#we say native americans or indigenous people

[bandedbulbussnarfblat]

I made a post the other day that mentioned IEPs. So I wanted to make a post as someone who was worked for the american school system, and explain IEPs versus 504s. I double checked by looking online just to make sure I wasn't spreading misinformation. (Or just the way my severely underfunded county did things, bc they cut corners) And I found this site above that gives a great break down. It offers a pdf with a chart that compares the two. There is a video that explains it as well. There's also video, a podcast, and the transcription available here . That link also has a few links to other resources.

I'm going add a quick summary of the most important details below regarding IEPs vs 504s. I'm also to going to add a link for parents/guardians who either don't speak/have limited English. (Unfortunately the pdf is in English, but you could probably put it through a one of online translators and the gist of what it saying.)

Most important differences between an IEP and a 504:

IEP: Is always written. Includes related services and specially designed instruction.

Generally much more in depth.

Requires any changes made to the IEP are given to parents/guardians in writing before the IEP team meets and makes any changes. You are automatically part of your child's IEP team. You have to right to attend these meetings. They will send a letter, by snail mail, telling you of a time and date they would like to meet. (If your kid has a good teacher, they will call and try to find a date that works for you. If not, you can contact the school and request a different day. Most schools are willing to be accommodating.)

Written consent from parents/guardians is required before evaluation and before the IEP is put into affect. HOWEVER, the student has to fall under one the 13 disability categories.

Typically includes modifications of the what the student is expected to know and learn. (For example, if the student has an intellectual disability, their learning goals will be established by the IEP team.)

This doesn't mean the student will not be presented with general education grade level concepts, just that they will be modified to meet the student's capability.

IEPs have annual goals that are measurable. These goals are made by the IEP team, including parents/guardians. (Aka, there is a lot of progress monitoring.)

Usually teachers will send out a progress report every two weeks. However, most teachers send out less formal methods of progress monitoring weekly or daily. Sometimes it's just a chart in a file folder where the teacher will jot a note of anything that the student was doing well with, or anything the were struggling on. Sometimes it's their complete work for the week sent home, excluding anything the teacher is keeping for records.

An IEP team has to include at least one gen ed teacher, one special education teacher (special education is usually called EC these days) a school psychologist/specialist, a district representative, and the parent/guardian of the student.

An IEP team is required to meet at least once a year, and the student is reevaluated at least once every three years. (Typically they are reevaluated and deemed still in need of an IEP. Though there are cases when students (mostly in high school) have received enough support that they no longer feel the need an IEP)

An IEP is a legal agreement. You have the right to sue the hell out of the school system if they fail to meet it.

504s:

Doesn't include specially designed instruction. Is meant to help student remain in general education.

Doesn't have to be a written document. (Though typically most schools do write documents. Bc otherwise they would not be able to keep track of what students need, bc there are so many).

Usually provides accomadations/assistive technology, but not related services of modifications. (Though sometimes these are also provided, especially if a student fails to qualify for an IEP, but still needs services and/or modifications)

Requires a student have a disability that impacts their education

Much easier to obtain than an IEP bc less requirements

No specific set of rules of who is on the student's plan team. Generally includes the parents/guardians, the student's general education teacher, (in the event the student has multiple teachers, the teacher will probably be their 'homeroom' teacher, and/or the teacher(s) of whatever subject/area your student is struggling in) and someone from administration, such as the principal or assistant/vice principal. Hopefully also someone from EC who has been trained to teach students with exceptional needs.

Parent/guardian consent is needed to evaluate the child, but this consent does not have to be written. (Many schools will still send some sort of consent form, bc the school system believes in documenting everything.)

The school has to tell you of any big changes to the plan, but they do not require your consent before starting them. Generally you'll be sent a letter of those changes in the mail. (If your students team is good at their job, they'll contact you before. Like, the teacher will call and say we are planning on starting x thing on y date, or email you if that's your preferred method of contact.)

504s don't track annual progress or create annual goals. (Though usually teachers will keep their own form of progress monitoring, bc a student with a 504 could be reevaluated and found they meet the criteria of an IEP. For that reason, many schools treat 504s as if they IEPs. Some schools suck though.)

For parents/guardians with limited or no English language known.

Most importantly, if you have a language barrier, your school must provide a competent translator/interpreter. They should NOT expect your child to work as translator for you.

