Murder is a pretend concept. Morality is a pretend concept. The value of human lives is a pretend concept. Our entire "civilization" is built upon arbitrary acceptance of a pretend game with pretend rules created by playground bullies with pieces of paper they pretend make them more important than other people.
I'm ready for humanity to grow the fuck up and stop pretending.
You've discovered social contract theory. The issue is that when we stop "pretending" en mass we just get State of Nature/State of War which means getting gang raped by raiders until a warlord with a big enough dick comes along to institute Tyranny.
I'm ordering the materials to make my Wasteland Warlord shoulder pads from Amazon during the sale today. I'm gonna scalp so many mayos once we descend into anarchy!
I'm ready for humanity to grow the fuck up and stop pretending.
What an utterly stupid conclusion. It's like saying "flying is a construct, I'm ready for this plane to go down". The whole reason why you're even here to say whatever bullshit you want is because of all the "pretending".
Looks like r/drama really is full of mentally impaired people after all.
/u/leftofmarx English sentence structure is a pretend concept. Why are you using proper grammar when it is something humans made up? And don't tell me you are "just following orders" you were taught in school like a bootlicker.
The english language is in many ways a toll of imperialism. It was spread around the world to ease the transition of many cultures into the British colonial empire. Continuing to use english betrays your imperialist sympathies.
Italian or American? Asian or American? See above. Also, Italy is in Europe last I checked. Yes, I know there's a history of some whites not being considered white due to their particular background (Irish, Ashkenazim, etc) but they've always passed, and they can always gain whiteness through assimilation and code switching and virtue signalling.
This is why culture matters, more than DNA. Blood quantum is a colonizer concept. DNA doesn't say who you are, it only says who your ancestors were.
You were somehow sure that guy you were responding to in the thread was a colonizer even though you have no idea who he is, so I thought you might be able to tell me about Obama.
Black people can be colonizers if they're assimilated and do colonizer things like run for office. That includes those descended from Africans who were enslaved (which, btw, stop calling people "slaves". It ignores that someone else is enslaving them).
And no, being descendants of Africans who were enslaved is not a "blood quantum" explanation, because it's not a test to prove who you are.
So participating in democracy is now a colonizer thing, huh?
I'm not sure this is a good road to go down, man. You've eliminated every option except for revolution in your mind. I don't think you're going to like revolution if and when it comes.
I said running for office, not participating in democracy. Please replace your Schoolhouse Rock delusions with actual knowledge about how the world works.
You've eliminated every option except for revolution in your mind.
Awesome. Go me.
I don't think you're going to like revolution if and when it comes.
Ok, so let's go over this with hopefully a relative simple analogy.
When you are baking bread in an oven, at some point it becomes toast, can you tell me exactly when it becomes toast? Is there a certain point when the bread becomes toast or is it a gradual change?
So let me get this straight, you are saying that there is nowherence between a post revolution state and a pre revolution state just like there is no difference between bread that has been toaster and bread that has not been toasted, am I getting that stupid line of reasoning right?
No not really, you have not elaborated at all beyond the fact that the "it" of revolution is likely going to happen (or is happening) gradually, which did nothing to contradict my point that you would long be dead before you could enjoy any of its fruits.
Well no, you claimed that there would be no singular event, which I then posited to you that toast does not have a singular moment when it goes from being bread to toast, which you then gave a stupid reply. So you have not really elaborated anything beyond the fact that you don't understand how analogies work.
Yeah, which is why I'm using yours to explain why you don't understand revolution.
What you're describing, is like the common lay definition of revolution...like the American War of Independence, or the Soviet Revolution. The bread was toasted, but otherwise nothing happened. It's the same bread as before, just toasted. So not really a revolution.
Or, I understood the analogy and dismissed the comparison as irrelevant but used the same analogy to show why it was irrelevant. Levels, yo. Perhaps you just couldn't keep up.
That's kind of the point of dismissing something, heh. If your point is so inane due to a fundamental flaw in your reasoning (in this case, that a revolution which doesn't change much isn't really a revolution), then it is more important to point that out than to address the point itself.
But since that seems to complicated for you, I'll tell you that yes, you're right that there's no real demarkable instant at which bread becomes toast (of course, that's completely subjective too...some prefer lightly toasted bread, others burnt, so depending on individual opinions, each person could surely say "that's now toast" at a different point), and sure, there's probably not going to be any demarkable instant at which "the revolution" occurs.
But again, your analogy is easily dismissed by the fact that toast is still bread, and thus easily identified as having been bread before the process which made it toast. The same is not true for an actual revolution. A more appropriate analogy is therefore to start out with bread and end up with a watermelon.
Sadly, I still don't think you'll follow this, because your analytical skills are pretty bad.
You are beginning to contradict yourself. You made the claim that the revolution would not be an "it" singular moment, but the transition from bread to watermelon is a pretty clear shift and could be much more easily demarcated than differing degrees of toasting.
So you kinda got it, after we thought about it for a bit. Good job!
I would say there is a significant difference of fructose ratios, water content,I along with other compounds associated with the fruits of dicots that would provide a much more clear distinction point between bread and watermelon than bread and toast, which is why I used I the latter for the analogy.
Looks like you're finally learning to use Google! At least to look up words you don't know, like "dicot".
But yeah, you're still missing the point. The difference between bread and watermelon isn't the point. Transitioning from one to the other is. The fact that they're so radically different is the reason why it's a good analogy for revolution, and why bread-and-toast isn't.
My buddy, dicots is a term one learns in any ecology or botany course. Don't project the fact that you had to google the term onto me - I have experience with plants
There's nothing being made up on the spot here though...I have deviated from the standard line of "white people are colonizers, most other non-indigenous are just settlers" line. We really just want the colonizers out though. We'll accept the others as refugees or something.
What, specifically, is bullshit about it? You don't like being called a colonizer? Or you don't like being called a settler? You want to be called a proud American, born here, and with just as much right to be here? Like, god-given rights or just constitutional ones?
We're not Americans. "America" was an Italian explorer in the 1500s. Those who are Americans, are European colonists. It's not that difficult to follow.
Surely you understand what "whiteness" is, vs "being white", right? It's kinda like that.
Why does it matter? I'm not going to do anything for you.
I'm just curious what you imagine needs to happen so that indigenous people are happy and colonizers are dealt with in the land that you are living in. Other than telling people to STFU, what needs to be done in the end to dismantle colonialism etc.?
I will stay in Europe, but you still have the problem with colonialism. Why do you refuse to tell me what needs to be done to take care of colonialism where you are living or prefer to live?
The current dystopia is pretty bad... the wealthy enjoy a sort social welfare anarchism: the state doesn't interfere with them in any way yet provides everything for them. The poorest on the other hand live under a totalitarian fascist police state: nothing for them, while everything they do is tightly controlled by the government. In the middle is basically a spectrum between those two points.
But what's great is that, try as they might, the police can't guard everything. It's not that they don't want to, they just don't have the manpower. So those of us who know what to do, are doing it, right under their noses.
which, btw, stop calling people "slaves". It ignores that someone else is enslaving them
This is legit one of the stupidest things I've ever read. By definition if someone is a slave there might must be a slaver. You complete fucking idiot.
No one is inherently a slave. When you talk about, for example, Africans in the United States, the Caribbean, Brazil, etc...by just saying "slaves", you ignore and erase every other part of their existence as humans outside their condition of being enslaved. They were people, with lives and cultures and who happened to be enslaved. It's important because it humanizes them, rather than dehumanizing them, which is how they were enslaved in the first place.
Obviously no one is inherently a slave! Again more idiocy. Calling someone a slave is a decriptor, just like saying that someone is a prostitute (or any other profession) you describes what the person does but does not fully capture who they are as a person because we are talking on fucking /r/drama
Yeah, except no one refers to an entire historical class of prostitutes from one geographical area, who all over a few hundred years years experienced the same conditioned forced upon them by others. They do, when referring to Africans enslaved by whites in the western hemisphere.
Thing is, you're just pulling your objection out of your ass, while my contention is actually something that's been studied by experts for years. You are experiencing cognitive dissonance, and aren't consciously able to process this new information.
My dude, perhaps you should 't take such an Americacentric view when considering the history of slavery in the world.
The user you were talking to gave a specific example of black people coming to the United States to probe your reasoning and you immediately place the idea that all slaves must be from Africa on that.
specific example of black people coming to the United States
Yeah, I shouldn't have responded with a USA-centric answer to this USA-centric question. Gotcha.
how calling people slaves leads to cognitive dissonance
It doesn't. But denying new information about something, just because you've never heard it before and think something else about it, despite having any expertise in the subject, is definitely the result of cognitive dissonance.
Also, I hope you don't actually practice any therapy, with your propensity to call people idiots for bringing up information you've never heard of before.
They were using "slaves" as a descriptor, so your objection to their statement is unclear. Is "involuntary immigrant" a more appropriate descriptor for your tastes, despite the fact it erases the atrocity that happened to them?
That is not cognitive dissonance. That is not xognitive dissonance, particular y when you are making subjective claims that amount tto the notion that using descriptors to describe the rvery real horrific state that being enslaved entails is inappropriate. Just like it is not cognitive dissonance for someone to propose to me that lightning bolts are actually from Zeus - the reality behind the "new information" is important.
Nope. "Africans who were enslaved by whites in the western hemisphere" is fine.
the reality behind the "new information" is important.
