Tribes Gov't Want 'Squaw' Names Changed

SISTERS, Ore. (AP) -- Olivia Wallulatum finds it hard to even look at the sign, a marker for the Squaw River. It reminds her of all the names she was called as a girl. And she wants something done about it. She wants the name changed.

"I don't care what they change it to. I just want to see it go," said Wallulatum, 50, a member of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs.

Nearly a thousand places across the country - rivers, buttes, meadows, mountains - are named "squaw," and most American Indians want them to be called something else. Changing the names, though, isn't happening with any great speed and certainly not without a struggle.

American Indians' heightened sensitivity to the word came about in 1992 after an activist announced on a television talk show that squaw is derived from a vulgar Mohawk word. Linguists maintain "squaw" means "woman" in the language of the Massachusett tribe, which once lived on the East Coast.

more...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SQUAW_DEBATE?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

on edit: retracted

wife. It doesn't sound like an indigenous word. Am I
wrong.

to Russel Means whom I personally heard denounce the word along with White Man's treatment and even understanding of the role of women in Native tribes. He was pretty angry about it, and I can't blame him. This was during general Q&A period after a talk he gave at a book signing back in the 90s.

But you know what? Even if the "linguists" referenced are correct and Native American "activists" are not, what Means said is true: the White Man treated ALL women badly, but especially minority women. My point is that their sensitivity to White Man's name for Native women is appropriate whether the term is a legitimate and non-degrading one or not.

it should not be used. We have shafted them enough, and I like
many americans are some part native american.

saying fuck what the native "think" it means, well tell them what it means,and when they should and shouldn't be offended.

mighty white of them.

A key part of our racism: defining THEIR reality for them (or trying to). Excellent, excellent point.

that it means X and not Y.

I know what it has always meant to me
and I don't like it.

My family has "passing complexion" and has been assimilationist
for more than a century but if the people in these tribes say they
want it changed then I am with them.

"the White Man treated ALL women badly, but especially minority women."

Rubbish. Please cut the race hatred out.

M

Or is that just stories made up to make the white man look bad?

referring to a certain part of female anatomy.

languages.

I read this when they changed Squaw peak to Piestewa Peak, for Lori Piestewa.

That would seem to be the best solution.

It might also allow the formation of a political organization to represent the common interests of the Native Americans. Inter-tribal cooperation does exist, but it could be much more powerful.

--p!

But even that would be better than "squaw." <shudder>

word "woman"? It would be simple. And yes, I agree 100%, it is a degrading word. When I was a boy, my grandmother hated that word - and that was back in the 50s.

This is their word in their language. If they want to eliminate it from their language who are we to say they can't. It is indicative how the Natives treated their women. Just like Christians do. Barefoot and pregnant is the rule...

and I'm sure their aren't any mountains or rivers named that.

The word was put on all these place by the "whiteman" not native peoples.

Are you sure about that? I think you are mistaken. I grant that some probably came from the whiteman but a lot are original names given by inhabitants of the time..

Read a book, sometime...

There are also books not complimentary of Amerindians.
I do not like the racial implication that my ancestors were horrible people. All peoples have been both victims and perpetrators of wars and cultural cleansing. Usually the poor bore the brunt of it.

The early European Americands were individuals, some tolerant and kind, others intolerant and brutal. Ditto for Amerindians.

M

the "intolerant and brutal" snatch this great piece of
real estate for you to do your freedom thing on, huh?

Explaining history by the actions and personalities of
individuals wipes away the fact that an entire culture embraced
a governmental policy of extermination and relocation.

You might have real nice ancestors but if you have been here
long enough their tax dollars payed for state sanctioned genocide.

I'm sure that they loved their dog and kids etc. but facts are facts
this government was the instrument of genocide based on the
democratic will of it's citizens.

The same demonizing excuses are used when any people are targeted for hatred and "retribution." I don't believe in judging races on the basis of past actions, any of them. I could sit here and list all kinds of atrocities and use that as an excuse to hate people, but I know it only continues the vicious cycle.

We are who we are today, not our ancestors, any of us. We must live in this world together in peace. Why create more racial animosity? Don't you know that all perpetrators feel justified in their actions based on past wrongs?

