Cultural/Racial Bias and Discussion

[LGR4GM]

10 hours ago, Eleven said:

It's not that.

They were marched off to less desirable land, for sure.

They weren't treated like most conquered peoples throughout history, either, though.

This all happened before my grandparents came here, so there is no "white guilt" going on here.  It's just my understanding of facts, which may be flawed, but which also is informed by having a very close friend who is Cherokee and from living in Oklahoma for a few years, which is heavily native.

This is a bad comparison. The trail of tears alone makes it a bad one. You are basically arguing that we were slightly less awful than genocide. 

[LGR4GM]

32 minutes ago, Curt said:

To be fair to Eleven, he did not say that the North American Native peoples were fairly treated.

The disagreement between you two seems to be the extent to which Native Peoples were able to retain their culture.  This seems to be something about which a logical discussion could take place.

You two, make your points regarding the issue at hand.  It could actually lead to a healthy discussion.

That is true. I would argue however that the US spent several hundred years persecuting the Native Americans to the point of collapse. The Native Americans were pushed out and pushed west. Treaties were signed and then broken. If they refused to leave they were killed. It is a very tragic story and we are lucky that some Native American cultures survived but we destroyed them. 

[Curt]

20 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

That is true. I would argue however that the US spent several hundred years persecuting the Native Americans to the point of collapse. The Native Americans were pushed out and pushed west. Treaties were signed and then broken. If they refused to leave they were killed. It is a very tragic story and we are lucky that some Native American cultures survived but we destroyed them. 

I would basically agree, but I’m interested in what info Eleven has to defend his position.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Genocide is exactly what happened to the North American Native populations, by any reasonable definition.

I give you Oxford ...

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/genocide

The UN uses this definition.

I see no difference between what happened in North America and what happened in ... the list is endless, but ... Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia - those are recent ones that we know about.  I would think that there are countless examples that we know nothing about.

[LTS]

I am starting this thread to move posts into that are straying away from the primary topic in other threads and to provide a place for beneficial conversation on the topic.

[Eleven]

12 hours ago, Ogre said:

Tell me again how my ancestors were so fairly treated. 

Thanks to @Curt for pointing out that this isn't my position.  I don't think natives were fairly treated at all.  I think they were treated *differently* than the vast majority of conquered peoples throughout history, but that doesn't mean "fairly."

2 hours ago, Curt said:

I would basically agree, but I’m interested in what info Eleven has to defend his position.

I will try to post a little more later.  

[Eleven]

5 hours ago, Curt said:

I would basically agree, but I’m interested in what info Eleven has to defend his position.

Ok, here goes an attempt:

The history of one culture conquering another, and the other's territory, is nearly as old as humanity itself.  Stronger and more devious cultures always have found pastures belonging to weaker cultures to be greener, waters to be sweeter, spices more abundant, gold easier to find, etc.  Things do not go well for the conquered.  Often they are killed, raped, and/or enslaved.  In some instances--and this happened quite frequently in pre-Columbian North America--the conquered culture is merely driven from its land. In still other instances (think of the French conquest of England or the English conquest of Ireland), the conquered are allowed to remain, but subject to the complete rule of the conqueror and forced to assimilate into the conqueror's culture.

The Romans and the British/Americans took a different approach.  The Romans did not force assimilation and in fact adopted elements of the cultures they conquered.  (That's why Roman mythology looks just like Greek mythology but with the names changed.)  They allowed their conquests to retain vast elements of their culture, including self-governance (think of the Israelites), as long as the conquered culture remained submissive.  At even the inkling of an uprising, the Romans would act brutally (think of gladiators, slaves, and the destruction of the Second Temple).   The British/Americans forced natives to move off of their lands and onto reservations, made and broke series of treaties, but allowed the natives to self-govern.  Like the Romans, the British/Americans adopted some elements of some of the native cultures; we celebrate Thanksgiving and had "Indian head" nickels, etc.  But this so-called permission to self-govern (affirmed just today by the Supreme Court) again relies upon the conquered culture remaining submissive.  When there were uprisings, some of which were manufactured by the British/Americans, the British/Americans acted brutally just as the Romans did.  At times, the British/Americans acted brutally even without an uprising, such as the Trail of Tears, and I'm sure the Romans did, too.   But the bottom line remains that both of these conqueror cultures set aside land for the peoples they conquered and allowed some degree of independence.  To the best of my recollection, those are the only two such instances in history.

