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.
Many left-leaning C-Der's take Mother Jones (and other radical Leftist sites such as AlterNet, Salon, et al.) very seriously, quoting them often in their political discussions, which is why I needed to post this.
This is from the article and is what she was referencing when she used racist.
"They observed that the eating schedule of the native tribes was less rigid—the volume and timing of their eating varied with the seasons. Sometimes, when food was scarce, they fasted. The Europeans took this as "evidence that natives were uncivilized," Carroll explained to me in an email. "Civilized people ate properly and boundaried their eating, thus differentiating themselves from the animal kingdom, where grazing is the norm." (So fascinated were Europeans with tribes' eating patterns, notes Carroll, that they actually watched Native Americans eat "as a form of entertainment.")"
Name calling already? Are you that unsure of your own position that you have to start with insults immediately? Sigh...
Please point to me where she uses the word racist in that article other than in the headline. Please point to me where she calls the Native Americans savages or the European settlers conquerors. Please point to me where she out and out condemns the Europeans or the Native Americans.
The Europeans took this as "evidence that natives were uncivilized," Carroll explained to me in an email. "Civilized people ate properly and boundaried their eating, thus differentiating themselves from the animal kingdom, where grazing is the norm." (So fascinated were Europeans with tribes' eating patterns, notes Carroll, that they actually watched Native Americans eat "as a form of entertainment.")
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,180,320 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
This is from the article and is what she was referencing when she used racist.
"They observed that the eating schedule of the native tribes was less rigid—the volume and timing of their eating varied with the seasons. Sometimes, when food was scarce, they fasted. The Europeans took this as "evidence that natives were uncivilized," Carroll explained to me in an email. "Civilized people ate properly and boundaried their eating, thus differentiating themselves from the animal kingdom, where grazing is the norm." (So fascinated were Europeans with tribes' eating patterns, notes Carroll, that they actually watched Native Americans eat "as a form of entertainment.")"
That's just a history lesson. The author doesn't even call the settlers racist, or the Native Americans uncivilized. That's left up to the reader to take from it what they want.
That's just a history lesson. The author doesn't even call the settlers racist, or the Native Americans uncivilized. That's left up to the reader to take from it what they want.
Okay - except that she put racist in the subtitle.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,180,320 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
Okay - except that she put racist in the subtitle.
Yea, I think that was stupid as well, but I think she did it to attract readers. To be 'edgy'. I think if she was truly condemning the European settlers, rather than trying to be shocking, she would have condemned them in that paragraph or somewhere else in the article. Trying to rile up feathers, seems to me, but I'm done trying to defend this piece. You guys can have this one as 'victory'. Still an interesting history/science lesson, though, regardless of political ideology.
Yea, I think that was stupid as well, but I think she did it to attract readers. To be 'edgy'. I think if she was truly condemning the European settlers, rather than trying to be shocking, she would have condemned them in that paragraph or somewhere else in the article. Trying to rile up feathers, seems to me, but I'm done trying to defend this piece. You guys can have this one as 'victory'. Still an interesting history/science lesson, though, regardless of political ideology.
I don't know how she actually feels about it because she didn't tell me, but maybe she was trying to be edgy. I don't care enough to worry about a victory, but I agree, the history is interesting.
"Racist' has come to mean basically anything that those on the Left don't like. If you are against Obama, you are a racist. If you are against illegal immigration, you are racist. The author is against three meals a day, so it's racist. It's just the natural progression of the word.
Indeed. But it's a common political thing. Look at the word socialist. If it's not strictly conservative, it's often immediately called socialist (or even communist if they are entirely uninformed) by the right wing. They use words like socialist or racist to create an emotional reaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
Okay - except that she put racist in the subtitle.