Indeed, which is why you should probably value experts over your off-the-cuff opinion. That you don't, is cognitive dissonance. It's a common feature with Americans, who've been taught that their ignorance is as important as an expeet's knowledge.
How is harmful, can you provide evidence that demonstrates this?
And I think slaves is perfectly fine, considering that by definition it is referring to humans that have been enslaved and in no way hides the atrocities of what happened to them, unless you are willing to demonstrate otherwise, y'know, maybe from some of these experts you claim to be referring to as opposed to what appears to be your "off-the-cuff opinion". Then I would be happy to update my schema in regards to how describing slaves as slaves (you know, the kind of relationship where there is a slave and a slaver), and I quote, "ignores that someone else is enslaving them".
That's cool, but there's not much value in your opinion, since you've never studied the issue and are just hearing about it for the first time and making a snap judgment based on nothing but what seems right to you at the time.
That's a pretty common problem with Americans.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Azimov
So far you haven't really presented a true, justified belief. As I have said, you should provide some sort of evidence that your assertion is true. I am not going to take words on the internet from a random at face value.
Surely you have read something that has formed your belief. Maybe something that has scientific evidence to back it up?
I am not going to take words on the internet from a random at face value.
Why not? Given that your position is based on nothing more than just your snap judgment, having no knowledge of the subject, wouldn't "words on the Internet" be at least as valid as that?
Because, the thing is, I could go through the work of citing every academic source there is, and you would still favor your own ignorance. That's because you don't really want "the truth", you just want to think highly of your own opinion, regardless of whether it jibes with fact, because that's how you maintain your personal worldview.
If I'm wrong, and you actually are interested in learning something that possibly goes against what you think you know, then you could easily Google this stuff yourself. But I doubt that's the case, because if it was, you would've done that from the start, before ever commenting in the first place.
I am not so vested that I am going to pour through countless sociology and psychology research articles to find some evidence, especially considering how confident you are of it's existence depiste the fact that you likely have. Ever read any such evidence and are instead inferring connections that simply aren't there so you can back your unfounded conclusion.
This is very typical for a lot of individuals - you acquire surface level understanding of something and then immediately extrapolate it to other things without bothering to dig further.
Lol, so you're trying to say that I'm doing what I just said that you're doing. Cute, but silly.
Funny thing, if I were doing that (I'm not, I actually study this stuff on an academic level), then again, my statement as a rando on the Internet would still be just as valid as you think yours is, so again, why not pick mine? Especially since you're not vested in it.
Because I don't accept comments from random strangers on the internet as fact, and thus when someone suggests that I update my paradigm I want to see evidence of their claims.
What kinda weak sauce academic doesn't have articles memorized on the subject they study? Sheesh what do they teach you undergrads these days?
accept comments from random strangers on the internet as fact
Oh? I wonder where you got your inane worldview to begin with. 🤔
undergrads
I got my doctorate 17 years ago. I do have them memorized still, as it's still necessary for my day to day work. I'm not doing the work to copy/paste them because you won't "update your paradigm", no matter how much evidence you have.
you make a claim you should back it up.
Ahhh, that old Internet chestnut. If I thought for one second you were in the slightest bit open to new information, I'd be happy to help you. Sadly, you're just fishing for Internet Tough Guy™ fodder.
Tell you what, do your own Google search, then argue against it on your own. You don't really need me for that.
I didn't realize I had given you anything about my world view other than the fact that I find slave to be an apt and non-dehumanizing descriptor for people that have been enslaved, that your understanding of cognitive dissonance is a bit off, and that I don't accept random statements from strangers.
I am more than happy to learn something new, but as I said I am not going to spend time to sift through material - I have plenty to read without that. If you have an article that supports your claim I will read it. This does not mean I won't be critical of it, but I would at least read it and if it .Ames sense, I would be willing to admit I was wrong.
But hey, we can keep playing this intellectual online debate chicken all day, although I will definitely stop responding at some point if we keep on with the flexing.
I didn't say when, but you are more than welcome to stop on your own. I know my prose can sometimes be alluring, but you don't have to let me live in your head.
I don’t know why i get as butthurt as I do when folks make the “country founded on immigrants and therefore this is a traditional value” argument.
The idea of letting people in and treating them not horribly is at the earliest a Reagan-era view. Prior to the 1960s, yea, we let them in, but we were stripping families, denying benefits they paid into. There was a CA senator that called for a whatever-the-term-for-micro-genocide-is (pogrom?) of all the Chinese living in San Francisco about a century ago.
I say this as someone who unironically thinks we should unlock the gate down south and just leave a guestbook for folks to sign, but the left are morons when it comes to the US and immigration.
Its common for the left (or anyone in America really) to hype up parts of the American mythos if they believe it supports their positions. You also see it with the Democrats new found obsession with patriotism because of the Russia/election scandal. I'm sure once immigration becomes less of a hot topic they'll go back to reminding all of us of America very problematic history in regards to immigration and race.
All that "no-one-is-illegal" means is that legality and legislation is a construct that humans have made, and that nobody should be stuck in a prison for crossing an imaginary line.
/u/redditoverki11 Thinking that an enclosed space that you are guarded in and prevented from leaving is a "prison" is also a social construct. All you have to do is think of it a different way and suddenly it's a different thing.
For example, I like to think of the immigrant detention centres as holiday camps and the Holocaust as a bake sale. Why don't people like you simply understand that they're just social constructs and so it's dumb to be upset about them.
You see, when Europeans immigrated to the US and the natives let them stay, they murdered Native Americans and stole all their land, that’s why we should let these immigrants in.
I have as much right to be here as anyone else. I didn't kill anyone or push them out of this land to live here, and I can't change what my ancestors did, no matter how terrible it was, but I can advocate for the abolition of imaginary lines so anybody can settle wherever they want to, so long as it is a peaceful coexistence.
The "nobody is illegal" stuff on this girl's shirt makes a lot more sense from an anarchist point of view. What it means is that legality is a social construct, and is completely subjective and arbitrary. Nobody should be stuffed in a cage for crossing an imaginary line that someone decided upon one day.
Because nobody owns the Earth. The moment you start restricting people to keep out of your precious territory is the moment you create a state. As long as I can peacefully coexist in an area, then I have as much right to be there as anybody else.
Okay hippie, but why does that give you the right to be here?
The moment you start restricting people to keep out of your precious territory is the moment you create a state.
So it's cool if I come live with you in your home, and bring a hundred of my friends and relatives too? And we take so much of your space, eat all your food, and use all your stuff so that you die? Cool.
As long as I can peacefully coexist in an area
Obviously you can't though, heh. Maybe if there were just a few of you, but there's 450 million of you here, and you decided that you run the place and get to decide how things happen here. Sorry, but that's not gonna work, especially if it becomes an anarchist world.
So it's cool if I come live with you in your home, and bring a hundred of my friends and relatives too? And we take so much of your space, eat all your food, and use all your stuff so that you die? Cool.
There is a huge, huge difference between private property and personal property. There is nothing wrong with keeping people out of your house, front yard, or the field you till, because its personal property.
Okay hippie, but why does that give you the right to be here?
I could say the same thing to anybody else. There are no restrictions, so I have a right to be anywhere I please, so long as I peacefully coexist.
Obviously you can't though, heh.
Obviously I can't? Uhh, what?
Maybe if there were just a few of you, but there's 450 million of you here, and you decided that you run the place and get to decide how things happen here. Sorry, but that's not gonna work, especially if it becomes an anarchist world.
Yeah, obviously that isn't anarchist. 450 million people can live wherever the fuck they please so long as they peacefully coexist in an anarchist world. I said nothing about them deciding that they run the place and deciding how things happen. They can do that so long as they don't force their rules on other people. That's anarchism.
Do you think that if America becomes anarchist you are just going to kick everybody out that isn't indigenous? If you really think that, then you aren't an anarchist.
There is nothing wrong with keeping people out of your house, front yard, or the field you till, because its personal property.
Yeah, we tried that. You said it was yours.
And now you, specifically, are saying you have a right to be wherever you want to be on earth because no one owns the earth and you were born here and please make CT stop hurting your honeynutfeelios.
450 million people can live wherever the fuck they please so long as they peacefully coexist in an anarchist world.
What if they all want to live in Topeka, KS?
I said nothing about them deciding that they run the place and deciding how things happen. They can do that so long as they don't force their rules on other people. That's anarchism.
So if they come to a place that's already inhabited, it's totally cool to just start cutting down trees and building their own homes and damming the rivers and building nuclear power plants and such, because they're not forcing any rules on anyone! "Nah, you guys can totally join our society if you want, but if you don't, we're still going to build that society on top of yours!"
Do you think that if America becomes anarchist you are just going to kick everybody out that isn't indigenous?
"America" is an Italian explorer from the 1500s.
Our cultures were anarchist long before yours ever heard of the concept.
Go fuck yourself. I'm not the person keeping you out, its the fucking bourgeois that is trying to enforce its artificial boundaries on everyone. I have no problem if you want to live in the same area as I do, as long as we're both peaceful to each other.
You're acting as if I'm the same person as the people that came to the continent during the colonial time and committed genocide and pushed natives out of their home.
What if they all want to live in Topeka, KS?
Then obviously they can't peacefully coexist, because someone will have to get pushed out because of a scarcity of space and resources. That means they can't live there.
