mattyrm wrote:Yeah sensitive man is sensitive. I hardly think joking about boozing is hate speech. I mean, the discussion you are referring to was regarding a BBC story about native Americans having a serious problem with booze, is it racist to mention that?

...

notprop wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

d-usa wrote:(which she could have been)

'Could be' and 'are' are two radically different things. I could be the Queen of England, but I probably am not...

HRH Ahtman....

Hmmmmm has a certain ring to it don't you think Ma'am?

Bores wrote:It's also a broad generalisation to say that the Irish are all drunks because of the ones that turn to drink whilst in poverty, but no-one would argue against that.

Are you, personally, in that 1/3rd that live in poverty?

Bores wrote:
It is relevant as you have no understanding of being in a position of hopelessness in an unforgiving society that is fundamentally based on wealth.

To state that this stereotype is unique to (First nation people?) alone is ridiculous

Irish, The Germans and The working class have all, and still are, stereotyped as 'drunks'. Why is it then a stereotype to these groups but racism towards your own culture?

Bores wrote:

I totally agree: slightly off-topic, is a reserve the traditional lands of a tribe or an area given to them within which they are independent?

I feel we are looking at the same issue from two slightly different angles. As i know very little about Native American history i am looking at the issue in question from a view-point that i can understand and relate too which is, for obvious reasons, different from your own. However, from what i do know, haven't Native Americans been oppressed by colonists for centuries? So aren't the racism and stereotypes also as old as the conflict itself?

In reference to your last paragraph: Does this mean that poverty in the Native population is a recent thing?

J-Roc77 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

J-Roc77 wrote:Oh hey Matty and Dogma, replace fire water with watermelon and native with black see if it sounds right.

While I understand where you're coming from, being married to a Native American, I don't perceive matty and dogma as actually engaging in hate speech.

Since you bring it up though, it is interesting to see what types of slurs are allowed and which ones aren't. As you say, if someone had made a similar comment, even in jest, about any number of other groups there would have been quite an uproar.

Not only married to a native, I am one although not exactly traditional as my in-laws. In another thread I had a talk with Matty that started with "why do you lads drink so much" to which I replied it was an inaccurate stereo type. I see it continues. I guarantee you someone who approaches the topic in that manner would become silent on the subject if they were seated next to me and my family at a restaurant. If they weren't I would have some words right then about it too. As minorities we often have a hard time defining ourselves as common culture imposes their definitions on us. Here is a common one around native communities that also seems to get shuffled under "nothing wrong with that, we will tell you natives what offends your people" type response. Oh and about your point I agree it is not hate speech, it is unintentional racism. I hope it is unintentional.

deathholydeath wrote:

J-Roc77 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

J-Roc77 wrote:Oh hey Matty and Dogma, replace fire water with watermelon and native with black see if it sounds right.

While I understand where you're coming from, being married to a Native American, I don't perceive matty and dogma as actually engaging in hate speech.

Since you bring it up though, it is interesting to see what types of slurs are allowed and which ones aren't. As you say, if someone had made a similar comment, even in jest, about any number of other groups there would have been quite an uproar.

Not only married to a native, I am one although not exactly traditional as my in-laws. In another thread I had a talk with Matty that started with "why do you lads drink so much" to which I replied it was an inaccurate stereo type. I see it continues. I guarantee you someone who approaches the topic in that manner would become silent on the subject if they were seated next to me and my family at a restaurant. If they weren't I would have some words right then about it too. As minorities we often have a hard time defining ourselves as common culture imposes their definitions on us. Here is a common one around native communities that also seems to get shuffled under "nothing wrong with that, we will tell you natives what offends your people" type response. Oh and about your point I agree it is not hate speech, it is unintentional racism. I hope it is unintentional.

Uh huh.

