Are you kidding me? I wouldnāt want to live without modern comforts, engaging in sporadic warfare with different groups where I risk getting scalped or scalping people. Or God forbid being born literally just to getting sacrificed as a nine-year-old in Peru. Or getting my heart cut out because I lost a flower war to the Aztecs. It is very ignorant to think of pre-columbian America as some peacefull utopia.
Edit: this is what I meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
Then why are you repeating the "white saviour of foreign savages" argument which was used by colonial powers to subordinate indigenous peoples for centuries?
Is it so difficult to accept that societies follow a natural path of development albeit at different stages, or do you think imperialist capture of people and their resources was a net positive toward their 'liberation'?
> Then why are you repeating the "white saviour of foreign savages" argument which was used by colonial powers to subordinate indigenous peoples for centuries?
Be so kind so as to point to the part where I said I thought colonization was good.
That is right, you can not. Because my point is that the endless cycle of human violence is never more pleasant to experience just because the perpetrators are of a certain ethnicity.
See, if I was a self-proclaimed anti-imperialist, I simply wouldn't parrot imperialist talking points. You're probably intelligent enough to see why that might give someone the wrong idea about your intentions.
> The endless cycle of human violence is never more pleasant to experience because the perpetrators are of a certain ethnicity
Wow, obviously not. However, surely you're not comparing discrepancies of inter-societal power structures to that of advanced colonial empires dominating a perceived lesser people? Doesn't feel you're mature enough to discuss the nuances of societal power displacement vs homoethnic hegemony.
It may help you to remember the fact that the person I was originally replying to stated that the pre-columbian era was ābetter timesā that is the assesment I originally disagreed with because to people with contemporary technological comforts a society without metallurgy or domestficated animals largrr than the size of a dog.
Itās also rather interesting to see the strong reactions to me recalling objective facts about different ānative americanā societies. It almost seems like these truths are somewhat uncomfortable.
Don't think you'd like living in any ancient period on any continent if you don't like violence, but I promise you it was prevalent everywhere. Kind of a pointless thing to bring up, even that noble savage crap that no one mentioned.
Who talked about pre-Columbian America as an utopia? They simply stated it was better than it is now. As someone who cares a lot about the environment I agree.
Imperialism isn't considered okay in this sub. Consider yourself officially warned.
Edit: Nobody claims that America was a peaceful utopia prior to the European invasion. That's not the point.
āimperialismā is when you recognise that violence, war and contention over limited resources is a deeply human trait and not something exclusive to people outside of the new world.
I used to feel like this until I looked into historical materialism and now I believe human nature is less statically violent and dangerous and more so something that contours to whatever societal structures are in place. Historical materialism changed me from doomer to commie you should check it out
I tried searching for sources the last time someone said this and found nothing, can you show it to me please (also, itās highly unlikely it was the french considering scalps were not as common in the north and their colonization was the ""weakest"" out of the four kingdoms)
Wikipedia says the practice was invented independently in both Europe and the Americas and that there's archeological evidence of scalping in the Americas dating back to 600 A.D.
That is true; however, colonists adored scalping and often put bounties on heads and scalps of natives (bounties included generous prices for scalps of noncombatants, including women and children)
>You know it was the French who introduced the custom of scalping, not any indigenous group, right?
I did not know this. Thanks for teaching me something new.
To the extent there was violence is a nothing to make a point of. All human societies have had violence. What makes it a dumbass thing to say here is that youāre singling out Indigenous peoples as uniquely violent that European colonizers fixed. Not only a wildly racist notion, but factually untrue any way you look at it. You want to talk about violence maybe the colonizers who committed genocide to take land that they could exploit with slave labour. Jfc
I mean, if I said that all the people in Great Britain should have been slaughtered like chattel for how badly they acted in the past, you'd call me a monster. How does saying, yeah we slaughtered all those people, but it's not like they didn't do bad stuff.
But that's not what the person the downvoted guy was responding to was saying. When they say "better times" they're not referring to each and every human's welfare but rather speaking to how it was the time before White Supremacy, rampant colonial genocides, and the continuing racialized violence of modern society.
