Let's Talk about Christopher Columbus

[calamity]

Not really. Columbus Day was celebrating Christopher Columbus. Native or Indigenous people day does what? Celebrates people born here? No? Only “Native Americans” are native and indigenous? It’s on Columbus Day why? They want the day replaced instead of a new day, why?

It’s more fake news/false narrative bull ****.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Uh, maybe it's because Columbus marked the beginning of the end for their culture.

 

[LadyMoonlight]

They may have, LadyMoonlight.

For as much of savages as the Vikings were, it boogles my mind they got to as many far away places as they did. They were a colorful people. With colorful names. What was one of them called, "Ivar Horsecock"? :lol:

The Vikings weren't a group I would have wanted to belong to though. The Germanic Franks I probably wouldn't have mined belonging too. They seemed to have been the more culturally advanced or culturally refined of the European barbarians. Well... at least the other Germanic tribes seemed to have viewed them so.

A misconception. The Vikings were not savages...at least no more than any society of the era. All societies, all over the world, did exactly the same thing to people they met/conquered. It's just that the Europeans and Vikings (because the Vikings explored and settled everywhere, including Russia) were technologically advanced enough to range further afield than some societies.

One thing that really annoys me about modern interpretations of History, is that we are force-fed that idea that the Europeans were truly evil, conquering and destroying everywhere they went, and yes, they did. But, EVERY society at the time did exactly the same thing only on a smaller scale. Indians slaughtered Indians, Chinese slaughtered Chinese, Mongols slaughtered everyone, Muslims slaughtered everyone, Aztecs slaughtered everyone in their area. Take for instance the way we are taught about the Spanish and the Aztecs. Spanish, oh so very evil, oh so very cruel, look what they did. They slaughtered Aztecs in the name of colonisation and in the name of religion. Unforgivable. The Aztecs did exactly the same thing; they conquered and expected tribute in the form of yearly taxes from conquered tribes, they slaughtered in the name of their religion (estimates being 20,000 people a year for 200 years), they were so hated by the other tribes that other tribes joined with the Spanish to destroy them. So how do we look at the Spanish and Aztecs? Spanish evil, killing poor innocent Aztecs in the name of their religion. Aztecs slaughtering and eating thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people...why, how interesting, what a fascinating society!

Let's teach some historical truth...Yes, the Europeans are guilty of atrocities; however, so is every other society you can name at some time in their history. Why do we insist that the Europeans were worse than anyone else? Why is it the Europeans/Americans/descendants the only guilty ones and responsible for all the evils in the world? There is a village in say, Africa or America, of around 50 people. They are attacked by their neighbours and 42 of the members of the village are slaughtered, the remaining 8 are woman/girls who are raped and enslaved. Per capita, that's a holocaust. Per capita, that's worse than the Europeans. I am tired of Europeans society, Columbus etc. being singled out. Everyone, everywhere were exactly the same.

 

[CletusWilbury]

.... Metro Milwaukee is racially divided (at least between blacks and whites) and will always remain racially divided. That will never change.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply! This line I disagree with, more on that later.

Although, the culture of Milwaukee is more parochial (not global, looking outward like say a NYC, LA, Chicago, Atlanta) so in a certain sense as a city construct Milwaukee almost tilts into that primordialism realm. Which in part is why I focus on Milwaukee more than a more outward look towards the whole country. Milwaukee is my country in a certain sense. That has its strengths. Or can. You fix Milwaukee rather than trying to fix New York or Ukraine. Plus, Milwaukee has always been a city centered heavily around ethnic ties. Ergo, all the ethnic festivals in the city including one for Amerindians.

Anyways... as much as the Amerindians may fall into primordialism... they still have many social problems like Black-Americans, particularly on those Reservations that are poor. Alcoholism and domestic violence has really damaged a lot of Amerindian families. Taking away a Christopher Columbus Day from the calendar will not change that. But again... in the end I am indifferent to if it stays or goes.

In San Diego, we have many migrants from all over the world. Besides being next to Mexico, we had a large influx from Vietnam after the war. It's still largely segregated, but mostly by income.
and yet- San Diego has lowest big city murder rate in US, FBI stats show
There are many celebrations of various ethnicities on a daily basis, seems like.

On the primordialism thing, all it means in my context is that I think there was nationalism in ancient times.

 

[CletusWilbury]

A misconception. The Vikings were not savages...at least no more than any society of the era. All societies, all over the world, did exactly the same thing to people they met/conquered. It's just that the Europeans and Vikings (because the Vikings explored and settled everywhere, including Russia) were technologically advanced enough to range further afield than some societies.