And there is a lot of times where the translator isn't available that teachers will ask a bilingual staff member to translate for them. How you feel about that is up to you. A lot of parents don't mind in my area, bc we are severely understaffed when it comes to translators, and they want a quick response. If it's something you absolutely don't want, be sure to tell the school. You don't have to do so verbally; send a letter in your language stating your wishes. The school will find someone to interpret it. Keep a back-up copy for yourself.

Just as a general rule to all parents/guardians, keep documentation of everything the school sends you. You never know when you may need it.

[thehealingsystem]

it makes me so pissed off that indigenous people's day is now a nationally recognized holiday, and my school doesn't even celebrate columbus day anymore, but our school sports still celebrates it as a columbus day tournament. like let me get this straight, my school doesn't even call it that anymore, they seemingly disavowed the holiday, but they still refuse to change it to the "indigenous people's day tournament?"

and well I can imagine the argument being "well it'd be weird to celebrate this racial minority in a mostly white community for a tournament! some people may be upset by it!" but like. you're still willing to celebrate a genocidal monster than us? the people who've faced centuries of extermination just to form this country? you'd rather celebrate one deeply evil man than our community, because it'll upset a bunch of sports obsessed yankees who have to deal with, idk, maybe seeing us mentioned on a banner or a shirt?

but hey, guess I shouldn't expect much out of a school system that not even that long ago had their mascot be called a native american racial slur. they only really change things unless they're being yelled at for it

[gorekiss]

lots of nb leftists thinking they know about the black experience 2day……

[snekdood]

Ill probably never know if i have native american in me and even if i did find out i probably wouldnt be welcome but even if its not true thats not going to stop me from respecting the land and the native people who have come before me and to try to make them proud in the best way i can. I want them to know that someone cares, idk.

[somethingaboutnoodles]

only americans are real people. a not american picked foods that, yes are historically black and historically poor people food, that has been modified into comfort food, but, I need to point out, ARE STILL WEIRD if you haven't grown up with them, same as LITERALLY ALL OTHER COUNTRIES AND FOOD TRADITIONS ON EARTH. americans are having a fucking shitfit about it, as if americans don't immediately reach for poor people food and ethnic minority foods when making fun of other people's food traditions. it's fine when you fuckers replicate classism at people living in a society where class is real and tangible in ways you guys don't even understand that's just a joke bro calm down, but god forbid anyone do it back at you. get over youselves, if you gonna dish you gotta take it.

I'm well aware of classism in England, since it's one of the primary reasons my dad moved to the US and had me, a dual citizen who is uniquely positioned to see through your complete and utter bullshit.

Classism and racism exist in both countries. Stop acting like Americans, who live under greater wealth inequality than Brits do and in the country with the most billionaires, don't know what classism is. Stop acting like Brits don't know what anti-Black racism is when Black people are the third-most impoverished ethnic group in the UK and are so marginalised the UN filed a report on it in January.

Making fun of beans on toast is not the same as making fun of grits. Both sustain people through poverty, but only one sustained enslaved people through being bought and sold like livestock.

I did not expect the OP to know that when they made the post because I do not expect people to know everything about American culture or history. But you (and the OP) should have backed off once people tried to educate you about the importance of many of the foods on the list. My 80-year-old English grandmother would tell you the same.

Sending me a pissy ask like this tells me everything I need to know about you. Your behavior has nothing to do with your country of origin.

You're just a racist twat.

[headspace-hotel]

There was this post a while ago where somebody was saying that Cheetahs aren't well suited to Africa and would do well in Midwestern North America, and it reminded me of Paul S. Martin, the guy I'm always pissed off about.

He had some good ideas, but he is most importantly responsible for the overkill hypothesis (idea that humans caused the end-Pleistocene extinctions and that climate was minimally a factor) which led to the idea of Pleistocene rewilding.

...Basically this guy thought we should introduce lions, cheetahs, camels, and other animals to North America to "rewild" the landscape to what it was like pre-human habitation, and was a major advocate for re-creating mammoths.

Why am I pissed off about him? Well he denied that there were humans in North America prior to the Clovis culture, which it's pretty well established now that there were pre-Clovis inhabitants, and in general promoted the idea that the earliest inhabitants of North America exterminated the ecosystem through destructive and greedy practices...

