What can you do to stop racism?

[M.Dancer]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1117_051117_maya_massacre.html

Mayan Imperialism and genocide...

[charter.rights]

The Maya would have written the Maya texts, the Aztecs drew their pictographs and the accounts where first hand accounts of what the Natives and settlers saw. Even if you discount the settlers account and ignore the Natives account out of some deluded fear that the settlers altered them how do you explain the Maya text and the Aztecs pictographs? Both of which have samples from before Europeans ever arrived?

Of course you do believe your most reliable source, right?

Wikipedia: There were many such books in existence at the time of the Spanish conquest of Yucatán in the 16th century, but they were destroyed in bulk by the Conquistadors and priests soon after.

And then of course those Codexes that remained:

Dresden Codex: "Many sections are ritualistic (including so-called 'almanacs'), others are of an astrological nature.."

No indication of sacrifices here, especially since interpretation of ritualized events doesn't mean they actually happened but are a metaphors for something that needed to be remember. (like when Jesus said this is my body and this is my blood it didn't mean that his disciples were actually cannibalizing him, right?)

Venus Cycle: "...was an important calendar for the Maya"

Was there a mass killing day?

Madrid Codex: "...is even more varied than the Dresden Codex and is the product of a single scribe. This codex was likely written after Spanish arrival..."

Who actually wrote it?

Paris Codex: "...contains prophecies..."

You don't suppose they wished for their end?

Grolier Codex: "The pages are much less detailed than in the other codices, and hardly provide any information not in the Dresden Codex."

So tell me oh scholarly one, where do you really get your information? Cereal boxes? 'Cause you didn't even look this one up on wiki before you put foot up to your knee, in your mouth.

[Shwa]

So I gather that any attempts at discussing "white privilege" have been canceled in favor of watching Canadien and charter.whut re-enact the French And Indian War? -k

No, there is a discussion going on here, somewhere, I think I saw something a few pages earlier... oh, here it is:

Actually, I'd kind of say the opposite... when groups of people share the same physical features, they devise otther ways to differentiate their group from others. When people can't create divisions along racial lines, they quickly create other means of excluding others. Nobles vs peasants, Catholics vs Protestants, Hutus vs Tutsis, Anglos vs Francos, Habs fans vs Leafs fans, jocks vs nerds...

I wouldn't deny that groups of people are comprised of sub-groups, that seems to be a prevailing property of practically all groups of people that I know about. Sometimes it is based on moiety, clan, guild, work specialization, etc. But these are all traits of culture. And despite the differences, there are similarities in the cultures of Europe which can be contrasted with the cultures found in China or India.

Your message referred to the privileges that come from "belonging to the dominant culture." I wanted to nip that in the bud, because that's not what c-r and the people behind this campaign were attempting to describe when they used the term "white privilege".

I'm not quite convinced that the idea of the dominant culture is not what they were trying to get across using 'white' as a metaphor. The articles are fairly clear on this idea, even if the sloganeering is off the mark.

The key to me seems the definition of "What is racism?" according to the website:

"Racism is a set of beliefs, attitudes and actions which either directly or indirectly assert that one race is inherently superior to another."

Beliefs, attitudes and actions impress me as being cultural traits.

I identify myself as being similar to that woman on the TV, so I get the message that perhaps I should own a Swiffer as well? I suppose there could be something to that. What if we're not talking about immigrants, though? If we divorce this from the question of culture, does it still make sense? If a non-white person who has grown up in this country sees a white woman on the TV with a Swiffer, does she have a sense that she too should own a Swiffer, or does she get a sense that it's for white people? (if a man sees the same commercial, does he get the idea that a Swiffer is for women?)

I don't think it is possible to divorce any messaging from culture since messaging uses culturally appropriate spoken language, gestures, cultural tropes and so on. A large advertiser would want to target those messages to as wide and typical an audience as possible.

(ads targetted at women is a whole thread in itself!)

The media may have picked up on this story, but we're trying to discuss the claims made by the academics themselves, not the media coverage of it.

I think the media attention is very important, especially since it appears to be quite clear that the Racism Free website is oriented toward the dominant culture group, and they say this on their "What is racism" page:

"“Race” not only refers to biological characteristics, but is always defined by the dominant group in society."