One thing that really annoys me about modern interpretations of History, is that we are force-fed that idea that the Europeans were truly evil, conquering and destroying everywhere they went, and yes, they did. But, EVERY society at the time did exactly the same thing only on a smaller scale. Indians slaughtered Indians, Chinese slaughtered Chinese, Mongols slaughtered everyone, Muslims slaughtered everyone, Aztecs slaughtered everyone in their area. Take for instance the way we are taught about the Spanish and the Aztecs. Spanish, oh so very evil, oh so very cruel, look what they did. They slaughtered Aztecs in the name of colonisation and in the name of religion. Unforgivable. The Aztecs did exactly the same thing; they conquered and expected tribute in the form of yearly taxes from conquered tribes, they slaughtered in the name of their religion (estimates being 20,000 people a year for 200 years), they were so hated by the other tribes that other tribes joined with the Spanish to destroy them. So how do we look at the Spanish and Aztecs? Spanish evil, killing poor innocent Aztecs in the name of their religion. Aztecs slaughtering and eating thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people...why, how interesting, what a fascinating society!

Let's teach some historical truth...Yes, the Europeans are guilty of atrocities; however, so is every other society you can name at some time in their history. Why do we insist that the Europeans were worse than anyone else? Why is it the Europeans/Americans/descendants the only guilty ones and responsible for all the evils in the world? There is a village in say, Africa or America, of around 50 people. They are attacked by their neighbours and 42 of the members of the village are slaughtered, the remaining 8 are woman/girls who are raped and enslaved. Per capita, that's a holocaust. Per capita, that's worse than the Europeans. I am tired of Europeans society, Columbus etc. being singled out. Everyone, everywhere were exactly the same.

Sounds like a eurocentric view to me. Where are you getting force fed that Europeans were truly evil from? Have you looked at a high school history book lately?
I have heard many similar arguments. One is that they don't teach the Constitution anymore. I looked up the local high school and the found the 12th grade Government book. There it was, in full, along with some stuff you might not like.

Admittedly, apparently few actually understand it, but that hasn't changed in my times.

Edited to add, like our President with his latest about the press.

 

[Jack Hays]

As whites arrived, Indians started dying. That's why there were few Roanoke-like events. I read a book on it.

Yes, they did. That has nothing to do with the topic of our discussion.

 

[Tigerace117]

That 50% of a population is half of a population is not my opinion, its a math fact.




Yes, I'm doubling down, tripling down, on my assertion that the United States has a representative democracy :lol:.




I thought I told you before that we are not buddies?

By the way, could you sound any more white? [Going back an old Sienfield episode] NOT that that's a bad thing!



Guest workers aren't citizens of Qatar. Are the Lakota on Pine Ridge in South Dakota citizens of the United States of America?



I guess that's what happens when you run into white people isn't? They should have put up a sign on the beach saying, "No Visitors Allowed." :lol:



No, but I think I need to post the sticker up for you--that I'm mulatto--so you stop confusing me with being emotionally invested in Germany. If you could figure that out you might get a clue I don't give a [F word] about Ukraine. But I do find it interesting you and millions of your fellow Americans care so much more about Ukraine than Pine Ridge. The honest American patriots you all are. (That's sarcasm there if you are too slow to figure it out.)



This is not the Cold War. And how many times do I have to point out to you Americans how slow you are? "Oh, don't go to Russia the police might shoot you," "Don't go to Russia you might get called a racial slur." What... like no black people get shot in the USA by cops? I've been called racial slurs in America (I don't give a [F word]). Listen... I've been shot, beaten, robbed... here in the United States. I don't have to go overseas for those things to happen to me. You Americans really need to catch up. You think too slow.



Couldn't be happier for the Ho Chunk.




And I could not be prouder of what the Potawatomi Amerindian Nation has done with such style and class, in what they brought to the center of Milwaukee, and that they have had financial success in doing so.

Your opinion that America was not a democracy is an opinion, one not shared by many--- if any--- people, and fringe at best. Dismissed.

Yes, you are amusingly tripling down on your claim that the US was not a democracy until about a hundred years ago.

Aw buddy, how cute, yet more shrieking about how "white" I sound. Would it make you feel better if I started talking about exterminating class enemies and the Revolution?

Guest workers are treated like utter trash, yet they perform the services your average Qatari is too lazy to do so. Are you claiming that that somehow justifies Qatar's nasty treatment of them?