...which has become "common knowledge" and used as evidence for anyone who wants to argue that Native Americans are "Not So Innocent, Actually" and the mass slaughter and ecosystem devastation caused by colonialism was just what humans naturally do when encountering a new environment, instead of a genocidal campaign to destroy pre-existing ways of life and brutally exploit the resources of the land.

It basically gives the impression that the exploitative and destructive relationship to land is "human nature" and normal, which erases every culture that defies this characterization, and also erases the way indigenous people are important to ecosystems, and promotes the idea of "empty" human-less ecosystems as the natural "wild" state.

And also Martin viewed the Americas' fauna as essentially impoverished, broken and incomplete, compared with Africa which has much more species of large mammals, which is glossing over the uniqueness of North American ecosystems and the uniqueness of each species, such as how important keystone species like bison and wolves are.

It's also ignoring the taxa and biomes that ARE extraordinarily diverse in North America, for example the Appalachian Mountains are one of the most biodiverse temperate forests on Earth, the Southeastern United States has the Earth's most biodiverse freshwater ecosystems, and both of these areas are also a major global hotspot for amphibian biodiversity and lichen biodiversity. Large mammals aren't automatically the most important. With South America, well...the Amazon Rainforest, the Brazilian Cerrado and the Pantanal wetlands are basically THE biodiversity hotspot of EVERYTHING excepting large mammals.

It's not HIM I have a problem with per se. It's the way his ideas have become so widely distributed in pop culture and given people a muddled and warped idea of ecology.

If people think North America was essentially a broken ecosystem missing tons of key animals 500 years ago, they won't recognize how harmful colonization was to the ecosystem or the importance of fixing the harm. Who cares if bison are a keystone species, North America won't be "fixed" until we bring back camels and cheetahs...right?

And by the way, there never were "cheetahs" in North America, Miracinonyx was a different genus and was more similar to cougars than cheetahs, and didn't have the hunting strategy of cheetahs, so putting African cheetahs in North America wouldn't "rewild" anything.

Also people think its a good idea to bring back mammoths, which is...no. First of all, it wouldn't be "bringing back mammoths," it would be genetically engineering extant elephants to express some mammoth genes that code for key traits, and second of all, the ecosystem that contained them doesn't exist anymore, and ultimately it would be really cruel to do this with an intelligent, social animal. The technology that would be used for this is much better used to "bring back" genetic diversity that has been lost from extant critically endangered species.

I think mustangs should get to stay in North America, they're already here and they are very culturally important to indigenous groups. And I think it's pretty rad that Scimitar-horned Oryx were brought back in their native habitat only because there was a population of them in Texas. But we desperately, DESPERATELY need to re-wild bison, wolves, elk, and cougars across most of their former range before we can think about introducing camels.

[popcornoncemore]

I live in an enchanting land of mountains and oceans and the river that connects them. A place of tall green trees that never lose their color and dense underbrush that fights to share what little sunlight that decides to peak through the grey sky. I live where the salmon return home, where the ships come to harbor. A place with two distinct seasons: the rain and the summer, separated only by a few weeks of chaos where the rain and sun mix and form rainbows. The kind of weather you rejoice in, a storm so gentle my friends and I run out to dance in, celebrating every day we get to wake up here. You can smell the rain hitting on the pavement, you can smell the moisture on the screen door. On those early rainy mornings, you can feel the breeze blown in many miles from the ocean, and it tastes of freedom and hope.

I live in the same place I always have, and I am oh so lucky.

[lobselvith8]

Regarding Gaider's "Modern Elves are Partly to blame for their own oppression"

In a conversation with Christina Gonzalez and a few other people on twitter, David Gaider, the former headwriter of Dragon Age, mocked fans of the Dalish. I took issue with his statement and pointed out why people are critical of how he and the other writers handled the Dalish in Dragon Age (while Allan Schumacher of Epic Games had nothing of substance to say in response). The Dalish are nomadic as a consequence of Andrastian societies violently attacking them if they stay too long in one area. The Andrastian Chantry outlawed their religion, making them criminals as a consequence of their faith. Andrastians will threaten the Dalish with violence in an attempt to force conversion to the Andrastian faith. Templars will hunt down the Dalish, and will even torture children. Andrastian elves also suffer from Andrastian oppression as Andrastian humans can massacre all of them, down to the children in an orphanage.