The media picked up on this and called them on it, which they should have.

Well, Racism Free Edmonton declined the opportunity to discuss the claim and just withdrew it from their website (albeit with the assurance that it wasn't wrong, just poorly explained.) Charter.whut provided me with a link some brochure from the University of North Carolina, which proved to be pretty useless, and went on the rant about mortgages on reservations, which I think we can all agree was badly off the mark, along with assurances that there are far too many examples to list and that if you can't see them you're clearly blind. You're here gamely playing devil's advocate, but I get the sense that you're as unsure about the subject as I am.

I'm not sure. If "white privledge" is a stand-in for "dominant culture" then I can see their point - to a degree. But I don't see the "dominant culture" in terms of skin colour, which I think is a bit perverse. Now if a white landlord chooses not to rent to an aboriginal or black person just because of skin colour, I don't see that as a condemnation of the dominant culture even though membership in the dominant culture has privledges.

So, it's clear how racism would adversely affect somebody who isn't white. The question of how racism would benefit somebody who is white is a lot trickier, though.

Well, demographically, the dominant culture here in Canada is comprised mostly of white folks, which I am going to guess is true of Edmonton. However, the racial/skin colour demographic in Edmonton is not the same as in Toronto or Vancouver. I doubt the "white privledge" message would even fly in Toronto or Vancouver, which is another mistake in applying the concept generally. However, racial demographics aside, we have fairly clear examples of how racism has benefitted the dominant culture over the years and some of these benefits are still being realized.

You've offered the premise that perhaps a white person is able to more readily relate to information presented by another white person. I'm skeptical (Mr Hanomansing, as we discussed earlier) but I don't dismiss the idea out of hand.

It is tenuous rhetoric at best, I am just speculating. If we revert the to metaphorical idea of "white privledge" then Ian Hanomansing would have far more benefits than a new Polish immigrant who can barely speak English. Now, there might be some minor advantages associated with that racial demographic, but I think any benefit would have to be realized by the actual immigrants's understanding of that benefit, not some academics in Edmonton.

The obvious idea, of course, is that perhaps a white person is more likely to be viewed favorably by other white people, and that this could translate into benefit of some sort, such as better odds at getting a job, as you suggest...

Or an apartment in Edmonton as suggested by the article. I just have difficulty of accepting the exceptions as the rule, which I think what is being implied.

And I kind of disagree that we "flock together". As I mentioned earlier, I think we tend to find ways to separate ourselves, not flock together.

I think we do flock together, but that doesn't negate that within the flock we don't find other ways to distinguish ourselves through cultural means - subgroups, surnames, jargon, etc. But even still, the regions of the world still display a racial homogeneity.

And when I say 'flock together' I think we can point out to racism or racial chauvenism as an example of how that worked for a long time. Now... having said thatI don't think all of this chauvenism is based on skin colour, but much of it could be attributed to culture.

In another thread earlier in the year, ShakeyHands made an interesting comment regarding a young woman who was speculated to be a convert to Islam. Shakey's suggested that maybe she did it to fit in. His comment seems counterintuitive, but I think it made a lot of sense.

You don't get a sense of belonging from, or feel kinship to a group that might be 70% to 90% of the populace depending where you live. People in search of belonging form much more exclusive associations. Perhaps it would be different for members of minority groups whose race itself gives them a common experience to share, but I feel no sense of kinship to random white people I encounter in day to day life. I have no reason to believe any of them feel any kinship to me either, no reason to assume they'd do me any favors for any reason and certainly not because we share a similar pigmentation with 90% of the people in this town.

Yep, I agree, which is why I started with the domimant culture. Even if it means recognizing our flag, national anthem or the place that maple syrup and hockey have in that national culture.

If you're meeting someone of a different race for the first time, then race may be a significant factor in forming the preconceptions you have about that person.

If you're meeting someone of the same race for the first time, your brain will be looking at lots of other factors in forming a preconception about that person, and I think in a lot of cases that preconception might actually be more negative than if it were based on race.

And this is the key point here since I believe that vast majority of people in our 'dominant culture' see it this way which is why I see that sort of "white privledge" message to a bit over the top when poorly defined and applied generally. That despite any mistaken preconceptions - whether race, clothes or language, etc., we tend towards the more postive factors to make our determinations between cultures or sub-cultures.

