|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 12, 2013 22:36:38 GMT -5
My understanding on the term Indian is that Native Americans have no problem with it. It was never used as a derogatory term. When we played Cowboys and Indians as kids I played an Indian as often as a cowboy. Hell you got take you shirt off and wooo wooo wooo a lot.
Red skin seems a little more racist but we heard the term pale face hand in hand with it. On TV and in film, the Indians were just the danger out there in the wild west. (Well, them and the crazy a$ white guy rednecks with their fast draw standoffs.) Whenever the subject came up about why the Indians were so blood thirsty, it was usually explained that the white man had did this or that to them.
It's like African Americans. I'd rather be called black. Black is cool. (Say it loud. I'm Black and I'm proud.)
Native Americans share that same TV/Motion Picture history with us. They don't come out looking bad. Real life was something different. But I don't think their issues with white America have anything to do with being called an Indian.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 12, 2013 22:45:53 GMT -5
So where are the radicals now? Hillary and Obama are often called radicals but apart from health care legislation they're both pretty much like Nixon politically. Really, who is out there now that would have been considered a radical in, say, 1972? Very astute. The center citizenry REALLY is very large. The differences between the conservative center and the liberal center is not very large. So, it does not take much off-center to make one seem like an extremest. That's why centrists like Clinton and Obama look radical. Slightly to the left looks way of center. Those of us can remember way back in the 60s when everyone with long hair was seen by our parents as a hippy freak, even though the music of the Mamas and Papas, Sonny and Cher, and the Monkees was quite tame. The question is loaded, though. It seems to equate "radical" with the ultra liberals. What about the Tea Party or at least those on the far right? Aren't they "radical," too? Also, in regards to the radicals on the left, I think they are still around, but they have learned to work the system. That's why they look invisible. I think that if the extreme right is to have a chance of getting anything constructive done, they will need to learn how to work within the system. Remember what John Lennon said about the difference between the Imagine album and Plastic Ono Band. He said they are the same album, but one is softer, nicer, more palatable. Jerry Brown and Tom Hayden learned that lesson. Maybe Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Sarah Palin will learn the lesson. But, if pushed to answer the question, maybe Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders would be seen as liberal radicals back in 1972.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 12, 2013 22:51:02 GMT -5
The center is boring. Middle of the road is unexciting. Remember, popular music pre-Beatles was straight down the center. Back in the day when there were only 3 networks, most television was in the center. Then, a Laugh-In or All in the Family would come around and shake things up a bit. I'll take chocolate and caramel syrup with nuts and a banana to go with my vanilla, thank you. Good government may be boring but leaves us safer and more prosperous. I'm good with that kind of boring. Good government? Has there EVER been a time when the majority of people liked the government and thought it was doing a good job. Just go back to Will Rogers or even further back to Gulliver's Travels. Even in the best of times the government is ridiculed and criticized. That's why those who talk about the "good old days" are really talking about a time that never was. Back in the good old days, people complained about stuff - a lot.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 12, 2013 23:00:58 GMT -5
So where are the radicals now? Hillary and Obama are often called radicals but apart from health care legislation they're both pretty much like Nixon politically. Really, who is out there now that would have been considered a radical in, say, 1972? Interesting point. I think Obama's positions on gay marriage, abortion and illegal immigration (just to name three off the top of my pointy li'l head) would have had Obama pegged as a FLAMING radical back in 1972. As well as the mere concept of a black guy and former heavy pot smoker being elected president. My how times have changed. Sometimes for the better.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 12, 2013 23:17:28 GMT -5