So if they come to a place that's already inhabited, it's totally cool to just start cutting down trees and building their own homes and damming the rivers and building nuclear power plants and such, because they're not forcing any rules on anyone! "Nah, you guys can totally join our society if you want, but if you don't, we're still going to build that society on top of yours!"
Creating a society with a hierarchy is against being an anarchist. If you enforce a hierarchy, no matter how consensual, you are still exploiting others. That is not peaceful coexistence.
If the hypothetical society you're talking about somehow does this without a hierarchy, then no, its still not okay because its not a peaceful coexistence. If stuff like this is going to happen then everybody in the area has to reach a consensus about it.
Take it this way. You live out in the woods somewhere, with a stream nearby. There's a decent clearing where you do your farming across the stream, and you use a fallen-down tree that reaches across the stream to reach it. A new neighbor comes by and begins to live in your location, which is absolutely fine, but they are going to chop up that fallen down tree that you use to cross the stream. Obviously, this isn't okay, considering the nearest crossing is a mile away.
"America" is an Italian explorer from the 1500s.
Yeah, and it's also a term that pretty much everybody understands that references either the United States of America, a state that is situated in the middle of the North-American continent, or the North and South American continents as a whole.
You're just being pedantic, difficult, and pretentious. You know exactly what I meant. You're not accomplishing anything by trying to pretend the US doesn't exist.
Our cultures were anarchist long before yours ever heard of the concept.
If you're referring to indigenous cultures, then you're wrong. Most indigenous cultures still enforce a hierarchy upon its members. I know very well that many of their practices are in line with anarchist thinking, and I'm not trying to deny that or strip them of merit, but they sure aren't anarchist if they believe in a hierarchy.
Even if it was true, what fucking difference does it make? Are you trying to gatekeep me out of the anarchist way of thinking? That's exactly what it sounds like.
I'm not the person keeping you out, its the fucking bourgeois
You are the bourgeois, kiddo.
I have no problem if you want to live in the same area as I do
If enough of us move to where you are that it dramatically changes your way of life, then it is not peaceful, period. If we do that back to you (for example, hordes of indigenous swarming over the border from Mexico), then it's justice, to restore us to the land.
A new neighbor comes by and begins to live in your location, which is absolutely fine, but they are going to chop up that fallen down tree that you use to cross the stream. Obviously, this isn't okay, considering the nearest crossing is a mile away.
Yeah, but if your "new neighbor, which is fine" has you outnumbered 100:1, they get to chop down the tree. That's fine too, according to you. All you millions of white people here, even if you made it an anarchist society, aren't just going to not do something you want to do just because we ask you not to.
trying to pretend the US doesn't exist.
Oh how I wish.
If you're referring to indigenous cultures, then you're wrong.
Okay, sure. Go ahead and tell me more about my own culture. White people are always the expert on other people's cultures. 😂
If enough of us move to where you are that it dramatically changes your way of life, then it is not peaceful, period. If we do that back to you (for example, hordes of indigenous swarming over the border from Mexico), then it's justice, to restore us to the land.
Oh, yes, those are indigenous people, not a people created from centuries of rape between the colonizers and the indigenous folk.
Yeah, but if your "new neighbor, which is fine" has you outnumbered 100:1, they get to chop down the tree. That's fine too, according to you. All you millions of white people here, even if you made it an anarchist society, aren't just going to not do something you want to do just because we ask you not to.
That's not at all what I said.
Oh how I wish.
Yeah, me too.
Okay, sure. Go ahead and tell me more about my own culture. White people are always the expert on other people's cultures. 😂
I don't have to be an expert on every social intricacy another culture has. If they maintain a hierarchy, then they are not anarchist.
All I’m getting from you is you think you’re entitled to the land that was traded for or stolen pending on where you call home. And by you I mean you’re long since gone ancestors. Smh and still you pollute this world. At least the Amish live well. I’d wager they should get the land over you. At least they are taking care of it and not crying about something that didn’t happen to them. By that I mean land wasn’t taken from you. You were not born. You are owed nothing. Like the rest of us.
Your ignorance of how historical events affect current conditions isn't what's so hilarious about you, it's how certain you are, despite your ignorance. Truly, an American.
Sorry for the delay, yes the majority of the reservation is free. Different ones get different things. But I can tell you if someone was paying a few of my monthly utilities I’d be doing pretty well off
Getting drunk at one of the few casinos doesn't count, heh. I assure you that you've never met anyone on a reservation whose utilities are paid for by someone else. Sometimes the tribe holds funds collectively, and that might be what you're thinking of, but that's no different from any other trust, and doesn't mean they're not living in poverty...except for the few rezes that have casinos, in which case, consider it an advance on reparations.
Well you are about an ignorant entitled individual. I grew up around many reservations and where casinos may have been apart of you’re entire life they weren’t a thing when I was a kid. Not until I was almost a teenager. So glad you can stereotype me assuming as a Native American I’m also a drunk? Thanks. Really PC of you. And it’s reservation, not a ghetto which is what the term rezes implies. That’s not a cool word for it.
Right because they are trashy and ghetto so “Rez” fits perfectly for those that are run down. Got to love the use of slang. Only young punks ever call them that. The ones who are proud never refer to it that way. And most often don’t live on them either
O my god!?! It’s like you’re almost right. I’ve never interacted with you’re tribe before 😳 and from my interactions with every single other Native American I have met, from coast to coast, the Rez is ghetto and no one wants to live on them. Lmao and trust me I didn’t pick to be Native American. It’s weird but they tend to be some of the most racist people towards others who aren’t full blood...
Being "American" is something you absolutely picked. You don't have to be a sell out Uncle Tonto, but you are...assuming you're really a native at all, which I doubt.
Do you know what GoN is? Go sometime and see if you can even find anyone there, out of thousands of natives from hundreds of tribes, who doesn't use the term "rez".
...and yeah, most of them are ghetto. Only a few have casino money or other stuff like that. That's why almost none of them are free, like you claimed.
This is why it's hard to believe that you are native, or have ever been to a rez, or even know any natives, because you would already know these things and not need me to tell you.
Uncle tonto... again you are a racist. Plain and simple. Come on out to Oklahoma and see for yourself. I’m done defending anything past that point to you. You want to stay ghetto and proud all you 👍
I don't think you understand what racism is. Yet another sign that you're really just some rando white kid. "Uncle Tonto" is a play on "Uncle Tom", the phrase used by black people to describe a black person who constantly sticks up for white people and makes excuses for their shitty behavior towards people of color.
No I’m well aware. I’m also well aware of the need by ghetto natives to culturally appropriate terms such as “Uncle Tom” and try to act like they are black. Again I grew up in it and couldn’t have been happier to leave. So again I invite you to Oklahoma.
You may want to check out that definition again, preferably in the context of the real world, rather than an abstract.
If natives, or any other non-black people, "act like black people" (for example, using AAVE), then that is cultural appropriation.
If natives, or any other non-black people, use a term which is similar to "Uncle Tom" (so that everyone knows what they mean), but which is culturally specific to them ("Uncle Tonto" for natives, because of the history of the character "Tonto" in the TV show "The Lone Ranger", or "Tio Tomas" for Mexicans, which is just "Uncle Tom" in Spanish, etc), then that is not cultural appropriation because it's not stealing an element of a culture not your own, but instead using the well-known culture to facilitate a less well-known one.
Seriously, if you don't study these things, you're not going to do well trying to use them correctly.
That’s the best part 😂 you do study them and that’s why you’re even more pathetic. I use that as satire. Cultural appropriation is the biggest joke the left is trying to sell. You biting into it and being so specific about it only furthers my belief you are a social justice warrior(<—— I can say that because my ancestry is in fact Cherokee, 5 civilized tribes). Keep crying for you’re imagined slights big guy
Ya I figured you were a social justice warrior. It’s ok to be racist or prejudice as long as you’re a victim 😂. The real answer you can’t handle, but here it is. You do not define you’re group and are not defined by it. If you’re group does bad things you are responsible for it unless you were specifically involved. And if you’re group does great things you do not deserve praise unless again you were specifically involved. Social justice is just there to play into group politics and those who follow it are pathetic. Step up, be a leader and example. Not a pathetic whining follower who covers behind other victims. #truthhurts
Nope I proved a point and you can’t argue that. That is what social justice is. And I said I don’t study social justice because It doesn’t require being studied. As far a social sciences go and studies that deal with social injustices go I am versed. But social justice doesn’t deserve the time of day. It’s a joke. You aren’t a group so stop being a victim
You proved...what, exactly? That you're a simpleton who believes your ignorance is just as valid as my knowledge? That's pretty common in the United States, and not very impressive.
How does being on a rez make us bums, you white supremacist? We're not begging for anything, we don't get anything for free, handed to us by others. So how are we bums?
Funny thing is, you're the one freeloading off the actions of your ancestors who committed genocide and enslaved tens of millions in order to give you the white privilege you enjoy so much that you don't even know it's real.