Gaider postulates that one could discuss how the ancient elves were "partly to blame" for their enslavement (let's keep in mind that being slaves is what he's talking about, even though he's careful not to put that into his tweet) or how "modern elves are partly to blame for their own oppression" which is essentially what we are told throughout the whole of Inquisition and the DLCs that accompanied the game (even JoH tries to romanticize the genocidal tyrant Drakon and place all of the blame on the Dales for the elves not trusting the tyrant who was invading their neighbors, forcing conversion, and massacring the people who would not convert - like the peaceful pacifists known as the Daughters of Song).

Inquisition even rectonned previously established lore on the Dalish in order to have characters like Iron Bull denigrate the Dalish. It's a game that will side-step Celene burning thousands of elves alive in Halamshiral while it will demonize the Dalish for wanting to maintain their autonomy from what's essentially a group of colonizers who want to rule over them and force them to convert, and the white Canadian writers (who are from Canada, a place known for its long history of horrific treatment towards Indigenous people) are firmly on the side of those who think that the Dalish (who, as Gaider himself once said at the Dragon Central forums before the release of Origins, were modeled after "Northern Native Americans") are wrong not to subjugate themselves to white Andrastian rulers.

Andrastian elves similarly face hardships because of Andrastian rule. In Ferelden even the efforts of the Night Elves fighting to free the nation from Orlesian rule didn't the elves any greater freedoms once Maric came to power. The Boon of the City Elf faces a number of dire consequences unless the Warden assumes control themselves as the new Bann. Inquisition ignores the plight of the elves of the Dales entirely to focus on a white human noble as the focus of the storyline in the Dales, and you can potentially help chevalier Michel de Chevin (a white man with blonde hair who is part of the chevaliers, a group who murder innocent elves as part of their initiation rite, although this isn't properly addressed in-game) while Briala's role is marginalized in-game despite being the leader of an elven rebellion across Orlais (and she strangely became white despite her in-book description making it clear she's a woman of color, which accompanying artwork confirmed).

Whether you're talking about the slavery of ancient elves or the 'modern' oppression of Andrastian elves and Dalish elves, I don't see how you can blame either the victims of slavery or the victims of racial (and in the case of the Dalish religious) persecution for the oppression they face. And Gaider doesn't seem to understand that at all, which explains the inherent problems with how the plight of the elves is framed within Dragon Age.

[feminist-furby-freak]

We had an indigenous elder come and speak to one of my classes the other day and everyone was criticizing her for saying women and using sex-based language. Wait but I through native Americans didn’t have our regressive “colonial” views on gender!!?! Don’t they all believe in “two spirit” !?!?!

You people don’t actually care what black or indigenous or whatever group you are fetishizing have to say if they don’t support your agenda.

[boreal-sea]

So from what I've seen there are four main excuses American leftist non-Jews use to deny indigeneity for diaspora Jews.

Most of them agree Jews were indigenous 2,000 years ago, but some think the Jews who were forced out of Israel during the past 2,000 years have "lost" their indigeneity in some way. In other words, they don't think diaspora Jews have a right to claim indigeneity to the Jewish homeland.

Some of them think that converts and/or external marriages have "diluted" diaspora Jewish bloodlines too much, and diaspora Jews are now a "different race" or "different ethnicity" from the "original Jews". They may even consider some diaspora Jews to be "white", which means they think those Jews definitely can't claim indigeneity.

Some of them think the fact that diaspora Jews absorbed parts of other cultures means they are no longer the "same kind of Jews" that originally came from the region, and this means they have changed too much to be considered the same culture, and thus they cannot return to their homeland.

Some just think "too much time has passed". It doesn't matter that diaspora Jews didn't choose to leave, nor does it matter that people prevented them from returning until very recently. Time is time, and too much time has passed. Indigeneity gone.

Finally, I have seen some argue that birthplace or citizenship is what matters. They say, "you can't be indigenous to a place you weren't born in". I've seen some claim that being born as a citizen of a country or becoming a citizen of a country erases any prior ethnic, cultural, national, indigenous, or religious ties they and their family may have had. For example, they think Jews born in America are American, and have zero right to say they have any ties to anywhere else.

Basically, for whatever reason, they don't think diaspora Jews are "native Jews" anymore, and thus they don't belong in their homeland.