Do you feel that is is justified for Mugabes thugs to murder little white children because of something that they had no control over before they were born? Are you willing to give up your home and property because it was taken from someone else 400 years ago?
Is it justified to blow up Palestinian kids because someone set off a bomb at a checkpoint? Was it justified to murder 3000 people on 911?

Start judging people as individuals, on their actions today, and try not to base it on race hatred. The goal should be to eliminate, or redirect racism, not find a different target.

M

I see a lot of typical white power rhetoric in your posts.

"'Squaw' is one of a number of words in English that were borrowed from Eastern Algonquian languages, sometimes via French, during the early contact period. The source in this case is conventionally Massachusett squas (Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd Edition). The term meant 'young woman' in Massachusett and is attested as early as 1624. In fact, related words derived from Proto-Algonquian *et^kwe:wa (t^ represents a theta - a th sound) 'woman' occur throughout the Algonquian language family. Mostly they're fairly similar to the proto-form and each other (cf. Cree iskwe:w), though in a few languages the descendant form is so modified by accumulated sound changes that only someone familiar with the changes involved would recognize it, e.g., Arapahoe híthei. Bright's useful summary of this cites Cutler 1994 and Goddard 1996, 1997 for the etymology of the term.

Recently 'squaw' has been spuriously associated with a Mohawk term otsískwa? 'female genitalia'. The ? here represents a glottal stop - the sound represented by dash in (h)uh-uh 'no'. This sounds to English ears somewhat like (oh-gee-squah in the Lewis & Clark Phonetic Alphabet). Bright says this incorrect explanation was first offered by Sanders & Peck in 1974 and then popularized in a television interview by Suzan Harjo. The terrible salaciousness of it all has outraged the socially sensitive and captured popular imagination so effectively that the long known actual explanation in terms of Massachussett tends to get overlooked. "

http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz/faq/etymology.htm

Falsifying the etymology to advance the cause just makes the cause look silly. It's best to argue the point from contemporary usage (except that then there's little basis for argument); that means we're left arguing from usage in the 1800s/early-mid 1900s. It's sufficient.

most of the place name "squaw" are not in the east and
I believe that it came west with the white settlers and
meant exactly "C*nt" to them.

From your source:

...

There are some tests that might help clarify matters for you if you believe you are not bothered by squaw. One thing would be to ask yourself if you would feel comfortable referring to a woman you knew with the term. The reference has to be understood as essentially serious, since humor often permits, or at least obscures, insulting usages. Another test would be to consider whether you would willingly use the term, or an expression including it, in front of someone you knew to be an Indian. If you think you would avoid the term in these contexts, you might want to reconsider the proposition that squaw is inoffensive in placenames and other fixed expressions.

...

babe, wench, bitch" or a number of other words to refer to the women I know (ok, maybe in jest, but unless if I knew they wouldn't be offended).

As I said, the etymology isn't really up for grabs. You want to argue that the word was derogatory based on 19th century usage, fine--that's what I suggested take place in my post. But unless there's real evidence it was referring exclusively to their genitals, all it does it set up a strawman that's readily knocked down. And if advocates for renaming are wrong on such a simple matter of fact, why trust them otherwise?

How exactly do you think all these places in the west
end up with a bastardized name in a language from Massachusetts
or the Iroquois nation?

Hint, it was whites settlers bringing the word west and naming
places when they found local women which they called "squaws".

The fact that you think that evidence that the word
"was referring exclusively to their genitals" is relevant
to if the word should be removed from maps and state
and federal road signs is laughable.

You are facting your way right into being completely wrong
on this issue. What does "trust" or "advocates for renaming"
have to do with the fact that many people find the word very
offensive including me.

"Take your reason and shove it where the sun don't shine."
is what I would like to say to your reductionist BS.

they do that?

Makes no sense.

If the word Squaw later became derogatory and used as a means of hurting people, then use that as a reason to change the names... it's valid enough.

that is one thing that our white ancestors are famous for.

they may have forcibly had across the country?

Slim, very slim.