My understanding on the term Indian is that Native Americans have no problem with it. It was never used as a derogatory term . . . Although it is true that "elders" before the 60s generally had no problem with being called "Indians," just as elder African-Americans in the 60s had no problem with "Negro", it was younger (often college educated) Native Americans who pushed the issue, but it WAS a growing historical development. It did not happen overnight. It's like gay marriage. Didn't happen overnight. I think if I were of Japanese descent and all people of East Asian background (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc) were called "Mongolians", I might have a problem with that. Also, that story of Columbus calling the Indians "Indian" because he thought he was in the East Indies may not be correct. India was known as Hindustan at the time of Columbus, not India. People from Hindustan were not called "Indians" so why would he call the people he saw in the Caribbean "Indians"? There is a school of thought that believes he referred to them as people "in God" (en Dios) because of their innocence and gentleness. Be that as it may, it really doesn't matter. It is a fact that indigenous peoples or "conquered" peoples or "enslaved" people often were called what the people in power wanted to call them. Kids being picked on know this quite well. So, it is natural for a people who have struggled for an identity should also struggle with what they want to call themselves, especially when the people are not even the same anyway (Hopi, Navajo, Chippewa, Cherokee, etc.) And, yes I know that these might not even be the names these people give themselves.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 12, 2013 23:23:10 GMT -5
Like I said, from now on I demand to be referred to as a Person of Colorlessness.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 12, 2013 23:24:49 GMT -5
. . . I think Obama's positions on gay marriage, abortion and illegal immigration (just to name three off the top of my pointed li'l head) would have had Obama pegged as a FLAMING radical back in 1972. As well as the mere concept of a black guy and former heavy pot smoker being elected president. My how times have changed. Sometimes for the better. Saved by your last sentence. As for the rest, those positions by the President were actually closer to today's center's views. He's no radical by today's standard. To compare anything to the past is dubious. Some of today's PG-13 movies would be Rated R back in the day, so of course anything "normal" or "center" today would be seen as radical back in another time.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 12, 2013 23:28:10 GMT -5
Like I said, from now on I demand to be referred to as a Person of Colorlessness. But, you are a color. Bland, but a color nonetheless. And what about "person"? Maybe you should go with "entity."
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 12, 2013 23:28:17 GMT -5
Not being smart or anything just asking if you know, why then is Hindustan called India now?
I think I'd rather be called "in God" than named after Amerigo Vespucci.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 12, 2013 23:43:30 GMT -5
Believe me I treasure this website. Where there's people who can discuss sensitive and touchy and emotionally-charged subjects in a witty and intelligent manner with a bare minimum of screeching and name calling. That's rare. Just check out most other sites on the internet. Beatles fans I salute you.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 13, 2013 1:09:21 GMT -5
Believe me I treasure this website. Where there's people who can discuss sensitive and touchy and emotionally-charged subjects in a witty and intelligent manner with a bare minimum of screeching and name calling. That's rare. Just check out most other sites on the internet. Beatles fans I salute you. And John Lennon abandoned after about the third post here as an argument ensued over defining the political parameters by which we were to guess what John might be today! I'll start a new fight and say whatever John's political bent might have been in 2013, he wouldn't be the phony, Hollywood red-carpet muncher that Paul McCartney has become, surrounding himself with all of daughter Stella's Hollywood friends 30 years younger than him!
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 13, 2013 1:35:18 GMT -5
The right is just as full of crap as the left. "PC" is lazy shorthand for wanting your own way. Yeah, like shutting down the government because one does not like a particular law that was passed as the law of the land a long time ago. Like whittling away with the Voter Rights Act because the guys who voted for the other guy would not vote for you and it's easier to make harder for them to vote than to make your arguments stronger. "Radical, chic, PC, knee-jerk." Yup, no bias around here, except for the person who said that the right is as full of crap as the left. Although it's probably more accurate to say the extreme right is as full of crap as the extreme left, I get the point. But, at the same time, we need the extremes. We need them to move the center. A stationary center is flawed, as well. In order to get any kind of political, social, artistic, economic, etc movement, the edges are necessary. I was preoccupied with being knee-jerk, so thanks, sayne, for clarifying that the extreme left and right are full of crap. Nobody would have ever called me "chic" today, though.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 13, 2013 1:44:00 GMT -5
This reminds me of Fred Seaman's story that John would have been a Republican. Nothing can be further from the truth.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 13, 2013 4:25:23 GMT -5
Believe me I treasure this website. Where there's people who can discuss sensitive and touchy and emotionally-charged subjects in a witty and intelligent manner with a bare minimum of screeching and name calling. That's rare. Just check out most other sites on the internet. Beatles fans I salute you. Shut your yap, Pumpkinface!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 13, 2013 6:56:57 GMT -5
