Comments by BABYLON
Page 1 of 10 | Next
Posted on April 22 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I don't see the racist angle."
What do you see in Jet's comment?
Posted on April 22 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jet, I'm really curious. How old are you?
Posted on April 22 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Obsess much?"
I'm guessing that my use of the word "racist" made you uncomfortable. It's a volatile word, but I'm very comfortable using it in this context. Really, it's the only one that fits. I'm sorry if you think it's impolite.
Posted on April 22 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The short answer's is 'no'"
So you don't know Mardow Solomon, Jr.?
Posted on April 22 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Gwinzii I think your comments outshined all other comments on this thread."
I agree. Also, there was nothing grammatically wrong with the statement that Jet didn't understand.
2pennies, some of these remarks bother you because some these remarks are racist. There's no point in pussyfooting around that. For example, Jet's first post assumes that the man who wrote the letter is a hypocrite. Unless Jet knows the guy who wrote the letter, Jet is implying that all Alaska Natives who talk about the importance of culture and tradition are in fact frivolous consumers of expensive technology. The letter writer, Jet claims, does not have a television, he has a flat screen television. He does not have a snow machine, he has a fleet of snow machines. The man's concern for tradition and culture, Jet implies, are nothing but hot air.
Unless Jet knows the man who wrote the letter personally, plainly this is racist rhetoric. Why? Because Jet has assumed that the letter writer has certain negative characteristics, and Jet has made that assumption based on race alone.
JET: Do you know Mardow Solomon, Jr.? Or are you a racist?
Posted on April 22 at 1:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I'd rather be safe than sorry, though."
That's great, Preston. It's always wonderful to hear about young women like yourself who are committed to carrying your babies to term, regardless of circumstances. Your parents did a great job.
On Standing up
Posted on April 21 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This, from yesterday, is Polarmark's notion of "responsible stewardship":
"what worries me is that there are so many out there now that believe in conservation. contraction of humanity as opposed to expansion. less people, less development. leave the earth the way you found it. this smacks of a species that is on it's way out. extinction is coming. not by an asteroid or a massive solar flare, but from sabotage from with in. and for many, i guess, that is just fine.
i think now is the time we should be going all out on the development. reach mars and terraform that place. then move on to the stars. so that there aren't just 6 billion of us huddled on this small planet, all our eggs in one basket. instead there should be hundreds of trillions of us spread out over this whole corner of the galaxy. this would be the natural out growth of evolutionary success...."
Mars hugger.
On Hug a tree
Posted on April 21 at 1:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know, guys. There's an article today about a grown man who rides a bicycle, and it doesn't even explain that he's obviously been brainwashed by Al Gore. Also, yesterday's paper had pictures of wolves that were not dead. They were in Michigan, but still.
I'm going to have to side with AKNATUFF and honeyhi on this one.
Posted on April 20 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
danzop: I started eating meat again when I lived abroad because I didn't want to refuse anyone's hospitality. These days I almost never eat meat at home, but I will eat meat when someone has me over for dinner.
But really, who cares what anyone else eats? You guys are as bad as the guy that wrote the letter. Shut up and eat your hot dogs.
Page 1 of 10 | Next
Posted on April 22 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I took it to mean that he was pointing out the irony (and internal struggle within native communities) of 'living the past,' while 'accepting the future.'"
The guy who wrote the letter isn't "accepting the future." He's trying to help determine what the future will be like for himself and for his community. He talks about living traditionally and trying to maintain a self-contained economy. Now, it's fair to argue that that is unrealistic. It's fair to argue that it's undesirable. What's not fair is to call the man a hypocrite and to mock him without knowing him. Jet's tone was obviously meant to be insulting. He dismissed everything that the man had to say with a broad stereotype followed by the words "Spare me." He's saying that this man can't possible practice what he preaches.
So, why is it racist? Now we get into the arena of "things white people say when they are alone with other white people." It's not a pretty place. There is a common stereotype (among bigoted white Alaskans) of Alaska Natives as people who pretend to be traditional but are in fact rolling in (typically unearned) cash and goods. It's kind of an Alaskan version of the old "welfare queen" stereotype. Jet is trafficking in that stereotype. This is not to say that no such people exist, but the stereotype ignores complexity and exists to denigrate Alaska Natives as a group. That's why it made me angry, and that's why I felt I should call him on it.
Did that make sense?
On Remember values