If, more likely, the word was from the Mass. usage... the term might have come to denote a way of talking down to AI women... but then, if it IS a Mass. term... why not just TAKE BACK THE POWER instead of inventing a story about an unrelated Mohawk term?

the word for the sex organ and the person merged into
an English word different from both origins.

Check a dictionary:

http://www.answers.com/squaw&r=67

squaw
Dictionary
squaw (skwô) pronunciation
n.

1. Offensive. A Native American woman, especially a wife.
2. Offensive Slang. A woman or wife.



Note the word is marked "Offensive" because it is
regardless of what historical linguistic BS you hang
you argument that it should stay in use from.

I didn't "invent" the "story" I heard it from a Native America
speaker on the radio talking about the issue.

What is your excuse?

that people find hurtful, then that's reason enough to elimate it.

How about actually READING what others write.

Your provided definintion says nothing about the word meaning cunt.

I believe this is very close to the "facts" that I have stated.

I believe this is evidence that my opinion is not out of the
mainstream of thinking on this word.

I'm glad that because it is offensive you think that it should be
eliminated.

Great we agree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/11/national/11squaw.html?ex=1112673600&en=1333c56dbc290ba8&ei=5070

...

"Squaw" originated in a branch of the Algonquin language, where it meant simply "woman," but it turned into a slur on the tongues of white settlers, who used it to refer derisively to Indian women in general or a part of their anatomy in particular. The settlers liked the word so much that there are now more than 170 springs, gulches, bluffs, valleys, and gaps in this state called "squaw."

...

Thank you for this information. There are many who would like to believe "squaw" was meant in a derogatory manner, because that is what they want to believe. I believed the propaganda too. We live and we learn.

Take a look at the dictionary.

http://www.answers.com/squaw&r=67

1. Offensive. A Native American woman, especially a wife.
2. Offensive Slang. A woman or wife.

Note the word "Offensive" is present twice.

You can cling to whatever linguistic thread you want
to justify the continued use of a word that is abjectly
racist in it's history.

Your white persecution complex reminds me of
the mainstream of the white-power movements rhetoric.

With it's appeals to pride in culture and "heritage"
coincidence or not?

First of all, "Whiteman" is a slur akin to "redman" or "brown man."
Second, Amerindians were not the native peoples here, as recent scientific finds have shown. Amerindians immigrated and took the land. That is what people did in the past, and unfortunately what people still do. Instead of the constant white bashing, why not focus on the future and not frame these issues in a way that creates more racial tension? I am fully aware of past injustices, all peoples have suffered this, and have been both victims and perpetrators. Europeans just left a written record of it. There is both good and bad in all peoples. Today we tend to focus on the bad of European-Americans and the good for all others. In fact, it is a mixed bag. If we are ever to become a colorblind society, we need to stop the racial politics and appreciate each other as diverse human beings with specialness and good things to offer the world.

M

First of all, "Whiteman" is a slur akin to "redman" or "brown man."

Uh, no, all those are facts. Not the best EXPRESSIONS of those facts, but facts nonetheless.

Second, Amerindians were not the native peoples here, as recent scientific finds have shown.

:wtf:

Now THAT I'd like to see some documentation on. Native Americans have something like 30,000 years of history here. True, some of them came from Lemuria, but I'm guessing that you and your "sources" on this don't even consider Lemuria "real," so aren't likely counting that migration.

Instead of the constant white bashing, why not focus on the future and not frame these issues in a way that creates more racial tension?

Ah, yes, the favorite argument of racists who want to hold onto their racism: Shhhh, don't talk about it. Don't challenge and confront, and for God's sake don't speak the truth about racism, genocide, etc. in the past 'cause it just makes everybody feel BAD. It makes those who are members of the oppressed classes mad, and it makes those of us who are members of the privileged classes feel a little guilty if we've got an ounce of humanity and decency, but in any case it threatens our CONTINUED privilege and dominance.

Whether you know it or not, you are coughing up rightwing (RACIST) talking points. Shame on you. And you continue it here:

If we are ever to become a colorblind society, we need to stop the racial politics and appreciate each other as diverse human beings with specialness and good things to offer the world.

The unwillingness to confront and discuss and challenge racism merely ensures that racism will continue, and in this case, your "colorblind society" will really only mean one that's blind to its own racism. And why is that? Because Frederick Douglass was 100% correct:

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will.

