Soooooo, that means that anyone who strides onto your property, plants a flag in your yard, loots your home and kills or carts away your family members is entitled to do so because “the right of conquest rules supreme”?
LikeLiked by 3 people
@ GodSend8467
“Also it was not considered ride to call the Indians savages because they were viewed as such, just like the Romans and barbarians.”
What you’re actually saying here is: “White people didn’t consider it rude to call Indians savages.” That doesn’t mean Indians were ok with whites calling them savages.
“The final thing is that, by fact, no human is native to the land of America”
If you’re going to take it to that extreme, then no human is native to any land except Africa. If there are no native peoples of America, neither are there any native peoples of Europe, Asia, or Oceania.
“therefore the right of conquest rules supreme”
The right of conquest was part of European international law at the time, but it doesn’t follow that the Indians had the same beliefs about the right of conquest.
“in that day and age the advanced took from those with less, that was just the way the world worked back then”
By the time Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote her books, that idea was falling into disfavor. The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 had already begun the removal of the right to conquest from Western international law. She could have written her books as being informed from the current perspective, looking at the past more honestly.
Also, Laura’s family settled illegally on Osage land and were eventually forced by the U.S. government to leave their illegal homestead. She knew her family wasn’t in the right. She could have written a more even-handed account instead of vilifying the Indians and holding up her law-breaking parents as pioneer heroes.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Update: The US Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) has removed Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from one of its awards. The “anti-Native and anti-Black sentiments in her work” and “expressions of stereotypical attitudes” were “inconsistent with ALSC’s core values” – BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44604844
LikeLike
I am reading her “Little Town on the Prairie” (1941). It has a minstrel show in it. I will be doing a post on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ugg, the minstrel show. I remember reading these books as a child (1970s)
and wondering how she could be speaking of people as “other”. I remember distinctly having a sensation of an unraveling inside.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Update: One of my examples: “There were no settlers. Only Indians lived there.” I now find out that before 1953 it did not say “settlers”. It said “people”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Paige
Hey, another Paige! 🙂
@ abagond
“Update: One of my examples: ‘There were no settlers. Only Indians lived there.’ I now find out that before 1953 it did not say ‘settlers’. It said ‘people’.”
Wow, that statement indicates an extremely tribalistic mentality on Wilder’s part. It reminds me of how Toni Morrison said, “From my perspective there are only black people. When I say ‘people’, that’s what I mean.” I’ve also heard a song with the lyric, “We met a lot of people and girls.” Those kind of statements always make me do a double take.
LikeLike
The Feds and the White Nationalists be like “You are all anti-white by discussing this and are public enemy number 1.” LOL
LikeLike
@ Paige
The fuller Toni Morrison quote is (with the part you quoted in bold):
See:
This is way different than what Wilder means by “There were no people. Only Indians lived there.”
Wilder’s White gaze is dehumanizing and genocidal. Morrison’s Black gaze is defensive and psychologically necessary in a society where the White gaze is unavoidable and dehumanizing.
Conflating Morrison and Wilder in this case would be like conflating Muhammad Ali’s Black pride with David Duke’s White pride.
LikeLike
The European demographic has ultimate privilege that prevails the globe when it comes to what type of television programming they can enjoy. These shows are broadcasts everywhere around the world in various languages. I wonder if the subtitles or dubbing omits the subtle or overt racist dialogues? Perhaps something is lost in translation. People of color endure such programming that has become endearing to them despite the hateful context.
LikeLike
I always thought the girl from the ‘90210’ had ties to Little House on the Prairie. Or was that another show? I never watched this show much obviously.
