I was replying to a post about lower unemployment rates before Covid.
Yes, I can find many things to complain about with Trump. My Number 1 is “Stop the Steal”.
I think they usually say Indian-American in that case.
But it is admittedly confusing to differentiate those two very distinct groups.
My Indian-American college roommate did not care for “American Indian” and was surprised when I said that this is what tribe members instructed my church group to call them.
Again, I kind of like First Peoples as it’s the most accurate and not really confusing. I don’t know if I have what it takes to initiate a trend here in the US though.
I’ve been saying this exact same thing for years. I think “First Peoples” is a much better descriptor than “Native American” or “American Indian”.
My first wife (RIP) descended from First Peoples, (not a long told family tale constructed from dubious facts, but actually only back a few generations so much so that she received “reparations” from the federal government due to treaty violations. She was proud of her heritage and particularly her grandmother who was ridiculed as a “half-breed” while growing up. They (wife, mother, grandmother) always referred to themselves by their tribe name.
That structure (tribe name) gets awkward and difficult when you’re in a situation talking about multiple tribes and cultures. “First Peoples” seems to do a great of encapsulating the diverse grouping of early residents, and also their current descendants, on the North American Continent.
I have no idea if he’s right, but I found this interesting at least.
I can’t find any of the “series” this is the intro to - not sure if he just dropped it or is still working on it.
1 Like
I think in Canada the preferred by white folk name is first Nations. But I’m not 100 percent confident of that.
Oh, maybe I’m misremembering. First Nations is fine too, although if it was up to me I’d probably go with First Peoples.
Either is better than Native American IMO.
Either one is fine with me. I’ll follow the Canadians example on this one.
1 Like
I finally got a chance to watch that. It certainly matches my experience working with one particular tribe. They were quite clear that they greatly preferred Indian to Native American, although the reasoning they provided was slightly different.
But now that I think about it, I think I do recall them also mentioning that white people named them Indian and then white people also decided to change their minds and call them something else… after they’d gotten used to and accepted Indian.
One time my FiL asked (kinda out of the blue - I don’t remember the context of the conversation), “what are we supposed to call black people these days”.
My initial thought was, “I’d just start with ‘people’ and then try my best to be respectful. Recognizing that I might offend somone anyway, so be ready and willing to say ‘I’m sorry’”. I don’t remember if I actually said that, but I should have if I didn’t…
They may not have been first though. From the Wikipedia entry on Genetic History of Indigenous Peoples of the Americas -
"Paleoamericans
There is genetic evidence for an early wave of migration to the Americas. It is uncertain whether this “Paleoamerican” (also “Paleoamerind”, not to be confused with the term [Paleo-Indian] used of the early phase of Amerinds proper) migration took place in the early Holocene, thus only shortly predating the main Amerind peopling of the Americas, or whether it may have reached the Americas substantially earlier, before the Last Glacial Maximum."
Yes it is. If you want more equality it must be sold in a different package. It doesn’t matter how true CRT is this is not the package that will win the hearts and minds of voters. That’s the truth.
Convincing poor uneducated white people who can’t find a job in their hometown and don’t have any money that they are privileged and need to pay up to help poor black people in a city they have never been to doesn’t make any sense to them. It’s borderline insanity to think that it would make sense to them.
Also remember any given black person is more likely to be poor than any given white person, but as of the latest data I could find white people still make up more than half the poor people in the US. So more white people struggle than people of color are struggling combined. For this reason alone any policy targeting aid strictly to people of color is not going to go through in the US without a huge stink being raised.
3 Likes
I don’t see this as being part of any reparation scheme. The characterization in this way is s imply the framing of CRT advanced by the Right. No doubt, there are quotes available out there that serve that effort, but it’s not gonna happen. The actual reparations will be financed more along the lines of the war Daneel has proposed: along wealth and income lines.
So think of eliminating public school funding at the local level ( a clear policy that advantages wealthy cohorts), by moving it to state and federal levels. Then make the state and federal income taxes more progressive. These policies can only help the persons you are referencing, and will not cost them a nickel.
There’s a LOT of obstacles to making this happen. Washington state funds public schools mostly at the state level rather than local, and they have no income tax to progressify. I believe (but am admittedly not certain of) that adding an income tax would require voter approval, which is a huge obstacle.
I know that making non-inflation-related changes to Oregon’s income tax (pretty close to flat but not completely flat) requires voter approval. It was a huge ordeal to get the 9.9% bracket on high income folks added that took many many years and legal hand-wringing.
I will add that several states have no income tax at all, and quite a few more have a flat income tax. Pretending that this would be easy to change is fantasy.
So if you want to have a theoretical discussion about how it should work, fine. If you are seriously proposing this as a workable solution… no.
Right, but it’s so easy to frame it this way that it’s extremely difficult to convince people that’s not what it is. Both parties have decided they are right and everyone else is wrong. That’s fine, but in this country as it stands if you cannot count to 60 in the Senate it ain’t happening. Republicans and Democrats alike must begin to understand it doesn’t matter what you think of your ideas, what really matters is what the people whose mind’s you need to change think about your ideas.
Donald Trump is a perfect example. Many conservatives will tell you to ignore the person and look at the policy. The policy he passed is the same policy any Republican President with a majority in the House and Senate would have passed. That means the person is the problem. If your policy is tied to a person that 65% of the adults in the US find repugnant then it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans what that policy is it is not getting signed into law.
The same thing is true of some of these things based on CRT. It doesn’t matter how happy it makes far left voters.. What matters is how many independents and non-Trump Republicans you can get to support it. The answer to that is not many so it is not going to move forward.
Being anti-trade, anti Nato, and pro-Russia are very different from traditional Republican values.
2 Likes
I don’t see how this isn’t a pipe dream. I think most of suburbia would be strongly against the former.
So basically massive disinformation campaigns are unstoppable?
1 Like
Maybe but unstoppable, but they can be stubborn, Mr Blow.
https://twitter.com/allahpundit/status/1401886164429291526?s=19
1 Like