"Now THAT I'd like to see some documentation on. Native Americans have something like 30,000 years of history here."

Here's one.
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/"
There's many more.

Every recent tv show or science mag I have seen has shown that there were many migrations separate from the latest (Bering Land Bridge). The oldest verified Amerindian skeleton I believe is 6000 years old.
What is "racist" is the denial that there were any other people besides Amerindians here.

"Ah, yes, the favorite argument of racists who want to hold onto their racism: Shhhh, don't talk about it."

yeah yeah yeah. If one disagrees, or applies tolerance principals to all people (even EEK white ones) they must be "racists!" And if a real racist cites anything in the news, it must have been a "racist" conspiracy! Are all the scientists who find non-Indian skeletons and evidence of early American diversity "racists?" Science is constantly learning. You can't stop learning because something you believed for so long is not true.

"Whether you know it or not, you are coughing up rightwing (RACIST) talking points. Shame on you. And you continue it here:

If we are ever to become a colorblind society, we need to stop the racial politics and appreciate each other as diverse human beings with specialness and good things to offer the world."

Racists do not speak of colorblind societies, nor do they appreciate diversity.

"The unwillingness to confront and discuss and challenge racism merely ensures that racism will continue, and in this case, your "colorblind society" will really only mean one that's blind to its own racism."

That's a little Orwellian. So you want a society which defines people by race? Are YOU blind to your own racism? Lets not forget, racism knows no color or ethnicity. It will infect anyone. The challenge is to redirect these "isms" and manifest them in a non-violent, non-hateful way that appreciates the uniqueness of others while maintaining your own culture. Exactly how is that "racism?"

M

Their word in their language? Indicative how the natives treated their women? Barefoot and pregnant?

There are many separate Indian nations or tribes with different languages and customs. The Cherokee which is my ancestory were a matriarchal society and were a lot more civilized than the European Christians that moved in; butchered them and stole their land.

Obviously you learned your lessons a bit too well from the masters of the universe. I respectfully suggest that you do a little further learning before you make such statements.

True about the diversity of Amerindians. But it is also true that "Christians" were also diverse. They didn't ALL treat women like baby machines. Many put women on a pedestal. There are also class differences in the treatment of women. And incidentally, there wasn't an infrastructure at that time to support feminism. The nation was being built and we didn't have the luxury of feminism.
It is silly to judge of any people from a different era by today's standards.

M

Only in times of luxury can we afford to consider women as people?

Feminism is not a luxury. Women have always been full-fledged human beings, whether or not they have been treated as such. Such arguments of "luxury" and "not just now" have been cited in Afghanistan, home of the burquas.

Yes, feminism was a luxury in a time when manual labor was needed to build the country, you know, move large objects to make houses and infrastructure. And hunt for food. Feminism would have been a luxury to a woman with 10 children and no neighbors.
Women's rights became a reality AFTER the nation and economy were built.

Sorry, but I don't hate men.

M

That, or you have an entirely different definition of what a woman is.

dem white mens dat wasn't poor or prisoners just done set on dey asses an ordered eva body round kinda like dey still does to dis day.

women's rights became a reality when the first woman was created...rights can't be given, they can only be taken away.

you really need to do some serious self-education if you intend to have more than a temporary stay here.

from a different era by today's standards."

Nope it is not.

History is a bloody crime filled hell and the
people who wrote these bloody racist volumes
do not get to decide how they are regarded
in the future.

The "luxury of feminism" that is freepin' rich.

the sexist myths, stereotypes and lies. You're a walking male chauvinism machine.

But it is also true that "Christians" were also diverse. They didn't ALL treat women like baby machines.

Uh, yes they did, and many, many, many still do. ANY resistance on issues of reproductive freedom (which is under attack EVERYEwhere i the U.S. right now precusely BECAUSE of the Christian Right), is treating women -- ALL women -- like baby machines. More accurately, it's elevating their baby-making capabilities above every other aspect of their personhood.

Many put women on a pedestal.

