Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Jalen Rose says "Mount Rushmore" term is offensive and should be retired, which was added to the Mt. Rushmore of dumb takes   (fadeawayworld.net) divider line
    More: Murica, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Christopher Columbus, Native Americans in the United States, Indigenous peoples, United States, Thomas Jefferson, former NBA point guard, early days of the country  
•       •       •

682 clicks; posted to Sports » on 07 Aug 2022 at 5:48 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



57 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-08-07 11:07:03 AM  
There is no one buried under Mt Rushmore. It is a farking enormous block of granite. Maybe in the surrounding areas but not under.
 
2022-08-07 11:18:42 AM  
Jalen who?
 
2022-08-07 11:26:04 AM  
A mountain, a block of granite, is not offensive.

What happened to that block of granite and why is very offensive.
 
2022-08-07 11:40:09 AM  
He's actually got a point.
 
2022-08-07 11:41:25 AM  

educated: A mountain, a block of granite, is not offensive.

What happened to that block of granite and why is very offensive.


Kinda curious. Preface that Stone mountain in GA is wayyyyy more offensive  But the Works program to carve it provided employment at a time of need and without the carving SD would have thousands of less visitors and all of the figure depicted are big in America history without being truly horrible people. If Jackson was one Mt. Rushmore I would put in the same camp as stone mountain.
 
2022-08-07 11:53:07 AM  

eurotrader: educated: A mountain, a block of granite, is not offensive.

What happened to that block of granite and why is very offensive.

Kinda curious. Preface that Stone mountain in GA is wayyyyy more offensive  But the Works program to carve it provided employment at a time of need and without the carving SD would have thousands of less visitors and all of the figure depicted are big in America history without being truly horrible people. If Jackson was one Mt. Rushmore I would put in the same camp as stone mountain.


So stealing land, defacing sacred land, and displacing people is ok as long as it creates jobs/wealth for others?
Because the white faces depicted were of men who weren't that terrible?

Eh. We disagree here. Rare, but there it is.
 
2022-08-07 12:01:27 PM  

educated: eurotrader: educated: A mountain, a block of granite, is not offensive.

What happened to that block of granite and why is very offensive.

Kinda curious. Preface that Stone mountain in GA is wayyyyy more offensive  But the Works program to carve it provided employment at a time of need and without the carving SD would have thousands of less visitors and all of the figure depicted are big in America history without being truly horrible people. If Jackson was one Mt. Rushmore I would put in the same camp as stone mountain.

So stealing land, defacing sacred land, and displacing people is ok as long as it creates jobs/wealth for others?
Because the white faces depicted were of men who weren't that terrible?

Eh. We disagree here. Rare, but there it is.


What is anyone at all going to gain if they do away with it?
 
2022-08-07 12:02:58 PM  

eurotrader: educated: A mountain, a block of granite, is not offensive.

What happened to that block of granite and why is very offensive.

Kinda curious. Preface that Stone mountain in GA is wayyyyy more offensive  But the Works program to carve it provided employment at a time of need and without the carving SD would have thousands of less visitors and all of the figure depicted are big in America history without being truly horrible people. If Jackson was one Mt. Rushmore I would put in the same camp as stone mountain.


Thomas Jefferson, America's 3rd President and 1st slave-raper-in-chief.
 
2022-08-07 12:04:40 PM  

thecactusman17: eurotrader: educated: A mountain, a block of granite, is not offensive.

What happened to that block of granite and why is very offensive.

Kinda curious. Preface that Stone mountain in GA is wayyyyy more offensive  But the Works program to carve it provided employment at a time of need and without the carving SD would have thousands of less visitors and all of the figure depicted are big in America history without being truly horrible people. If Jackson was one Mt. Rushmore I would put in the same camp as stone mountain.

Thomas Jefferson, America's 3rd President and 1st slave-raper-in-chief.


And before I forget, Washington sure wasn't much friend to the natives either but at least he didn't impregnate any of them while serving with the British.
 
2022-08-07 12:11:40 PM  

Naido: educated: eurotrader: educated: A mountain, a block of granite, is not offensive.

What happened to that block of granite and why is very offensive.

Kinda curious. Preface that Stone mountain in GA is wayyyyy more offensive  But the Works program to carve it provided employment at a time of need and without the carving SD would have thousands of less visitors and all of the figure depicted are big in America history without being truly horrible people. If Jackson was one Mt. Rushmore I would put in the same camp as stone mountain.

So stealing land, defacing sacred land, and displacing people is ok as long as it creates jobs/wealth for others?
Because the white faces depicted were of men who weren't that terrible?

Eh. We disagree here. Rare, but there it is.

What is anyone at all going to gain if they do away with it?


Not sure what you mean.
The lands were already stolen and defaced - there's no going back.
 
2022-08-07 12:16:07 PM  

eurotrader: Kinda curious. Preface that Stone mountain in GA is wayyyyy more offensive  But the Works program to carve it provided employment at a time of need and without the carving SD would have thousands of less visitors and all of the figure depicted are big in America history without being truly horrible people. If Jackson was one Mt. Rushmore I would put in the same camp as stone mountain.


So there isn't anything else we could have set people to do that would have provided employment? Maybe we could have paid them to set fire to forests (and pay somebody else to put the fires out). Or even maybe just given them assistance without requiring them to deface a mountain? That is a false dichotomy.
 
