#anti-indigenous racism cw

[angorwhosebabyisthis]

every time i see someone claim the ancients were a magical indigenous utopia to aspire to (with 'a few little problems'), and any criticism of them as a society is apologia for native genocide, i clutch my head in agony. never change, twitter

[mothermara]

sometimes I'm sane sometimes im reading about how the puritans displayed a revolutionary indigenous leader's mutilated remains for decades and also sold his 9 year old child and wife into slavery after his death. no amount of comical cruelty and villainy could ever come close to the real atrocities pilgrims committed over and over and over in the process of founding the united states

[cartoonybus]

pnf revival hope: no more of this shit

[fictionkinfessions]

Anonymous asked: there are two wolves. one kins name 1 from source 1. the other kins name 2 from source 2. i have issues /j [words]

The 'two wolves' meme phrase joke whatever you call it was invented by a white american missionary, originally about the Inuit but changed to generic indigenous north american when he got into legal trouble with them. the point of the phrase was to make indigenous people look like ignorant savages in need of civilizing white christianity. among other things, Im sure, i'm no expert of the many racist things we've done to indigenous americans. anyways.

It is racist. It is a corruption and appropriation of genericized indigenous american religion. please do not use that phrase here. Or anywhere else, imo, it's not funny when you have to explain you're pretending to be an american indian and that you have some religious experience about fictotypes or something when you don't even practice that non existent religion.

just use the phrase 'i'm conflicted about # of fictotypes' or something. I'm sure you can think something up.

thank yuo for understanding. good morning btw.

[ansburg]

— from Norman G. Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (14-16) (text below)

Yet if, as I’ve suggested, broad agreement has been reached on the factual record, an obvious anomaly arises: what accounts for the impassioned controversy that still swirls around the Israel-Palestine conflict? To my mind, explaining this apparent paradox requires, first of all, that a fundamental distinction be made between those controver- sies that are real and those that are contrived. To illustrate real differences of opinion, let us consider again the Palestinian refugee question. It is possible for interested parties to agree on the facts yet come to diametrically opposed moral, legal, and political conclusions. Thus, as already mentioned, the scholarly consensus is that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948. Israel’s leading historian on the topic, Benny Morris, although having done more than anyone else to clarify exactly what happened, nonetheless concludes that, morally, it was a good thing—just as, in his view, the “annihilation” of Native Americans was a good thing—that, legally, Palestinians have no right to return to their homes, and that, politically, Israel’s big error in 1948 was that it hadn’t “carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country—the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan” of Palestinians.9 However repellent morally, these clearly can’t be called false conclusions. Returning to the universe inhabited by normal human beings, it’s possible for people to concur on the facts as well as on their moral and legal implications yet still reach divergent political conclusions.

[...] Benny Morris, although approving the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and nearly pathological in his hatred of Palestinians,28 nonetheless anchors Palestinian opposition to Jewish settlement in a perfectly rational, uncomplicated motive: “The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism.”29 What’s remarkable about this formulation isn’t so much what’s said but, rather, what’s not said: there’s no invoking of “Arab anti-Semitism,” no invoking of “Arab fears of modernity,” no invoking of cosmic “clashes.” There’s no mention of them because, for understanding what happened, there’s no need of them—the obvious explanation also happens to be a sufficient one. Indeed, in any comparable instance, the sorts of mystifying clichés commonplace in the Israel-Palestine conflict would be treated, rightly, with derision. In the course of resisting European encroachment, Native Americans committed many horrendous crimes. But to understand why doesn’t require probing the defects of their character or civilization. Criticizing the practice, in government documents, of reciting Native American “atrocities,” Helen Hunt Jackson, a principled defender of Native Americans writing in the late nineteenth century, observed: “[T]he Indians who committed these ‘atrocities’ were simply ejecting by force, and, in the contests arising from this forcible ejectment, killing men who had usurped and stolen their lands. …What would a community of white men, situated precisely as these Cherokees were, have done?”30

To apprehend the motive behind Palestinian “atrocities,” this ordinary human capacity for empathy would also seem to suffice. Imagine the bemused reaction were a historian to hypothesize that the impetus behind Native American resistance was “anti-Christianism” or “anti-Europeanism.” What’s the point of such exotic explanations—unless the obvious one is politically incorrect? Of course, back then, profound explanations of this sort weren’t necessary. The natives impeded the wheel of progress, so they had to be extirpated; nothing more had to be said. For the sake of “mankind” and “civilization,” Theodore Roosevelt wrote, it was “all-important” that North America be won by a “masterful people.” Although for the indigenous population this meant “the infliction and suffering of hideous woe and misery,” it couldn’t have been otherwise: “The world would probably not have gone forward at all, had it not been for the displacement or submersion of savage and barbaric peoples.” And again: “The settler and pioneer have at bottom justice on their side: this great continent could not have been kept as nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages.”