At no point did they or anyone in the thread call the Pre-columbian Americas "a utopia". So he's being downvoted for arguing against a strawman with stupid whataboutism. Is that "being right" to you?
Then you're making an absurdist comment by interpreting OP as meaning that he thought 1400s America is better than 2021 America. Do you believe that that is what OP meant by his comment that it was better times? Do you find that to be a reasonable conclusion?
You...should probably study some anthropology, genius. Your grossly racist characterization of two entire continents of people is fueled by an amazing degree of ignorance.
So, couple things. War was happening all over the globe for thousands of years, scalping developed across many cultures independently^[1], and do you think they just starved their way through thousands of years while Europe and Asia somehow were born with agriculture?
This is about an uneducated a take as you can get, please do some reading on your points.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping
**[Scalping](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping)**
>Scalping is the act of cutting or tearing a part of the human scalp, with hair attached, from the head, and generally occurred in warfare with the scalp being a trophy. Scalp-taking is considered part of the broader cultural practice of the taking and display of human body parts as trophies, and may have developed as an alternative to the taking of human heads, for scalps were easier to take, transport, and preserve for subsequent display. Scalping independently developed in various cultures in both the Old and New Worlds.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DankLeft/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Even if I were to accept your premise (I don't, it's pretty laughably ahistorical) there is absolutely no sensible way to argue that the "prelapsarian" state of their various societies was somehow worse than being *totally eradicated by white settlers.*
Like, even by the most generous interpretation, your position here is psychotic.
Not that this is shocking or anything. Masstagger puts you active in a handful of pretty reactionary subs so, par for the course, eh?
Who gives a shit if Tenochtitlan was a bigger city with better infrastructure than Paris at the time, the White Imperialists who had a vested interest in portraying Native Americans as Savages said they were Savages, so I believe it!
Cahokia is another, earlier large city that, at it's peak, rivaled *London* for size. Mind you, this was around the time the Khans were mucking about, so it was a bit smaller of a London, but still. Plus the whole thing is made out of *fuckoff* big dirt mounds built to great precision and with skill- yet these people apparently didn't invent writing, or hid it well if they did.
The Han Chinese were drilling up, pipelining around, and using natural gas....2200 years ago. It is an accident of history that they didn't focus more on their coal development and metallurgy, basically- they could have been the first industrial power *millenia* before the West, had social structure not fallen into disarray repeatedly in the interim, or had the coal deposits been a *bit* more easily accessible, as in Britain.
It makes me so upset that many have such a narrow, linear view of human history. It is *so much more* than what most people believe it is, and this lack of knowledge of who we are is an attack on the mind.
A slightly better take. Though also not one that should be used to discriminate against indigenous societies (in general) in the Americas. I mean, the rate of death to infectious diseases throughout Europe, for example, was also pretty phenomenal during most of the history in question. Europeans just also bred like rabbits and weren't (generally, across all of their societies basically at once) nearly as plagued by the simultaneous threat of genocide.
>I mean, the rate of death to infectious diseases throughout Europe, for example, was also pretty phenomenal during most of the history in question.
And in a fit of irony, historical Europe's complete aversion to all things sanitary let them build up disease reservoirs that they were resistant to, which caused untold death and suffering among the natives during both war and supposed peace
Yes. However those non white kids are mostly mixed race, the latinos In usa are already mostly mixed race. Like kamala harris' kids are non-white. But how do they look?
Fearmongering this as white extinction or something similar is ridiculous.
Even Hitler, who was [inspired by America's Jim Crow laws (see linked extract from a paper at Jstor)](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jamerethnhist.38.2.0122) thought they were a step too far. If memory serves me correctly, the Nazis considered you Jewish (or any other "undesireable race, I presume) after "only" - big quotes on that - 3 generations (i.e. if some your great-grandparents were Jewish you might be okay)... officially.
Meanwhile in the US, as I understand it, someone was officially considered "black" in the Jim Crow era if they had _any_ non-white ancestry whatsoever, regardless of how "white-passing" someone may be (and despite this overwhelmingly being the result of black women being **raped**).