2022-08-07 12:21:29 PM  

educated: eurotrader: educated: A mountain, a block of granite, is not offensive.

What happened to that block of granite and why is very offensive.

Kinda curious. Preface that Stone mountain in GA is wayyyyy more offensive  But the Works program to carve it provided employment at a time of need and without the carving SD would have thousands of less visitors and all of the figure depicted are big in America history without being truly horrible people. If Jackson was one Mt. Rushmore I would put in the same camp as stone mountain.

So stealing land, defacing sacred land, and displacing people is ok as long as it creates jobs/wealth for others?
Because the white faces depicted were of men who weren't that terrible?

Eh. We disagree here. Rare, but there it is.


Not saying that, saying what could be changed now? Teddy Roosevelt said the only good Indian was a dead Indian but he also did a host of good things and was an original elected progressive  in the US. US history is covered in blood, bodies and misconduct but trying to relitigate the past that can't be changed can prevent meaningful change in the future. Recognize the horrific actions but don't get stuck on them. Native Americans are still getting farked over, see the Blackfeet or Navaho not even having access to clean and safe water there are good and necessary things to be done. Heck the Lokota are currently under attack by nutjob Christians trying to destroy their culture and language  and their is things that can be done about that.

/That said, some blasting to remove a traitor and terrorist from stone mountain should be done.
 
2022-08-07 12:37:56 PM  

eurotrader: educated: eurotrader: educated: A mountain, a block of granite, is not offensive.

What happened to that block of granite and why is very offensive.

Kinda curious. Preface that Stone mountain in GA is wayyyyy more offensive  But the Works program to carve it provided employment at a time of need and without the carving SD would have thousands of less visitors and all of the figure depicted are big in America history without being truly horrible people. If Jackson was one Mt. Rushmore I would put in the same camp as stone mountain.

So stealing land, defacing sacred land, and displacing people is ok as long as it creates jobs/wealth for others?
Because the white faces depicted were of men who weren't that terrible?

Eh. We disagree here. Rare, but there it is.

Not saying that, saying what could be changed now? Teddy Roosevelt said the only good Indian was a dead Indian but he also did a host of good things and was an original elected progressive  in the US. US history is covered in blood, bodies and misconduct but trying to relitigate the past that can't be changed can prevent meaningful change in the future. Recognize the horrific actions but don't get stuck on them. Native Americans are still getting farked over, see the Blackfeet or Navaho not even having access to clean and safe water there are good and necessary things to be done. Heck the Lokota are currently under attack by nutjob Christians trying to destroy their culture and language  and their is things that can be done about that.

/That said, some blasting to remove a traitor and terrorist from stone mountain should be done.


Yeah we agree on all that.
I had an issue with just a small part of one of your comments - the "but created needed jobs and brings tourism" silver lining.

That particular little piece is horsesh*t. The rest, we're peas in a pod.

And yeah, there's no changing it, as I responded to Nads.
Relitigate, make amends, etc., those aren't options after what the white europeans did. Give back defiled, unbalanced, destroyed lands? Rejuvenate lost culture, knowledge, language? There's literally no going back. We can try. We should try. Some of us are trying. But a lot of the damage done was horrifically effective and can't be reversed.
 
2022-08-07 12:55:35 PM  
But more to the point of the article, yeah, using a monument that came about as Mount Rushmore did to signal something as the best, at peak, victory, progress - whatever is terrible and we should stop.
 
2022-08-07 1:06:38 PM  
Give the land back to the Sioux Nation and paint bright war paint on the faces, I'll help, it's part of my ancestors' lands.
 
2022-08-07 1:50:19 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-07 3:25:19 PM  
is this a thing?  I have no idea if this is silly... or long overdue.

I g00gled him, to see if he had a history of saying bonkers/sensible things, and on an incredibly cursory look, I can't tell.

this though...

In 2021, he filed for divorce from Qerim. He stated that their marriage broke down after she moved to Connecticut.

yeah, that'll do it

/it's possible no one else will think it's funny.  amused me though
 
2022-08-07 5:24:07 PM  

Lady J: is this a thing?  I have no idea if this is silly... or long overdue.

I g00gled him, to see if he had a history of saying bonkers/sensible things, and on an incredibly cursory look, I can't tell.

this though...

In 2021, he filed for divorce from Qerim. He stated that their marriage broke down after she moved to Connecticut.

yeah, that'll do it

/it's possible no one else will think it's funny.  amused me though


He's pretty good with the right podcast partner, but that's *completely* dependent on having the right partner.

He appears on an in-studio show during NBA games, but it's so bad that no one can watch it. He's not necessarily the bad part of it, but their rival NBA network has maybe the best in-studio sports show ever, which makes the one he's on seem especially intolerable in comparison.

He usually isn't a nut, but he's not a rocket scientist either.
 
2022-08-07 5:49:26 PM  
What's more offensive is letting your teammate call time out when you have none left.
 
2022-08-07 5:52:32 PM  

Naido: Lady J: is this a thing?  I have no idea if this is silly... or long overdue.

I g00gled him, to see if he had a history of saying bonkers/sensible things, and on an incredibly cursory look, I can't tell.

this though...