Gee bud, I'm not sure what's more funny--- that you think you made an actual point there, or your total lack of historical knowledge.

No. One. Gives. A. Damn. That. You. Are. "Mulatto".

Get over yourself buddy.

Ah, and yet more whining about how we won't just let your hero Putin roll over the Ukraine. Yawn.

Hate to break it to you, buddy, I know you have this fantasy in your head of Russia being some kind of paradise on earth for "mulattos" but they are even racist towards people from the Caucasus mountains.

Perhaps you shouldn't hang around "the hood" so much if you actually got shot and robbed. But somehow I highly doubt any of that actually happened.

And you don't think at all. You just..,..spew.

 

[calamity]

Yes, they did. That has nothing to do with the topic of our discussion.

Sure it does. Goes against your claim that Columbus made the world a better place. For many, he straight up destroyed it.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sure it does. Goes against your claim that Columbus made the world a better place. For many, he straight up destroyed it.

I never claimed Columbus made the world exclusively better or worse. I said he was extraordinarily consequential, a word that cuts both ways. The fact is that he changed the world, and that's why he's worth celebrating. The Native Americans lost, but the world gained the powerful impetus for freedom and democracy that came from the US.

 

[ataraxia]

Let's teach some historical truth...Yes, the Europeans are guilty of atrocities; however, so is every other society you can name at some time in their history. Why do we insist that the Europeans were worse than anyone else? Why is it the Europeans/Americans/descendants the only guilty ones and responsible for all the evils in the world?

That's true. I never understood, as another example, why they called "Alexander the Great", "Great". What was "Great" about him, except that he was just the toughest hoodlum on the block and got together the biggest gang of thugs and thieves to steal and pillage more than anyone else? But oh well, back in the day, I guess that was considered "great".

But anyway, as regards to your point: I think the atrocities of Europeans are just pointed out to those Europeans, or those of European descent, who like to think that everyone else, all those darker skinned people, are all barbarians and savages, and start getting some sort of sense of ethnocentricism or even superiority. They are no different than the rest of them.

 

[ataraxia]

I never claimed Columbus made the world exclusively better or worse. I said he was extraordinarily consequential, a word that cuts both ways. The fact is that he changed the world, and that's why he's worth celebrating. The Native Americans lost, but the world gained the powerful impetus for freedom and democracy that came from the US.

I don't know about that. There were already a lot of historical/cultural forces set in play in the ensuing century that makes me think even without the discovery of the new world, a lot of these ideas would have developed anyway and even been implemented: The Renaissance, the European enlightenment, the scientific revolution and loss of the stranglehold authority of the church, etc... The US was a little freer perhaps to implement the ideas that were coming out of Europe at the time, because they were an ocean away from the tyrants and monarchs there. But I think it would have just been a matter of time...

 

[LadyMoonlight]

Sounds like a eurocentric view to me. Where are you getting force fed that Europeans were truly evil from? Have you looked at a high school history book lately?
I have heard many similar arguments. One is that they don't teach the Constitution anymore. I looked up the local high school and the found the 12th grade Government book. There it was, in full, along with some stuff you might not like.

Admittedly, apparently few actually understand it, but that hasn't changed in my times.

Edited to add, like our President with his latest about the press.

Oh, I have looked at a couple of History books!

 

[Jack Hays]

I don't know about that. There were already a lot of historical/cultural forces set in play in the ensuing century that makes me think even without the discovery of the new world, a lot of these ideas would have developed anyway and even been implemented: The Renaissance, the European enlightenment, the scientific revolution and loss of the stranglehold authority of the church, etc... The US was a little freer perhaps to implement the ideas that were coming out of Europe at the time, because they were an ocean away from the tyrants and monarchs there. But I think it would have just been a matter of time...

Please see (again?) my #215, quoted here as a favor to you.

I have made that point repeatedly in this thread. You are, however, missing the important next step. Those ideas were expressed, legitimized and disseminated in the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Then they were retransmitted back across the Atlantic as a powerful intellectual spur to change. Claude Manceron's great five volume history of the French Revolution has as its second volume The Wind from America.

 

[ataraxia]

Please see (again?) my #215, quoted here as a favor to you.

I have made that point repeatedly in this thread. You are, however, missing the important next step. Those ideas were expressed, legitimized and disseminated in the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Then they were retransmitted back across the Atlantic as a powerful intellectual spur to change. Claude Manceron's great five volume history of the French Revolution has as its second volume The Wind from America.