See it’s always assuming with you, and when you get a taste you cry “victim and every one is a white supremacist”. 😂 bad news my ancestors or in fact Native American. So you’re fighting a losing battle, like you’re tribe apparently did. Which gives you the right to hate me for being Cherokee 😳 uh ooo. There you go again being racist against cherokees. I guess they receive Cherokee priveledge too. But I’m not on the scrolls so the only thing I receive from the Cherokee nation is.... nothing. And from the government, well I do get health care and free gym and a pay check. And travel to the most exclusive beaches ever. So exclusive they don’t even have water. ( the desert you dummy) there I helped. 😁 I’m military if you were lost. Nothing is or has ever been given to me. So that priveledge BS your side like to spew is a joke
The Cherokee take almost anyone who claims them, so for you to not be on their rolls means that you have, at most, 1 ancestor out of 64 who was native. That doesn't mean that YOU are native. If even the Cherokee say you're not, you're definitely not.
So yeah, white. With white privilege. And since you're so adamantly upholding white supremacy, that makes you a white supremacist.
The fact that you don't understand these things doesn't make them not true. And you won't ever understand them, since you think studying them is a bad thing.
You've been given everything you have, you're just too conditioned by American individualist propaganda to realize it. It's your great national myth: everyone is an individual and everything they do is in complete isolation from the world around them, so whatever they have, they must've worked hard for...
...except if they're not white. Everything they have was taken from you and given to them, by the liberals.
No, I think you are just doing a poor job of explaining what you are saying. This has bee happening in several of your commens, so I am inclined to believe it is you.
First point, do you drive a car and use chemicals? Yes you do. There for you pollute the earth and the tribe doesn’t believe in that 😕 sorry I don’t make the rules.
So as my grandparents believed, I’m a native as they were. Sorry your tribe is discriminative and prejudice. That’s not my fault.
What does the division of land have to do with you? How does this take any advantage from you? Again you are more likely to get accepted to an Ivy League school based solely on being native .
In the case of the “Rez’s” I’ve been to, yes they are absolutely lazy. However, I know plenty who worked their asses off and never took a handout and flat out refused to live on the reservation. They had this thing called pride and motivation. Not that entitlement you see a lot of out there. They also make very good money and great life choices to this day.
Also almost everyone of them came from a 2 parent home where both parents were/are very traditional
Wouldn’t let me post that up where we were discussing it
Real question: Native tribes in the US are technically sovereign nations, right? Can they just accept all the refugees/immigrants they want? Do they actually have their own immigration policy?
My Roma racism is ok, because I'm defending migrants. My islamophobia is ok because I'm defending blacks. My negrophobia is ok because I'm defending my white privilege...
u/Rein3 I agree, all of these people deserve hate.
Ownership is a pretend concept. Money is a pretend concept. Stratified social hierarchies are a pretend concept. Our entire "civilization" is built upon arbitrary acceptance of a pretend game with pretend rules created by playground bullies with pieces of paper they pretend make them more important than other people.
I'm ready for humanity to grow the fuck up and stop pretending.
/u/leftofmarx actual lol. Was that a writing prompt for your English class?
u/AgentGotse, I just noticed the header you made for this post and I was wondering...
Given that you obviously recognize the virulent racism indigenous people were subjected to in the other thread, what made you think it would be any different here? Or was it your intention to subject us to it a second time?
Read the sidebar, it is required to make the post as dramatic as possible. The headline is completely sarcastic, I don't think you faced any racism whatsoever in the other thread. What I see is mods bending over backwards to accommodate your views and some posters who disagree with you.
Ahh, so you have absolutely no idea what racism is then.
Or, "bending over backwards", for that matter. See, that phrase is used to mean "taking extreme effort". You're using it in a situation that is the opposite of that.
But yes. Still Native American. Sorry you find that hard to believe, but still part of the 5 civilized tribes. Not your fault you’re not educated in your own history.
225 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-07-16
Hell hath no fury like a suburban soccer mom cucked, I guess.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
Some good stuff on removeddit
https://www.removeddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/8yv2lp/no_one_is_illegal_on_stolen_land/?sort=controversial
1 myshl0ng 2018-07-16
Pretty sure an axe to the face by a bigger and stronger tribe is more than pretend
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
Maybe that guy was just pretending to be retarded.
1 myshl0ng 2018-07-16
If natives were so smart why did they get btfo by some blankets lmao
1 roddypiper534 2018-07-16
Blankets were comfy af they couldn't resist.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-07-16
owo whats this.
gets smallpox and dies.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-07-16
Hewwo I am Federal Pimple Inspection coming to awwest u 4 being covered in pimples, now I am going to inspwect u.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-07-16
owo that is a very long boil it also leaking fluid i nee dto carefully inspect it.
1 genericunimportant 2018-07-16
I'm gagging.
Keep going.
1 cmakk1012 2018-07-16
choking on smallpox boils
1 zergling_Lester 2018-07-16
/r/popping
A smallpox victim would be like a bubble wrap to them probably. Simply Irresistible.
1 LemonScore_ 2018-07-16
I'll just leave this here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-native-american-tribe-has-a-dollar800-million-contract-to-run-ice-detention-centers
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-16
Make all ICE people natives so we can get white people to come up with names to call them besides Nazis and niggers.
1 KingNothing305 2018-07-16
Ironic?
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-07-16
Murder is a pretend concept. Morality is a pretend concept. The value of human lives is a pretend concept. Our entire "civilization" is built upon arbitrary acceptance of a pretend game with pretend rules created by playground bullies with pieces of paper they pretend make them more important than other people.
I'm ready for humanity to grow the fuck up and stop pretending.
1 fuzzydunlots 2018-07-16
And kill eachother? And then fuck the corpses. Dude wtf.
1 better_bot 2018-07-16
It's spooks all the way down.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-16
You've discovered social contract theory. The issue is that when we stop "pretending" en mass we just get State of Nature/State of War which means getting gang raped by raiders until a warlord with a big enough dick comes along to institute Tyranny.
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-07-16
Sorry sweaty, authority to govern comes from God alone.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-16
Fuck Protestants and their First Treatise REEEEing tbh famalam
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-07-16
Fuck yeah the war of all against all is gonna be fucking swewet
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-16
I'm ordering the materials to make my Wasteland Warlord shoulder pads from Amazon during the sale today. I'm gonna scalp so many mayos once we descend into anarchy!
1 KalebCS 2018-07-16
What an utterly stupid conclusion. It's like saying "flying is a construct, I'm ready for this plane to go down". The whole reason why you're even here to say whatever bullshit you want is because of all the "pretending".
Looks like r/drama really is full of mentally impaired people after all.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-07-16
It's from the post lol
1 KalebCS 2018-07-16
oof let me get this L
I guess the point stands still, I'll just remove the drama mention
1 ObsessedAussie 2018-07-16
Day of the humancide when
1 TetsuTwo 2018-07-16
1 Gtyyler 2018-07-16
/u/leftofmarx English sentence structure is a pretend concept. Why are you using proper grammar when it is something humans made up? And don't tell me you are "just following orders" you were taught in school like a bootlicker.
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
/u/leftofmarx is against human rights, because that's also a pretend concept.
1 leftofmarx 2018-07-16
Ah yes, grammar is certainly the mark of a totalitarian. Good job. You’re very clever.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-16
Stop using the language of the imperialist oppressor.
1 Justinat0r 2018-07-16
I only speak english to talk to you bastards. My true language is a complicated series of grunts and screeches.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-16
I assumed you just threw feces and rocks as a sign language like a savage mime.
1 xXsnip_ur_ballsXx 2018-07-16
The english language is in many ways a toll of imperialism. It was spread around the world to ease the transition of many cultures into the British colonial empire. Continuing to use english betrays your imperialist sympathies.
1 HINDBRAIN 2018-07-16
Did you write the metal gear solid 5 plot? If so fuck you.
1 kingofthehill5 2018-07-16
You know like anarchism.
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
/u/ComradeThoth are Asian Americans colonizers 🤔🤔🤔?
1 Pepperglue 2018-07-16
We sure are colonizing Pacific Northwest. Aussies smartened up and started doing something about it. We'll see when Canada gets the hint, too.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-07-16
Also DC. You guys suck more than all our other tourists, it's impressive.
1 Pepperglue 2018-07-16
DC? Last time I heard it was Ethiopians?
I don't keep up with our colonizing effort, too many places to track.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Asians or Americans?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
You means Americans with Asian ancestry, or Asians who happen to live in the United States? There's a difference.
Most non-whites fall into the "settler not colonizer" category though.
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
Are settlers also scum or only the colonists? Which one is worse?
What about:
An Italian-American whose family came to the US in 1932. Is he a colonizer?
Barack Obama - settler, colonizer or something else? His daddy is from Africa, but mom is a colonizer.
Child of African immigrants who came to the US in 1973. Settlers?
Child of colonizer and a settler. What's the result?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
This is why culture matters, more than DNA. Blood quantum is a colonizer concept. DNA doesn't say who you are, it only says who your ancestors were.
1 cmakk1012 2018-07-16
Wait, wait, wait, so people of Asian culture can’t be colonists?
NIPPON BANZAI
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Sure they can, and are.
1 cmakk1012 2018-07-16
good enough for me
go kick out some mayos for me
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
What about Obama, I am pretty specific there.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
What about him? What you're looking for is a blood quantum explanation of colonialism. That's not how this works.
All Politicians Are Bastards
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
You were somehow sure that guy you were responding to in the thread was a colonizer even though you have no idea who he is, so I thought you might be able to tell me about Obama.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
That guy was white, heh. Obama isn't.
But, he's definitely still a colonizer, of course.