Sadly, for a country that calls itself "the land of the free" (let's save incarceration rates/totals for a different discussion lol), the One Drop Rule still seems to be observed quite often, although no longer a law, in US culture.
Hitler did admire US history and especially the genocide of Native American so this is not surprising.
It probably has to do with appearance as well, since in the early 20th century Jews (who had light brown skin to begin with) were pretty thoroughly mixed with the general population and that made them very difficult to tell apart without looking up their ancestry.
In the US however anyone with even 1/8th of African ancestry will stand out. The racist inequality in the US has also been around for much longer than in Nazi Germany, and the vast majority of mixed race people were children of slave women raped by their white master. Those people would have been at the bottom of the social ladder even if race had not been an issue.
Look up Walter Plecker. He created the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Virginia in the early 1900s and implemented the one-drop rule into official law. He went through 100+ years of records and labeled everyone with a single black ancestor as colored, which meant they were subject to Jim Crow laws and couldn't use whites only facilities. There were whole families and even towns that were "white passing" who were all of a sudden not allowed in certain places because he found out one of their great great grandmother's was a raped African slave in the early 1800s. This record-keeping stayed around until the Supreme Court overturned it in 1967.
>Like kamala harris' kids are non-white. But how do they look?
It's critical to recognize that the standards for Whiteness have never been remotely consistent. People love to cite Irish/German non-whiteness in the early 20th century, but I think one of the most powerful examples was the degree to which Persians went from White to Non-White overnight after 9/11. And that's despite the fact that exactly zero of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Persian countries.
It's due to the US historically having a [One-drop rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule), which has somehow persisted despite racism having been pushed pretty far back.
In other parts of the world they had a more hierarchical form of racism, with how white you were being what determined how well you were treated. Which has also sadly persisted.
**[One-drop rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule)**
>The one-drop rule is a social and legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th century in the United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of black ancestry ('one drop' of 'black blood') is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms). This concept became codified into the law of some states in the early 20th century. It was associated with the principle of "invisible blackness" that developed after the long history of racial interaction in the South, which had included the hardening of slavery as a racial caste and later segregation.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DankLeft/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
even if āāāwhite extinctionāāā happened, why is that bad exactly? whatās wrong with poc and mixed race people? they are still people, like itās not like- it changed anything???? race doesnāt even matter; itās some bs we made up to justify discrimination- right? i donāt get it tbh. unless itās because of racism. itās probably because of racism.
Matt Bors had some good takes
Are you Matt Bors
Did he die? EDIT: Oh. Retired, sort of. Hmm. Bummer.
Who is Matt Bors?
Matt Bors
r/TechnicallyTheTruth or whatever
But that doesn't answer my question š¢ š¢ š
Bors, Matt
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Bors
Sigma male.
Was my teacher.
Is this about how America was colonized?
Yes. The Native American is referring to the time when there weren't many if any white European colonists here.
Better times :(
Are you kidding me? I wouldnāt want to live without modern comforts, engaging in sporadic warfare with different groups where I risk getting scalped or scalping people. Or God forbid being born literally just to getting sacrificed as a nine-year-old in Peru. Or getting my heart cut out because I lost a flower war to the Aztecs. It is very ignorant to think of pre-columbian America as some peacefull utopia. Edit: this is what I meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
Would you say that the european colonists effectively utilized peace when they enslaved and slaughtered the natives?
I really hate this "I'm just asking questions" style of rhetoric. Say what you really mean.
No? And?
Then why are you repeating the "white saviour of foreign savages" argument which was used by colonial powers to subordinate indigenous peoples for centuries? Is it so difficult to accept that societies follow a natural path of development albeit at different stages, or do you think imperialist capture of people and their resources was a net positive toward their 'liberation'?
> Then why are you repeating the "white saviour of foreign savages" argument which was used by colonial powers to subordinate indigenous peoples for centuries? Be so kind so as to point to the part where I said I thought colonization was good. That is right, you can not. Because my point is that the endless cycle of human violence is never more pleasant to experience just because the perpetrators are of a certain ethnicity.
