Liberal Logic: Eating three square meals a day is racist, says Mother Jones (compared, financial)
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.
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.
Quote from the article, "So, basically — if you organize your eating around breakfast, lunch and dinner, you are perpetuating the racist belief that Native Americans are savage animals." End quote
Seems pretty clear to me what her agenda was, and what she wanted to impart with her statements.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,142,613 times
Reputation: 2919
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
Quote from the article, "So, basically — if you organize your eating around breakfast, lunch and dinner, you are perpetuating the racist belief that Native Americans are savage animals." End quote
Seems pretty clear to me what her agenda was, and what she wanted to impart with her statements.
That's not from the original article; that's from a think piece critical of the original article. The OP posted the link to the original article second. Read that. While still stupid for a headline, it's clearly not as inflammatory as it might seem.
Quote from the article, "So, basically — if you organize your eating around breakfast, lunch and dinner, you are perpetuating the racist belief that Native Americans are savage animals." End quote
Seems pretty clear to me what her agenda was, and what she wanted to impart with her statements.
Please read everything. That's not from the article that we're talking about, it's from a critique.
That's not from the original article; that's from a think piece critical of the original article. The OP posted the link to the original article second. Read that. While still stupid for a headline, it's clearly not as inflammatory as it might seem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile
Please read everything. That's not from the article that we're talking about, it's from a critique.
If that wasn't germane to the discussion it shouldn't have been included.
As it was, and spoke directly to the title of the thread, it seemed to me to be on-point to the discussion.
I made no judgments, simply quoted the information presented and as such, it seems the intent as indicated is there.
Reading the second article I find, quote: "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.") End quote.
This seems to accurately mirror the first article so I find it difficult to separate the indicated intent from the perceived intent that others seem to draw from it, i.e.: that the article is not condemning eating practices as racist when the preponderance of evidence drawn from a reading of both articles seems to indicate otherwise.
If that wasn't germane to the discussion it shouldn't have been included.
As it was, and spoke directly to the title of the thread, it seemed to me to be on-point to the discussion.
I made no judgments, simply quoted the information presented and as such, it seems the intent as indicated is there.
Reading the second article I find, quote: "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.") End quote.
This seems to accurately mirror the first article so I find it difficult to separate the indicated intent from the perceived intent that others seem to draw from it, i.e.: that the article is not condemning eating practices as racist when the preponderance of evidence drawn from a reading of both articles seems to indicate otherwise.
But that first article is a subjective critique of the original article. Any evidence or perceived intent gained from that article to be applied to the original article is inherently biased. The indicated intent should be discerned by reading the original article.
1 - if its posted from any source noted (to you) as Liberal. . .than its liberal logic?
2 - you didn't bother to read the article
...So I just peaked a look at the Article. The headline is the only thing that says "racist' . . .its pure attention grabbing bs. . .by some web editor. The article doesn't mention racism.
Racism plays into the article regarding the judgement of early Europeans on Indians that they didn't eat three meals, so it was unrefined, uncivilized, etc. Now that was racist, hence the articles note
The article doesn't say continuing to eat three meals is racist. It makes the case that it doesn't serve your bodies metabolic need
Should the take away be, Conservative Logic: never read past the headline, and make grandiose statements?
What the article author titled the piece, isn't that what Rush Limbaugh does once a year anyway to revive interest in his show? He says something completely outrageous, the entire media is in an uproar and gets everybody talking about it, and he thus succeeds in generating revenue. The article author succeeded in the same mission
Quote from the article, "So, basically — if you organize your eating around breakfast, lunch and dinner, you are perpetuating the racist belief that Native Americans are savage animals." End quote
Seems pretty clear to me what her agenda was, and what she wanted to impart with her statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
That's not from the original article; that's from a think piece critical of the original article. The OP posted the link to the original article second. Read that. While still stupid for a headline, it's clearly not as inflammatory as it might seem.
Regardless, this is basically what Mother Jones wants you to think after reading it.
And I'd like MJ to post any actual links to their historical references on European colonists watching "savage" Natives eat for entertainment purposes.
If one of those meals is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, you're a super duper racist.
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.