Does this mean that the native Americans were treated fairly?  Absolutely not.  The constant making and breaking of treaties alone demonstrates the opposite.  But consistently across human history, on every one of the six populated continents, the conquered culture never is treated fairly.  It doesn't matter if it's the Mongols conquering the Rus, one African tribe conquering another, one Native American tribe conquering another, or the Spanish reconquista, the conquered culture loses.  It is part of the story of humanity and it is sad.

Would I rather be in the position of a Native American today than in the position of a Scot oppressed by the British or a Congolese under Belgian rule?  I can't answer that.  The conquerors always treat the conquered shabbily.  So while the British-Americans did things differently than what has been done through most of human history, I'm not going to say that it ended up being more beneficial. However, many of the cultures, and some notion of self-governance (again, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court this morning), survived.  

[LGR4GM]

I understand what you are trying to say but I do not agree with the conclusion you are drawing. 

[Ogre]

There really is no comparison. There was an entire hemisphere FILLED with people. 

The first trickle of Europeans brought disease that wiped out countless lives. The subsequent waves grew in frequency and brutality. Conquering a hemisphere is a distant reality from conquering a region. Invading people that look like you is less scarey than invading people that look different. In that regard, how long did the conquering take? 

The culture you reference is a memory of what once was. That longhouse diorama you made in school was a watered down representation of what Native culture was, most likely to wash the sins of the perpetrators from memory as not to upset our delicate, white entitlement.

Look at the history of this hemisphere. 

 

[LTS]

11 hours ago, Ogre said:

There really is no comparison. There was an entire hemisphere FILLED with people. 

The first trickle of Europeans brought disease that wiped out countless lives. The subsequent waves grew in frequency and brutality. Conquering a hemisphere is a distant reality from conquering a region. Invading people that look like you is less scarey than invading people that look different. In that regard, how long did the conquering take? 

The culture you reference is a memory of what once was. That longhouse diorama you made in school was a watered down representation of what Native culture was, most likely to wash the sins of the perpetrators from memory as not to upset our delicate, white entitlement.

Look at the history of this hemisphere. 

 

There is always something filled with something, and something that is not. The Earth was a history of humanity expanding across the globe and at every point there was going to be one culture taking over another. One day humanity will spread from the Earth and it will begin taking over other worlds.  The opposite could happen as well.

Any society that seeks to expand its borders will engage in conflict. The Native American tribes battled for land as well. They sought to increase their own territories. They did so at the expense of their own cultures only because there were no other cultures to compete with at that time.  

As far as regions and hemispheres go, they are theoretical boundaries, the edges of which will be tested.  At some point, the Native American people who populated these lands were not on these lands. They too traveled thousands of miles from outside their region, their hemisphere.  

Humanity is defined by its violence. Every civilization throughout history has engaged in some level of violence. Some level of killing those who are not us. Not every culture was as violent or as dominating, but they all did it. Those who do not win a conflict are at the whims of those who do. In some cases it is beneficial to let those who lost continue to live, but to do so in an altered state and in some cases it is the decision to end their existence.

This is humanity.  In a sick and twisted way it's not much different than the rest of nature. The weeds in your garden seek to expand their existence at the expense of your flowers. They may live in harmony, or the weeds may kill the flowers. The difference is that because we are "evolved" in our thinking that we somehow think we are also "evolved" in our actions. But deep down we are all still driven by the basic laws of nature.

Consume. Sleep. Reproduce. Extend our DNA throughout time until the laws of nature decide that our DNA should no longer be extended.

None of this is meant to justify anything that occurred, just to add context that conflict between entities results in impacts to both entities, although the one that loses usually is changed more than the one that wins. The one that loses doesn't usually like that it lost, but to a certain degree, if its around to know it lost, then that's better than the alternative.

[Eleven]

50 minutes ago, LTS said:

There is always something filled with something, and something that is not. The Earth was a history of humanity expanding across the globe and at every point there was going to be one culture taking over another. One day humanity will spread from the Earth and it will begin taking over other worlds.  The opposite could happen as well.

