›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Racism or not?

KilarneyKilarney
edited March 2007 in Everything Else
The Cherokees owned slaves.

Recently, the Cherokees voted overwhelmingly to deny tribal status to the descendants of those slaves.
(Article here. )

Was this the right thing to do? Is this racist? Is it something in between?

Comments

  • DavidDavid
    I'm not sure how it could be construed as racists. It seems pretty consistent with their view on how people should be considered Cherokee. You have to related by blood to be considered a member of the Cherokee Nation, ergo, descendants of former slaves would not be considered members if they never married into a family line. Or that is how I read it. The article is pretty un-clear.
  • ErwinErwin
    I will be happy when in the future all the races in the world mix together.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    I can see that there is no blood relation, but is a tribe based solely on blood or is it based on culture and experience? I submit the latter is more important.
  • JasonJason
    edited March 2007
    I will be happy when in the future all the races in the world mix together.
    While I understand your sentiment, this statement is silly. Uniformity and equality are not necessarily reciprocal concepts. It is not compulsory for genetic and cultural walls to be razed for true equality to exist; as a matter of fact, I would hate to see a world where uniqueness has been exterminated for the sake of eliminating prejudice.

    This is the base concept behind school uniforms, and I think it is not only bunk, but also evil. You know who else also had uniforms? Hitler youth. Word to the godwin.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Uh oh... I'm for school uniforms in certain situations. We'll have to start a new thread.
  • JasonJason
    edited March 2007
    Bring it on, kilarney. (Hushed, dramatic movie whisper:) Bring... it... ON.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • DavidDavid
    I can see that there is no blood relation, but is a tribe based solely on blood or is it based on culture and experience? I submit the latter is more important.
    Sadly the article fails to mention if the descendants were living on tribal land or not. It would be fairly dickish to declare families that have lived on the land as non-tribe members. Of course this was the decision of the Cherokee nation, and the article states it was the largest turnout that had ever seen.

    And I have 5 space dollars on Jason winning.
  • kenjurakenjura
    You know who else has school uniforms? Japan. It's really not a big deal. Yes, it's conformist behavior that might potentially lead to problems of some kind, but...school is so chock-full of conformist behaviors, what's one more? I certainly disliked the idea back when I was a student, but I couldn't really articulate why.

    The real issue is that I dislike any policy based on controlling behavior. If it is known that wearing uniforms has the psychological effect of promoting conformation to the norms and values of the school, and subsequently better performance, that doesn't mean it's okay to do it.

    When corporations use psychology to change our behavior, it's called marketing. When casinos use it to get use to waste money, it's not illegal, it's just damn devious.

    But in the absence of functional, powerful, straight-up mind control devices, we have not really had the opportunity to discuss the ethics of behavior control. Marketing and uniforms are hardly direct mind control, but where do you draw the line? Just because it's hard to perceive a problem doesn't mean it's nonexistent.

    Oh, and, on-topic: it isn't racism unless you're judging people based on their race (or, "by the color of their skin" vs. "by the content of their character"). In this case, it's judging based on an equally uncontrollable and arbitrary characteristic: lineage. It's bigotry, and it's just as bad, but it isn't racism.
  • JasonJason
    edited March 2007
    You know who else has school uniforms? Japan. It's really not a big deal. Yes, it's conformist behavior that might potentially lead to problems of some kind, but...school is so chock-full of conformist behaviors, what's one more? I certainly disliked the idea back when I was a student, but I couldn't really articulate why.
    kenjura, you're going to rail against Bush and how Americans are giving up freedom for security, but then turn around and advocate letting the government mandate dress codes?

    Careful, I'm baaaaaaiiiiiting yoooooouuuuuu....
    Post edited by Jason on
  • kenjurakenjura
    I'm not really advocating it, I just don't think it's a big deal. Part of it is probably the perspective. 10 years ago, it may have seemed like the ultimate evil. Now, we realize what governments can really do, and things like uniforms seem a little silly.
  • JasonJason
    Refusing to fight is de facto advocacy. And if you hadn't figured out that governments are capable of evil -- even the U.S. government -- prior to Bush, then I don't know how to help you.
Sign In or Register to comment.