Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
** The thread is not inflammatory, Patterson's comment itself was meant to be just that - and it was typical of why angry suburbanites loved him.
He was the alter-ego of Coleman Young, and such comments are loaded with right-wing "code". As a disgruntled suburbanite yourself, why don't you stand proudly behind it rather than reinterpret (what you accused me of doing BTW) his poisonous rhetoric as something offered out of benevolence?
You cannot be serious to offer up such a spin, when anybody with first hand experience and knowledge of that era knows the truth.
I stand behind what LBP said and not the interpretation of what he said by the so-called black "leader". LBP was not trying to imply that Native Americans are savages that need to be caged up, but that they suffer from many of the social ills as Detroit: alcoholism, domestic abuse, obesity, poor education, unemployment, depression, etc. Native Americans that live on reservations have become just as dispirited and dependent as Detroiters. LBP was making the statement on the hopelessness of reservations/Detroit and how there is very little that can be done by outsiders to change it for fear of being accused of trying to impose their way of life on the so-called "oppressed". Therefore the only alternative is to ignore them and try to contain the problem. A fair cultural analogy, in my opinion. Sad, but true.
I agree the solution is not to put a wall around them and throw in corn and blankets. If I were a Native American, I would not want to live on a reservation; and if I were a Detroiter, I would move out if I could afford to (unless I could afford a historic mansion). But I guess there is a certain amount of pride in preserving a way of life even if it is no longer viable.
I'm pretty sure that to most suburbanites (LBP included), "savage" is not a word that would come readily to mind to describe Native Americans. Perhaps that is how someone from the 1800s would have thought of them. Why a black "leader" would still hold this stereotype is beyond me. And why people would not be shocked at its use just goes to show how misinformed and bigoted his supporters are and how fearful the media is to call him out on it.
If anything, I think Native Americans should be more upset that LBP would insult them by comparing them to Detroit than the other way around. The savagery of some of the crimes in Detroit is quite chilling, the blowtorch rapist for one. Maybe the so-called black "leader" should speak out about that instead of claiming to be a protector of the black people. The enemy is not some white political figure in Oakland Co., it's your own "brothers".
I stand behind what LBP said and not the interpretation of what he said by the so-called black "leader". LBP was not trying to imply that Native Americans are savages that need to be caged up, but that they suffer from many of the social ills as Detroit: alcoholism, domestic abuse, obesity, poor education, unemployment, depression, etc. Native Americans that live on reservations have become just as dispirited and dependent as Detroiters. LBP was making the statement on the hopelessness of reservations/Detroit and how there is very little that can be done by outsiders to change it for fear of being accused of trying to impose their way of life on the so-called "oppressed". Therefore the only alternative is to ignore them and try to contain the problem. A fair cultural analogy, in my opinion. Sad, but true.
I agree the solution is not to put a wall around them and throw in corn and blankets. If I were a Native American, I would not want to live on a reservation; and if I were a Detroiter, I would move out if I could afford to (unless I could afford a historic mansion). But I guess there is a certain amount of pride in preserving a way of life even if it is no longer viable.
I'm pretty sure that to most suburbanites (LBP included), "savage" is not a word that would come readily to mind to describe Native Americans. Perhaps that is how someone from the 1800s would have thought of them. Why a black "leader" would still hold this stereotype is beyond me. And why people would not be shocked at its use just goes to show how misinformed and bigoted his supporters are and how fearful the media is to call him out on it.
If anything, I think Native Americans should be more upset that LBP would insult them by comparing them to Detroit than the other way around. The savagery of some of the crimes in Detroit is quite chilling, the blowtorch rapist for one. Maybe the so-called black "leader" should speak out about that instead of claiming to be a protector of the black people. The enemy is not some white political figure in Oakland Co., it's your own "brothers".
I understand it's a controversial topic, but I do expect people to not spin the story to the point of not even making sense any more. Regardless of what any "black leaders" said, Patterson said what he said. It's called "deflection" when in defense of your guy, you bring up what some other random guy said. Just acknowledge that he's a racist bigot who is good with accounting and move on.
Well, I took LBP's comments for what they were. You see, I don't have the superhuman ability that liberals supposedly have of actually reading a person's mind. If we will recall, his comments were:
Quote:
'What we're going to do is turn Detroit into an Indian reservation, where we herd all the Indians into the city, build a fence around it, an then throw in the blankets and corn.'
No mention of "savages". In fact, his comment was not really disparaging of Indians in any way, but of Indian reservations. He could have said "What we're going to do is turn Oakland County into a wealthy enclave, where we herd all the rich people into the county, build a fence around it, and then throw in the mansions and delicacies." Would a liberal conclude from that that wealthy people are savages?
...on second thought, don't answer that.
I also should point out that the "black leader" was not just some random guy. The television news reports featured him prominently, I believe Channel 4 even broadcast his speech live as if he were some reincarnation of MLK (too bad for the liberals that they couldn't edit the offensive parts out.)