It was only much later, after the humanity of these “squalid savages” was ratified—in any event, formally—that more sophisticated rationales became necessary. In the case of the United States, the “hideous woe and misery” inflicted could be openly acknowledged because the fate of the indigenous population was, figuratively as well as literally, in large part a dead issue. In the case of Palestine it’s not, so all manner of elaborate explanation has to be contrived in order to evade the obvious. The reason Benny Morris’s latest pronouncements elicited such a shocked reaction is that they were a throwback to the nineteenth century. Dispensing with the ideological cloud making of contemporary apologists for Israel, he justified dispossession on grounds of the conflict between “barbarians” and “civilization.” Just as, in his view, it was better for humanity that the “great American democracy” displaced the Native Americans, so it is better that the Jewish state has displaced the Palestinians. “There are cases,” he baldly states, “in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.” Isn’t this Roosevelt speaking? But one’s not supposed to utter such crass things anymore.32 To avoid outraging current moral sensibilities, the obvious must be papered over with sundry mystifications. The elementary truth that, just as in the past, the “chief motor of Arab antagonism” is “[t]he fear of territorial displacement and dispossession”—a fear the rational basis for which is scarcely open to question, indeed, is daily validated by Israeli actions—must, at all costs, be concealed. To evade the obvious, another stratagem of the Israel lobby is playing The Holocaust and “new anti-Semitism” cards. In a previous study, I examined how the Nazi holocaust has been fashioned into an ideological weapon to immunize Israel from legitimate criticism.33 In this book I look at a variant of this Holocaust card, namely, the “new anti-Semitism.” In fact, the allegation of a new anti-Semitism is neither new nor about anti-Semitism. Whenever Israel comes under renewed international pressure to withdraw from occupied territories, its apologists mount yet another meticulously orchestrated media extravaganza alleging that the world is awash in anti-Semitism. This shameless exploitation of anti-Semitism delegitimizes criticism of Israel, makes Jews rather than Palestinians the victims, and puts the onus on the Arab world to rid itself of anti-Semitism rather than on Israel to rid itself of the Occupied Territories.

9. Ari Shavit, “Survival of the Fittest,” interview with Benny Morris, Haaretz (9 January 2004). For perceptive commentary, see Baruch Kimmerling, “Is Ethnic Cleansing of Arabs Getting Legitimacy from a New Israeli Historian?” Tikkun (27 January 2004); for Morris’s recent pronouncements, see also Finkelstein, Image and Reality, pp. xxix–xxx. 28. He’s called the Palestinian people “sick, psychotic,” “serial killers” whom Israel must “imprison” or “execute,” and “barbarians” around whom “[s]omething like a cage has to be built.” See the Haaretz interview and the pages on Morris’s recent pronouncements in Image and Reality cited above. 29. Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–1999 (New York, 1999), p. 37. 30. Helen Hunt Jackson, A Century of Dishonor (New York, 1981), p. 265. 31. For these and similar formulations, see Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West (New York, 1889), 1:118–19, 121; 4:7, 54–56, 65, 200, 201. 32. In fact, one isn’t even allowed to remember that Roosevelt said them: one searches recent Roosevelt biographies in vain for any mention of the pronouncements of his just cited, or scores of others like them pervading his published writings and correspondence. 33. Finkelstein, Holocaust Industry.

[crystalsandbubbletea]

What should have been

(CW: Anti-Indigenous themes mention, racism, genocide)

This is basically a ramble about the effects of how my grandmother did not grow up in the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma

We're doing a weaving project in my art class and I'm feeling this emotion that I can't describe-

It's a positive emotion, I know that, it comes whenever I'm beading, smudging, learning Ponca, or at Pow-Wow's.

I can only describe this emotion as a mix of euphoria and feeling like I'm floating.

Is this emotion positivity? Joy? Or happiness that I'm reconnecting with something that was stolen from me.

My grandmother and her brother, my uncle, could have grown up in the Ponca Tribe, could have been adopted by a family in the tribe, yet my grandmother was born a year before ICWA was passed, and my uncle two years before ICWA was passed, so they were adopted by a white family. They were a good family from what I heard, but that doesn't change that we were robbed from growing up in the Ponca Tribe, our tribe, our family.

My grandmother and uncle wouldn't know about their biological family until around 2018, when I was eleven.

My grandmother and my mother took DNA tests, and that's how we found out.

My grandmother had a Ponca father, and a white mother, and many siblings and cousins, all of whom were still alive.

We would be able to meet up with them, although my uncle only met them via video call.

At first, I thought this was normal, didn't think anything of it.

I realize now exactly how much was stolen from me.

I should have grown up with my culture. I should have been beading, and weaving, and learning the language, and attending Sundance, and going to Pow-Wow's, yet I didn't.

When I attended Sundance last year, I ended up crying. How couldn't I cry? After all, I was doing something I should have been doing my whole life.

I should be able to enroll in the Tribe, yet I can't, neither can my mother, because of blood quantums. My grandfather is a white man, so is my father. Although the elders are discussing letting people of lineal descent enroll.

... Then there's this other side of me.

Every time I wear my ribbon skirt, or smudge, I have this voice in my head, it says to me "You will never be indigenous enough. Look at your skin, you're too white, Rian. Your name is also too white. And look at your hair! You have your father's hair, and he's white! And that ribbon skirt, it's just cosplay! And you only bead because you just like the colors and textures!"