“Trojans,” “Spartans” and “Vikings” are popular sports team names that pick out groups according to nationality, race or ethnicity, but these are also fundamentally different from Indian mascots. These names do not depict existing peoples and cannot, therefore, affect the lives of those they depict (for better or for worse) – neither can they be regarded as appropriate or inappropriate by the groups in question. The Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the Boston Celtics actually are examples of sports teams whose names and images depict an existing racial or ethnic group, but even these are significantly different from the cases of Indian mascots. The Celtics play in a city with a large Irish population, the Fighting Irish represent a university established and largely populated by Irish people. Although it may appear that these would constitute examples of mascotizing analogous to that of American Indians, they do not for the simple reason that they were thought up and instituted by the very people (or group) that they depict. There is no such Indian mascot that was similarly devised by Indian persons. Another relevant difference between these cases is that what Irish people say about the mascots that depict them is taken as decisive in establishing the legitimacy of the mascots. The team names “Celtics” and “Fighting Irish” tend to be quite popular among persons of Irish heritage, and this popularity is taken as a reliable indicator of the appropriateness of these names. But the fact that Indian mascots tend to be grossly unpopular among Indians is not taken as an indicator that there may be something inappropriate about them – if it were, then there would be no more Indian mascots. The only persons who defend the use of American Indians as sports team mascots are those who profit from the use of such images – coincidentally, there is no group of American Indian affiliation that profits even from a single mascot.

Mannahnin wrote:Vikings were never a race. Viking was a verb, and viking as a noun meant someone who engaged in it.

Mannahnin wrote:Vikings were never a race. Viking was a verb, and viking as a noun meant someone who engaged in it.

deathholydeath wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Vikings were never a race. Viking was a verb, and viking as a noun meant someone who engaged in it.

Sure. We could get into semantic debates over what constitutes a "race" and what constitutes a people, culture, society, and so on. We could also dig into the etymology of each and every tribe name of the native Americans, and indeed any "race" across the face of the planet to determine, linguistically speaking, just who is and isn't a "race".
I'm sure the research would be as fascinating as it would be pointless.

deathholydeath wrote:It means, that in popular usage, viking denotes a specific people in specific regions in a specific period of time.

Ahtman wrote:Democratic Candidate Elizabeth Warren says she is 1/32nd Cherokee. Making such a claim isn't her problem. The problem is that she used that to claim minority status in college admittance and on her CV to get jobs, even being advertised as a minority Professor at Harvard Law.[/url]

Ahtman wrote:In all fairness she did submit a few recipes to a cookbook called "Pow Wow Chow" back in 1983.

Mannahnin wrote:I don't think so; I don't think anyone uses Viking to refer to a race or a people unless it's out of ignorance. The difference between calling a team the Vikings vs. calling them the Indians is that Vikings were specifically the warriors and raiders. It's not saying "all Swedes are bearded, horned helmet-wearning loonies"