Which leads to an interesting question as to whether we have always been a multicultural society or was it forced on us through legislation and program? I believe the former since history tends to bear this out quite nicely.

[Shwa]

This isn't disputed, except by you and charter and forgive me If I don't find you two all that reliable. We have physical evidence of these sacrifices, the only dispute is exactly how many were sacrificed.

There doesn't seem to be any dispute in your use of the phrase "tens of thousands" nor in your unreliable use of speculative archaeological data. In other words, you're making shit up again.

[M.Dancer]

No indication of sacrifices here, especially since interpretation of ritualized events doesn't mean they actually happened but are a metaphors for something that needed to be remember. (like when Jesus said this is my body and this is my blood it didn't mean that his disciples were actually cannibalizing him, right?)

Colha

Colha is located in north-central Belize, about 52 km. north of Belize City in a chert-rich area, Colha offers an in depth look at Maya warfare and collapsed polities during the Terminal Classic. Colha is associated with extensive lithic production ranging in time from the early Classic and into the Post Classic. The site was captured and later abandoned during the Terminal Classic. The site's demise contains insights into the material motivations for Maya warfare and military strategy. Among the archaeological remains is the Colha Skull Pit, which contained the remains of 30 human skulls. The skull pit is particularly unusual because the faces of the individuals were flayed prior to decapitation. The skin was cut around the skull vault, around the orbital rims and external nasal aperture, inside the mandibular ramus, and along the lower edge of the mandible. Although this pattern is found around the world, it is unusual in Maya ritual[6].

Another mass grave at Colha was found to have unusual characteristics for a Maya grave site. This suggests that it was not a ritual or sacrificial grave, but was dug during the capture of Colha. Although the site was already an important site of lithic production, archaeological remains show an exponential increase in the volume of stemmed blades produced, which served as the primary weapon in the area. This, along with the large volume of human remains found inside the defensive walls, suggests that perhaps the inhabitants were prepared for an invasion. These remains indicate that the capture of Colha was a strategic move to cut off supply of weapons production for the area by an invader[6].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_warfare#Mayapan

[M.Dancer]

Children selected for Inca ritual sacrifice were "fattened up" with high-protein diets in the months leading up to their deaths, a new study has found.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071003-inca-sacrifice.html

And more...20,000 or more victims a year...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#Pre-Columbian_Americas

[Guest TrueMetis]

There doesn't seem to be any dispute in your use of the phrase "tens of thousands" nor in your unreliable use of speculative archaeological data. In other words, you're making shit up again.

Learn to read I said thousands not tens of thousands and nothing about it is speculative.

[Shwa]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1117_051117_maya_massacre.html

Mayan Imperialism and genocide...

You got Imperialism when the article says "There is no evidence that the city was conquered. Instead the assailants seem to have abandoned it after their attack."

And I am not sure where the genocide part comes in from the discovery of 33 bodies.

What I do find very interesting:

Precious jewelry found in the grave—including jades, jaguar fang necklaces, and coast shells—indicates that the victims were nobles, possibly from the royal palace...

...two people who appear to be the king and queen of Cancuén buried in full regalia...

The bodies were then deposited with some ceremony in the sacred cistern at the palace entrance, the researchers speculate.

So they executed them, then buried them with some ceremony leaving behind their jewellry and other precious items. Almost like the killers were savage, but noble.

[Shwa]

Learn to read I said thousands not tens of thousands and nothing about it is speculative.

Tell that to the thousands of people the Aztecs sacrificed. you don't have a "push and shove conflict" to gather up tens of thousands of people to sacrifice, That's wipe out a neighboring tribe territory.

No, nothing speculative about that at all. It's more about stupidity than speculation. Unless of course, you come up with the "evidence" that they gathered "tens of thousands of people" for "sacrifice."

Can't? Didn't think so...

[M.Dancer]

So they executed them, then buried them with some ceremony leaving behind their jewellry and other precious items. Almost like the killers were savage, but noble.

If you think dumping their bodies into a well, which pollutes the wter and make rehabitation impossible, is noble....seems very savage to me, the lock stock and barrel murder of the ruling class...and the end of Mayan civilization..