Well, I took LBP's comments for what they were. You see, I don't have the superhuman ability that liberals supposedly have of actually reading a person's mind. If we will recall, his comments were:
No mention of "savages". In fact, his comment was not really disparaging of Indians in any way, but of Indian reservations. He could have said "What we're going to do is turn Oakland County into a wealthy enclave, where we herd all the rich people into the county, build a fence around it, and then throw in the mansions and delicacies." Would a liberal conclude from that that wealthy people are savages?
...on second thought, don't answer that.
I also should point out that the "black leader" was not just some random guy. The television news reports featured him prominently, I believe Channel 4 even broadcast his speech live as if he were some reincarnation of MLK (too bad for the liberals that they couldn't edit the offensive parts out.)
Why are you bringing the topic of "liberal" into this? I'm not a liberal, and I'm also not a Democrat. Not sure why that matters to the discussion?
There is no way that any rational person can take Patterson's statement to mean anything but a disdain for Detroiters (in a bigoted way using Indians as an example). When leaders talk about "herding people into an area, building a wall and throwing in food and blankets," they are referring to concentration/internment camps. It happened to the Japanese in the U.S. during WWII, it obviously happened to Jews in WWII, it happened during the Bosnian War, it happened in Cambodia, in China, and hundreds of other countries throughout the last couple of centuries. Never in a million years does someone suggest putting people in a closed in area and offering basic necessities as a "good thing."
Just read Patterson's words for exactly what he meant. Non-partisan.
I think magellan nails it with his/her assessments above. What LBP said was pretty bigoted. Republicans and the good ol' conservative network are well known for their bigoted stances. This is nothing new. And some consevatives on here are acting as if they are the victim of liberal "superhuman mind-reading" here. Puh-lease! That's iust laughable. They are always extrapolating and making insinuations about the liberals they despise based on their own presumptions. Don't pretend that the same thing doesn't occur on your side of the aisle.
I stand behind what LBP said and not the interpretation of what he said by the so-called black "leader". LBP was not trying to imply that Native Americans are savages that need to be caged up, but that they suffer from many of the social ills as Detroit: alcoholism, domestic abuse, obesity, poor education, unemployment, depression, etc.------------------------------
Gawd - You yourself are interpreting what he said, and desperately bending it way out of shape to suit yourself. It is your re-interpretation that I'm concerned with.
Since, as a disgruntled suburbanite, your track record has shown that you feel the same way, why not stand proudly behind the intended message. The statement is typical of both yours and his known low opinion of Detroiters, so why spin it to seem otherwise? Nothing benevolent was meant. Just another typically crude dogwhistle to his political and ideological base (including you), the people who hired him to say that stuff.
Stand proudly, and don't bail out on your convictions just to suit the moment.
You see, I was there through it all, but I just don't have the same bitterness you have freely displayed in the past, so you really aren't fooling anybody. Seriously.
So you three don't think the analogy between Detroit and an Indian Reservation has any validity? I would think you would support the proposition that both are a result of the oppression of the White Man.
So you three don't think the analogy between Detroit and an Indian Reservation has any validity? I would think you would support the proposition that both are a result of the oppression of the White Man.
Indian reservations don't have walls around them. They also don't just receive corn and blankets from the local government. Much more than that actually.
Why didn't he say "I invite everyone left in Detroit to come move up to Oakland County and share in the bounty that I've created" ??
Oh right, because that's not at all what he wants to see...
As far as real reservations go, in areas where the Indian tribes have built casinos, they get quite a bit of tax revenue back to their reservations, and have built fairly nice healthcare facilities, police stations, fire departments and housing projects. Nothing like Patterson's lakefront retreat, but generally in better condition then the poverty levels of the nearby rural areas where most of the casinos reside.
The downtown Detroit casinos are a completely different business model, which is why I left them out of this discussion.
Oh well, I'm tired of talking about old white guys.
So you three don't think the analogy between Detroit and an Indian Reservation has any validity? I would think you would support the proposition that both are a result of the oppression of the White Man.
You are trying to bail out your soul mate - yet you can't admit it. Why the need to suddenly conceal your own views?
Like I said, have some integrity and state your position proudly without trying to to weasel out. Since you have stated similar beliefs in the past, stand up for them. Give us the disgruntled suburbanite view - that at least has some value to the discussion.
Again, I was there and you can't deceive me on his views. This statement was totally in line and most of his disciples are celebrating it now.
Indian reservations don't have walls around them. They also don't just receive corn and blankets from the local government. Much more than that actually.
Why didn't he say "I invite everyone left in Detroit to come move up to Oakland County and share in the bounty that I've created" ??
Oh right, because that's not at all what he wants to see...
As far as real reservations go, in areas where the Indian tribes have built casinos, they get quite a bit of tax revenue back to their reservations, and have built fairly nice healthcare facilities, police stations, fire departments and housing projects. Nothing like Patterson's lakefront retreat, but generally in better condition then the poverty levels of the nearby rural areas where most of the casinos reside.
The downtown Detroit casinos are a completely different business model, which is why I left them out of this discussion.
Oh well, I'm tired of talking about old white guys.
So his comment was not valid because Indian reservations don't technically have walls around them and instead of giving them corn and blankets we give them a monopoly on gambling? Okay, you are right, technically he was incorrect, but if you grant him a little literary freedom, I think his point is valid.
However, "savage" is pretty specific.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