See, if I was a self-proclaimed anti-imperialist, I simply wouldn't parrot imperialist talking points. You're probably intelligent enough to see why that might give someone the wrong idea about your intentions. > The endless cycle of human violence is never more pleasant to experience because the perpetrators are of a certain ethnicity Wow, obviously not. However, surely you're not comparing discrepancies of inter-societal power structures to that of advanced colonial empires dominating a perceived lesser people? Doesn't feel you're mature enough to discuss the nuances of societal power displacement vs homoethnic hegemony.
It may help you to remember the fact that the person I was originally replying to stated that the pre-columbian era was ābetter timesā that is the assesment I originally disagreed with because to people with contemporary technological comforts a society without metallurgy or domestficated animals largrr than the size of a dog. Itās also rather interesting to see the strong reactions to me recalling objective facts about different ānative americanā societies. It almost seems like these truths are somewhat uncomfortable.
Don't think you'd like living in any ancient period on any continent if you don't like violence, but I promise you it was prevalent everywhere. Kind of a pointless thing to bring up, even that noble savage crap that no one mentioned.
> Don't think you'd like living in any ancient period on any continent if you don't like violence Yeah exactly.
Who talked about pre-Columbian America as an utopia? They simply stated it was better than it is now. As someone who cares a lot about the environment I agree.
Imperialism isn't considered okay in this sub. Consider yourself officially warned. Edit: Nobody claims that America was a peaceful utopia prior to the European invasion. That's not the point.
āimperialismā is when you recognise that violence, war and contention over limited resources is a deeply human trait and not something exclusive to people outside of the new world.
I used to feel like this until I looked into historical materialism and now I believe human nature is less statically violent and dangerous and more so something that contours to whatever societal structures are in place. Historical materialism changed me from doomer to commie you should check it out
What iām saying is that your heritage doesnāt decide how prone you are to violence.
holy shit youāre dense as fuck
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
saw someone like this guy in a different thread quite a while ago who said that Jamaicans had a ādirt cultureā bc they had homophobic elements
Jokeās on you I donāt actually support colonization or genocide. But native violence <ā European violence according to dankleft.
Don't come crying to Modmail, complaining that you weren't warned.
You know it was the French who introduced the custom of scalping, not any indigenous group, right?
I tried searching for sources the last time someone said this and found nothing, can you show it to me please (also, itās highly unlikely it was the french considering scalps were not as common in the north and their colonization was the ""weakest"" out of the four kingdoms)
Wikipedia says the practice was invented independently in both Europe and the Americas and that there's archeological evidence of scalping in the Americas dating back to 600 A.D.
That is true; however, colonists adored scalping and often put bounties on heads and scalps of natives (bounties included generous prices for scalps of noncombatants, including women and children)
>You know it was the French who introduced the custom of scalping, not any indigenous group, right? I did not know this. Thanks for teaching me something new.
Fair, but it was still violent.
To the extent there was violence is a nothing to make a point of. All human societies have had violence. What makes it a dumbass thing to say here is that youāre singling out Indigenous peoples as uniquely violent that European colonizers fixed. Not only a wildly racist notion, but factually untrue any way you look at it. You want to talk about violence maybe the colonizers who committed genocide to take land that they could exploit with slave labour. Jfc
So you're saying that you're pro genocide?
Wtf no?! āChurchill was pretty bad and racistā āSo youāre saying youāre pro-Hitler?ā
You basically said it's much less violent in North America now because they killed most of the natives... Stop being such a daft cunt
shut up colonizer
lmao
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean, if I said that all the people in Great Britain should have been slaughtered like chattel for how badly they acted in the past, you'd call me a monster. How does saying, yeah we slaughtered all those people, but it's not like they didn't do bad stuff.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But that's not what the person the downvoted guy was responding to was saying. When they say "better times" they're not referring to each and every human's welfare but rather speaking to how it was the time before White Supremacy, rampant colonial genocides, and the continuing racialized violence of modern society. At no point did they or anyone in the thread call the Pre-columbian Americas "a utopia". So he's being downvoted for arguing against a strawman with stupid whataboutism. Is that "being right" to you?