LikeLike
@ TeddyBearDaddy
IIRC:
one of the actresses on 90210 had a bit part (reocurring?) as a child on “Little House on the Prairie”
Melissa Gilbert who played Laura is in real life the older sister of Sara Gilbert from “Roseanne”
LikeLike
The past was very different, doesn’t mean you can’t take a lesson from every aspect of it. You’re extreamist like focus on race has literally made you and many other journalists racists. Somehow you justify your racism by exclaiming that white people are the only ones that can be racist. Me personally, I’d like to know where to cash in my white privilege because I’m struggling in ways only a minority should struggle in, soooo if you could point me to the nearest privilege broker I’d appreciate it. Until then, keep your racist opinions to yourself. Unjustified white hatred is just as bad as unjustified hatred towards any other race you fucking bigot.
LikeLike
@ abagond
“Wilder’s White gaze is dehumanizing and genocidal. Morrison’s Black gaze is defensive and psychologically necessary in a society where the White gaze is unavoidable and dehumanizing.
Conflating Morrison and Wilder in this case would be like conflating Muhammad Ali’s Black pride with David Duke’s White pride.”
As I see it, both Wilder and Morrison’s gazes are dehumanizing. I mean, they’re literally saying that the only beings they consider people are the ones who have the same skin color as them!
However, because the White gaze was used to justify genocide, it has more potential to be dangerous. It’s kind of like how German pride is generally viewed with more suspicion than Irish pride. The statement, “From my perspective there are only German people. When I say ‘people’, that’s what I mean” would rightfully cause more alarm than the statement, “From my perspective there are only Irish people. When I say ‘people’, that’s what I mean.” The latter is still somewhat dehumanizing, though.
Even though Morrison’s dehumanizing statement was made as a defensive reaction to a racist society, it nevertheless places way too much emphasis on the social category of race by using it to determine who deserves personhood. “The hate that hate created” is still hate, and likewise “the dehumanization that dehumanization created” is still dehumanization. I don’t think dehumanizing others is ever psychologically necessary or justified.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
The actress in question was and is Shannon Daugherty or however you spell it.
But I thank you about finding out about the Gilbert sisters. I find no fault in anybody trying to find opportunities for themselves in those types of situations. Sara Gilbert is very too liberal and didn’t age as well as she could have from her time with the syndicate ‘Roseanne’ series.
LikeLike
OMG, I know Abagond let this comment slip through as a pet lizard.
So, it is not fair that white people should have to struggle in ways like a minority has to? Minorities should struggle in various ways, but non-minorities should not? What is that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So…I have weighed in on this conversation in the past. My professional life as a historian who specializes in LIW, presenting educational public history programs around the US and consulting for museums (as well as various other LIW-related affiliations) limits what I can say publicly at this moment in time. I will say this: all nine of LIW’s books are historical fiction, not fact nor autobiography, and were written and published in the 1930s and 40s when LIW the author was in her 60s and 70s. All nine books were edited to one degree or another by her daughter Rose Wilder Lane with rhe exception of the final installment, The First Four Years, which was edited and published by Rose’s lawyer and heir, Roger Lea MacBride, who did so in 1971, after the passing of LIW (1867-1957) and RWL (1886-1968). All nine books contain passages, situations, and/or dialogue that is racist and/or dehumanizing to Indigenous people of several tribal affiliations, and several of the books do the same with African Americans. The books also contain tropes of the “good Black” or the “Noble Savage,” and demonstrate varying degrees of nuance in terms of the characters’ attitudes and reactions to non white characters in the stories, and general commentary on race in general as seen through the eyes of several characters. The character of Laura grows up in the series, with her age beginning at going-on-five in the first book, LITTLE HOUSE IN THE BIG WOODS (this is the one that had the “no people, only Indians” line, which a reader objected to directly with LIW and the author responded: “of course they are people,” apologizing for her obtuse sentence, and directed the publisher to change “people” to “settlers.” Unfortunately, the same did not happen with other racist passages in the other books). By the end of the series, Laura is married, a mother, and about 22 years old. As mentioned elsewhere, the series contains a chapter with a minstrel show. In that chapter, the town is getting together for winter “entertainments,” and in this instance, Laura’s Pa is the star of the minstrel show. The Laura character thinks the show is the funniest thing she has ever seen. So, there is a lot of room for question as to how characters who, in the much earlier book LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE, seem somewhat sympathetic to Osage being displaced (and little Laura is shielded by her parents from much of the reality of squatting and genocide but still she protests Osage being forced to move, saying “it isn’t fair!”). In LIW’s long-unpublished writings, she did make a declaration with words to the effect that she would have fought harder/wouldn’t have blamed “Indians” if they had scalped more settlers, etc. This, she sympathized while still using racial stereotypes.
