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.
Referring to Native Americans as "savages" on a New Mexico subforum. Bold.
I mean, call them vandals, call them criminals, but racial slurs are a bit over the top.
It was apparently a few white dudes who called themselves "allies" of Native Americans who toppled the monument. Not Native Americans.
In any case, those who don't live here may not know that the monument has been the target of graffiti and vandalism for years, and recently had panels built around it so that the words around the bottom could not be seen, and where people were invited to write their own messages which also made it an eyesore. It continued to be the object of protest and defacing, to the point that it was taking up city resources that could be better allocated elsewhere. It had outlived its purpose, became a safety hazard, and it really was time for it to go.
If you wanted to defend it then you should have been there defending it instead of pointing fingers.
Well, the back story to why the obelisk was pulled down appeared in the Santa Fe New Mexican yesterday. It seems the mayor had said last June he was going to take it down, and had already removed a statue from the Cathedral Park downtown, but there was a delay in removing the obelisk. After waiting months for him to make good on his promise, protestors took matters into their own hands.
Now the mayor is facing efforts from a Hispanic heritage group to recall him, calling him "incompetent". They're holding the mayor responsible for the damage to the obelisk.
I love NM and revere the three cultures of the Upper Rio Grande Valley. I met great people out there in Santa Fe from each major ethnic group in the area as a teen. I found modern Santa Fe to be very progressive and enlightening for a young indigenous student back then.
Unfortunately, the history of NM is very tragic. The Spaniards had a slave trade and scalp policy to kill off indigenous tribes like the Apaches, Kiowas, and Comanches. There was also a caste system based on skin color - the Spanish "casta". Occasionally, I met New Mexicans who were still like that - albeit it wasn't very frequent.
I think it's a dilemma. Realistically, the indigenous people near Santa Fe intermixed with the Spaniards for hundreds of years such that there are now many New Mexicans who embrace it and openly acknowledge their indigenous ancestry. But it is done in a celebrated sort of way such that the dark history is "tossed aside". People often don't like to talk about it.
Perhaps there is a way to have a community discussion about how to come to terms with the tragic reality of the early days of Spanish Colonization more pragmatically. I think tearing down statues reflects the frustrations of indigenous people having to deal with denial from the colonizers.
For example, most Hollywood films portray Indians as "savages" who practiced scalping. I remember one film was made with two young white guys traveling in NM. It looked like they were near Acoma. They met a local Pueblo girl and went on a date but were confronted by a group of full-blooded Rez Indians. Then the film showed them tying up the two white guys and cutting their hair off - a sort of "symbolic" scalp. It thought it was very ignorant.
But in real life the Spaniards often imposed a scalp bounty system on indigenous people to kill them off. This led to an evolution of white scalp bounty hunters in the old west. There was also a slave trade in the Santa Fe Market.
All of that is ignored by Hollywood films. I get why those indigenous people got mad and tore down the statue in protest. But my opinion is whether if the community can get together and have an honest discussion about it to come to terms with the past. I love Santa Fe and want the progression and great people (including modern Spanish New Mexicans) I met there to persist and expand into future generations.
I get why those indigenous people got mad and tore down the statue in protest.
Some corrections: The obelisk is not a statue -- so it can't even be considered a work of art like many other monuments can. It was torn down by white protesters who claimed to be allies of Native Americans. Indigenous organizations have been trying to have the obelisk removed for decades through legal means.
Since Santa Fe Plaza has National Historic Landmark status, there is a lot of red tape around changing or removing anything that makes up a part of it. This is part of the reason it wasn't removed outright by the City earlier. But Mayor Webber was going to establish a commission to address controversial monuments and statues in Santa Fe to get input from all parties. With coronavirus concerns it is difficult to get anything done that isn't an urgent priority.
I'd rather have no monuments that a single one that glorifies the slaughter of native americans or honors proponents of slavery. It speaks to the morality of the nation. Do we continue to turn a blind eye to the sins of the past or do we have the decency to finally acknowledge them? If politicians had the courage to address the issue much much sooner, people wouldn't be taking things into their own hands.
How would you feel if everyday you passed a monument that called white people savages and praised the people that killed your ancestors while the descendants of those people stood in front of it to take selfies? A little empathy would go a long way but a lot more is needed.
I don't think they are referring to all indians as savages, just the ones that they fought. Many assimilated which is why they are still around today. They were not all wiped out, obviouskly.
I am white and indian and it doesn't offend me. I don't have tribal affiliation so I won't say too much on that but I agree with the poster below. Tell the other side. And white people are routinely called savages and people who killed them our praised. On this site, on reddit, tumblr, twitter, and even in class rooms now.
I have mixed feelings about summary unofficial monument removal myself, but in this case I can really see the frustration considering it was decided that it would be removed almost 50 years ago, and no action has been taken.
Personally, I would have preferred to have the monument rededicated, perhaps with a plaque explaining and contextualizing its history.
Referring to Native Americans as "savages" on a New Mexico subforum. Bold.
I mean, call them vandals, call them criminals, but racial slurs are a bit over the top.
But, whatever, this is City-Data afterall, I'm not the PC police here.
Were the people who destroyed the monuments actually indian? I have a feeling they are white liberals.
Even if they are indians, it is not a racial slur.
sav·age
/ˈsavij/
noun
plural noun: savages
1.
a brutal or vicious person.