1 xXsnip_ur_ballsXx 2018-07-16
So black people can be colonizers, so long as they aren't descended from slaves? Isn't being a descendant of slaves a "blood quantum explanation"?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Black people can be colonizers if they're assimilated and do colonizer things like run for office. That includes those descended from Africans who were enslaved (which, btw, stop calling people "slaves". It ignores that someone else is enslaving them).
And no, being descendants of Africans who were enslaved is not a "blood quantum" explanation, because it's not a test to prove who you are.
1 xXsnip_ur_ballsXx 2018-07-16
So participating in democracy is now a colonizer thing, huh?
I'm not sure this is a good road to go down, man. You've eliminated every option except for revolution in your mind. I don't think you're going to like revolution if and when it comes.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I said running for office, not participating in democracy. Please replace your Schoolhouse Rock delusions with actual knowledge about how the world works.
Awesome. Go me.
If all goes well, I won't even notice. 😉
1 LightUmbra 2018-07-16
It never does. See you in the gulag comrade. I won't share my water though.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Nah, there won't be any gulags. Future historians will likely struggle to even place when the revolution happened. Y'all watch too much SciFi.
1 LightUmbra 2018-07-16
It's Syfy now. They changed the name a while back.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Well yeah it is hard to notice something when you are dead long before it could ever happen.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
You assume that "it" will be a singular event, like in the movies. Unlikely.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
No, as evidenced by the fact that I said you would be dead before it happens. I am well aware of the speed of the collective conscious.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
But then you keep saying "it happens" as if there's a clearly delineated difference between before and after some "it".
Maybe you're just not good at sentence structure?
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Ok, so let's go over this with hopefully a relative simple analogy.
When you are baking bread in an oven, at some point it becomes toast, can you tell me exactly when it becomes toast? Is there a certain point when the bread becomes toast or is it a gradual change?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
The bread never becomes a watermelon. If all it does is become toast, that's not a revolution.
There's a reason why "toast" is actually just short for "toasted bread".
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
So let me get this straight, you are saying that there is nowherence between a post revolution state and a pre revolution state just like there is no difference between bread that has been toaster and bread that has not been toasted, am I getting that stupid line of reasoning right?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
No, and it's not "stupid" (whatever that means).
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Then it doesn't seem like you have an overall point with your response, unless you would care to elaborate.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I did. Couple times.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
No not really, you have not elaborated at all beyond the fact that the "it" of revolution is likely going to happen (or is happening) gradually, which did nothing to contradict my point that you would long be dead before you could enjoy any of its fruits.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Actually, I have specifically said, multiple times, that there will be no "it".
If anything, I'm already enjoying the fruits, heh.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Well no, you claimed that there would be no singular event, which I then posited to you that toast does not have a singular moment when it goes from being bread to toast, which you then gave a stupid reply. So you have not really elaborated anything beyond the fact that you don't understand how analogies work.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Toast is still bread. That's not "stupid", that's fact.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Yes, but it is not same as the bread before, which is the whole point of the analogy.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Yeah, which is why I'm using yours to explain why you don't understand revolution.
What you're describing, is like the common lay definition of revolution...like the American War of Independence, or the Soviet Revolution. The bread was toasted, but otherwise nothing happened. It's the same bread as before, just toasted. So not really a revolution.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
You could've just said you didn't understand the analogy and ask for clarification.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I could've, except I did understand it, so it would be silly to say that I didn't, unless I just wanted to troll you.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
If you did understand it, you would've addressed the comparison it was illustrating and not nitpick the description of it.
Asi Isaid, it is OK to not understand something. This is why you ask for clarification, as I am doing with our other discussion.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Or, I understood the analogy and dismissed the comparison as irrelevant but used the same analogy to show why it was irrelevant. Levels, yo. Perhaps you just couldn't keep up.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
But that does not address the Crux of the point, was that you did not get the original joke because you are a dummy.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
That's kind of the point of dismissing something, heh. If your point is so inane due to a fundamental flaw in your reasoning (in this case, that a revolution which doesn't change much isn't really a revolution), then it is more important to point that out than to address the point itself.
But since that seems to complicated for you, I'll tell you that yes, you're right that there's no real demarkable instant at which bread becomes toast (of course, that's completely subjective too...some prefer lightly toasted bread, others burnt, so depending on individual opinions, each person could surely say "that's now toast" at a different point), and sure, there's probably not going to be any demarkable instant at which "the revolution" occurs.
But again, your analogy is easily dismissed by the fact that toast is still bread, and thus easily identified as having been bread before the process which made it toast. The same is not true for an actual revolution. A more appropriate analogy is therefore to start out with bread and end up with a watermelon.
Sadly, I still don't think you'll follow this, because your analytical skills are pretty bad.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
You are beginning to contradict yourself. You made the claim that the revolution would not be an "it" singular moment, but the transition from bread to watermelon is a pretty clear shift and could be much more easily demarcated than differing degrees of toasting.
So you kinda got it, after we thought about it for a bit. Good job!
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Is it?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
When does the truck become a robot?
https://media.giphy.com/media/id5Zz0tYMww36/giphy.gif
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
I would say there is a significant difference of fructose ratios, water content,I along with other compounds associated with the fruits of dicots that would provide a much more clear distinction point between bread and watermelon than bread and toast, which is why I used I the latter for the analogy.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Looks like you're finally learning to use Google! At least to look up words you don't know, like "dicot".
But yeah, you're still missing the point. The difference between bread and watermelon isn't the point. Transitioning from one to the other is. The fact that they're so radically different is the reason why it's a good analogy for revolution, and why bread-and-toast isn't.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
My buddy, dicots is a term one learns in any ecology or botany course. Don't project the fact that you had to google the term onto me - I have experience with plants
And naw, don't butcher my analogy. It's mine.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I'm not your buddy, guy
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
Is there some rulebook or something where you read this crap?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
No?
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
There should be some commie resource for this though, otherwise people might think you are just making shit up as you go along.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
You'd have to ask the commies, I guess.
There's nothing being made up on the spot here though...I have deviated from the standard line of "white people are colonizers, most other non-indigenous are just settlers" line. We really just want the colonizers out though. We'll accept the others as refugees or something.
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
How many people do you estimate need to be deported or massacred or whatever you intend to do?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Probably none. I don't think you understand the issue.
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
Obviously not, this is some BS that only makes sense in your head.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
What, specifically, is bullshit about it? You don't like being called a colonizer? Or you don't like being called a settler? You want to be called a proud American, born here, and with just as much right to be here? Like, god-given rights or just constitutional ones?
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
I am from Eastern Europe, I'm not American.
How do you expect me to understand something which is not written anywhere and which you just keep making up as you go along?
Maybe you can just tell me what needs to be done so that the native americans are happy and whatnot.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
We're not Americans. "America" was an Italian explorer in the 1500s. Those who are Americans, are European colonists. It's not that difficult to follow.
Surely you understand what "whiteness" is, vs "being white", right? It's kinda like that.
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
Tell me what needs to be done.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
You're in Eastern Europe, right?
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
Why does it matter? I'm not going to do anything for you.
I'm just curious what you imagine needs to happen so that indigenous people are happy and colonizers are dealt with in the land that you are living in. Other than telling people to STFU, what needs to be done in the end to dismantle colonialism etc.?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
If you are in Europe, there is absolutely something you can do:
Stay there.
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
I will stay in Europe, but you still have the problem with colonialism. Why do you refuse to tell me what needs to be done to take care of colonialism where you are living or prefer to live?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
r/ILPT might have what you're looking for.
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
You are not more dangerous than the other anarkids, don't worry.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Well, given that none of us are dangerous to the state in any way...
1 Deity_Of_War 2018-07-16
/u/ComradeThoth, capitalism will outlive and your delusional, dystopia anarchism.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
"Dystopia anarchism"? What does that even mean?
The current dystopia is pretty bad... the wealthy enjoy a sort social welfare anarchism: the state doesn't interfere with them in any way yet provides everything for them. The poorest on the other hand live under a totalitarian fascist police state: nothing for them, while everything they do is tightly controlled by the government. In the middle is basically a spectrum between those two points.
But what's great is that, try as they might, the police can't guard everything. It's not that they don't want to, they just don't have the manpower. So those of us who know what to do, are doing it, right under their noses.
Turns out that "dual power" is a thing after all.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
This is legit one of the stupidest things I've ever read. By definition if someone is a slave there might must be a slaver. You complete fucking idiot.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
No one is inherently a slave. When you talk about, for example, Africans in the United States, the Caribbean, Brazil, etc...by just saying "slaves", you ignore and erase every other part of their existence as humans outside their condition of being enslaved. They were people, with lives and cultures and who happened to be enslaved. It's important because it humanizes them, rather than dehumanizing them, which is how they were enslaved in the first place.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Obviously no one is inherently a slave! Again more idiocy. Calling someone a slave is a decriptor, just like saying that someone is a prostitute (or any other profession) you describes what the person does but does not fully capture who they are as a person because we are talking on fucking /r/drama
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Yeah, except no one refers to an entire historical class of prostitutes from one geographical area, who all over a few hundred years years experienced the same conditioned forced upon them by others. They do, when referring to Africans enslaved by whites in the western hemisphere.
Thing is, you're just pulling your objection out of your ass, while my contention is actually something that's been studied by experts for years. You are experiencing cognitive dissonance, and aren't consciously able to process this new information.