Any society that seeks to expand its borders will engage in conflict. The Native American tribes battled for land as well. They sought to increase their own territories. They did so at the expense of their own cultures only because there were no other cultures to compete with at that time.  

As far as regions and hemispheres go, they are theoretical boundaries, the edges of which will be tested.  At some point, the Native American people who populated these lands were not on these lands. They too traveled thousands of miles from outside their region, their hemisphere.  

Humanity is defined by its violence. Every civilization throughout history has engaged in some level of violence. Some level of killing those who are not us. Not every culture was as violent or as dominating, but they all did it. Those who do not win a conflict are at the whims of those who do. In some cases it is beneficial to let those who lost continue to live, but to do so in an altered state and in some cases it is the decision to end their existence.

This is humanity.  In a sick and twisted way it's not much different than the rest of nature. The weeds in your garden seek to expand their existence at the expense of your flowers. They may live in harmony, or the weeds may kill the flowers. The difference is that because we are "evolved" in our thinking that we somehow think we are also "evolved" in our actions. But deep down we are all still driven by the basic laws of nature.

Consume. Sleep. Reproduce. Extend our DNA throughout time until the laws of nature decide that our DNA should no longer be extended.

None of this is meant to justify anything that occurred, just to add context that conflict between entities results in impacts to both entities, although the one that loses usually is changed more than the one that wins. The one that loses doesn't usually like that it lost, but to a certain degree, if its around to know it lost, then that's better than the alternative.

You put it much better than I did.  

@Ogre at some point your ancestors lost a war.  I don't know against whom because I don't know which tribe or when it happened.  There were a number of cultures invading the hemisphere, some of which (Portugal, Spain) were considerably more warmongering with respect to the natives than others (France, Netherlands).  Your ancestors may even have lost wars to other native nations; I don't know.

At some points, my ancestors lost wars, too.  I know, for example, that my grandfather's family was long ago (EDIT I mean, as in well before his lifetime, like around the same time Europeans were invading the Americas) driven from their lands and across a border.

The specific difference may be that my ancestors probably looked more like their conquerors than your ancestors did, meaning that they were less susceptible to discrimination on sight.

(BTW my mention of the model longhouse was to demonstrate that we did in fact learn about natives in schools, and was not some self-congratulatory gesture.)

Edited July 11, 2020 by Eleven

[Ogre]

In the racial bias thread I am being told that my ancestors lost a “war” so therefore they lost their right to be equal to the whites. In the course of losing that “war” (that was brought to their continent that they ended up on as a result of human evolution some 20,000 to 30,000 years ago) they also lost their right to dignity as well. 
 

Would you also accept a sports mascot with a racist depiction of a black man? How about a mascot depicting the typical stereotype of a Jewish person? How about a mascot of a fat disgusting white guy wearing a trucker hat with a cigarette in his mouth and stains all over his wife beater? 
 

It’s easy to sit back and defend what white people have done to other races. I’d use the term minority but the fact remains, white people were not the majority in this hemisphere. 
 

Now we are debating whether white people have the right to use a racist depiction of the peoples they have “conquered”. 
 

Give me a ***** break. 
 

 

[Weave]

7 hours ago, Ogre said:

In the racial bias thread I am being told that my ancestors lost a “war” so therefore they lost their right to be equal to the whites. In the course of losing that “war” (that was brought to their continent that they ended up on as a result of human evolution some 20,000 to 30,000 years ago) they also lost their right to dignity as well. 
 

Would you also accept a sports mascot with a racist depiction of a black man? How about a mascot depicting the typical stereotype of a Jewish person? How about a mascot of a fat disgusting white guy wearing a trucker hat with a cigarette in his mouth and stains all over his wife beater? 
 

It’s easy to sit back and defend what white people have done to other races. I’d use the term minority but the fact remains, white people were not the majority in this hemisphere. 
 

Now we are debating whether white people have the right to use a racist depiction of the peoples they have “conquered”. 
 

Give me a ***** break. 
 

 

Ogre, I think you are misinterpreting Eleven here.  He's not defending what Europeans did to the natives in NA.  He's comparing it to what else has happened in history and saying, sometimes it has been alot worse for those natives.  Nowhere does he say NA natives should accept what happened to them.  In fact, he's said flat out that that they've been mistreated and marginalized.  And of course, he's referring to those that actually survived the conquerors.