"the mother of one of the victims has described his assailants as savages"
Regardless of race, hell regardless of the statue or even if it is a regular building, anybody who destroys property is a savage.
I love NM and revere the three cultures of the Upper Rio Grande Valley. I met great people out there in Santa Fe from each major ethnic group in the area as a teen. I found modern Santa Fe to be very progressive and enlightening for a young indigenous student back then.
Unfortunately, the history of NM is very tragic. The Spaniards had a slave trade and scalp policy to kill off indigenous tribes like the Apaches, Kiowas, and Comanches. There was also a caste system based on skin color - the Spanish "casta". Occasionally, I met New Mexicans who were still like that - albeit it wasn't very frequent.
I think it's a dilemma. Realistically, the indigenous people near Santa Fe intermixed with the Spaniards for hundreds of years such that there are now many New Mexicans who embrace it and openly acknowledge their indigenous ancestry. But it is done in a celebrated sort of way such that the dark history is "tossed aside". People often don't like to talk about it.
Perhaps there is a way to have a community discussion about how to come to terms with the tragic reality of the early days of Spanish Colonization more pragmatically. I think tearing down statues reflects the frustrations of indigenous people having to deal with denial from the colonizers.
For example, most Hollywood films portray Indians as "savages" who practiced scalping. I remember one film was made with two young white guys traveling in NM. It looked like they were near Acoma. They met a local Pueblo girl and went on a date but were confronted by a group of full-blooded Rez Indians. Then the film showed them tying up the two white guys and cutting their hair off - a sort of "symbolic" scalp. It thought it was very ignorant.
But in real life the Spaniards often imposed a scalp bounty system on indigenous people to kill them off. This led to an evolution of white scalp bounty hunters in the old west. There was also a slave trade in the Santa Fe Market.
All of that is ignored by Hollywood films. I get why those indigenous people got mad and tore down the statue in protest. But my opinion is whether if the community can get together and have an honest discussion about it to come to terms with the past. I love Santa Fe and want the progression and great people (including modern Spanish New Mexicans) I met there to persist and expand into future generations.
I hope you are not trying to suggest Spanish or other Europeans invented scalping.
Quote:
Many tribes of Native Americans practiced scalping, in some instances up until the end of the 19th century. Of the approximately 500 bodies at the Crow Creek massacre site, 90 percent of the skulls show evidence of scalping. The event took place circa 1325 AD.[14]
I am white and indian and it doesn't offend me. I don't have tribal affiliation so I won't say too much on that but I agree with the poster below. Tell the other side. And white people are routinely called savages and people who killed them our praised. On this site, on reddit, tumblr, twitter, and even in class rooms now.
Whether you have a Cherokee great-grandmother or some such family legend is no excuse for the ignorance you're displaying here.
The term "savages" was the general term back then for Indians, it originally meant wild and untamed, and wasn't considered a slur until the 20th century when it took on an insulting connotation. To suggest white people are now called "savages" is really laughable. If you don't think the term "savage" is offensive, then you shouldn't be offended if white people are called that (which they aren't).
I don't think they are referring to all indians as savages, just the ones that they fought. Many assimilated which is why they are still around today. They were not all wiped out, obviouskly.
I am white and indian and it doesn't offend me. I don't have tribal affiliation.
So you're a mind reader now? Native Americans were routinely referred to as savages and not just in the context of battle. Remember how Elizabeth Warren was mocked by Republicans for bringing up her native american ancestry? Well, right back at you. I have to agree with Aries63 and conclude that your ties to Native Americans are tenuous at best. Regardless, it clearly offended a lot of people so just because it didn't offend you, that is no reason for it to remain standing.
If you have read the other posts in this thread, you will have realized that the tearing down of the obelisk wasn't just a random act - it had a very long convoluted history and was scheduled to be removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by supfromthesite
white people are routinely called savages and people who killed them our praised. On this site, on reddit, tumblr, twitter, and even in class rooms now.
Oh give me a break - this is just pure gaslighting. Show me proof that white people are routinely called savages. There is a huge difference between what you are stating and the reality which is that due to the blatant murder of many black people this year, people's awareness of the extent of white racial bias and privilege has increased and it's being discussed online more than ever before which is a good thing. The increased visibility & activity of white supremacist groups over the past 4 years makes it more important than ever to call out prejudice whenever we see it.
How would you describe the McMichaels who decided that they were entitled to be judge, jury and executioner in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery? How many times have online forums celebrated the murder of blacks and praised the people who killed them? You don't seem to have a problem with that. Works both ways.
Were the people who destroyed the monuments actually indian? I have a feeling they are white liberals.
Even if they are indians, it is not a racial slur.
sav·age
/ˈsavij/
noun
plural noun: savages
1.
a brutal or vicious person.
"the mother of one of the victims has described his assailants as savages"
Regardless of race, hell regardless of the statue or even if it is a regular building, anybody who destroys property is a savage.
If you are unaware that the word 'savage' has been used as an ethnic slur explicitly against Native Americans, especially in the 19th century in the American West, I don't know what to tell you.
I mean, the N-word is just a phonetic rendering of a dialectal pronunciation of the word 'negro' which is Spanish for the color 'black', so... not offensive at all, right?
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.