In 2021, he filed for divorce from Qerim. He stated that their marriage broke down after she moved to Connecticut.

yeah, that'll do it

/it's possible no one else will think it's funny.  amused me though

He's pretty good with the right podcast partner, but that's *completely* dependent on having the right partner.

He appears on an in-studio show during NBA games, but it's so bad that no one can watch it. He's not necessarily the bad part of it, but their rival NBA network has maybe the best in-studio sports show ever, which makes the one he's on seem especially intolerable in comparison.

He usually isn't a nut, but he's not a rocket scientist either.


so... thank you, but... I still have no idea if mt rushmore should continue to be called mt rushmore or not!
 
2022-08-07 5:54:39 PM  
Okay, let's see if I can make a real and genuine comparison....

The 9/11 Memorial is torn down, and TFG and some overseas people with deep pockets put up a 10-story monument to.... I dunno, .... oligarchs and former rulers from their country?
 
2022-08-07 5:58:21 PM  

eurotrader: educated: A mountain, a block of granite, is not offensive.

What happened to that block of granite and why is very offensive.

Kinda curious. Preface that Stone mountain in GA is wayyyyy more offensive  But the Works program to carve it provided employment at a time of need and without the carving SD would have thousands of less visitors and all of the figure depicted are big in America history without being truly horrible people. If Jackson was one Mt. Rushmore I would put in the same camp as stone mountain.


I went to Stone Mountain last week for a hike. I have a pass. It's a beautiful anomaly, and it's also completely defaced.  Even if it wasn't carved with incompetent (Lee was incompetent) assholes and someone else instead, it would still be defacement.

Go to Arabia Mountain instead. It's a smaller Stone Mountain that no one goes to.  It's serene.
 
2022-08-07 6:05:14 PM  
This has a real "US OUT OF NORTH AMERICA" pointlessness to it.
 
2022-08-07 6:17:41 PM  

Lady J: Naido: Lady J: is this a thing?  I have no idea if this is silly... or long overdue.

I g00gled him, to see if he had a history of saying bonkers/sensible things, and on an incredibly cursory look, I can't tell.

this though...

In 2021, he filed for divorce from Qerim. He stated that their marriage broke down after she moved to Connecticut.

yeah, that'll do it

/it's possible no one else will think it's funny.  amused me though

He's pretty good with the right podcast partner, but that's *completely* dependent on having the right partner.

He appears on an in-studio show during NBA games, but it's so bad that no one can watch it. He's not necessarily the bad part of it, but their rival NBA network has maybe the best in-studio sports show ever, which makes the one he's on seem especially intolerable in comparison.

He usually isn't a nut, but he's not a rocket scientist either.

so... thank you, but... I still have no idea if mt rushmore should continue to be called mt rushmore or not!


I'm not sure anyone is questioning what it should be called, it's named after a perfectly acceptable movie (this part is a joke, settle down, everyone).

Rose is questioning: say, for instance, you're having a debate about the best basketball player ever.  Someone will say "who's on your Mt. Rushmore?", which means who are the four absolute best, worthy of being memorialized for all time on the side of a mountain.

He thinks that Mt. Rushmore shouldn't have been created at all, because it valorizes 4 white dudes, some of whom are of questionable moral value, on land that was stolen from Native Americans by some of those same white dudes.  He's saying that when naming your absolute best of something, you shouldn't use it as a point of comparison, because morality.

He thinks you should use something more worthy of true respect when ascribing ultimate respectability to basketball players, or whoever else.  We shouldn't use things that are dubious morally when trying to show ultimate respect to people whose shoes are being stitched together by little slave children.
 
2022-08-07 6:19:18 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: Okay, let's see if I can make a real and genuine comparison....

The 9/11 Memorial is torn down, and TFG and some overseas people with deep pockets put up a 10-story monument to.... I dunno, .... oligarchs and former rulers from their country?


[starts up faint keening noise]
I don't know if this was a response to me, and if it was... I don't know whether the 9/11 monument being torn is when you called it mt rushmore... or would be when you stopped calling it mt rushmore.

Fark user imageView Full Size


/I have no skin in this game, and can go bother ppl in another thread if I'm just trampling all over cultural sensitivities in this one
//mmm, althooough... all of us could be said to have skin in any wrong against another, and its acknowledgement and righting
///now I'm just being a smart alec
 
2022-08-07 6:26:09 PM  
Mt Rushmore requires a lot of maintenance (sealing cracks). Stop the maintenance and it will "Old Man of the Mountains" itself in time.
 
2022-08-07 6:37:09 PM  
Kobe putting up 81 on this man really broke him. Sad.
 
2022-08-07 6:40:40 PM  

ZMugg: Mt Rushmore requires a lot of maintenance (sealing cracks). Stop the maintenance and it will "Old Man of the Mountains" itself in time.


The Old Man of the Mountain collapsed in 2003.

/and the 9/11 Memorial was trying to compare something sacred by many and shiatting on it
//or is there a better comparison for Farkers?
///slashies for slashies sake
 
2022-08-07 6:52:45 PM  

HugeMistake: eurotrader: Kinda curious. Preface that Stone mountain in GA is wayyyyy more offensive  But the Works program to carve it provided employment at a time of need and without the carving SD would have thousands of less visitors and all of the figure depicted are big in America history without being truly horrible people. If Jackson was one Mt. Rushmore I would put in the same camp as stone mountain.