I don't know my history well enough to know whether Eleven's depiction is accurate, but I do know that his intent was only to compare one bad invader to others in history, not to rationalize that NA natives got it easy.  Although I can definitely see where it could be interpreted that way.  I know Eleven well enough in real life to know he's definitely not cut that way.

[Eleven]

11 hours ago, Ogre said:

In the racial bias thread I am being told that my ancestors lost a “war” so therefore they lost their right to be equal to the whites. In the course of losing that “war” (that was brought to their continent that they ended up on as a result of human evolution some 20,000 to 30,000 years ago) they also lost their right to dignity as well. 
 

Would you also accept a sports mascot with a racist depiction of a black man? How about a mascot depicting the typical stereotype of a Jewish person? How about a mascot of a fat disgusting white guy wearing a trucker hat with a cigarette in his mouth and stains all over his wife beater? 
 

It’s easy to sit back and defend what white people have done to other races. I’d use the term minority but the fact remains, white people were not the majority in this hemisphere. 
 

Now we are debating whether white people have the right to use a racist depiction of the peoples they have “conquered”. 
 

Give me a ***** break. 
 

 

 

3 hours ago, Weave said:

Ogre, I think you are misinterpreting Eleven here.  He's not defending what Europeans did to the natives in NA.  He's comparing it to what else has happened in history and saying, sometimes it has been alot worse for those natives.  Nowhere does he say NA natives should accept what happened to them.  In fact, he's said flat out that that they've been mistreated and marginalized.  And of course, he's referring to those that actually survived the conquerors.

I don't know my history well enough to know whether Eleven's depiction is accurate, but I do know that his intent was only to compare one bad invader to others in history, not to rationalize that NA natives got it easy.  Although I can definitely see where it could be interpreted that way.  I know Eleven well enough in real life to know he's definitely not cut that way.

Ogre, you definitely are misinterpreting me.

And how did we get on the topic of sports mascots?  I don't like Washington's name, and I'm glad they're changing it, and I didn't like Cleveland's mascot, and I'm glad it's gone.

[LTS]

11 hours ago, Ogre said:

In the racial bias thread I am being told that my ancestors lost a “war” so therefore they lost their right to be equal to the whites. In the course of losing that “war” (that was brought to their continent that they ended up on as a result of human evolution some 20,000 to 30,000 years ago) they also lost their right to dignity as well. 
 

Would you also accept a sports mascot with a racist depiction of a black man? How about a mascot depicting the typical stereotype of a Jewish person? How about a mascot of a fat disgusting white guy wearing a trucker hat with a cigarette in his mouth and stains all over his wife beater? 
 

It’s easy to sit back and defend what white people have done to other races. I’d use the term minority but the fact remains, white people were not the majority in this hemisphere. 
 

Now we are debating whether white people have the right to use a racist depiction of the peoples they have “conquered”. 
 

Give me a ***** break. 
 

 

They lost a war. The government that now rules the land decides on what is "equal" in the society that it governs. This is also how it works. Those who live in the society choose to do so (unless forcefully compelled to stay in that society). The choice, assuming there is one, is to work to change that government, or leave. You don't have to like the options, but those are the options. No one on this forum makes those rules, they are made automatically by the situation that has unfolded.

I am telling you that when your ancestors lost the war they did in fact lose their right to continue to exist as they had in the past without interference from another culture. No one has to like that statement, but that does not make it any less true. Wars eventually end up at someone's door step. Again, no one has to like it, but it happens. We may, at some point in the future, lose a war and our lives as Americans could be forever changed.  All of us, who live in this country, could be ruled by a completely different government and that government could decide that white people are not equal. If that happens, everything I said would still apply.

All of that aside, what I think you are missing the most is that no one is saying you have to like any of it. No one is saying that they like any of it. The entire reason for my post was to provide a viewpoint on the fact that these things happen. Humanity, and even nature, does not live in harmony all the time. Those that lose out on conflict are often impacted in ways far worse than subjugation. Saying that does not attempt to justify either of the outcomes but merely to speak objectively as to what those outcomes usually are. 