Oh, yes, we're familiar with that "pedetal." That's the one that says, "We love you so much, we respect you so much that we're not going to let you dirty your hands doing the real work of the world, like running corporations and other organizations, running for and holding office, etc., or by taking on those really hard jobs -- you know, the ones that pay so much more?? -- on the floor of the factory. Or getting your hands dirty going to medical school and becoming doctors. " Oh yeah, we KNOW about those pedestals. What they did was lull us into accepting our own subjugation as something GOOD for us. :puke:

There are also class differences in the treatment of women.

Well, why don't you go ahead and elaborate. I'd really like to hear your take on this one. I'm just getting warmed up here.

And incidentally, there wasn't an infrastructure at that time to support feminism. The nation was being built and we didn't have the luxury of feminism.

Yeah, can't have the brain power of ALL the human race helping on important things when just 1/2 that will screw it up royally, now, can we?

Sheesh.

And just what "infrastructure" does feminism need in your mind? (This oughtta be good.)

disappointing to see it being mentioned here.

Did we also not have the "infrastructure" to support the freedom of African Americans? Make some sense of that for me, while your at it. The Human Race originated in Africa over 100,000 years ago, yet Americans had to import and enslave native Africans for the first few hundred years out of "necessity"? Was that a chronological hiccup or something...

man, the more religious this board gets, the mind-blowingly stupider it gets.

absolutely. There was enormously more respect, AND many if not all the tribes were/are matrilineal. In at least some tribes (the Seneca, Mohawk, etc.?), the WOMEN decided whether there would be war, not the men. The women made many of the other important decisions as well, including choosing the tribal chief. Ours would be a far different world if all nations honored their women in such ways.

one problem we have, of course, is that we saw everything through the lens of Western Patriarchy. We (our anthropologists and similar) couldn't believe some of what we saw, so "reinterpreted it" to match what WE thought it should be or mean, etc.

predicated on the abolition of the native tradition of cherokee women farming and men hunting. The whites set out to get the men to farm, move the women indoors into the domestic hell shared by their white counterparts and steal the hunting ground from the men; which didn't work and hence the trail of tears.

I am always seeing articles about how sports team names defame Amerindians. But we have the Vikings, the Celts, etc..with all the accompanying stereotypes. People need to get over it and realize no insult is intended. Otherwise, change the name of teams with European tribal names too. Squaw is a bit over the top, though.

M

European Americans have the economic, social, and political power to change that if they're truly offended. Try starting a sports team with "Sambo" mascot dancing around with a bone through his nose and convince African Americans to "get over it" and "no insult is intended."

Some European-Americans ARE offended, but they are not heard because we live in a society where the idea of equality means attack those who offended you in the past and get revenge. I can't tell you how many times I have been offended by references to white Americans of low socio-economic status as "rednecks" or "hillbillies."

It all needs to stop, or none.

Most Amerindians are NOT offended by the Washington Redskins.

M

Most Free Republicans are not offended by the Washington Redskins.

* Note to Mod....see this person's profile.

making crap up?

Next time the poor white cracker redneck hillbillies
are rounded up and force onto reservations and their
children systematical kidnapped for "reeducation"
cry me a river and I might care.

Like a rapper with the N word I am qualified to say
"poor white cracker redneck hillbillies" in case your
concerned.

please.

You seem to be operating on a premise which rejects bad stereotypes aimed at Amerindians and at the same time embraces bad stereotypes where European tribes are concerned. Amerindians were the perfect "noble savages." It ascribes sameness to all Amerindian tribes, when in fact they were quite diverse. The Vikings established modern agriculture when they settled down. They also established inter-tribal trade in many regions, most notably Russia. Yes they were ruthless warriors at one time, as were Amerindians. But they settled down.

The only European tribe that enjoys the "romanticism" of latter-day political correctness are the Celts, of whom I happen to be descended from. People even pronounce the name in a way that sounds softer, and focus on their artistic side, while ignoring their brutal side. Why? because their later oppression is RECORDED in history. But in fact their brutal side was quite brutal. They used to take the heads of Roman soldiers and nail them to their doors. Not so romantic, huh?
They also killed each other in drives over tribal issues, the same with Amerindians. But they contibuted great things to society and helped evolve us. If you open your mind, as a true liberal should, you will see parallels between all tribes of all origins.