The Modern Viking Goes Hunting
16.6.2006 Words by Ketill the Angry
The Modern Viking is a single man. He is the new standard for the swinging and easygoing, yet reliable and understanding gentleman, but as his name indicates, the Modern Viking must be a Viking as well as being Modern. Therefore he is in touch with his heritage and nationality, and knows that an attitude of overtly unrestrained sexual activity, and the advertising thereof, is out of the question.
Thus, the Modern Viking finds himself trapped in a social conundrum of sorts. How is he to remain modest and good-natured whilst still indulging in the earthly delights available to most single and attractive young men? There are many different ways to achieve this, and Odin knows that the Modern Viking has attempted quite a few himself. To assist his fellow, less experienced Modern Vikings, he has decided to mention a couple of alternatives to common male cock-ups in the dating game.
Try to keep up-to-date with pertinent imformation
In order to strike up a conversation with an attractive woman of breeding age, it is important to keep abreast of issues which might interest an individual of her social stature. This may or may not include popular music (“Have you heard the new Raconteurs album? I hear it makes for the most invigorating listen.”), publicly known individuals (“A minute avian informed me that Jude Law and Sienna Miller have reconciliated.”), or in the event that you yourself are approached and questioned on a subject, any little tidbit that could be related (“A cigarette? Why, certainly, but I fear they may have adverse effects on your health, madame[oiselle].”)
Be advised, though, the lady in question may not take too well to a Modern Viking that appears too interested and/or knowledgeable in her affairs (“A cigarette? But I thought I heard you tell your friend you were quitting when you accompanied her to the bathroom.”) or any affairs at all, for that matter (“A cigarette? With you being a westerner, I can safely assure you that you would not be asking me for one if not for the advent of the Crimean War, during which Russian soldiers would ration their western captives cigarettes as a gesture of good faith, following their defeat at Sevastopol...”). Also, it is important to be truthful and not exaggerate your knowledge on a subject (“A cigarette? It’s a widely known fact that people who smoke cigarettes spontaneously combust when they come into contact with giraffes and certain other even-toed ungulates.”). Above all, do not dominate the conversation and be receptive to her questions (“Why, yes I do go skiing now and again, but I think David Williams played drums for Augie March.”), and most importantly: Maintain your dignity. Never allow yourself to attempt to sidestep the conversation into dubious territory (“I only go skiing after sexually satisfying a woman, thereby making me a very experienced skier.”). This will only indicate shallow desperation and a directness unbecoming of a Modern Viking.
Only indicate interest in one woman
No woman takes kindly to being a Modern Viking’s second choice. Thereby it is important for the Modern Viking to constrain his interest in companionship to one person. He should approach just the one he desires the most and hint at unique qualities you may perceive her to have; although not necessarily with words. The Modern Viking simply listens closely to what she has to say, and agrees, where applicable, (“Yes, I too feel that John Kerry bears a striking resemblance to Bruce Campbell.”) or elaborates further to continue the conversation (“He also looks slightly like Hugh Jackman.”), or alternately, he may want to disagree and engage in some harmless verbal sparring (“No, I don’t think they look at all alike.
In fact, I think John Kerry looks much more like Whoopi Goldberg than Bruce Campbell.”).
Above all, the Modern Viking should try to give the impression that he is interested in her and her opinions alone, and is not simply in pursuit of an individual who can be coerced into bed with him (“I’d rather not talk about John Kerry when I’m trying to get laid.”) or someone to listen to his problems (“John Kerry has more in common with me than anyone else – we’re both losers.”). This gives the impression that the Modern Viking is desperate for somebody – anybody – and makes the object of your affection feel like gutter trash.
Also, the Modern Viking does not try to inspire jealousy by pitting one potential ‘companion’ against another (“I believe I heard that young lady over there declare that she could supress her gag reflex for an indefinite amount of time.”) or attempt to portray those who have enjoyed his intimate affections as an elite society she should feel ‘honoured’ to be a part of (“These hands only make contact with the finest of breasts.”). These portay the Modern Viking as being promiscuous and sex-obsessed, neither of which are qualities of the true Modern Viking.
One more thing: Under no circumstances whatsoever does the Modern Viking attempt to seduce two (“You both look so ravishing that I can barely decide which one to grope first.”) or more (“Alright, who in here wants to feth?”) women at the same time. The reasons for this are manifold and obvious.

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Democratic Candidate Elizabeth Warren says she is 1/32nd Cherokee. Making such a claim isn't her problem. The problem is that she used that to claim minority status in college admittance and on her CV to get jobs, even being advertised as a minority Professor at Harvard Law.[/url]

Turns out she's probably not even 1/32 Cherokee.

Geneologists have found no evidence to support her claim of Cherokee ancestry.

Monster Rain wrote:Funny how touchy a people can be after being practically exterminated, amirite?

pretre wrote:2) No other race in the US is held to the same standard of blood quantity in order to prove they are who they are. The opposite used to be true for African-Americans in the past (one drop rules), but Native Americans must prove their ancestry. I have intentionally never sought to register with my tribes because I don't really dig the whole idea of having to prove blood.

pretre wrote:Can you imagine if she claimed to be Irish and there was this kind of press coverage? 'Genealogists found no evidence to support her claim of Irish ancestry."

biccat wrote:I suspect if you were trying to claim some privilege or status based on African-American heritage and were not recognizable as such, somebody might ask for evidence. There's a reason tribes require proof: because you're entitled to a gak ton of benefits if you demonstrate you're an actual Native American.

Can you imagine if Harvard touted their commitment to diversity by claiming to have a person of Irish descent on their teaching staff?