I would prefer a world that could understand and accept a natural balance. One that does not use its intelligence to destroy but to build. I like to think of that as a wonderful way to think but I also realize that how each of us defines "natural balance" is usually the instigator for conflict.

I'm not sure anyone has said that the Redskins logo and name is acceptable. A wise person would say that if you wanted to operate a sports franchise that would reflect a particular section of society that you would consult the people of that society for how they would like to be depicted. As to the rest of your suggested affronts, for me, personally, I wouldn't give a damn what logo they put on the side of a helmet.  If the intent of the depiction of the fat, disgusting, white guy, wearing a trucker hat was intended to provide offense to white people (of which I am) then I am not offended. I'm not defined by that. If someone is ignorant enough to assume that's who I am then I am intelligent enough to know that that person is not worth my time or energy.

As I said, that's MY feeling. There may be others who would take offense to that depiction. That's their choice.

For my educational benefit and understanding, where do you fall with regards to the Chicago Blackhawks, Atlanta Braves, and Cleveland Indians?  The Blackhawks, as I understand it, are saying their name honors a native leader, Black Hawk, of the Illinois' Sac & Fox Nation. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/us/chicago-blackhawks-name-spt-trnd/index.html

 

 

[Eleven]

29 minutes ago, LTS said:

A wise person would say that if you wanted to operate a sports franchise that would reflect a particular section of society that you would consult the people of that society for how they would like to be depicted

IIRC, this is exactly what Florida State did, and the Seminole tribe/nation (I'm not sure which designation they use) approved the continued use of the name and logo.

Edited July 12, 2020 by Eleven

[Ogre]

Let me start by saying I find it very bizarre that I’m being told in the Cultural/Racial bias thread that I don’t have to like the fact that there is a Cultural/Racist bias against Native peoples. FTR, I didn’t need your permission to feel that way. 
 

As for what happened on this hemisphere being a war, that’s a either a stretching of the truth or a regurgitation of the “facts” you have learned about it. A war doesn’t last for 400 hundred years. Before white intervention there was very little physical conflict between Native peoples because when there was conflict, it was settled much like conflicts between white kings by marrying members of the tribe. The majority of the fighting came as tribes took sides between European invaders promising them a continuation of their quickly eroding way of life. 
 

The tactics used by the white invaders were also vastly different than the way they fought their white enemies. For example, Andrew Jackson would start a skirmish with the Native warriors all while sending another unit back to the village to slaughter all of the women and children. That isn’t how war was traditionally fought. Portraying it as a war feels like an excuse to marginalize an entire race of people to me. Again, I don’t need permission to feel that way.

To address your question about the mascot issue @Eleven, my OP was about my BIL seeing no problem with the use of Native American depictions used by white people. It apparently started all of this. 
 

To address your question @LTS, I find all of them offensive, especially when used by white peolpe. Yes, even the Blackhawks. They can say that they are honoring that chief, but the fact remains that they are profiting from the image. If this chief was such a great man, I’m certain he would rather be honored by the owners sharing a big chunk of their profits with his descendants, rather than slapping his caricature on a sweater.

This sh!t offends me not because of my ancestors either. I am not Mohawk. My great grandparents were. Why do I feel so strongly then? 

I have a niece and two nephews who are Mohawk. They are young adults and they are struggling to break the cycle of poverty that their white cousins are managing to do. These caricatures and the negative image they portray are unfair to these people who are alive today that don’t look white. They are just as smart and able as anyone else (my niece attended Oxford) but the societal image of them is negative and it handicaps their efforts to succeed.

Cultral.

Racial.

Bias.

Edited July 12, 2020 by Ogre
Wanted to acknowledge my beautiful neice’s achievement.

[SABRES 0311]

I stayed out of the conversation because I got more out of reading than I would contributing. That said Eleven and LTS pretty much don’t ever see eye to eye with me. However at this point it seems you are trying to align their words to fit your emotions. Nobody was trying to give you permission to do anything as though they held power over you. I would say they articulated their thoughts in depth and tried to be disarming. IMO your emotions are preventing you from receiving what they are trying to convey.

[Ogre]

10 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I stayed out of the conversation because I got more out of reading than I would contributing. That said Eleven and LTS pretty much don’t ever see eye to eye with me. However at this point it seems you are trying to align their words to fit your emotions. Nobody was trying to give you permission to do anything as though they held power over you. I would say they articulated their thoughts in depth and tried to be disarming. IMO your emotions are preventing you from receiving what they are trying to convey.