So there isn't anything else we could have set people to do that would have provided employment? Maybe we could have paid them to set fire to forests (and pay somebody else to put the fires out). Or even maybe just given them assistance without requiring them to deface a mountain? That is a false dichotomy.


The dispute over the land and the gold in the Black Hills is still ongoing.
 
2022-08-07 6:53:35 PM  
There is a lot to like about Jalen Rose, not this though.

Dude is a very entertaining teller of stories and has a gift for explaining things in front of my own eyes on a court that bums like me can't see but he can. His podcast is fantastic.
 
2022-08-07 7:24:46 PM  
Just for context, America agreed to let the Lakota have that land, then someone found gold there, so America took back the land they gave the Lakota.

There's a term for that...
 
2022-08-07 7:26:10 PM  
I have an idea.  Let's leave the actual Mt Rushmore just the way it is but ban every metaphorical use of it.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-07 7:33:06 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: The Old Man of the Mountain collapsed in 2003.


Yes, yes it did. Because of poor maintenance. Which was my point.

As for the name: Just call it by its original name, The Six Grandfathers.
 
2022-08-07 7:35:12 PM  
Addendum: It was conceived and built as a tourist trap.
 
2022-08-07 7:39:48 PM  

Naido: Lady J: Naido: Lady J: is this a thing?  I have no idea if this is silly... or long overdue.

I g00gled him, to see if he had a history of saying bonkers/sensible things, and on an incredibly cursory look, I can't tell.

this though...

In 2021, he filed for divorce from Qerim. He stated that their marriage broke down after she moved to Connecticut.

yeah, that'll do it

/it's possible no one else will think it's funny.  amused me though

He's pretty good with the right podcast partner, but that's *completely* dependent on having the right partner.

He appears on an in-studio show during NBA games, but it's so bad that no one can watch it. He's not necessarily the bad part of it, but their rival NBA network has maybe the best in-studio sports show ever, which makes the one he's on seem especially intolerable in comparison.

He usually isn't a nut, but he's not a rocket scientist either.

so... thank you, but... I still have no idea if mt rushmore should continue to be called mt rushmore or not!

I'm not sure anyone is questioning what it should be called, it's named after a perfectly acceptable movie (this part is a joke, settle down, everyone).

Rose is questioning: say, for instance, you're having a debate about the best basketball player ever.  Someone will say "who's on your Mt. Rushmore?", which means who are the four absolute best, worthy of being memorialized for all time on the side of a mountain.

He thinks that Mt. Rushmore shouldn't have been created at all, because it valorizes 4 white dudes, some of whom are of questionable moral value, on land that was stolen from Native Americans by some of those same white dudes.  He's saying that when naming your absolute best of something, you shouldn't use it as a point of comparison, because morality.

He thinks you should use something more worthy of true respect when ascribing ultimate respectability to basketball players, or whoever else.  We shouldn't use things that are dubious morally when trying to show ultimate respect to people whose shoes are being stitched together by little slave children.


Who's your Run-DMC?
 
2022-08-07 9:16:45 PM  
I think that the big thing here is that a lot of people have this weird (racist) notion of Native American history.

Mount Rushmore is in the Black Hills.  The Black Hills were settled by the Arikara people in the 1500s, who got their ass kicked by the Cheyenne, who got their ass kicked by the Crow, who got their ass kicked by the Kiowa, who got their ass kicked by the Arapaho, who got their ass kicked by the Lakota in the 18th Century, who got their ass kicked by the Europeans.  The Lakota were in the Black Hills because they were forced out of Minnesota/Wisconsin by the Ojibwa in a series of nasty wars, who moved into that area because they got forced out of their area by the Iroquois in a series of nasty wars.

People have this weird notion that Native American history was relatively static and control of land didn't change much prior to white people showing up - people act like its "really" Lakota land because they controlled it immediately before white people.  But they had controlled it for a very short period of time - white people have been in control of that land for far longer than the Lakota ever were.

So if white people stole the land from the Lakota, why didn't the Lakota steal it from the Arapaho, or the Arapaho from the Kiowa, etc?

These claims that pretend that a certain Native American tribe have been on land since time began or whatever are just silly.  Prior to white people showing up, land was controlled by whoever won the most recent nasty war.  White people aren't some kind of exception in the long history of the land - they're the norm.  They were just better at holding the land because of technology and diseases like smallpox.

Were the things that white people did during their conquest horrible?  Yes, of course.  And we should absolutely talk about those things when we teach history.  But the things that these tribes did when they conquered land are very similar.  Nobody is nice when they are conquering somebody else - read up on the history of successful Native American empires, and you'll see some really horrific stuff.  The Arapaho, for example, were known for practicing human sacrifice with their enemies - it was not nice.

So yeah, we took the land from the Lakota.  Who took the land from the Arapaho, who took it from somebody else, and so on all the way back to the Clovis culture at least.

I don't hold it against the Lakota that they renamed major features and put up monuments and whatnot after they conquered the land.  And I don't hold it against white people when they did the same.  It's just the way of the world.
 
2022-08-07 10:08:59 PM  

Krazikarl: I think that the big thing here is that a lot of people have this weird (racist) notion of Native American history.