To be fair, it's not completely wrong. Europeans did view natives as being uncivilized, though this was mainly to justify cruelty and had little to do with skin color or eating habits. The modern understanding of racism is actually pretty recent. The term 'white' was used until the last century or so. Prior to that, (white) people would identify based on European country; German, Irish, English, etc. Black was used, and the reason white was used was because black was the majority race. They wanted white people to be the majority to they started encouraging people to identify that way rather than based on country of origin.
Same deal with Christianity; it used to be Methodist, Lutheran, Catholics, etc. Most recent example; Mitt Romney called himself Christian, thought Mormons only 10 years ago would not be allowed to include themselves in this category. JFK was in a similar situation with himself being catholic.
To address the eating, it has nothing to do with race. It's background, certainly. Europeans had a 3 meal a day setting because they had a form of work that required it. Today, we realistically don't need it unless you work on a farm or in labor. A businessman could feasibly skip lunch, or make their lunch a small snack, and be fine since their output of calories is objectively lower. But to call it racist or anti-science is bizarre. Unhealthy eating habits perhaps, but eating 3 meals is certainly not the most unhealthy eating habit we have in America.
Indeed. But it's a common political thing. Look at the word socialist. If it's not strictly conservative, it's often immediately called socialist (or even communist if they are entirely uninformed) by the right wing. They use words like socialist or racist to create an emotional reaction.
To be fair, it's not completely wrong. Europeans did view natives as being uncivilized, though this was mainly to justify cruelty and had little to do with skin color or eating habits. The modern understanding of racism is actually pretty recent. The term 'white' was used until the last century or so. Prior to that, (white) people would identify based on European country; German, Irish, English, etc. Black was used, and the reason white was used was because black was the majority race. They wanted white people to be the majority to they started encouraging people to identify that way rather than based on country of origin.
Same deal with Christianity; it used to be Methodist, Lutheran, Catholics, etc. Most recent example; Mitt Romney called himself Christian, thought Mormons only 10 years ago would not be allowed to include themselves in this category. JFK was in a similar situation with himself being catholic.
To address the eating, it has nothing to do with race. It's background, certainly. Europeans had a 3 meal a day setting because they had a form of work that required it. Today, we realistically don't need it unless you work on a farm or in labor. A businessman could feasibly skip lunch, or make their lunch a small snack, and be fine since their output of calories is objectively lower. But to call it racist or anti-science is bizarre. Unhealthy eating habits perhaps, but eating 3 meals is certainly not the most unhealthy eating habit we have in America.
Saying people are uncivilized could be racist though not necessarily, it would depend on whether you saw it that way because of their race making them unable to be civilized or if their experiences hadn't resulted in them becoming civilized. That said, I think history would tell us that racism wasn't out of the question.
I enjoyed the history part of the article and yes, it evolved as you said. Her point seemed to be that it was based on an initial racism and evolved from there.
Saying people are uncivilized could be racist though not necessarily, it would depend on whether you saw it that way because of their race making them unable to be civilized or if their experiences hadn't resulted in them becoming civilized. That said, I think history would tell us that racism wasn't out of the question.
I enjoyed the history part of the article and yes, it evolved as you said. Her point seemed to be that it was based on an initial racism and evolved from there.
I mean, race could have been a factor, but as I said, the modern understanding of race and racism is a fairly recent thing in a lot of ways.
With Native Americans, who were eventually labeled as savage or uncivilized, there's a common trend among Europeans (accept for the English, for a variety of reasons I won't bother to go into) having first contact with them. They always first described them as beautiful and completely free. For example, Columbus admired them for their nudity. He saw it as being without shame, or without sin (like Adam and Eve would have been at first). However, upon the discovery of a resource, mainly gold and people (and land), he changed that view. Their nudity was due to incivility; they lived like animals.
There are so many factors in the European view of other cultures; it's hard to peg it on one factor, or give one factor more credit. Racism may have been a part of it, but I can't say with intellectual honesty that it was the only or main factor.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 03-05-2015 at 12:41 PM..
Reason: deleted quoted post and reply
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.