Perhaps you need a nap or something.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
My dude, perhaps you should 't take such an Americacentric view when considering the history of slavery in the world.
The user you were talking to gave a specific example of black people coming to the United States to probe your reasoning and you immediately place the idea that all slaves must be from Africa on that.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Yeah, I shouldn't have responded with a USA-centric answer to this USA-centric question. Gotcha.
It doesn't. But denying new information about something, just because you've never heard it before and think something else about it, despite having any expertise in the subject, is definitely the result of cognitive dissonance.
Also, I hope you don't actually practice any therapy, with your propensity to call people idiots for bringing up information you've never heard of before.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
They were using "slaves" as a descriptor, so your objection to their statement is unclear. Is "involuntary immigrant" a more appropriate descriptor for your tastes, despite the fact it erases the atrocity that happened to them?
That is not cognitive dissonance. That is not xognitive dissonance, particular y when you are making subjective claims that amount tto the notion that using descriptors to describe the rvery real horrific state that being enslaved entails is inappropriate. Just like it is not cognitive dissonance for someone to propose to me that lightning bolts are actually from Zeus - the reality behind the "new information" is important.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Which is harmful.
Nope. "Africans who were enslaved by whites in the western hemisphere" is fine.
Indeed, which is why you should probably value experts over your off-the-cuff opinion. That you don't, is cognitive dissonance. It's a common feature with Americans, who've been taught that their ignorance is as important as an expeet's knowledge.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
How is harmful, can you provide evidence that demonstrates this?
And I think slaves is perfectly fine, considering that by definition it is referring to humans that have been enslaved and in no way hides the atrocities of what happened to them, unless you are willing to demonstrate otherwise, y'know, maybe from some of these experts you claim to be referring to as opposed to what appears to be your "off-the-cuff opinion". Then I would be happy to update my schema in regards to how describing slaves as slaves (you know, the kind of relationship where there is a slave and a slaver), and I quote, "ignores that someone else is enslaving them".
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I didn't say it did, I said it reduces them to just that.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
I completely disagree with this assertion.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
That's cool, but there's not much value in your opinion, since you've never studied the issue and are just hearing about it for the first time and making a snap judgment based on nothing but what seems right to you at the time.
That's a pretty common problem with Americans.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Azimov
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
So far you haven't really presented a true, justified belief. As I have said, you should provide some sort of evidence that your assertion is true. I am not going to take words on the internet from a random at face value.
Surely you have read something that has formed your belief. Maybe something that has scientific evidence to back it up?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Why not? Given that your position is based on nothing more than just your snap judgment, having no knowledge of the subject, wouldn't "words on the Internet" be at least as valid as that?
Because, the thing is, I could go through the work of citing every academic source there is, and you would still favor your own ignorance. That's because you don't really want "the truth", you just want to think highly of your own opinion, regardless of whether it jibes with fact, because that's how you maintain your personal worldview.
If I'm wrong, and you actually are interested in learning something that possibly goes against what you think you know, then you could easily Google this stuff yourself. But I doubt that's the case, because if it was, you would've done that from the start, before ever commenting in the first place.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
I am not so vested that I am going to pour through countless sociology and psychology research articles to find some evidence, especially considering how confident you are of it's existence depiste the fact that you likely have. Ever read any such evidence and are instead inferring connections that simply aren't there so you can back your unfounded conclusion.
This is very typical for a lot of individuals - you acquire surface level understanding of something and then immediately extrapolate it to other things without bothering to dig further.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Lol, so you're trying to say that I'm doing what I just said that you're doing. Cute, but silly.
Funny thing, if I were doing that (I'm not, I actually study this stuff on an academic level), then again, my statement as a rando on the Internet would still be just as valid as you think yours is, so again, why not pick mine? Especially since you're not vested in it.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Because I don't accept comments from random strangers on the internet as fact, and thus when someone suggests that I update my paradigm I want to see evidence of their claims.
What kinda weak sauce academic doesn't have articles memorized on the subject they study? Sheesh what do they teach you undergrads these days?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Oh? I wonder where you got your inane worldview to begin with. 🤔
I got my doctorate 17 years ago. I do have them memorized still, as it's still necessary for my day to day work. I'm not doing the work to copy/paste them because you won't "update your paradigm", no matter how much evidence you have.
Ahhh, that old Internet chestnut. If I thought for one second you were in the slightest bit open to new information, I'd be happy to help you. Sadly, you're just fishing for Internet Tough Guy™ fodder.
Tell you what, do your own Google search, then argue against it on your own. You don't really need me for that.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
I didn't realize I had given you anything about my world view other than the fact that I find slave to be an apt and non-dehumanizing descriptor for people that have been enslaved, that your understanding of cognitive dissonance is a bit off, and that I don't accept random statements from strangers.
I am more than happy to learn something new, but as I said I am not going to spend time to sift through material - I have plenty to read without that. If you have an article that supports your claim I will read it. This does not mean I won't be critical of it, but I would at least read it and if it .Ames sense, I would be willing to admit I was wrong.
But hey, we can keep playing this intellectual online debate chicken all day, although I will definitely stop responding at some point if we keep on with the flexing.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
That'd be great.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
I didn't say when, but you are more than welcome to stop on your own. I know my prose can sometimes be alluring, but you don't have to let me live in your head.
1 diggity_md 2018-07-16
Can’t even make the great LARP forward happen in the anarchist hugbox subreddit 😂
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-07-16
I too am 1/128 indigenous and get super angry when people belittle my totally not already dead race.
1 LSeww 2018-07-16
Will they ever learn?
1 soinavoice 2018-07-16
I don’t know why i get as butthurt as I do when folks make the “country founded on immigrants and therefore this is a traditional value” argument.
The idea of letting people in and treating them not horribly is at the earliest a Reagan-era view. Prior to the 1960s, yea, we let them in, but we were stripping families, denying benefits they paid into. There was a CA senator that called for a whatever-the-term-for-micro-genocide-is (pogrom?) of all the Chinese living in San Francisco about a century ago.
I say this as someone who unironically thinks we should unlock the gate down south and just leave a guestbook for folks to sign, but the left are morons when it comes to the US and immigration.
1 LSeww 2018-07-16
You ARE the left.
1 soinavoice 2018-07-16
Ah, yes. Reagan/Bush Sr and seizing the means of production; name a more iconic duo.
I haven’t met a leftist who actually believes in open borders and isn’t just repeating lines to virtue signal.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Hi
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-16
Because people who live off hot take tweets and protest signs are fucking morons.
1 soinavoice 2018-07-16
I just sit in my ivory tower and mock the townsfolk below and then get butthurt when they don’t support my candidate at the end of the day.
1 Osterion 2018-07-16
Its common for the left (or anyone in America really) to hype up parts of the American mythos if they believe it supports their positions. You also see it with the Democrats new found obsession with patriotism because of the Russia/election scandal. I'm sure once immigration becomes less of a hot topic they'll go back to reminding all of us of America very problematic history in regards to immigration and race.
1 spookyguy109 2018-07-16
People with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome don't tend to be very intelligent.
1 Orsonius 2018-07-16
/u/ComradeThoth
is not my comrad
1 nmx179 2018-07-16
u/ComradeThoth no matter how much you cry about the mean, evil white man, girls are still never going to want to fuck you.
1 LemonScore_ 2018-07-16
/u/redditoverki11 Thinking that an enclosed space that you are guarded in and prevented from leaving is a "prison" is also a social construct. All you have to do is think of it a different way and suddenly it's a different thing.
For example, I like to think of the immigrant detention centres as holiday camps and the Holocaust as a bake sale. Why don't people like you simply understand that they're just social constructs and so it's dumb to be upset about them.
1 DerekSavageCoolCuck 2018-07-16
/u/redditoverki11, go back to the Netherlands you Dutch thug.
1 Morgoff 2018-07-16
Euros can feel free to tell foreigners to fuck off though.
1 micronenis 2018-07-16
Did anyone notice that the person in that pic has "ANIME" tattooed to their forehead?
1 ObsessedAussie 2018-07-16
Cultural appropriation SMH
1 DoubleCheekedUp 2018-07-16
absolutely /ourguy/
1 im-a-koala 2018-07-16
Haha this guy is arguing that the Mexican drug cartels exist because Spaniards bullied the Aztecs
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/8yv2lp/no_one_is_illegal_on_stolen_land/e2ejjr7?context=2
1 AlwaysFeral 2018-07-16
No they exist because cocaine is awesome and has absolutely NO DOWNSIDES.
1 SonsofAnarchy113 2018-07-16
You see, when Europeans immigrated to the US and the natives let them stay, they murdered Native Americans and stole all their land, that’s why we should let these immigrants in.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
You realize that there was no US before Europe came here, and that "these immigrants" actually are natives, right?
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Listen here bud, these "natives" invaded a continent they were not originally from. They are colonizers.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Must be those Atlanteans who were here before us. 🤔
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Natives didn't even call dibs, ipso facto the land was me er theirs.
This is primary school level stuff buddy, try to keep up.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Ooookay.
1 Thhueros 2018-07-16
smh and people accuse Trotsky of killing anarchists like it was a bad thing.
Anarchists are less respectable than fascists. At least fascists are honest about what they are.
1 schoolboystirner 2018-07-16
We're not all like the typical Reddit anarchist. Some of us try to be consistent and actually read our texts.