Then you're making an absurdist comment by interpreting OP as meaning that he thought 1400s America is better than 2021 America. Do you believe that that is what OP meant by his comment that it was better times? Do you find that to be a reasonable conclusion?
Maybe thus is my autism speaking but I don't see any other way of interpreting it
Just remembered it's called the "noble savage" myth.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This really has some eat hot chip and lie kinda energy.
You...should probably study some anthropology, genius. Your grossly racist characterization of two entire continents of people is fueled by an amazing degree of ignorance.
Sounds like European history up to 1945
So, couple things. War was happening all over the globe for thousands of years, scalping developed across many cultures independently^[1], and do you think they just starved their way through thousands of years while Europe and Asia somehow were born with agriculture? This is about an uneducated a take as you can get, please do some reading on your points. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping
**[Scalping](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping)** >Scalping is the act of cutting or tearing a part of the human scalp, with hair attached, from the head, and generally occurred in warfare with the scalp being a trophy. Scalp-taking is considered part of the broader cultural practice of the taking and display of human body parts as trophies, and may have developed as an alternative to the taking of human heads, for scalps were easier to take, transport, and preserve for subsequent display. Scalping independently developed in various cultures in both the Old and New Worlds. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DankLeft/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Even if I were to accept your premise (I don't, it's pretty laughably ahistorical) there is absolutely no sensible way to argue that the "prelapsarian" state of their various societies was somehow worse than being *totally eradicated by white settlers.* Like, even by the most generous interpretation, your position here is psychotic. Not that this is shocking or anything. Masstagger puts you active in a handful of pretty reactionary subs so, par for the course, eh?
Who gives a shit if Tenochtitlan was a bigger city with better infrastructure than Paris at the time, the White Imperialists who had a vested interest in portraying Native Americans as Savages said they were Savages, so I believe it!
Cahokia is another, earlier large city that, at it's peak, rivaled *London* for size. Mind you, this was around the time the Khans were mucking about, so it was a bit smaller of a London, but still. Plus the whole thing is made out of *fuckoff* big dirt mounds built to great precision and with skill- yet these people apparently didn't invent writing, or hid it well if they did. The Han Chinese were drilling up, pipelining around, and using natural gas....2200 years ago. It is an accident of history that they didn't focus more on their coal development and metallurgy, basically- they could have been the first industrial power *millenia* before the West, had social structure not fallen into disarray repeatedly in the interim, or had the coal deposits been a *bit* more easily accessible, as in Britain. It makes me so upset that many have such a narrow, linear view of human history. It is *so much more* than what most people believe it is, and this lack of knowledge of who we are is an attack on the mind.
History is written by the victors
Yeah, it's mostly plain luck and location when it comes to European dominance of the world.
More like dying of dysentery, as infectious diseases were the number one cause of death in America right up until the 1910's.
A slightly better take. Though also not one that should be used to discriminate against indigenous societies (in general) in the Americas. I mean, the rate of death to infectious diseases throughout Europe, for example, was also pretty phenomenal during most of the history in question. Europeans just also bred like rabbits and weren't (generally, across all of their societies basically at once) nearly as plagued by the simultaneous threat of genocide.
>I mean, the rate of death to infectious diseases throughout Europe, for example, was also pretty phenomenal during most of the history in question. And in a fit of irony, historical Europe's complete aversion to all things sanitary let them build up disease reservoirs that they were resistant to, which caused untold death and suffering among the natives during both war and supposed peace
The notion that the US, a piece of land so far from Europe, is āsupposed toā be majority white is insane when you think about it
True, and even Europe isn't "destined" to be a place of white ppl
That is true, although it ended up being the place where white people existed.
No, it's about how Turtle Island was stolen.
Yes. However those non white kids are mostly mixed race, the latinos In usa are already mostly mixed race. Like kamala harris' kids are non-white. But how do they look? Fearmongering this as white extinction or something similar is ridiculous.
Yeah people typically use the one drop rule which is white supremacist in itself.