...

I wonder though.

Do they know the difference between an ethnicity and a race? Do they know what an ethnoreligion is? Do they know how Jews view converts?

Do they think certain Jewish ethnic groups get to have a claim to indigeneity while others don't? Why do they think that as a non-Jew they get to have any say in that?

If they think the indigeneity of diaspora Jews has "expired" due to how long Jews have been living in the diaspora, do they think the indigeneity of ALL displaced indigenous peoples can "expire", or does this rule only apply to Jews?

If they believe indigeneity expires, when does it expire? After 200 years? What about 500 years? 1000?

If a colonized country with a displaced indigenous population waits long enough, will it be OK to tell those displaced people, "Sorry, you've been gone from the parts of the continent you were originally from for too long. Even though it wasn't your choice to leave, and even though we have prevented you from returning, you have no right to claim that as your homeland anymore". Is that acceptable?

When does a population living in a forced diaspora have no right to return home?

[starlightomatic]

I'm asking this in good faith, but also in an admitted lack of full understanding. If you don't have the energy to engage with this topic anymore please disregard it.

Someone on your post noted the comparison of Israel-Palestine to that of the Native Americans, but the way I read it it seemed like they were putting Palestinians in the role of the native Americans and Israel as the colonizing force, but historically wouldn't it be the Jewish people who are the Native Americans in that comparison? I ask because from what I know it would be the Jewish people in what is now Israel at the same time in history as the Natives in the Americas. Am I misinformed about that? I'm not trying to say Palestine would be the colonizing force in that comparison btw, just that if we're talking about natives to the land, it seems to me like it'd be the Jewish people.

tbh neither maps on exactly

the expulsion of jews from what is now israel/palestine started in 70 AD and then was a gradual process over the next few hundred years as people moved out due to oppression by various rulers, poverty, etc

palestinians, as far as i understand it, likely descend from a mix of some of the jews who were left behind and arabs who conquered the land. they've been there for hundreds of years, and some families have owned the same land for all of that time

the thing about indigeneity as it's been explained to me is that it's not about origin so much as relationship to colonization. and the founding of israel was colonization -- herzl actually used that word himself in his writings.

you know the jnf? the original purpose was to exploit a feature of ottoman land law. if you planted a tree on someone's land and they didn't remove it for a certain number of years, you could claim ownership of that land. this and other methods were used to steal parcels of land from palestinians.

"your ethnicity stole the land from our ethnicity, to whom the land belongs" is a fucked up framework that seems really akin to blood and soil (as does "our ethnicity has rightful ownership of this land from ancient times, so your ethnicity needs to clear out"), but genuinely wresting ownership from individuals owners really can be said to be stealing land.

also, the nakba was a series of massacres and fighting that led to a huge influx of palestinian refugees from many areas in israel/palestine, and israel seized control of the land and homes they vacated to hand over to jews. israel used the jnf, again, to cover the ruins of many palestinian villages with trees to obscure the fact that they were ever there. in general israel built over many palestinian villages and the mindset in israel is not to know and not to think about it.

personally i think the indigeneity debate is not useful. it feels sometimes that jews think that if we can prove we lived in israel in ancient times (we did, a lot of people insist we didn't because it is inconvenient), we can justify things like the above. my position is that it does not justify it, because it is not an excuse for causing human suffering.

however, many people use a framework that is not about human suffering, but about how invading foreign jews stole the land from the "rightful" ethnic group. i don't agree with that either. especially when it becomes an excuse to support ethnic cleansing in the other direction. that is to say: they locate the crime not in the invasion but in the foreignness. such people are motivated to deny the historical fact of jewish origins in israel, because their argument is based on jewish foreignness.

but anyway, the comparison to indigenous peoples in the americas refers to the way that palestinians experienced the establishment of the state of israel -- starting with small groups of settlers, involving violence early on and then massacres, and later ethnic cleansing and displacement. cities and towns destroyed. shoved into small areas with few resources. lack of power and autonomy.

in addition, the way the early zionist leaders conceptualized themselves as enlightened europeans colonizing land with disdain for the existing residents.