1 shallowm 2018-07-16
e
1 shallowm 2018-07-16
a
1 bugslife22112 2018-07-16
No one is illegal on stolen lands is the new “you can’t hug your children with nuclear arms.”
1 ubuntutakeupthecuntu 2018-07-16
Isn't this suggesting that immigrants are bad and literally kill of the native making them a minority? literally as bad as trump tards LAMO
1 Pepperglue 2018-07-16
u/redditoverki11, go back to Europe then.
I swear the "nobody is illegal" stuff is the dumbest shit I've heard in support of immigration.
1 redditoverki11 2018-07-16
I have as much right to be here as anyone else. I didn't kill anyone or push them out of this land to live here, and I can't change what my ancestors did, no matter how terrible it was, but I can advocate for the abolition of imaginary lines so anybody can settle wherever they want to, so long as it is a peaceful coexistence.
The "nobody is illegal" stuff on this girl's shirt makes a lot more sense from an anarchist point of view. What it means is that legality is a social construct, and is completely subjective and arbitrary. Nobody should be stuffed in a cage for crossing an imaginary line that someone decided upon one day.
1 Pepperglue 2018-07-16
Says the colonist who prey upon poor Pee-Oh-Cees and use them further their dumb agenda.
Speaking and using internet is also a social construct. Why don't you stop wasting time on the internet now.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Why?
1 redditoverki11 2018-07-16
Because nobody owns the Earth. The moment you start restricting people to keep out of your precious territory is the moment you create a state. As long as I can peacefully coexist in an area, then I have as much right to be there as anybody else.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Okay hippie, but why does that give you the right to be here?
So it's cool if I come live with you in your home, and bring a hundred of my friends and relatives too? And we take so much of your space, eat all your food, and use all your stuff so that you die? Cool.
Obviously you can't though, heh. Maybe if there were just a few of you, but there's 450 million of you here, and you decided that you run the place and get to decide how things happen here. Sorry, but that's not gonna work, especially if it becomes an anarchist world.
1 redditoverki11 2018-07-16
There is a huge, huge difference between private property and personal property. There is nothing wrong with keeping people out of your house, front yard, or the field you till, because its personal property.
I could say the same thing to anybody else. There are no restrictions, so I have a right to be anywhere I please, so long as I peacefully coexist.
Obviously I can't? Uhh, what?
Yeah, obviously that isn't anarchist. 450 million people can live wherever the fuck they please so long as they peacefully coexist in an anarchist world. I said nothing about them deciding that they run the place and deciding how things happen. They can do that so long as they don't force their rules on other people. That's anarchism.
Do you think that if America becomes anarchist you are just going to kick everybody out that isn't indigenous? If you really think that, then you aren't an anarchist.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Yeah, we tried that. You said it was yours.
And now you, specifically, are saying you have a right to be wherever you want to be on earth because no one owns the earth and you were born here and please make CT stop hurting your honeynutfeelios.
What if they all want to live in Topeka, KS?
So if they come to a place that's already inhabited, it's totally cool to just start cutting down trees and building their own homes and damming the rivers and building nuclear power plants and such, because they're not forcing any rules on anyone! "Nah, you guys can totally join our society if you want, but if you don't, we're still going to build that society on top of yours!"
"America" is an Italian explorer from the 1500s.
Our cultures were anarchist long before yours ever heard of the concept.
1 redditoverki11 2018-07-16
Go fuck yourself. I'm not the person keeping you out, its the fucking bourgeois that is trying to enforce its artificial boundaries on everyone. I have no problem if you want to live in the same area as I do, as long as we're both peaceful to each other.
You're acting as if I'm the same person as the people that came to the continent during the colonial time and committed genocide and pushed natives out of their home.
Then obviously they can't peacefully coexist, because someone will have to get pushed out because of a scarcity of space and resources. That means they can't live there.
Creating a society with a hierarchy is against being an anarchist. If you enforce a hierarchy, no matter how consensual, you are still exploiting others. That is not peaceful coexistence.
If the hypothetical society you're talking about somehow does this without a hierarchy, then no, its still not okay because its not a peaceful coexistence. If stuff like this is going to happen then everybody in the area has to reach a consensus about it.
Take it this way. You live out in the woods somewhere, with a stream nearby. There's a decent clearing where you do your farming across the stream, and you use a fallen-down tree that reaches across the stream to reach it. A new neighbor comes by and begins to live in your location, which is absolutely fine, but they are going to chop up that fallen down tree that you use to cross the stream. Obviously, this isn't okay, considering the nearest crossing is a mile away.
Yeah, and it's also a term that pretty much everybody understands that references either the United States of America, a state that is situated in the middle of the North-American continent, or the North and South American continents as a whole.
You're just being pedantic, difficult, and pretentious. You know exactly what I meant. You're not accomplishing anything by trying to pretend the US doesn't exist.
If you're referring to indigenous cultures, then you're wrong. Most indigenous cultures still enforce a hierarchy upon its members. I know very well that many of their practices are in line with anarchist thinking, and I'm not trying to deny that or strip them of merit, but they sure aren't anarchist if they believe in a hierarchy.
Even if it was true, what fucking difference does it make? Are you trying to gatekeep me out of the anarchist way of thinking? That's exactly what it sounds like.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
You are the bourgeois, kiddo.
If enough of us move to where you are that it dramatically changes your way of life, then it is not peaceful, period. If we do that back to you (for example, hordes of indigenous swarming over the border from Mexico), then it's justice, to restore us to the land.
Yeah, but if your "new neighbor, which is fine" has you outnumbered 100:1, they get to chop down the tree. That's fine too, according to you. All you millions of white people here, even if you made it an anarchist society, aren't just going to not do something you want to do just because we ask you not to.
Oh how I wish.
Okay, sure. Go ahead and tell me more about my own culture. White people are always the expert on other people's cultures. 😂
1 redditoverki11 2018-07-16
And you know this how?
Oh, yes, those are indigenous people, not a people created from centuries of rape between the colonizers and the indigenous folk.
That's not at all what I said.
Yeah, me too.
I don't have to be an expert on every social intricacy another culture has. If they maintain a hierarchy, then they are not anarchist.
Go fuck yourself. I'm done talking to you.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Call it a hunch.
Wait, no, tell me more about my people and culture. You're the great white expert.
No, but you don't get to fucking tell me what my fucking culture is like, you white supremacist piece of shit.
I sure hope so.
1 redditoverki11 2018-07-16
No, I guess I'm not done talking to you.
I'll just say this: I'm not a white supremacist and I live in a rural area.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Gee, who could've ever predicted that?
So, we're back to things being true just because you say they are. K.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
All I’m getting from you is you think you’re entitled to the land that was traded for or stolen pending on where you call home. And by you I mean you’re long since gone ancestors. Smh and still you pollute this world. At least the Amish live well. I’d wager they should get the land over you. At least they are taking care of it and not crying about something that didn’t happen to them. By that I mean land wasn’t taken from you. You were not born. You are owed nothing. Like the rest of us.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Your ignorance of how historical events affect current conditions isn't what's so hilarious about you, it's how certain you are, despite your ignorance. Truly, an American.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
Were you forced to live for free on a reservation ?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I don't understand the question...do you think living on reservations is free?
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
Sorry for the delay, yes the majority of the reservation is free. Different ones get different things. But I can tell you if someone was paying a few of my monthly utilities I’d be doing pretty well off
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Wow, you should really go visit one and see how "free" it really is. No one is paying our utilities for us, that's for sure.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
Again I have been to them. I grew up around them. Had friends who lived on them. Sorry you got a bad deal
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Getting drunk at one of the few casinos doesn't count, heh. I assure you that you've never met anyone on a reservation whose utilities are paid for by someone else. Sometimes the tribe holds funds collectively, and that might be what you're thinking of, but that's no different from any other trust, and doesn't mean they're not living in poverty...except for the few rezes that have casinos, in which case, consider it an advance on reparations.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
Well you are about an ignorant entitled individual. I grew up around many reservations and where casinos may have been apart of you’re entire life they weren’t a thing when I was a kid. Not until I was almost a teenager. So glad you can stereotype me assuming as a Native American I’m also a drunk? Thanks. Really PC of you. And it’s reservation, not a ghetto which is what the term rezes implies. That’s not a cool word for it.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I've never been to a native casino. 😂
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I don't think you're a native, heh. Certainly an American though.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
And if you'd ever been to a real rez, you'd know we call them "rez".
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
Right because they are trashy and ghetto so “Rez” fits perfectly for those that are run down. Got to love the use of slang. Only young punks ever call them that. The ones who are proud never refer to it that way. And most often don’t live on them either
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Funny, I've heard it called that for 5 decades. I.e., all my life. By my elders, by my family, by every tribe at GoN and other PWs.
It's almost like you've never really interacted with any natives at all.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
O my god!?! It’s like you’re almost right. I’ve never interacted with you’re tribe before 😳 and from my interactions with every single other Native American I have met, from coast to coast, the Rez is ghetto and no one wants to live on them. Lmao and trust me I didn’t pick to be Native American. It’s weird but they tend to be some of the most racist people towards others who aren’t full blood...
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Being "American" is something you absolutely picked. You don't have to be a sell out Uncle Tonto, but you are...assuming you're really a native at all, which I doubt.
Do you know what GoN is? Go sometime and see if you can even find anyone there, out of thousands of natives from hundreds of tribes, who doesn't use the term "rez".