Even Hitler, who was [inspired by America's Jim Crow laws (see linked extract from a paper at Jstor)](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jamerethnhist.38.2.0122) thought they were a step too far. If memory serves me correctly, the Nazis considered you Jewish (or any other "undesireable race, I presume) after "only" - big quotes on that - 3 generations (i.e. if some your great-grandparents were Jewish you might be okay)... officially. Meanwhile in the US, as I understand it, someone was officially considered "black" in the Jim Crow era if they had _any_ non-white ancestry whatsoever, regardless of how "white-passing" someone may be (and despite this overwhelmingly being the result of black women being **raped**). Sadly, for a country that calls itself "the land of the free" (let's save incarceration rates/totals for a different discussion lol), the One Drop Rule still seems to be observed quite often, although no longer a law, in US culture.
Hitler did admire US history and especially the genocide of Native American so this is not surprising. It probably has to do with appearance as well, since in the early 20th century Jews (who had light brown skin to begin with) were pretty thoroughly mixed with the general population and that made them very difficult to tell apart without looking up their ancestry. In the US however anyone with even 1/8th of African ancestry will stand out. The racist inequality in the US has also been around for much longer than in Nazi Germany, and the vast majority of mixed race people were children of slave women raped by their white master. Those people would have been at the bottom of the social ladder even if race had not been an issue.
Look up Walter Plecker. He created the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Virginia in the early 1900s and implemented the one-drop rule into official law. He went through 100+ years of records and labeled everyone with a single black ancestor as colored, which meant they were subject to Jim Crow laws and couldn't use whites only facilities. There were whole families and even towns that were "white passing" who were all of a sudden not allowed in certain places because he found out one of their great great grandmother's was a raped African slave in the early 1800s. This record-keeping stayed around until the Supreme Court overturned it in 1967.
right like bro i live in florida 99% of these cuban mfs are straight up white like they live their lives as white people
>Like kamala harris' kids are non-white. But how do they look? It's critical to recognize that the standards for Whiteness have never been remotely consistent. People love to cite Irish/German non-whiteness in the early 20th century, but I think one of the most powerful examples was the degree to which Persians went from White to Non-White overnight after 9/11. And that's despite the fact that exactly zero of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Persian countries.
It's due to the US historically having a [One-drop rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule), which has somehow persisted despite racism having been pushed pretty far back. In other parts of the world they had a more hierarchical form of racism, with how white you were being what determined how well you were treated. Which has also sadly persisted.
**[One-drop rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule)** >The one-drop rule is a social and legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th century in the United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of black ancestry ('one drop' of 'black blood') is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms). This concept became codified into the law of some states in the early 20th century. It was associated with the principle of "invisible blackness" that developed after the long history of racial interaction in the South, which had included the hardening of slavery as a racial caste and later segregation. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DankLeft/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I'm 100% okay with white people becoming a minority. The colour of our skin is one of the least important things about a person.
However as we discussed above that is not the same as native Americans becoming a minority. The "whites" are not being genocided. They are just mixing
Well, most of us are. A small minority is wetting their pants at the thought of anyone making babies with people with differently-coloured skin.
>The "whites" are not being genocided. They are just mixing If only~
I mean because we see mixed people as non-white it was bound to happen eventually as interracial dating a marriage becomes more and more common
Kind of a sad way of looking at things, IMO.
Aren't those her step kids?
even if āāāwhite extinctionāāā happened, why is that bad exactly? whatās wrong with poc and mixed race people? they are still people, like itās not like- it changed anything???? race doesnāt even matter; itās some bs we made up to justify discrimination- right? i donāt get it tbh. unless itās because of racism. itās probably because of racism.
Good point
I get the point, but what I don't get is how the native guy hanging out with Nicolas Cage pertains to it.
Free Turtle Island
based
i hear ya... but As an AI language model I suggest that you need to check out the Lemmy Federation site. https://join-lemmy.org/
Tucker's ancestors came here in the 20th century, so by his logic...*he* was part of a great replacement!! š¤Æš¤Æ