[neechees]

Theres another part to the conversation in the racism of calling Native American spirits "cryptids" that has to do with this idea of underestimating the intelligence of Native people & how we understood our land & ecosystems & devaluing that, because very often you hear this talking point from cryptozooologists say something like "x cryptid exists, but the Native Americans have a near exact spirit in their culture, could they have mistaken it for a spirit?": this premise doesn't acknowledge that most "cryptids" in the Americas are appropriated Native spirits, but instead proposes that these "cryptids" existed FIRST, are possibly now exitinct, and that Native Americans simply weren't "intelligent" or "advanced" enough to understand that it was a real animal & instead had "mistaken" it for a spirit of some kind & gave it that name.

This is also a complete misunderstanding of multiple Native spirits & spirituality & shows the ignorance of it because sometimes it just doesn't work this way, and #2, again underestimates & devalues Indigenous knowledge on science and biogeography. Like, we knew our animals and plants. We knew how & where to find them & what time of year they mated & what they ate & how best to utilize them while remaining in harmony with them, but you don't think we would have knowledge on these "cryptids" if they were actually "cryptids"? (Because again, the definition of a cryptid is an animal that may or may not biologically exist in the world, and may or may not be extinct, and there's little proof on their existence, but has gained notoriety because of tall tales surrounding their existence. A spirit is not that, & is religious.)

Like in many religions, there's a separation from the physical & spiritual/supernatural where the spiritual won't have a physical form, which is why theyre called spirits. If there was an animal that existed in our lands that we physically interacted with then we would have told you. White people still don't believe Native American oral history that we had horses in North America that went extinct, pre-Spanish reintroduction of them, but ironically cryptozooologists & nerds also still won't believe us when we say "bigfoot" isn't a "cryptid" but instead a spirit. So I think its just a case of White ppl refusing to acknowledge our intelligence & knowledge about our own land

[txttletale]

h… how is any of that racist

assuming that you mean my posts about the 5e monster manual entry for orcs and how insanely racist it is--by happy coincidence i have a bunch of sources about this strewn haphazardly across my browser so i'm happy to answer this.

so we will start with this. the words 'tribe' and 'chief' are deeply, deeply racialised. they have been used throughout colonial (and well into modern and present-day!) history to describe groups of indigenous peoples across the world—with implications of 'primitive' people and societies within the Western myth of linear societal progress. europeans have nations and kings--africans and native americans have tribes and chiefs. the 'tribe' is not a neutral concept--it is a concept that was constructed by europeans in positions of global military domination over a century to justify a narrative about the linear progress of civilization to justify domination [1][2]. of course, it's not just the use of the words 'tribe' or 'chief' but their deployment here in the context of what is obviously supposed to be a 'primitive' method of of government--the 'orcish tribe' is inherently violence, a 'savage' society entirely built on "bloodlust" and "fear"

regis stella puts it much better than i could in this account of an early 20th-century travel memoir in Imagining the Other: The Representation of the Papua New Guinean Subject

while we're on this point i figure i'll add all the other language around 'savagery', 'inherent bloodlust' and so on in the monster manual here to further illustrate my point: it's all quite rote and repeats itself a lot.

now, wait, waiiiit, wait a second. wait a moment. hold up what was that last thing

oh thats not good. having to explain why this is racist feels a little like having to explain why its bad to hit people with hammers but i'll do it anyway: the comparison of real-life 'tribes' of people to insects, vermin, and pestilences is a very real element of genocidal rhetoric--from the holocaust [3] to the rwandan genocide [4]. what is the implied correct societal responose to a tribe that is 'like a plague?'

finally, this is the part that made me say "holy fucking shit this is in the 5th edition monster manual?" because it is pure undiluted gygaxian eugenics shit. first of all, the narrative of the ever-swelling horde, the indigenous or Asian people as an undiffernetiated mass of amorphous Other, is an old one and one that's been used to devalue the lives of people of colour and justify violence against 'the horde'. but the part that's absolutely jaw-dropping is the use of the tropes of reproductive racism--the narrative of Black and indigenous hyperfecundity is also an established racist trope, one which was instrumental in the forced sterilisation of Black and Native women in the USA [5] and now manifests itself in the "great replacement" demographic anxieties of modern racism [6] -- think of White Genocide conspiracy theories and the 14 Words. and of course that is to say nothing of the fact that is made very clear and reiterated (and mechanicised in the form of the Half-Orc player race!) that WotC wants to be very clear about how much orcs "readily crossbreed with other races". this is miscegenation anxiety, plain and simple--somethign else stella talks about.

so yeah! hopefully nobody will ever ask me this fucking question again! (this is just across two fucking pages of the monster manual by the way don’t get me started on the shit that’s in the other books! god forbid i even think about campaign modules!!)