Mount Rushmore is in the Black Hills.  The Black Hills were settled by the Arikara people in the 1500s, who got their ass kicked by the Cheyenne, who got their ass kicked by the Crow, who got their ass kicked by the Kiowa, who got their ass kicked by the Arapaho, who got their ass kicked by the Lakota in the 18th Century, who got their ass kicked by the Europeans.  The Lakota were in the Black Hills because they were forced out of Minnesota/Wisconsin by the Ojibwa in a series of nasty wars, who moved into that area because they got forced out of their area by the Iroquois in a series of nasty wars.

People have this weird notion that Native American history was relatively static and control of land didn't change much prior to white people showing up - people act like its "really" Lakota land because they controlled it immediately before white people.  But they had controlled it for a very short period of time - white people have been in control of that land for far longer than the Lakota ever were.

So if white people stole the land from the Lakota, why didn't the Lakota steal it from the Arapaho, or the Arapaho from the Kiowa, etc?

These claims that pretend that a certain Native American tribe have been on land since time began or whatever are just silly.  Prior to white people showing up, land was controlled by whoever won the most recent nasty war.  White people aren't some kind of exception in the long history of the land - they're the norm.  They were just better at holding the land because of technology and diseases like smallpox.

Were the things that white people did during their conquest horrible?  Yes, of course.  And we should absolutely talk about those things when we teach history.  But the things that these tribes did when they conquered land are very similar.  Nobody is nice when they are conquering somebody else - read up on the histo ...


This is actually an incredibly good point.
 
2022-08-07 10:32:36 PM  
Huh, my first thought as to why Rose wouldn't like using wasn't Indians.  My first thought was "Why does everything have to be compared to white men?"
 
2022-08-07 10:57:13 PM  

Krazikarl: I think that the big thing here is that a lot of people have this weird (racist) notion of Native American history.

Mount Rushmore is in the Black Hills.  The Black Hills were settled by the Arikara people in the 1500s, who got their ass kicked by the Cheyenne, who got their ass kicked by the Crow, who got their ass kicked by the Kiowa, who got their ass kicked by the Arapaho, who got their ass kicked by the Lakota in the 18th Century, who got their ass kicked by the Europeans.  The Lakota were in the Black Hills because they were forced out of Minnesota/Wisconsin by the Ojibwa in a series of nasty wars, who moved into that area because they got forced out of their area by the Iroquois in a series of nasty wars.

People have this weird notion that Native American history was relatively static and control of land didn't change much prior to white people showing up - people act like its "really" Lakota land because they controlled it immediately before white people.  But they had controlled it for a very short period of time - white people have been in control of that land for far longer than the Lakota ever were.

So if white people stole the land from the Lakota, why didn't the Lakota steal it from the Arapaho, or the Arapaho from the Kiowa, etc?

These claims that pretend that a certain Native American tribe have been on land since time began or whatever are just silly.  Prior to white people showing up, land was controlled by whoever won the most recent nasty war.  White people aren't some kind of exception in the long history of the land - they're the norm.  They were just better at holding the land because of technology and diseases like smallpox.

Were the things that white people did during their conquest horrible?  Yes, of course.  And we should absolutely talk about those things when we teach history.  But the things that these tribes did when they conquered land are very similar.  Nobody is nice when they are conquering somebody else - read up on the history of successful Native American empires, and you'll see some really horrific stuff.  The Arapaho, for example, were known for practicing human sacrifice with their enemies - it was not nice.

So yeah, we took the land from the Lakota.  Who took the land from the Arapaho, who took it from somebody else, and so on all the way back to the Clovis culture at least.

I don't hold it against the Lakota that they renamed major features and put up monuments and whatnot after they conquered the land.  And I don't hold it against white people when they did the same.  It's just the way of the world.


A smart and educational post on Fark?

Wait, where the Fark am I??!!??!

Seriously. "White people" don't have alot of "goodwill" apparently. But who are these "white people"?

What country are they from? What religion are they? Does that religion still exist? Does what people from England or Spain did in the 1600's speak for white people of the 2020's?

shiat I thought Spanish people weren't white? Oh, but they're attached to Europe. So they have to be white. But they're brown. So are Latin Americans. They speak Spanish too. But wait, isn't Spanish, Spain? So now people from Spain aren't Spanish if they're white?

Shiat.

Well who isn't white then? What about white people that didn't kill Native Americans or enslave Africans?

Canadians. What's wrong with them? Why aren't they considered asshole white people? Because they ice skate? They have round bacon?

The point of the above random stupidity was to say that, all of this revisionism is stupid. We are humans. We fark up. Alot. If you just erase away mistakes and try to make them disappear, no one learns from it.

The reason everyone is so automatically outraged by certain things is that we were all taught about them in school and we all have the brain to realize that it was wrong.

However, going back and trying erase things in the past is no better than DeSatan passing the "don't say gay" bill here in FL. Or the attempted washing of slave trading in American history class, or Holocaust deniers saying that didn't happen.

"History is doomed to be repeated" is the loose and shorted saying.

Everyone is more worried about trying to save or erase the past, to realize we are all be farked hard in the present.

If we don't wake up to these tricks, we have no future.

I'd be hard-pressed to hear an arguement that would convince me we do, anyhow.
 
2022-08-07 10:59:56 PM  

Krazikarl: I think that the big thing here is that a lot of people have this weird (racist) notion of Native American history.