[Guest TrueMetis]

Of course you do believe your most reliable source, right?

Wikipedia: There were many such books in existence at the time of the Spanish conquest of Yucatán in the 16th century, but they were destroyed in bulk by the Conquistadors and priests soon after.

And then of course those Codexes that remained:

That isn't even close to all of the Mayan texts that remain, much like Egypt the Maya often carved their texts into stone. And they're has never been a successful burning of all of the texts created by a civilization.

So they executed them, then buried them with some ceremony leaving behind their jewellry and other precious items. Almost like the killers were savage, but noble.

You assume it was the killers who buried them, and not the more likely scenario of people who survived the slaughter or people who fled and returned when it was over.

[Guest TrueMetis]

No, nothing speculative about that at all. It's more about stupidity than speculation. Unless of course, you come up with the "evidence" that they gathered "tens of thousands of people" for "sacrifice."

Can't? Didn't think so...

My link

For the re-consecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs reported that they sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over the course of four days, though there were probably far fewer sacrifices. According to Ross Hassig, author of Aztec Warfare, "between 10,000 and 80,400 persons" were sacrificed in the ceremony.

[charter.rights]

Could you bring up the evidence of the 60,000 years of occupation again?

http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/cactushill.htm

http://archaeology.about.com/od/mterms/qt/meadowcroft.htm

http://archaeology.about.com/cs/glossary/g/monteverde.htm

These sites establish that pre-clovis peoples were likely here and has caused archaeologists to look further. There are other signs as well that have change the thinking of archaeologists such as human footprints found in rock in Mexico dated to about 20,000 years ago. In any case it debunks the myth that all aboriginal people came from Asia.

[M.Dancer]

Noble Savages....

Cultural Background

In the eastern woodlands cultural area (roughly encompassing the eastern one-half of the United States, and the southern portion of Quebec and Ontario), cultural traditions for dealing with captives predated the arrival of Europeans.

Some captives were adopted into their captors' tribe. Adoption frequently involved the captive receiving the name of a deceased member of the captors' tribe, and receiving the deceased's social status (i.e. becoming a member of the family of the deceased person).[1] Children seem to have been invariably adopted, as were teenage girls.

Those men and women [2] who were not adopted, as well as teenage boys [3], could also face the alternate fate of death by torture. The torture had strong sacrificial overtones, usually to the sun.[4] Captives were expected to show extreme self-control and composure during torture, singing "death songs", bragging of one's courage or deeds in battle, and otherwise showing defiance.[5] The torture was conducted publicly in the captors' village, and the entire population (including children) watched and participated.[6] Common torture techniques included burning the captive- which was done one ember at a time, rather than the Hollywood-style pile of firewood around the captive - cuts from knives,beatings with switches and jabs from sharp sticks. Prisoners' fingernails were ripped out. Their fingers were broken, then twisted and yanked by children. Captives were made to eat pieces of their own flesh, and were scalped alive. To make the torture last longer, the Indians would revive captives with rest periods during which time they were given food and water. Tortures would begin with the lower limbs, then gradually spread to the arms, then the torso. The Indians spoke of "caressing" the prisoners gently at first, which meant that the initial tortures were designed to cause pain, but only minimal bodily harm. By these means, the execution of a captive, especially an adult male, could take several days and nights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captives_in_American_Indian_Wars

[charter.rights]

No, nothing speculative about that at all. It's more about stupidity than speculation. Unless of course, you come up with the "evidence" that they gathered "tens of thousands of people" for "sacrifice."

Can't? Didn't think so...

TrueMetis is not only willfully uninformed but a liar too. Best to just leave her out of the discussion.

[M.Dancer]

http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/cactushill.htm

http://archaeology.about.com/od/mterms/qt/meadowcroft.htm

http://archaeology.about.com/cs/glossary/g/monteverde.htm

They are filled with transference and speculation based on some structures they found in the bush. .

So in other words, dubious speculation that supports your savage myths ara good, but scholarly attempts that don't are bad...

[charter.rights]

Noble Savages....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captives_in_American_Indian_Wars

The author was watching the Black Rode when he wrote that. You do understand the problem with an Anglo-European trying to interpret aboriginal rites?