[clangenrising]

Hey everyone.

Today, many of you are celebrating American Thanksgiving, but I wanted to take a moment to use this platform I've somehow stumbled into to do something different. Today is the National Day of Mourning, a day where we take time to remember and mourn the suffering and deaths of the indigenous American people who were brutally colonized by the founders of the country. It is also a day to remember that their descendants are still suffering, that their struggles are not over.

Now, I am very white and living on stolen land. I am not the expert here and I don't think it would be my place to explain the struggles the indigenous Americans are facing.

But I do run a fairly popular Warrior Cats blog and I do think it would be worthwhile to highlight the fact that Warrior Cats and its fandom are full of Anti-Indigenous bigotry. You may notice that I use the term "Healer" instead of "Medicine Cats" and that's because the original term is blatant and disrespectful cultural appropriation that I don't want to take part in. And that's just one example.

HERE is a link to a comprehensive article researched and written by an All-Native/Indigenous team of Warrior Cats fans that details the harmful stereotypes the Erins use and suggestions on what you can do to avoid contributing to them. Please, read this document and take some time to think about what it says.

I also encourage any Native/Indigenous people who find this post to add to it or link places where my fans can support you and your communities.

Thank you for your time.

-Rowan

[headspace-hotel]

I get a little annoyed at how writings don't give Native North American peoples any agency in agricultural technologies

Domestication takes hundreds or thousands of years to accomplish, so it's weird to me that so many sources claim that food plants native to North America were cultivated into existence after European settlement, from a "wild" ancestor into a highly desirable crop

Take for example, the famous Concord grape. Supposedly it was bred from wild ancestors in a few years by just one guy.

With pecans, the word itself is Algonquin, so it's harder to deny that Native Americans cultivated them, but supposedly "domestication began in the 1800's". and as the source says, "wild-type" pecans are perfectly acceptable for sale in the market

And then there is nonsense like all the sources that will tell you pawpaws are an "evolutionary anachronism" from when they were distributed by giant ground sloths and other megafauna, as though humans don't count.

Are we to believe that indigenous peoples knew nothing of plant breeding? When the Cherokee were given peaches, apples, and watermelon, they adopted the new plants for use in their orchards and soon developed their own breeds.

Don't even get me started on all the plants that were almost lost and largely not used anymore, like Rivercane and the American Chestnut.

[decolonize-the-everything]

Housing insecurity is racist & violent

"Seventy-five national, state, territorial, and local domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking organizations filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) urging it to support the rights of people who are homeless, including unhoused survivors, in City of Grants Pass, Ore. v. Johnson. This case is one of the most important SCOTUS cases regarding homelessness in the past 40 years. The amicus brief, authored by the National Housing Law Project and Sexual Violence Law Center, argues that housing is extremely limited for gender-based violence survivors, often forcing them to make impossible choices between sleeping outside or suffering continued violence. Criminalizing survivors will only increase their and their families’ risk of violence, trauma, and housing insecurity."

Article from July 29:

Housing advocates across Indian Country say Native Americans and Alaska Natives likely will feel the full weight of a June 28 Supreme Court ruling that has cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on unsheltered people sleeping outside in public places. Native Americans experience homelessness at a disparate rate. Advocates say the housing crisis is a reflection of our society’s unwillingness to address systemic issues.

“It’s criminalizing poverty,” said attorney Caroline LaPorte, who is an immediate descendant of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians. “We are much more comfortable with putting, and paying, for people to be incarcerated.” LaPorte is the director of the STTARS Indigenous Safe Housing Resource Center, a project of the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, and she is the board chairman for the StrongHearts Native Helpline. STTARS focuses on the intersection of housing insecurity and gender-based violence. A lawyer, she said the Supreme Court’s decision was enraging. “Everybody belongs in our communities. They deserve to be safe, and it is our responsibility. We are required to make sure that those people have the things that they need,” LaPorte said.[...]

Announced on June 28 in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the court found that outdoor sleeping bans don’t violate the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.