Mount Rushmore is in the Black Hills.  The Black Hills were settled by the Arikara people in the 1500s, who got their ass kicked by the Cheyenne, who got their ass kicked by the Crow, who got their ass kicked by the Kiowa, who got their ass kicked by the Arapaho, who got their ass kicked by the Lakota in the 18th Century, who got their ass kicked by the Europeans.  The Lakota were in the Black Hills because they were forced out of Minnesota/Wisconsin by the Ojibwa in a series of nasty wars, who moved into that area because they got forced out of their area by the Iroquois in a series of nasty wars.

People have this weird notion that Native American history was relatively static and control of land didn't change much prior to white people showing up - people act like its "really" Lakota land because they controlled it immediately before white people.  But they had controlled it for a very short period of time - white people have been in control of that land for far longer than the Lakota ever were.

So if white people stole the land from the Lakota, why didn't the Lakota steal it from the Arapaho, or the Arapaho from the Kiowa, etc?

These claims that pretend that a certain Native American tribe have been on land since time began or whatever are just silly.  Prior to white people showing up, land was controlled by whoever won the most recent nasty war.  White people aren't some kind of exception in the long history of the land - they're the norm.  They were just better at holding the land because of technology and diseases like smallpox.

Were the things that white people did during their conquest horrible?  Yes, of course.  And we should absolutely talk about those things when we teach history.  But the things that these tribes did when they conquered land are very similar.  Nobody is nice when they are conquering somebody else - read up on the history of successful Native American empires, and you'll see some really horrific stuff.  The Arapaho, for example, were known for practicing human sacrifice with their enemies - it was not nice.

So yeah, we took the land from the Lakota.  Who took the land from the Arapaho, who took it from somebody else, and so on all the way back to the Clovis culture at least.

I don't hold it against the Lakota that they renamed major features and put up monuments and whatnot after they conquered the land.  And I don't hold it against white people when they did the same.  It's just the way of the world.


How long have you had your house?

If it's less than a hundred years, can I have it?

Why not? Someone else had it before you, presumably.
 
2022-08-07 11:05:02 PM  

Dafatone: Krazikarl: I think that the big thing here is that a lot of people have this weird (racist) notion of Native American history.

Mount Rushmore is in the Black Hills.  The Black Hills were settled by the Arikara people in the 1500s, who got their ass kicked by the Cheyenne, who got their ass kicked by the Crow, who got their ass kicked by the Kiowa, who got their ass kicked by the Arapaho, who got their ass kicked by the Lakota in the 18th Century, who got their ass kicked by the Europeans.  The Lakota were in the Black Hills because they were forced out of Minnesota/Wisconsin by the Ojibwa in a series of nasty wars, who moved into that area because they got forced out of their area by the Iroquois in a series of nasty wars.

People have this weird notion that Native American history was relatively static and control of land didn't change much prior to white people showing up - people act like its "really" Lakota land because they controlled it immediately before white people.  But they had controlled it for a very short period of time - white people have been in control of that land for far longer than the Lakota ever were.

So if white people stole the land from the Lakota, why didn't the Lakota steal it from the Arapaho, or the Arapaho from the Kiowa, etc?

These claims that pretend that a certain Native American tribe have been on land since time began or whatever are just silly.  Prior to white people showing up, land was controlled by whoever won the most recent nasty war.  White people aren't some kind of exception in the long history of the land - they're the norm.  They were just better at holding the land because of technology and diseases like smallpox.

Were the things that white people did during their conquest horrible?  Yes, of course.  And we should absolutely talk about those things when we teach history.  But the things that these tribes did when they conquered land are very similar.  Nobody is nice when they are conquering somebody else - read up on the history of successful Native American empires, and you'll see some really horrific stuff.  The Arapaho, for example, were known for practicing human sacrifice with their enemies - it was not nice.

So yeah, we took the land from the Lakota.  Who took the land from the Arapaho, who took it from somebody else, and so on all the way back to the Clovis culture at least.

I don't hold it against the Lakota that they renamed major features and put up monuments and whatnot after they conquered the land.  And I don't hold it against white people when they did the same.  It's just the way of the world.

How long have you had your house?

If it's less than a hundred years, can I have it?

Why not? Someone else had it before you, presumably.


Well, you can go native or MAGA and just use weapons to take it.

He raises a valid point.
 
2022-08-07 11:08:08 PM  

mjbok: Krazikarl: I think that the big thing here is that a lot of people have this weird (racist) notion of Native American history.

Mount Rushmore is in the Black Hills.  The Black Hills were settled by the Arikara people in the 1500s, who got their ass kicked by the Cheyenne, who got their ass kicked by the Crow, who got their ass kicked by the Kiowa, who got their ass kicked by the Arapaho, who got their ass kicked by the Lakota in the 18th Century, who got their ass kicked by the Europeans.  The Lakota were in the Black Hills because they were forced out of Minnesota/Wisconsin by the Ojibwa in a series of nasty wars, who moved into that area because they got forced out of their area by the Iroquois in a series of nasty wars.

People have this weird notion that Native American history was relatively static and control of land didn't change much prior to white people showing up - people act like its "really" Lakota land because they controlled it immediately before white people.  But they had controlled it for a very short period of time - white people have been in control of that land for far longer than the Lakota ever were.

So if white people stole the land from the Lakota, why didn't the Lakota steal it from the Arapaho, or the Arapaho from the Kiowa, etc?