With this thread title, I assumed the point was to discuss cultural/racial bias. 
 

So far I’ve received a history lesson (an inaccurate one at that) and an excuse for why white people are using caricatures of Native People.

Emotion should be in this tread. Non-whites face discrimination everyday! Not just because of the color of their skin either. There has been a concerted social/economic effort to suppress the prosperity of non-whites. Every racist person knows that skin color doesn’t predetermine intelligence, and that eliminating white privilege would reduce their own influence and wealth, and that terrifies them.

And wouldn’t you be emotional too if your kin were directly affect by that bias? The whole reason my family was even in a cycle of poverty to begin with is because they were not white. 
 

None of you can understand what I’ve seen with my own eyes. My great grandmother lived a mile from the barricades the People put across Rte. 37. The entire conflict erupted because the government was telling the People how to govern their autonomous lands. They were told they couldn’t have the white jobs, but they weren’t going to be allowed to have gambling unless they shared a cut of the profits. (That damn white greed that started the whole thing!)

Trying being not white in the USA and see how much harder your life becomes.

 

[SABRES 0311]

6 minutes ago, Ogre said:

With this thread title, I assumed the point was to discuss cultural/racial bias. 
 

So far I’ve received a history lesson (an inaccurate one at that) and an excuse for why white people are using caricatures of Native People.

Emotion should be in this tread. Non-whites face discrimination everyday! Not just because of the color of their skin either. There has been a concerted social/economic effort to suppress the prosperity of non-whites. Every racist person knows that skin color doesn’t predetermine intelligence, and that eliminating white privilege would reduce their own influence and wealth, and that terrifies them.

And wouldn’t you be emotional too if your kin were directly affect by that bias? The whole reason my family was even in a cycle of poverty to begin with is because they were not white. 
 

None of you can understand what I’ve seen with my own eyes. My great grandmother lived a mile from the barricades the People put across Rte. 37. The entire conflict erupted because the government was telling the People how to govern their autonomous lands. They were told they couldn’t have the white jobs, but they weren’t going to be allowed to have gambling unless they shared a cut of the profits. (That damn white greed that started the whole thing!)

Trying being not white in the USA and see how much harder your life becomes.

 

You are correct that the point is to discuss bias. Hard to have a discussion when you twist words to seem like you are being given permission to do something which is not what happened. 

The idea nobody can understand what you have seen is based on you thinking you know what they’ve been through or experienced. Essentially making an assumption about people you don’t know. 

Emotion is good when it drives people to continue pursuing a goal. It’s useless when it causes you to automatically perceive other people negatively. Making assumptions about others that is not true leads to bias. IMO you are heading down the road you are calling others out on.

[Ogre]

7 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

The idea nobody can understand what you have seen is based on you thinking you know what they’ve been through or experienced. Essentially making an assumption about people you don’t know. 

Aren’t you making an assumption about someone you don’t know with this? I don’t recall insinuating what others have gone through. When I say “my own eyes” I mean the two that God put in my head, not the two that ended up in anyone else’s head. If anyone one else here was present for the chaos that swallowed Akwesasne, Massena, and Westville in the late 80’s then I’ll let them step up and recount their own version of it.

13 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

It’s useless when it causes you to automatically perceive other people negatively. Making assumptions about others that is not true leads to bias.

Again. Making assumptions about someone you don’t know. As a matter of fact, I’ve shared several PM’s with @Eleven over the years where I expressed my fondness. I’m sure if you asked Eleven, you’d find that he is well aware of the fact that I like him. The same goes for @LTS. A group of us had dinner and caught an Amerks game. We had a great time. I’m so fond of LTS that I even was willing to bring my lawn roller over to his house. Hopefully he recognizes the fact that I like him as well.

 So you didn’t want to get involved, yet you did. I would be grateful too if your involvement was more than piling on to share that you think that Ogre is bad. I get it. You don’t like me....but....IDC....thanks.