M

surprise.

One very large difference exist between Celts, Vikings and
Americans Indians.

The latter was large wiped out by the very people and government
that to this day uses their images as adjunct to entertainment.

Had the Celts or the Vikings been wiped out by blue coat union
soldiers flying the stars and stripes then you would have more
of a point and a better parallel.

But you don't.

What they "contributed" was largely stolen and expropriated at
the barrel of a gun.

I think that when people living in tribes have been subjugated
by states local or invading the results have been very similar.

What a "true liberal" should make of genocide and it continuing
legacy is anyones guess but I know that these logos and "squaw"
this and "squaw" that is the modern celebration of mass murder

They have positive connotations -- the Vikings were fierce warriors; the Celts were fierce warriors who painted themselves a cool blue AND had learned scholars. Nothing like the "Redskins" or "squaw." There's a reason why all of the place names with the "N-word" in them were changed. No difference here. Nothing for Euro-Americans TO get over...

"They have positive connotations -- the Vikings were fierce warriors; the Celts were fierce warriors who painted themselves a cool blue AND had learned scholars. Nothing like the "Redskins" or "squaw." There's a reason why all of the place names with the "N-word" in them were changed. No difference here. Nothing for Euro-Americans TO get over..."

Wait a moment here. Positive? Amerindians enjoy a reputation of being the noble savage freedom fighter, while European tribes are never. They are thought to have been rapers and pillagers, always. I admit that as of late, Celts have been painted as noble savages. Why? Because we have "victim" status that started with the potato famine. Now we are PC, despite our old custom of lopping the heads off our enemies and displaying them at the front door of our homes.

What about "Barbarians?" Our tribes are STILL referred to in this way. And "Anglo-Saxon" being used to describe any European. WASP, as if we are all Christians who belong to the Angles or Saxon tribes. I am a Christian, but take great offense to their assumptions that European Pagans didn't contribute anything to the world, were eating each other, and sacrificing children. Our indigenous people are given no credit for our inventiveness and way of government, while Johnny come latelys (like the Romans) took the credit for our inventions after they innovated them.

Barbarian is the word that is equivalent to "Savage." Savage is not used anymore, except by racists, but "Barbarian" is. European history is not even thought of in terms of the indigenous.

I agree totally about the "Squaw" word and the "N" word. But there were also words used as slurs against white Americans, usually the poor. The difference is that no one in print or on tv used the "n" word, but slurs against white Americans are freely used in all media.

M

There is so much wrong in your post I literally don't know where to start. My mother's family is Irish, FROM IRELAND, and they definitely don't have any perceived victim status. They are proud of their heritage. European tribes very much do have a reputation as "noble freedom fighters," specifically in popular culture. The Saxons often fare poorly for their brutality, probably because they WERE brutal, with not as much "redeeming" intellectual and creative traditions as the Celts, Picts, Gauls, etc. Anyway, back to popular culture: King Arthur, Braveheart, etc.

And, please do not lecture me about the brutality/history of Celts; I know I know as least as much as you do. And, also do not lecture me about the offerings of European Pagans to culture and history. I am a Pagan, specifically of the Celtic tradition. I would wager more people in the US think better of Celts, etc., than of Native Americans. And, ANY semi-educated person knows about what the Celts and Picts and Vikings gave to Britain, Ireland, etc.

The sue of "barbarian" was a slur directed from one set of White Europeans to another, and in the beginning it did not have a negative connotation.

White Americans were and are in power in this country, and always have been. So, although the words "hillbilly" and "redneck" are slurs, they nowhere have the sting of Nigger or Injun or Cunt.

Methinks you are stretching to give yourself victim status or something. Most bizarre. I, personally, am proud of my heritage, and think most people recognize how these people benefited the world. Again, look at popular culture. Look at how well Highland Games do. Look at how well certain books sell.

Expressing a different viewpoint is not "lecturing," by the way.
All I want is the same consideration given to all people. Isn't that "equality?" You want me to duck and crawl into a hole because I am white. I will not do that, nor will I have my identity as a European-American determined by the bad things people say about my ancestors. I have no shame, no shame at all, because I treat every person with respect and dignity and will teach my children the same.