These claims that pretend that a certain Native American tribe have been on land since time began or whatever are just silly.  Prior to white people showing up, land was controlled by whoever won the most recent nasty war.  White people aren't some kind of exception in the long history of the land - they're the norm.  They were just better at holding the land because of technology and diseases like smallpox.

Were the things that white people did during their conquest horrible?  Yes, of course.  And we should absolutely talk about those things when we teach history.  But the things that these tribes did when they conquered land are very similar.  Nobody is nice when they are conquering somebody else - read up on the histo ...

This is actually an incredibly good point.


No it isn't.

Indigenous people in North America migrated and exchanged control over and ownership of lands. If you tell the Lakota that they don't have any claim over land because they weren't in one spot for long enough, you're telling indigenous people in North America that they never had any land, period.

It's just an attempt to handwave America's breaking of a treaty by saying "well, people take land from people." Which is true! People DO take land from people. But it's not particularly insightful to say so.
 
2022-08-07 11:09:51 PM  

fatalvenom: Dafatone: Krazikarl: I think that the big thing here is that a lot of people have this weird (racist) notion of Native American history.

Mount Rushmore is in the Black Hills.  The Black Hills were settled by the Arikara people in the 1500s, who got their ass kicked by the Cheyenne, who got their ass kicked by the Crow, who got their ass kicked by the Kiowa, who got their ass kicked by the Arapaho, who got their ass kicked by the Lakota in the 18th Century, who got their ass kicked by the Europeans.  The Lakota were in the Black Hills because they were forced out of Minnesota/Wisconsin by the Ojibwa in a series of nasty wars, who moved into that area because they got forced out of their area by the Iroquois in a series of nasty wars.

People have this weird notion that Native American history was relatively static and control of land didn't change much prior to white people showing up - people act like its "really" Lakota land because they controlled it immediately before white people.  But they had controlled it for a very short period of time - white people have been in control of that land for far longer than the Lakota ever were.

So if white people stole the land from the Lakota, why didn't the Lakota steal it from the Arapaho, or the Arapaho from the Kiowa, etc?

These claims that pretend that a certain Native American tribe have been on land since time began or whatever are just silly.  Prior to white people showing up, land was controlled by whoever won the most recent nasty war.  White people aren't some kind of exception in the long history of the land - they're the norm.  They were just better at holding the land because of technology and diseases like smallpox.

Were the things that white people did during their conquest horrible?  Yes, of course.  And we should absolutely talk about those things when we teach history.  But the things that these tribes did when they conquered land are very similar.  Nobody is nice when they are conquering somebody else - read up on the history of successful Native American empires, and you'll see some really horrific stuff.  The Arapaho, for example, were known for practicing human sacrifice with their enemies - it was not nice.

So yeah, we took the land from the Lakota.  Who took the land from the Arapaho, who took it from somebody else, and so on all the way back to the Clovis culture at least.

I don't hold it against the Lakota that they renamed major features and put up monuments and whatnot after they conquered the land.  And I don't hold it against white people when they did the same.  It's just the way of the world.

How long have you had your house?

If it's less than a hundred years, can I have it?

Why not? Someone else had it before you, presumably.

Well, you can go native or MAGA and just use weapons to take it.

He raises a valid point.


That people take land from each other?

Sure. That's a valid point. I'm not sure how it's revelatory.
 
2022-08-07 11:17:07 PM  

Dafatone: mjbok: Krazikarl: I think that the big thing here is that a lot of people have this weird (racist) notion of Native American history.

Mount Rushmore is in the Black Hills.  The Black Hills were settled by the Arikara people in the 1500s, who got their ass kicked by the Cheyenne, who got their ass kicked by the Crow, who got their ass kicked by the Kiowa, who got their ass kicked by the Arapaho, who got their ass kicked by the Lakota in the 18th Century, who got their ass kicked by the Europeans.  The Lakota were in the Black Hills because they were forced out of Minnesota/Wisconsin by the Ojibwa in a series of nasty wars, who moved into that area because they got forced out of their area by the Iroquois in a series of nasty wars.

People have this weird notion that Native American history was relatively static and control of land didn't change much prior to white people showing up - people act like its "really" Lakota land because they controlled it immediately before white people.  But they had controlled it for a very short period of time - white people have been in control of that land for far longer than the Lakota ever were.

So if white people stole the land from the Lakota, why didn't the Lakota steal it from the Arapaho, or the Arapaho from the Kiowa, etc?

These claims that pretend that a certain Native American tribe have been on land since time began or whatever are just silly.  Prior to white people showing up, land was controlled by whoever won the most recent nasty war.  White people aren't some kind of exception in the long history of the land - they're the norm.  They were just better at holding the land because of technology and diseases like smallpox.

Were the things that white people did during their conquest horrible?  Yes, of course.  And we should absolutely talk about those things when we teach history.  But the things that these tribes did when they conquered land are very similar.  Nobody is nice when they are conquering somebody else - read up on the histo ...

This is actually an incredibly good point.

No it isn't.

Indigenous people in North America migrated and exchanged control over and ownership of lands. If you tell the Lakota that they don't have any claim over land because they weren't in one spot for long enough, you're telling indigenous people in North America that they never had any land, period.

It's just an attempt to handwave America's breaking of a treaty by saying "well, people take land from people." Which is true! People DO take land from people. But it's not particularly insightful to say so.