I think the point you were trying to make was that it was Christopher Columbus' discovery of America that led to the ideas of the dissemination of freedom and democracy to the world. I was just trying to make the point that it seems to me that these ideas had a very good chance of developing over the next few centuries regardless of the discovery of the New World. Stuff was brewing in the Old World: the Renaissance, the European Enlightenment, the scientific Revolution, the industrial Revolution, and yes, even ideas of Democracy, separation of church and state, men all having been created equal, etc.... The New World, at best, may have been a place for these ideas to be tested out first. But with or without the New World and Colombus' discovery of it, I am pretty sure the time was ripe for many of these ideas, and they would have started anyway.

 

[Jack Hays]

I think the point you were trying to make was that it was Christopher Columbus' discovery of America that led to the ideas of the dissemination of freedom and democracy to the world. I was just trying to make the point that it seems to me that these ideas had a very good chance of developing over the next few centuries regardless of the discovery of the New World. Stuff was brewing in the Old World: the Renaissance, the European Enlightenment, the scientific Revolution, the industrial Revolution, and yes, even ideas of Democracy, separation of church and state, men all having been created equal, etc.... The New World, at best, may have been a place for these ideas to be tested out first. But with or without the New World and Colombus' discovery of it, I am pretty sure the time was ripe for many of these ideas, and they would have started anyway.

No, that is not the point I was making. The ideas developed independently from anything Columbus did, but they found concrete expression in the new United States, which would not have come into existence without Columbus. It was the ideas' expression, dissemination and legitimization in America that transformed them from an intellectual fashion into a powerful impetus for change. Another work of history that takes this point as its central theme is The Age of the Democratic Revolution by the great R.R. Palmer.

 

[ataraxia]

No, that is not the point I was making. The ideas developed independently from anything Columbus did, but they found concrete expression in the new United States, which would not have come into existence without Columbus. It was the ideas' expression, dissemination and legitimization in America that transformed them from an intellectual fashion into a powerful impetus for change. Another work of history that takes this point as its central theme is The Age of the Democratic Revolution by the great R.R. Palmer.

You are saying that Christopher Columbus' discovery of the new world was "consequential", because these ideas found concrete expression in the new United States. But these ideas were already starting to find very strong expression in the old world, and were doing so regardless of the discovery and existence of the new United States. The lessons of why church and state should be separated, for example, were lessons learned the hard way and implemented after the 30 Years' War in the 1600s. European governments, like with Frederick the Great of Prussia, had already started to implement them even by the early 1700s. England had already found the importance of the separation of powers in government with a system of checks and balances after their civil war in the 1600s and the beheading of their king Charles I by the parliamentarians. These were changes that were well underway when the US came on the scene. Those changes in the old world would likely have continued regardless of the existence of these rather peripheral and inconsequential colonies here in the New World.

 

[Jack Hays]

You are saying that Christopher Columbus' discovery of the new world was "consequential", because these ideas found concrete expression in the new United States. But these ideas were already starting to find very strong expression in the old world, and were doing so regardless of the discovery and existence of the new United States. The lessons of why church and state should be separated, for example, were lessons learned the hard way and implemented after the 30 Years' War in the 1600s. European governments, like with Frederick the Great of Prussia, had already started to implement them even by the early 1700s. England had already found the importance of the separation of powers in government with a system of checks and balances after their civil war in the 1600s and the beheading of their king Charles I by the parliamentarians. These were changes that were well underway when the US came on the scene. Those changes in the old world would likely have continued regardless of the existence of these rather peripheral and inconsequential colonies here in the New World.

Manceron and Palmer would disagree. It was the concrete example of democracy and individual rights in the US that was so corrosive of the hierarchical society of the European ancien regime.

 

[ataraxia]

Manceron and Palmer would disagree. It was the concrete example of democracy and individual rights in the US that was so corrosive of the hierarchical society of the European ancien regime.

I guess that's a little hard to know. It's one of those "what if" scenarios of history that we will probably never know. But it seems to me that many of those ideas were clearly already on the way, regardless of what was happening here in the New World. I agree that the free space here in the New World, far away from the centers of power in the old, allowed these ideas perhaps to be implemented a little sooner than they would have otherwise. But the cat was already out of the bag. The ideas and the intellectual foundations and infrastructure had already been cast almost a century earlier by the great thinkers of the 17th century, and they were already starting to be implemented in piecemeal fashion anyway. So my guess is without the American Revolution, their full implementation would have been delayed maybe another 20-50 years.

Significant? Yeah, maybe. But I am not sure enough to change the history of the world.