[SABRES 0311]

6 minutes ago, Ogre said:

Aren’t you making an assumption about someone you don’t know with this? I don’t recall insinuating what others have gone through. When I say “my own eyes” I mean the two that God put in my head, not the two that ended up in anyone else’s head. If anyone one else here was present for the chaos that swallowed Akwesasne, Massena, and Westville in the late 80’s then I’ll let them step up and recount their own version of it.

Again. Making assumptions about someone you don’t know. As a matter of fact, I’ve shared several PM’s with @Eleven over the years where I expressed my fondness. I’m sure if you asked Eleven, you’d find that he is well aware of the fact that I like him. The same goes for @LTS. A group of us had dinner and caught an Amerks game. We had a great time. I’m so fond of LTS that I even was willing to bring my lawn roller over to his house. Hopefully he recognizes the fact that I like him as well.

 So you didn’t want to get involved, yet you did. I would be grateful too if your involvement was more than piling on to share that you think that Ogre is bad. I get it. You don’t like me....but....IDC....thanks.

If you know these guys so well its weird you would think one of them is giving you permission to feel a certain way. Just because nobody else witnessed that specific event doesn’t mean they haven’t seen oppression first hand. 

When did I say I personally didn’t like you? Again, making something out of nothing. If I had a personal problem I wouldn’t mask it through an Internet post. 

[Ogre]

30 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

If you know these guys so well its weird you would think one of them is giving you permission to feel a certain way. Just because nobody else witnessed that specific event doesn’t mean they haven’t seen oppression first hand. 

When did I say I personally didn’t like you? Again, making something out of nothing. If I had a personal problem I wouldn’t mask it through an Internet post. 

I never said I knew them well. I said that I am very fond of them. That is a fact. If you know my thoughts so well, then tell me which one of the two I am thinking is the one permitting my feelings?

I recounted a personal experience in the Biased thread. Is that frowned on? When did I infer that I am the only one that has experienced oppression?
Oh that’s right, I didn’t. 
 
These items coupled with the fact that every single time you’ve ever quoted me has been filled with negative commentary, forming the basis for my belief that you are anti-Ogre. Biased! (that one is a joke?).

I’m sure Eleven and LTS are both glad you jumped in to defend them but I don’t think they need the help. They’re both very capable.

Now, if the Bias thread isn’t going to share any solutions to the problem, then it should probably just close. 
 

I offered up a small step to healing the wounds(with the mascot thing), anyone else have a constructive thought to add? 

[SABRES 0311]

13 minutes ago, Ogre said:

I never said I knew them well. I said that I am very fond of them. That is a fact. If you know my thoughts so well, then tell me which one of the two I am thinking is the one permitting my feelings?

I recounted a personal experience in the Biased thread. Is that frowned on? When did I infer that I am the only one that has experienced oppression?
Oh that’s right, I didn’t. 
 
These items coupled with the fact that every single time you’ve ever quoted me has been filled with negative commentary, forming the basis for my belief that you are anti-Ogre. Biased! (that one is a joke?).

I’m sure Eleven and LTS are both glad you jumped in to defend them but I don’t think they need the help. They’re both very capable.

Now, if the Bias thread isn’t going to share any solutions to the problem, then it should probably just close. 
 

I offered up a small step to healing the wounds(with the mascot thing), anyone else have a constructive thought to add? 

I guess I imagined you acting like someone was giving you permission to have feelings. If neither of them are who you are directing the below to then who?

2 hours ago, Ogre said:

Let me start by saying I find it very bizarre that I’m being told in the Cultural/Racial bias thread that I don’t have to like the fact that there is a Cultural/Racist bias against Native peoples. FTR, I didn’t need your permission to feel that way. 

The tactics used by the white invaders were also vastly different than the way they fought their white enemies. For example, Andrew Jackson would start a skirmish with the Native warriors all while sending another unit back to the village to slaughter all of the women and children. That isn’t how war was traditionally fought. Portraying it as a war feels like an excuse to marginalize an entire race of people to me. Again, I don’t need permission to feel that way.

[Ogre]

13 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I guess I imagined you acting like someone was giving you permission to have feelings. If neither of them are who you are directing the below to then who?

No! 
 

I'm not going to let this thread be about you!

Do you have something constructive to add?

Hopefully @LTS doesn’t close this just yet. There are other posters that have insight to add and need some time to be able to do so. 
 

I am very interested to hear their thoughts.