No, it's not. Before documentation of land ownership, like when Native Americans were doing war shiat and killing and raping to take control of land. From other Native Americans. That was his point. It's absolutely true.

The fact that the Native Americans didn't have gun powder or advancement in ship and weapons construction isn't a racist white people problem. They just had more group-think and resources to advance humanity. Or at least the way they could take land.

The point he made is totally valid.
 
2022-08-07 11:20:29 PM  
TL;DR

White people are awesome at raping and stealing from everyone. Even their fellow man.

I doubt when a CEO or some hedge fund manager makes a decision, he pauses momentarily to think to himself; "how m.j any white people am I going to hurt in proportion to minorities "??

They dont care. They rape everyone.

White folks be the devil, yo..
 
2022-08-07 11:21:28 PM  
Here is what the sculptor first wanted to put there
vg5b2ejdwb-flywheel.netdna-ssl.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-07 11:30:25 PM  
 
2022-08-07 11:33:26 PM  

real_headhoncho: Here is what the sculptor first wanted to put there
[vg5b2ejdwb-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com image 850x476]


Buffalo Bill. That's racist.

You know how many white guys named Bill live in Buffalo???

/I have no idea, but since Bills fans are usually lighting themselves on fire or something more stupid, being from Buffalo and naming their child Bill probably seems like the most clever thing ever.
 
2022-08-08 12:27:59 AM  

fatalvenom: Dafatone: mjbok: Krazikarl: I think that the big thing here is that a lot of people have this weird (racist) notion of Native American history.

Mount Rushmore is in the Black Hills.  The Black Hills were settled by the Arikara people in the 1500s, who got their ass kicked by the Cheyenne, who got their ass kicked by the Crow, who got their ass kicked by the Kiowa, who got their ass kicked by the Arapaho, who got their ass kicked by the Lakota in the 18th Century, who got their ass kicked by the Europeans.  The Lakota were in the Black Hills because they were forced out of Minnesota/Wisconsin by the Ojibwa in a series of nasty wars, who moved into that area because they got forced out of their area by the Iroquois in a series of nasty wars.

People have this weird notion that Native American history was relatively static and control of land didn't change much prior to white people showing up - people act like its "really" Lakota land because they controlled it immediately before white people.  But they had controlled it for a very short period of time - white people have been in control of that land for far longer than the Lakota ever were.

So if white people stole the land from the Lakota, why didn't the Lakota steal it from the Arapaho, or the Arapaho from the Kiowa, etc?

These claims that pretend that a certain Native American tribe have been on land since time began or whatever are just silly.  Prior to white people showing up, land was controlled by whoever won the most recent nasty war.  White people aren't some kind of exception in the long history of the land - they're the norm.  They were just better at holding the land because of technology and diseases like smallpox.

Were the things that white people did during their conquest horrible?  Yes, of course.  And we should absolutely talk about those things when we teach history.  But the things that these tribes did when they conquered land are very similar.  Nobody is nice when they are conquering somebody else - read up on the histo ...

This is actually an incredibly good point.

No it isn't.

Indigenous people in North America migrated and exchanged control over and ownership of lands. If you tell the Lakota that they don't have any claim over land because they weren't in one spot for long enough, you're telling indigenous people in North America that they never had any land, period.

It's just an attempt to handwave America's breaking of a treaty by saying "well, people take land from people." Which is true! People DO take land from people. But it's not particularly insightful to say so.

No, it's not. Before documentation of land ownership, like when Native Americans were doing war shiat and killing and raping to take control of land. From other Native Americans. That was his point. It's absolutely true.

The fact that the Native Americans didn't have gun powder or advancement in ship and weapons construction isn't a racist white people problem. They just had more group-think and resources to advance humanity. Or at least the way they could take land.

The point he made is totally valid.


Native Americans did a whole lot more than war and killing and raping. Everyone else did a whole lot more, too. Reducing indigenous history (or any region's history, including Europe's) to a timeline of who took what from whom is, well, reductive.

All land changes hands. That doesn't erase the various grievances that indigenous people rightly have.
 
2022-08-08 12:49:08 AM  

Dafatone: No it isn't.

Indigenous people in North America migrated and exchanged control over and ownership of lands. If you tell the Lakota that they don't have any claim over land because they weren't in one spot for long enough, you're telling indigenous people in North America that they never had any land, period.


"Migrated and exchanged control over and ownership of lands" is one way of putting it.  But sure...and the Europeans migrated and exchanged ownership of the Black Hills with the Lakota.

I'm intensely suspicious of claims along the lines of "we have an ancestral right to the lands from centuries ago".  For one, that type of reasoning gets very tricky since other tribes could use the exact same logic with equal validity.

But I mostly don't like such claims because such logic has currently and historically been used to justify all sorts of nonsense.  Like China's current claims over ownership over all kind of weird stuff because they controlled it in the distant past.  Or the same with Russia and the more recent past.

After enough time, the country that has controlled the land (without brutally suppressing the local population I guess) owns it, no backsies.  It's just the way it has always been everywhere in the world.

The doesn't mean that we should glorify the conquest, and it certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat people with basic human decency.  I just think that we should concentrate on those issues, rather than trying to claim that the European conquest didn't count, but the Lakota one did for some reason.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.