[charter.rights]

That isn't even close to all of the Mayan texts that remain, much like Egypt the Maya often carved their texts into stone. And they're has never been a successful burning of all of the texts created by a civilization.

Instead of flapping your gums, sunshine, start being a real man and provide references to back up your wishful thinking.

[Oleg Bach]

Crack heads have become a race on to themselves...is it wrong to loath these evil bastards who have made the decision to reap havoc on society and themselves...I used to tolerate these individuals - now I do not...point being...those from all races - can enter a state of rot..and if it is rotten - I will take that apple out of the basket before it spoils the lot...

Once a blind man rented a room from my wife and I - we assumed that this "race" of human being - because of their condition would be a saint of a man - he turned out to be a monster..there are black monsters - yellow onces- red ones - white ones and brown ones...no need to tolerate monsters - just kick em out...like we did...now git!

[M.Dancer]

The author was watching the Black Rode when he wrote that. You do understand the problem with an Anglo-European trying to interpret aboriginal rites?

I imagine it is not as difficult as a noble savage trying to appear scholarly...

[charter.rights]

So in other words, dubious speculation that supports your savage myths ara good, but scholarly attempts that don't are bad...

Not at all. There are scholarly dissertations on both sides, but it continues to raise the question that pre-clovis people were likely here, and that throws the Bering Strait theory into disarray, even as those who hold to it try to modify it to account for pre-clovis cultures.

[The_Squid]

Not at all. There are scholarly dissertations on both sides, but it continues to raise the question that pre-clovis people were likely here, and that throws the Bering Strait theory into disarray, even as those who hold to it try to modify it to account for pre-clovis cultures.

Pre-Clovis certainly.... 50-60,000 years? Ridiculous speculation.

[wyly]

http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/cactushill.htm

http://archaeology.about.com/od/mterms/qt/meadowcroft.htm

http://archaeology.about.com/cs/glossary/g/monteverde.htm

These sites establish that pre-clovis peoples were likely here and has caused archaeologists to look further.

none of those sites are conclusive, and they're not the reason archeologists look further, looking deeper serves to confirm earlier dates, as well every archeologist wants to be the one to find the oldest site...the links between the organics dated and artifacts are tenuous, new standards for confirmation are rigorous short of finding the perfect site or better yet human remains, the site at paisley caves is the current champion...

There are other signs as well that have change the thinking of archaeologists such as human footprints found in rock in Mexico dated to about 20,000 years ago.

you'll find there is no serious archeological support to back that up, none...

In any case it debunks the myth that all aboriginal people came from Asia.

aaah so now we have it, now we know who is the real racist...someone who is now claiming hominids arose on two separate continents completely independent, who would've guessed, what are the odds of such an amazing coincidence Darwin would've been stunned at such discovery...last time I heard this "indigenous people originated in the americas" claim came from a native friend who was openly racist in regards to asians and his DNA ancestry......DNA absolutely, positively, without any doubt, definitively PROVES indigenous peoples came from asia...DNA tests on remains found at paisley caves found haplogroups A2 and B2, haplogroups common in Siberia and east Asia. Edited November 16, 2010 by wyly

[M.Dancer]

There are other signs as well that have change the thinking of archaeologists such as human footprints found in rock in Mexico dated to about 20,000 years ago. In any case it debunks the myth that all aboriginal people came from Asia.

This sums it up....

"I am amazed that they are still flogging that dead horse," said Paul Renne, of the University of California, Berkeley's Geochronology Center. Renne led that team that initially dated the Valsequillo Basin strata.

"We are about to publish even more data showing that the rocks are 1.3 million years old and that the 'footprints' are not," he said by e-mail.

Rafael Suárez of the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural y Antropología in Montevideo, Uruguay, is more cautious—but also dubious.

"Very old human occupation of the Americas is possible," he said, "but if there were indeed people here that long ago, what happened to them in the next 25,000 years?"

"In this time, surely the population should have increased, and this would bring the presence of a high quantity of sites 16,000 to 20,000 years old," he said by email.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footprints_2.html

[Shwa]

If you think dumping their bodies into a well, which pollutes the wter and make rehabitation impossible, is noble....seems very savage to me, the lock stock and barrel murder of the ruling class...and the end of Mayan civilization..

Is that what the article says happened there?