 

[calamity]

I never claimed Columbus made the world exclusively better or worse. I said he was extraordinarily consequential, a word that cuts both ways. The fact is that he changed the world, and that's why he's worth celebrating. The Native Americans lost, but the world gained the powerful impetus for freedom and democracy that came from the US.

But for a few happy accidents, the US would be known more for clinging to slavery until the 20th Century and siding with Hitler 40 years later, than being the bastion of freedom. But, hey. Why continue to piss on a great myth five days after the holiday has passed? :shrug:

 

[Jack Hays]

I guess that's a little hard to know. It's one of those "what if" scenarios of history that we will probably never know. But it seems to me that many of those ideas were clearly already on the way, regardless of what was happening here in the New World. I agree that the free space here in the New World, far away from the centers of power in the old, allowed these ideas perhaps to be implemented a little sooner than they would have otherwise. But the cat was already out of the bag. The ideas and the intellectual foundations and infrastructure had already been cast almost a century earlier by the great thinkers of the 17th century, and they were already starting to be implemented in piecemeal fashion anyway. So my guess is without the American Revolution, their full implementation would have been delayed maybe another 20-50 years.

Significant? Yeah, maybe. But I am not sure enough to change the history of the world.

"The dons, the bashaws, the grandees, the patricians, the sachems, the nabobs, call them by what name you please, sigh and groan, and fret, and sometimes stamp, and foam, and curse, but all in vain. The decree is gone forth, and it cannot be recalled, that a more equal liberty than has prevailed in other parts of the earth, must be established in America. . . ."

--John Adams, 1776
quoted by Claude Manceron in The Wind from America

 

[Jack Hays]

But for a few happy accidents, the US would be known more for clinging to slavery until the 20th Century and siding with Hitler 40 years later, than being the bastion of freedom. But, hey. Why continue to piss on a great myth five days after the holiday has passed? :shrug:

Now you have fallen into fantasy.

 

[calamity]

Now you have fallen into fantasy.

Not really. Today's America would side with Adolf not Joe. And if Henry Ford had Citizens United and Charles Lindy had Father C blowing smoke on a Fox News and Clear Channel back then, we would have picked the wrong side in 1940 as well.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not really. Today's America would side with Adolf not Joe. And if Henry Ford had Citizens United and Charles Lindy had Father C blowing smoke on a Fox News and Clear Channel back then, we would have picked the wrong side in 1940 as well.

I'm afraid we don't live in the same country.

 

[FastPace]

A misconception. The Vikings were not savages...at least no more than any society of the era. All societies, all over the world, did exactly the same thing to people they met/conquered. It's just that the Europeans and Vikings (because the Vikings explored and settled everywhere, including Russia) were technologically advanced enough to range further afield than some societies.

No, they were savages :lol:. But yeah... the book I read on the Vikings and Saxons encounter with one another pointed out the Norsemen and Germanic tribes shared a lot of cultural similarities. They basically worshiped the same pagan gods--had different names for them but same gods. Dressed in similar fashion etc.

The author of the short book (it was a short book, as the author admitted it was not meant to go in-depth, it was only a 300 page or so book) I read kind of irked me at times. I assumed he is either a High Church Protestant (in England I think) or a liberal Catholic. But that in some ways might have been good for me because it means he presented--in his *interpretation*--a more secularized viewpoint of the adoption and or success of Christianity among, in this case, the Germanic tribes. The Vikings were not a Germanic tribe but at the points of the tensions and wars between the two Germanic tribes were more or less adopting Christianity deeper into their culture.

So, his secularized view of this, was that the Roman Catholic Church had adopted ad retained key aspects of ancient Roman high civilization such as the Roman law system. The things of ancient Roman that the Church could bring to the Germanic tribes brought a worldly attraction. The Franks seemed to have been the furthest ahead in this assimilation process--fusing as all Germans (and later Vikings) did--Latin culture with Germanic Chiefdom culture. The Franks still carried their throwing war axes (for which they were named after), dressed in their wool coat or bear fur, and like all Germans wearing gold jewelry. But unlike the Saxons (named after the kind of knife they carried) and Vikings who only lived in one story dwellings at the time, the Franks had stone dwellings that were multistories.

Yeah... I've been aware years that the Russians descend from Vikings. There is a Muslim I believe who met the Vikings in what became Russia, and if I recall correctly he spoke about some of their disgusting habits. Like, they would pass a bowl of water around, to wash their face with. As it got passed some would spit in in, other blow their nose in it. He also said they would have naked women laying all around them. That latter part is not so bad.