Wrong. Time is coming under heavy criticism from the Left and the right for their very questionable use of the phrase Elephant in the Room, and the unflattering picture. No one's saying that's politically correct or otherwise ok. It's wrong and most people acknowledge it's wrong, it's all over the media because it is inappropriate. Little more PC correctness from Time would have been welcome, right? First - no, TIME should not have used "political correctness" either. This is my whole point. TIME should be able to call the man "an elephant", but only then just as any other magazine should likewise be able to call Obama (for example) "The Black Sheep" (or whatever such analogy applies). What I'm saying is, the problem with PC is that only certain people then get to be treated with special respect. It has to be the same across the board for everyone... if you're going to use PC, then this courtesy should be applied for EVERYONE. If you're going to bypass PC and call a fat man "elephant", then any other person should be free game to get roasted too. You're right that TIME got taken to task for its "elephant" remark, but the thing is, by their own standards of PC, the cover probably should never have been issued in the first place. You'd never see a politically INCORRECT cover try to push the envelope like that by "going to press first, then facing criticism after".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 13, 2013 7:09:06 GMT -5
Yeah, my wife and I (both very liberal) thought it was wrong, insensitive, and in poor taste. Even though we got that they were really meaning the elephant to be the Republican Party, the pairing with Christie was fucked up. Yeah, but still -- just to play both sides here -- Christie replied to this and was pretty much of a "thick skin" about it! That's also the issue here -- let "names" roll off your back and grow a set of balls! Everyone is so damned sensitive today that it's even got you and the missus practically gasping for breath and saying "it's in poor taste, wrong, insensitive, and fucked up, oh my!" ....! Just playing devil's advocate here, but people are just way too sensitive today when it comes to things like this and it's gotten beyond absurd. It literally IS getting to the point today where you don't dare say anything for for of someone taking offense; there have actually been times where even hardcore and well-meaning liberals "offend" certain groups without even knowing it.. !(?)! I always point out the time, sayne, where you took me to task for using the word "black", suggesting that black people do not like being called this -- and yet there are black people all over the TV referring to themselves and others that way (there's even a show called "Positively Black") ... Around 1983 I recall hanging out with a group, and a girl got into the car and I hadn't seen her in awhile so without even thinking I asked her: "Long time, no see - how's tricks?" . Later on I discovered that she was really offended by that, because she thought I was teasing her about being a hooker (?!). The others in my group all agreed and thought it was plainly obvious what I had meant -- but the truth was, it was an innocent greeting that was something I'd just heard and repeated. I can now see how she might have gotten the wrong idea - and perhaps the old greeting "how's tricks" had its origins in prostitution.... but I honestly meant no insult and did not know. (Plus - maybe had it been another girl, she perhaps would not have even been phased at all by such a hello ... so anyone can get upset about anything at any time and you can't go around wearing a muzzle).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 13, 2013 7:28:13 GMT -5
My understanding on the term Indian is that Native Americans have no problem with it. But y'see, I can even make a case here that this statement could be taken as prejudiced. Here you are basically lumping "all" Native Americans as not having a problem with the word Indian (perhaps some might). (I'm only making a case here; I am not saying you are prejudiced ) ... See how crazy this can become? When you think about it, calling a man from the Western days a "cow" or "boy" is even less respectful! And, for me, "black" is on par with calling a Caucasian-American "white". It's only a quick way of more easily signifying which person(s) you are referring to ("the thin guy, the heavy guy", "the short guy, the tall guy" .... "the black guy, the white guy"). And most of all, it is a mouthful to use all of those hyphenated specialty words... life is too short, and one syllable is easier than 7. (I even heard a black political woman on the radio tell Imus that he did not have to trip all over himself calling her "Af-ri-can-A-mer-I-can".. she put him at ease and told him: "Please, that is such a mouthful to have to say ... I am black, Imus".)
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 13, 2013 7:44:50 GMT -5
Has anyone actually read the article? If it's about Christie being a good candidate but the republicans don't want to talk about him, as Time says it is in the inside cover, then people need to shut up. They are the ones obsessed with Christie's weight. The "elephant (republican) in the room" is a good, clever analogy. It could be used for any republican candidate being ignored.
Christie seems to get a lot of attention so I suspect they are stretching it and it's a disguised fat joke.