Would I still have that voice if I had grown up with my culture? Definitely not, this voice is the result of having the life I could have lived stolen from me.

The white people, the land stealers, they wanted the Indigenous Americans gone, so they took our children and tried to force us to be like them.

Of course, they failed.

... They can try to apologize for the things they done, but no amount of apologizing will change the fact that they stole from us, and how we are still digging up the bodies of children at residential schools.

When they say "America is the land of the free!" Don't forget the Indigenous Americans, and how we're still being oppressed, and never forget how what the white people did still affects the children that didn't grow up in their culture, and how it affects their children, and their grandchildren.

And don't forget, the genocide of Indigenous Americans is still going on.

[thuun]

I'm sick and tired of non-Christian-based belief in spirits being treated like it's somehow more nutty than Christianity. The amount of "subtle" anti-pagan and anti-indigenous rhetoric on social media sites is appalling. These are people's deeply held cultural and religious beliefs? Do people not see how fucked up it is to call people insane for believing in spirits when other religious people get to go around and just exist unmolested? Without being told they're off their rocker for thinking Jesus is their personal savior?

I hate these colonizer assholes so much.

[umbreonrogue]

just checked in to see if anything changed and uh

deciding to pretty much make everything on the server read only because it’s gotten too big for moderation is one way to clean up the server i suppose

now if they can actually do something about the offensive shit in the game itself

[lyriumrain]

can we please start talking about how fucking abysmal australians are? these people suck. And the very worst of them are all online.

[peridot-tears]

Finally told my intellectual friend about Con*Hay*th, and our group just kind of sat there like, "That...is so...racist??????"

It's terrible but interesting how people love shipping the oppressed with the oppressor, especially when it's not their own culture and they don't have to see the oppressed as actual humans. That tapered into a conversation about how some of the earliest Chinese folktales about women who birthed animals were just metaphors for other ethnic groups. And of course, the history of how the way Black and Chinese people were treated in the US was justified by the racist notion that we can't feel pain.

The worst part is that the people who ship them don't care. They'll justify it a thousandfold before they see Ratohnhaké:ton, and Kanien'kéha:ka, as human.

Also talked about how Ube Softee, but the gaming industry at large too, caters to white males. And it sucks.

We also talked about calling out fandom racism when you're not part of that group. In danmei, a lot of us are Chinese, so if there's something off, we're like, Not in MY house. A lot of our "wank" is actually just racist gaslighting by disrespectful fans. When there were cases of anti-Semitism or racism against Indigenous people, our fandom is so fucking big that when we called it out, we were also able to follow the lead of people from those backgrounds.

In AC3...well, I have yet to meet a Haudenosaunee fan. So I still call things out, but I'm also hesitant just because...well, I've been on the end of white virtue signaling that's supposedly been on behalf of Asians. It's not fun. I don't want to make the same mistake.

(Con*Hay*th is definitely racist though, just to be clear. It's the smaller things like Ratohnhaké:ton's outfit in the DLC that get me -- yo, is the design racist? I can't tell. The DLC as a whole, with its actor choice, indigenous mysticism, and sudden switch to English, definitely is, though.)

So yeah, it's been a lot to think about.

[angorwhosebabyisthis]

you know. there are few things that make me sit and think carefully about my instinct to say something would be a Good Fictional Metaphor for a real-world issue like the time i saw the take with my own two eyes that piranesi is a powerful, insightful, accurate metaphor for both colonialism in general and slavery in the US

[natandacat]

They're uncovering unmarked indigenous graves on my campus and in communication they call it "archeological work" and "activities". You literally have to read the whole email to understand they're talking about genocidal graves.

[comradepingu]

Random men on the internet are the dumbest people on earth. I just saw some dipshit say Native Americans and Africans "invented" fascism before the Italian fascists did it.

[fictionkinfessions]

Anonymous asked:

The problem with my source is that if I mention it, I'll either look culturally insensitive or be a discrace to my culture, because it has "wndgo" in the title.

party note not to be a coward but I'm not wanting to attrack that attention haha uhm.

[samasmith23]

Precisely! This has also been repeatedly clarified by Lily’s sister & first victim, Courtney, who has stated that even though they both technically have a grandfather and a great aunt who are Indigenous and have claimed tribal membership, both Lily & Courtney were raised in a very white household where their abusive mother refused to actually educate herself on tribal teachings and instead adopted a racially fetishistic view of Indigenous culture.

Essentially, Lily adopted a lot of her mother’s pretendian behaviors and it’s disgusting!

I haven't come out this strong on this subject before, and I don't think any other first nations/indigenous people have yet but I'm honestly getting tired of this.

Calling Lily Orchard Indigenous, Native, First Nations, etc, is ACTIVELY racist.

You are calling a white woman a racial identity she has no right to be called. Stop indulging her. You are part of the problem. Pretendians are an active threat to the indigenous community, especially ones as racist and vitriolic as Lily.

[nikkiitalks]