M

You weren't expressing an opinion, you were lecturing me on how I had my facts wrong, when I didn't. If you read the messages I post on DU, you'll see I absolutely respect everyone's opinions 100%, as long as their facts are correct. People are definitely entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.

But, to reiterate, your whole argument on this subject is very much stretching it, and borderline ridiculous. People of white European decent control this control, and the only people who "white bash" are extremists, and certainly no one on this thread. You're purposely taking legitimate criticism for bashing. But you know that already.

No, I expressed a different point of view, which is different from calling it "fact." Different strokes for different folks. I show my tolerance by treating people equally, and heeding the lessons of the past instead of beating myself up for my skin tone. At one time, I think I was a racist. Why? because I lived in a poor community and was abused because I was white, the minority. It took me about 10 years to come to terms with this and see it as a class issue which is framed as a race issue by the powers that be. I also learned that racism knows no color. As you get older, you grow and learn.


M

"You're purposely taking legitimate criticism for bashing. But you know that already."

That same "criticism" if applied to people of color would be called racism. Or if the criticism were true, it would still be blamed on white people. But you knew this.

M

I notice a very strange similarity between certain elements
of your rhetoric and certain elements of the mainstream
white power movements outreach rhetoric.

Coincidence?

To put it bluntly: Get over it, whitey. You, as a member of the dominant culture, with all your white privilege, are NEVER going to be harmed by anything you perceive as a "slur" to members of your race. Never.

In fact, it's the one prerogative of the oppressed classes that within reason, they can bash the oppressors. But even at that, you have a mighty skewed view of things:

Amerindians enjoy a reputation of being the noble savage freedom fighter, while European tribes are never. They are thought to have been rapers and pillagers, always.

Noble savage was a term used by only a few who were a bit more sympathetic toward Native Americans during our active genocidal periods, but even then it was a fairly lame mostly totally ineffective defense of a whole people. And Europeans WERE rapers and pillagers. Those who weren't DOING it were allowing it.

Look, you got genocide going on in your society, everyone is part of it, either an active part or a passive part. Period.

I find your complaints about classist slurs slightly more credible, and you might find a sympathetic ear on that from me, were it not for the cacaphonic din of your whimpering pro-racist rhetoric complaining about how "unfairly" whites are treated.

I do not appreciate having racial slurs hurled at me, or your gross misrepresentation of my words and spirit. I am not a racist, but I am beginning to wonder about you. Hey what color are you? Should I call you a "brownie" or a "red?" Just curious, because you called me "whitey." I thought racism was against policy here.

As to "white privelege" I grew up dirt poor, single mother, alcoholic boyfriend who beat her, and a child molester trying to turn me on to drugs and sex at age 11. I never know "white skin privelege." Nor do I today. The problem with this is that many people of color would call me "white trash" because I was poor and use that as an excuse to hate me for my race, instead of as an opportunity to address class issues in this society as a whole, rather than as a racial issue.
Tooth in claw capitalists like to pit poor whites against poor minorities, and its working, isn't it?

M

seriously, I didn't know that.

Are you sure?

lot's of painting of "little black Sambo" on every wall
and window.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/28/sambo.revival/

Really you would have to see it to believe it.

FYI the story is "white washing" the fact that it was
extremly tastless and not anything but racist.

This was in a northern "liberal" college town.

I'm 40, and remember eating in one when I was about 12-14. The menu/logo even had a "Little Sambo" on it. God.

Lots and lots of places all around the country (see, am not South bashing!). I grew up in NJ, and there was a body of water where I grew up that used to be called "Nigger Creek." When I was growing up, older people would still call it that.

Why do you not think this could be true?

anything named Nigger xxxxx

did you know there are still living native americans?

whereas the I haven't seen many tribes of vikings or celts hanging around.

The neocon assholes are still looting the treasury and setting the world on fire.

nicht wahr?

"The neocon assholes are still looting the treasury and setting the world on fire."

Yep. We have to start looking at this instead of identifying enemies of civilization by their skin tone and facial structure.

M

Far more than a word that may well be linguistically correct in at least one language.