In my work, I don’t shy away from these discussions. The most common question raised in my (intentionally interactive) public programs where I present living history in the persona of an 1890s LIW (she was an adult but it was before she began writing) is, “Why does Ma hate the Indians?” The second most common question is “Why did you move so much?” Both of these questions and situations stem from the same cause: the US government’s doctrine of Manifest Destiny, as promoted via the 1862 Homestead Act (and related Indian Removal Act, “Re-education” policy, 1873 Timber Culture Act, etc.). The biggest thing I endeavor to get across is that LIW has been held up to teach about American History but generally that means a heavily biased view that does not tell most of the context nor reality of the era…because she was writing. My work is to bring context to the conversations, and demonstrate how much is missing when we hold up a writer of children’s fiction as a source. LIW is a springboard for telling this era of America’s history, but she wasn’t writing history. She wasn’t even writing autobiography. And when so many of her readers fail to recognize that, it does us all a disservice.
Lastly: in my work, I have found that some of the ugliest, most racist sectors of the population hold LIW up as a hero. The ALSC decision announcement has brought some of the scariest racists out into the open, and I have received numerous communications both publicly and privately that indicate many white nationalists are likely to take advantage of this decision to hold her up as a martyr for their cause. That is utterly unsurprising but horrif, too.
LIW made important contributions to literature as an early voice for girls in literature, and she helped to legitimize children’s literature as a genre. She made American history more accessible to many readers. She sparked many children’s interest in later becoming historians (myself included). But there are a lot of problems in her work, period. Those of us who study her have a responsibility to acknowledge the problematic content and remind everyone that relying on her fiction for one’s history education is to ignore a lot of facts, context, and indeed the difference between fiction and nonfiction.
LikeLike
…Apologies for my typos and run-on sentences. Remind me to stop trying to write comments of this length on my phone. And if you had the stamina to read my comment, thanks for taking the time.
LikeLike
@Malachi Gibberish Mitchell
Look, this is a case study of the writer Laura Ingalls Wilder. I agree to the point that this writer probably grew up in a shelter of the ‘white supremacy’ of her times that disregarded non-whites as insignificant so examining her and the BS show is almost mute. But with the AssWipe in office at this point along with your confession that you as a ‘white person’ should not have to struggle like a minority is the reason why a blog like this exists. The past still conjures its ways due to the unique experience of POC.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Melanie
It was a good comment.
A lot of times when I’m on my phone and have looong comment, I type it up first in the Notes app, proof it there, then cut and paste.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have read these books recently and pretty much everything you say has been taken out of context. Some Indian tribes murdered white settlers, that is why ma was afraid – I’m sure most people would in that situation. You have given such a false context to these statements – it really is quite sickening.
LikeLike
@ Don Bolliven
“Some Indian tribes murdered white settlers, that is why ma was afraid”
Then maybe Ma and the other settlers shouldn’t have been illegally squatting on the Indians’ land. Laura’s family was there illegally, not just in the eyes of the Indians but also according to the federal government. This is alluded to in Abagond’s post and is spelled out in no uncertain terms in the comments by Melanie, whose career has focused on the life and works of Laura Ingalls Wilder.
If Ma would have stayed off land where she was not supposed to be legally, she would have had nothing to fear.
LikeLike
Intersectional and wokist racist bullshit. Modern racism has changed his face.
LikeLike