I'm not sure how anyone could consider Obama a black sheep?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 13, 2013 7:47:52 GMT -5
How do the European African Americans feel about it?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 13, 2013 7:55:20 GMT -5
My understanding on the term Indian is that Native Americans have no problem with it. But y'see, I can even make a case here that this statement could be taken as prejudiced. Here you are basically lumping "all" Native Americans as not having a problem with the word Indian (perhaps some might). (I'm only making a case here; I am not saying you are prejudiced ) ... See how crazy this can become? When you think about it, calling a man from the Western days a "cow" or "boy" is even less respectful! And, for me, "black" is on par with calling a Caucasian-American "white". It's only a quick way of more easily signifying which person(s) you are referring to ("the thin guy, the heavy guy", "the short guy, the tall guy" .... "the black guy, the white guy"). And most of all, it is a mouthful to use all of those hyphenated specialty words... life is too short, and one syllable is easier than 7. (I even heard a black political woman on the radio tell Imus that he did not have to trip all over himself calling her "Af-ri-can-A-mer-I-can".. she put him at ease and told him: "Please, that is such a mouthful to have to say ... I am black, Imus".) I should have said "Most Native American". I also should have said "If" I were black, .... Cowboy probably started out as a slur, "Hey, who let that cow boy in here?" "Duuuude, I just want a drink!"
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Nov 13, 2013 12:09:58 GMT -5
I reckon John would probably have settled into a left of centre viewpoint. He may even have started a socialist party just to annoy you all and would probably have died from laughter at the rise of the tea party.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 13, 2013 18:39:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure how anyone could consider Obama a black sheep? I wasn't saying he is, or that anyone could consider him that way. I was just using whatever quick example I could come up with to make the point of something that would not be tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 13, 2013 19:44:43 GMT -5
I'm not sure how anyone could consider Obama a black sheep? I wasn't saying he is, or that anyone could consider him that way. I was just using whatever quick example I could come up with to make the point of something that would not be tolerated. With the elephant, there was a legit cover story, pardon the pun. "The elephant in the room" is a saying you hear about something staring everyone in the face but nobody is mentioning it. Elephants are the mascots for Republicans. It's like Big Ten Inch. You say something but you have an out. It's a double entan..., a double enton..., it has two meanings.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 13, 2013 19:48:20 GMT -5
So where are the radicals now? Hillary and Obama are often called radicals but apart from health care legislation they're both pretty much like Nixon politically. Really, who is out there now that would have been considered a radical in, say, 1972? Very astute. The center citizenry REALLY is very large. The differences between the conservative center and the liberal center is not very large. So, it does not take much off-center to make one seem like an extremest. That's why centrists like Clinton and Obama look radical. Slightly to the left looks way of center. Those of us can remember way back in the 60s when everyone with long hair was seen by our parents as a hippy freak, even though the music of the Mamas and Papas, Sonny and Cher, and the Monkees was quite tame. The question is loaded, though. It seems to equate "radical" with the ultra liberals. What about the Tea Party or at least those on the far right? Aren't they "radical," too? Also, in regards to the radicals on the left, I think they are still around, but they have learned to work the system. That's why they look invisible. I think that if the extreme right is to have a chance of getting anything constructive done, they will need to learn how to work within the system. Remember what John Lennon said about the difference between the Imagine album and Plastic Ono Band. He said they are the same album, but one is softer, nicer, more palatable. Jerry Brown and Tom Hayden learned that lesson. Maybe Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Sarah Palin will learn the lesson. But, if pushed to answer the question, maybe Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders would be seen as liberal radicals back in 1972. Traditionally, the far left extremists were referred to as radicals, and the far right extremists were referred to as reactionaries. I did not intend to imply that the tea party wasn't full of radically minded people.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 13, 2013 19:52:01 GMT -5
So where are the radicals now? Hillary and Obama are often called radicals but apart from health care legislation they're both pretty much like Nixon politically. Really, who is out there now that would have been considered a radical in, say, 1972? Interesting point. I think Obama's positions on gay marriage, abortion and illegal immigration (just to name three off the top of my pointy li'l head) would have had Obama pegged as a FLAMING radical back in 1972. As well as the mere concept of a black guy and former heavy pot smoker being elected president. My how times have changed. Sometimes for the better. Things like gay marriage were radical 40 years ago. Now it's mainstream. Policy wise Obama is pretty centrist by 1972 standards, you can argue he's to the right if Nixon. Funny, a guy like Reagan was far to chummy with the left to ever win the nomination now.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 13, 2013 19:54:12 GMT -5