 

[FastPace]

One thing that really annoys me about modern interpretations of History, is that we are force-fed that idea that the Europeans were truly evil, conquering and destroying everywhere they went, and yes, they did. But, EVERY society at the time did exactly the same thing only on a smaller scale...

Let's teach some historical truth...Yes, the Europeans are guilty of atrocities; however, so is every other society you can name at some time in their history. Why do we insist that the Europeans were worse than anyone else? Why is it the Europeans/Americans/descendants the only guilty ones and responsible for all the evils in the world? There is a village in say, Africa or America, of around 50 people. They are attacked by their neighbours and 42 of the members of the village are slaughtered, the remaining 8 are woman/girls who are raped and enslaved. Per capita, that's a holocaust. Per capita, that's worse than the Europeans. I am tired of Europeans society, Columbus etc. being singled out. Everyone, everywhere were exactly the same.

I've read about the Aztecs. Mainly in an extremely thick book about the Conquistadors war against them. I've read about them in smaller book or essay sources too. Yes, they were an empire that bullied others and sacrificed the lives of many of the weaker tribes up to the gods the Aztecs worshiped. They had some weird habits too. Like sprinkling human blood on vegetables and eating them. Their upper-class were also cannibals. Fortunately, there were some attractive aspects to Aztec civilization. Even their poor had a good diet and unlike the Spanish Conquistadors they bathed frequently.

No, you are right about how groups have fought each other in Africa, Asia, the Americas. Wherever. Europeans, however, came to control almost all the earth's landmass. A certain number of European kingdoms or countries. Not all. The Irish and Polish never got to spread their languages across the world like the French, English, Spanish, and Portuguese. The Germans and Belgian eventually tried to get in on the action in Africa. The Belgian in the Congo were right up their with Adolf Hitler but you'll never hear about them.

My own opinion is the European thing is paradoxically overplayed and underplayed in terms of any uniqueness in wrongs having been done in human history.

Take slavery in the United States alone. It is well underplayed for the most part in our typical discourse. It's overplayed in the sense that people--white liberals and Black-Americans--constantly make reference to it. But few to no one speaks about the deeper injustices and cruelty that were inflicted on millions of blacks, their families, their conceptions of who they are through that broad torture based economy in the USA that was called enslavement. The racial caste system developed around the subjugation of Amerindians and blacks. Because if the truth was ever realized there might be such rage that a revolt might occur.




I'm a big critic of "Black History Month" in the USA by the way. For a number of reasons I'm not going to get into.

I don't like token things that do little to nothing to resolve greater underlying problems. Something like "Black History Month" might actually make the problem worse in some ways.

I prefer infrastructural development, economic/financial improvement, and a security. If you talk about say... Black-American Detroit or the Pine Ridge Lakota you have a lacking in all 3 of those. That will just increase domestic and emotional problems.

If Nigeria, or black Detroit, or Pine Ridge Lakota were versions of Qatar their image before whites and Asians and Arabs would shoot through the roof. Because like it or not, right or wrong, humans judge people by these visible things they can see of them. That's why Obama bows to a Saudi monarch and not a homeless black guy in the United States.

That's why the Potawatomi Nation having success--and doing it with great modern style--is a great thing. Because most liberals (or conservatives) want to see what out of Amerindians? Them dancing around in a circle with feathers on their heads and being poor.

Instead... people can associate you with modernity and the so-called "better things of life" like they do with Europeans or Arabs in Qatar.

 

[FastPace]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply! This line I disagree with, more on that later.




In San Diego, we have many migrants from all over the world. Besides being next to Mexico, we had a large influx from Vietnam after the war. It's still largely segregated, but mostly by income.
and yet- San Diego has lowest big city murder rate in US, FBI stats show
There are many celebrations of various ethnicities on a daily basis, seems like.

On the primordialism thing, all it means in my context is that I think there was nationalism in ancient times.

I've been to San Diego. Beautiful and wealthy city. One of the best cities in the United States. I visited San Diego when I was in the Marines. That was a long time ago but I was very impressed with what I saw--and the amount of wealth! :shock:

When it comes to the USA I have generally always used San Diego to try and create a halfway picture of how rich and nice look Dubai was when I saw it. Honestly, I saw more money (rich people) in Dubai, however, in downtown San Diego I still saw lots of gleaming limousines (presumably rich people). Plus, Dubai was also very safe. Relative to Chicago San Diego is safe too.



(Why the hell can't you all teach LA something?)