...and yeah, most of them are ghetto. Only a few have casino money or other stuff like that. That's why almost none of them are free, like you claimed.
This is why it's hard to believe that you are native, or have ever been to a rez, or even know any natives, because you would already know these things and not need me to tell you.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
Uncle tonto... again you are a racist. Plain and simple. Come on out to Oklahoma and see for yourself. I’m done defending anything past that point to you. You want to stay ghetto and proud all you 👍
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I don't think you understand what racism is. Yet another sign that you're really just some rando white kid. "Uncle Tonto" is a play on "Uncle Tom", the phrase used by black people to describe a black person who constantly sticks up for white people and makes excuses for their shitty behavior towards people of color.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
No I’m well aware. I’m also well aware of the need by ghetto natives to culturally appropriate terms such as “Uncle Tom” and try to act like they are black. Again I grew up in it and couldn’t have been happier to leave. So again I invite you to Oklahoma.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Yeah, you've heard the term "cultural appropriation" online and think you know what it is, don't you? Try again, skippy.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
By definition you just used it. 😕 education must be slipping over there
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
You may want to check out that definition again, preferably in the context of the real world, rather than an abstract.
If natives, or any other non-black people, "act like black people" (for example, using AAVE), then that is cultural appropriation.
If natives, or any other non-black people, use a term which is similar to "Uncle Tom" (so that everyone knows what they mean), but which is culturally specific to them ("Uncle Tonto" for natives, because of the history of the character "Tonto" in the TV show "The Lone Ranger", or "Tio Tomas" for Mexicans, which is just "Uncle Tom" in Spanish, etc), then that is not cultural appropriation because it's not stealing an element of a culture not your own, but instead using the well-known culture to facilitate a less well-known one.
Seriously, if you don't study these things, you're not going to do well trying to use them correctly.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
That’s the best part 😂 you do study them and that’s why you’re even more pathetic. I use that as satire. Cultural appropriation is the biggest joke the left is trying to sell. You biting into it and being so specific about it only furthers my belief you are a social justice warrior(<—— I can say that because my ancestry is in fact Cherokee, 5 civilized tribes). Keep crying for you’re imagined slights big guy
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I figured. You're what we call a "$5 Indian". Your great-great-grandmother was a Cherokee princess.
So actually, you're not native at all.
And, yeah I am interested in social justice, though "warrior" seems a bit much. Real question is why aren't you?
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
Ya I figured you were a social justice warrior. It’s ok to be racist or prejudice as long as you’re a victim 😂. The real answer you can’t handle, but here it is. You do not define you’re group and are not defined by it. If you’re group does bad things you are responsible for it unless you were specifically involved. And if you’re group does great things you do not deserve praise unless again you were specifically involved. Social justice is just there to play into group politics and those who follow it are pathetic. Step up, be a leader and example. Not a pathetic whining follower who covers behind other victims. #truthhurts
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Again, you have no idea what racism is. You even said yourself that you don't study.
I don't know where you got the idea that I'm suggesting any sort of group activity, but perhaps you should take that conversation to r/swingers.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
Nope I proved a point and you can’t argue that. That is what social justice is. And I said I don’t study social justice because It doesn’t require being studied. As far a social sciences go and studies that deal with social injustices go I am versed. But social justice doesn’t deserve the time of day. It’s a joke. You aren’t a group so stop being a victim
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
You proved...what, exactly? That you're a simpleton who believes your ignorance is just as valid as my knowledge? That's pretty common in the United States, and not very impressive.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
And she was no princess. But she’s not being a bum on a Rez like others Cough cough
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
How does being on a rez make us bums, you white supremacist? We're not begging for anything, we don't get anything for free, handed to us by others. So how are we bums?
Funny thing is, you're the one freeloading off the actions of your ancestors who committed genocide and enslaved tens of millions in order to give you the white privilege you enjoy so much that you don't even know it's real.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
See it’s always assuming with you, and when you get a taste you cry “victim and every one is a white supremacist”. 😂 bad news my ancestors or in fact Native American. So you’re fighting a losing battle, like you’re tribe apparently did. Which gives you the right to hate me for being Cherokee 😳 uh ooo. There you go again being racist against cherokees. I guess they receive Cherokee priveledge too. But I’m not on the scrolls so the only thing I receive from the Cherokee nation is.... nothing. And from the government, well I do get health care and free gym and a pay check. And travel to the most exclusive beaches ever. So exclusive they don’t even have water. ( the desert you dummy) there I helped. 😁 I’m military if you were lost. Nothing is or has ever been given to me. So that priveledge BS your side like to spew is a joke
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Yeah, so you're not even a $5 Indian, heh.
The Cherokee take almost anyone who claims them, so for you to not be on their rolls means that you have, at most, 1 ancestor out of 64 who was native. That doesn't mean that YOU are native. If even the Cherokee say you're not, you're definitely not.
So yeah, white. With white privilege. And since you're so adamantly upholding white supremacy, that makes you a white supremacist.
The fact that you don't understand these things doesn't make them not true. And you won't ever understand them, since you think studying them is a bad thing.
You've been given everything you have, you're just too conditioned by American individualist propaganda to realize it. It's your great national myth: everyone is an individual and everything they do is in complete isolation from the world around them, so whatever they have, they must've worked hard for...
...except if they're not white. Everything they have was taken from you and given to them, by the liberals.
Classic.
1 LongPostBot 2018-07-16
Your pulitzer's in the mail
I am a bot. Contact
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Lol at you thinking the "Native" Americans are going to be a threat to anyone ever again.
You were BTFO by a superior tribe. Deal with it.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Who said we want to be?
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Ah yes, I too enjoy having ideals that I never intend to actualize.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Who said we want to be a threat? If we don't, then it's not "having ideals", etc.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
I have been trying to parse this sentence but I cannot make sense of it. You are not a native English speaker, are you?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I am, in more ways than one, hehe. Perhaps you're just having trouble with reading comprehension today.
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Yeah that was the joke you dummy.
No, I think you are just doing a poor job of explaining what you are saying. This has bee happening in several of your commens, so I am inclined to believe it is you.
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
I don't think you thought of that before you typed it. 😉
1 Heydammit 2018-07-16
Considering you have made no secret of your heritage, I guarantee you it was an intentional joke.
But don't let that cog itive dissonance of me having wit and being an ignorant whitey get you down ;)
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Cool story, bro
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
First point, do you drive a car and use chemicals? Yes you do. There for you pollute the earth and the tribe doesn’t believe in that 😕 sorry I don’t make the rules.
So as my grandparents believed, I’m a native as they were. Sorry your tribe is discriminative and prejudice. That’s not my fault.
What does the division of land have to do with you? How does this take any advantage from you? Again you are more likely to get accepted to an Ivy League school based solely on being native .
In the case of the “Rez’s” I’ve been to, yes they are absolutely lazy. However, I know plenty who worked their asses off and never took a handout and flat out refused to live on the reservation. They had this thing called pride and motivation. Not that entitlement you see a lot of out there. They also make very good money and great life choices to this day.
Also almost everyone of them came from a 2 parent home where both parents were/are very traditional
Wouldn’t let me post that up where we were discussing it
1 PalKitten22 2018-07-16
Real question: Native tribes in the US are technically sovereign nations, right? Can they just accept all the refugees/immigrants they want? Do they actually have their own immigration policy?
1 ExilesReturn 2018-07-16
I don't think any immigrants want to live on a rez.
1 Baconlightning 2018-07-16
u/Rein3 I agree, all of these people deserve hate.
1 lucky_beast 2018-07-16
>Property isn't real
>Borders aren't real
Yet somehow a section of land could be defined to be owned by someone such that it could be stolen. Yeah, ok.
Anarchism is a meme.
1 pozzedshill 2018-07-16
Does her warpaint say "ANIME"
1 pozzedshill 2018-07-16
"Unchecked immigration is good" say stone-age tribes wiped out by unchecked immigration
1 -Steve_French- 2018-07-16
I'm ready for humanity to grow the fuck up and stop pretending.
/u/leftofmarx actual lol. Was that a writing prompt for your English class?
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
u/AgentGotse, I just noticed the header you made for this post and I was wondering...
Given that you obviously recognize the virulent racism indigenous people were subjected to in the other thread, what made you think it would be any different here? Or was it your intention to subject us to it a second time?
1 AgentGotse 2018-07-16
Read the sidebar, it is required to make the post as dramatic as possible. The headline is completely sarcastic, I don't think you faced any racism whatsoever in the other thread. What I see is mods bending over backwards to accommodate your views and some posters who disagree with you.
Good luck with the mayocide LMAO
1 ComradeThoth 2018-07-16
Ahh, so you have absolutely no idea what racism is then.
Or, "bending over backwards", for that matter. See, that phrase is used to mean "taking extreme effort". You're using it in a situation that is the opposite of that.
Not sure what mayocide is, but thanks!
1 Deity_Of_War 2018-07-16
"Indigenous/Native Americans" are some of the most entitled, whiniest people on the planet.
1 gloveraw21 2018-07-16
But yes. Still Native American. Sorry you find that hard to believe, but still part of the 5 civilized tribes. Not your fault you’re not educated in your own history.
1 JerseyBoy4Ever 2018-07-16
"folx"–yet another cringe buzzword. Where's "y'all" at?