Wrong. Time is coming under heavy criticism from the Left and the right for their very questionable use of the phrase Elephant in the Room, and the unflattering picture. No one's saying that's politically correct or otherwise ok. It's wrong and most people acknowledge it's wrong, it's all over the media because it is inappropriate. Little more PC correctness from Time would have been welcome, right? First - no, TIME should not have used "political correctness" either. This is my whole point. TIME should be able to call the man "an elephant", but only then just as any other magazine should likewise be able to call Obama (for example) "The Black Sheep" (or whatever such analogy applies). What I'm saying is, the problem with PC is that only certain people then get to be treated with special respect. It has to be the same across the board for everyone... if you're going to use PC, then this courtesy should be applied for EVERYONE. If you're going to bypass PC and call a fat man "elephant", then any other person should be free game to get roasted too. You're right that TIME got taken to task for its "elephant" remark, but the thing is, by their own standards of PC, the cover probably should never have been issued in the first place. You'd never see a politically INCORRECT cover try to push the envelope like that by "going to press first, then facing criticism after". But that's wrong too. calling an overweight person an elephant is politically incorrect,and that's what they did.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 13, 2013 19:57:30 GMT -5
Common sense tells you that this is an impossibly losing situation, because in many cases you can't tell what someone will get all sensitive about. So now we're hearing that the Redskins team name offends people after 100 years (or whatever it is; I hate football). We already know that the "N Word" is just plain wrong, that's not a problem to realize ... but there seems to be something new every day. Do we change The Cleveland Indians next? Or only when a handful of sensitive babies make some noise over that, too? It's not impossible, and worth a little effort. are you a member of an ethnic group, and if so, aren't their expressions that have been used that you would prefer not be used? hey Joe, you're the one that insists posters not ignore your questions. I was hoping you'd respond to this one, in hopes of getting to a meeting of the minds.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 13, 2013 20:25:30 GMT -5
First - no, TIME should not have used "political correctness" either. This is my whole point. TIME should be able to call the man "an elephant", but only then just as any other magazine should likewise be able to call Obama (for example) "The Black Sheep" (or whatever such analogy applies). What I'm saying is, the problem with PC is that only certain people then get to be treated with special respect. It has to be the same across the board for everyone... if you're going to use PC, then this courtesy should be applied for EVERYONE. If you're going to bypass PC and call a fat man "elephant", then any other person should be free game to get roasted too. You're right that TIME got taken to task for its "elephant" remark, but the thing is, by their own standards of PC, the cover probably should never have been issued in the first place. You'd never see a politically INCORRECT cover try to push the envelope like that by "going to press first, then facing criticism after". But that's wrong too. calling an overweight person an elephant is politically incorrect,and that's what they did. I think overweight people have just as much right to be republicans as anybody. And stubborn people can be called Democrats too.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 13, 2013 23:15:52 GMT -5
And, for me, "black" is on par with calling a Caucasian-American "white". It's only a quick way of more easily signifying which person(s) you are referring to ("the thin guy, the heavy guy", "the short guy, the tall guy" .... "the black guy, the white guy"). I bet that for most people, perhaps even you, if there were a really tall white guy across the street, people would say "Look at the tall guy," while if there was a very tall African-American guy, people would say, "Look at that tall black guy," or "Look at the black guy! Jeez, he's tall." Point? In most cases, the white person would not be identified as such. There's an interesting story today about a teenager in Scandinavia who is claiming as racist the renaming of the color beige as "skin tone." She, rightly,is arguing that calling that color "skin tone" implies that anyone with any color skin different that beige-like does not have the correct skin tone.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 13, 2013 23:22:41 GMT -5
. . . (I even heard a black political woman on the radio tell Imus that he did not have to trip all over himself calling her "Af-ri-can-A-mer-I-can".. she put him at ease and told him: "Please, that is such a mouthful to have to say ... I am black, Imus".) Maybe he should not have even used color as the descriptor and called her a "bitch" or "ho" instead. If she takes offense to that, then she's just being overly sensitive, because when most people think of a bitch or a ho, I bet most people, thanks to movies, rap songs, and comedy routines, would picture an African-American woman. And, she's probably a bitch and a ho to some guy out there anyway.
|
|