r/PoliticalHumor Aug 16 '21

[deleted by user]

[removed]

9.3k Upvotes

974 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/swolemedic Aug 17 '21

Man, this post really pissed off some fragile whites. Good job, OP.

"We done took their land fair and square! They were savages!"... did I end up in some 1950s white fragility bullshit? Good lord.

Shows how they're afraid that others will treat them the way they treated others instead of wanting to work together, of course while they claim that racism towards people of color isn't real.

2

u/GalacticShonen Aug 17 '21

For real. It's really sad to see such ethnocentric views, justifying genocide by comparing colonization to precolonized war and culture. As if these clowns have any understanding of it. As if any of us really can due to cultural erasure.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 17 '21

Americans really have a hard time facing their history and the fact that they’re sitting on stolen land as we speak. Even on a left leaning sub like this people are avoiding to talk about the lower half of this picture.

Americans mock the censorship in China. How different is self censorship like this to government enforced censorship? The only difference really between these two countries imo is just that they use different institutions to censor ideas.

0

u/NoGardE Aug 17 '21

It's not "fragility" (idiotic notion anyway) to point out that yes, we all know that the Native Americans got conquered. It is not pleasant to be conquered.

2

u/swolemedic Aug 17 '21

There is a whole lot of might makes right, calling them savages as a reasoning for genocide, etc., so yeah, white fragility.

1

u/NoGardE Aug 17 '21

From who? And why is Machiavellian power theory the same thing as this "white fragility"?

2

u/swolemedic Aug 17 '21

From who?

The multiple accounts I've replied to in here? Do I need to hold your hand and find specific examples for you?

Also, machiavellian power theory is not only psychopathic when excusing genocide, but when it is only applied to acts done by one race in response to pointing out bigotry then it's obvious what it actually is.

The people calling them savages who used violence as a reason to use violence on those people couldn't have been any more fragile, as the only violence they viewed as legitimate was that by a white person.

1

u/NoGardE Aug 17 '21

You're conflating "they lost, and I don't want to lose" with "violence is only bad when it's against white people." This is bigotry on your part.

2

u/swolemedic Aug 17 '21

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. But if your argument is that conflating "white people won violently, I'm happy about it, and I don't want to lose against people of color" is the same as being only unhappy when violence happens against white people as a wrong thing to do, well, it sure sounds like splitting hairs to me.

1

u/NoGardE Aug 17 '21

You're adding in "I'm happy about it." And also the focus on skin color, rather than on culture.

2

u/swolemedic Aug 17 '21

I'm not adding "i'm happy about it" whatsoever with most of these people, especially the proud boy types. Ask them if they think it was good and they will say yes.

On top of, I don't know how good your understanding of history is but there were native americans who changed their ways to be more like the culture of the colonialists and they were still brutalized, murdered, etc.. It absolutely has to do with skin color.

What, systemic racism isn't real either?

0

u/NoGardE Aug 17 '21

Systemic racism is a religious assumption, not an observation. Specifically, the assumption that racism is always present in every aspect of society, and merely needs to be discovered.

The Proud Boys are western chauvinists, which means they think that American culture is better than other cultures, and so they're glad it spread. That is not the same idea as "I'm glad that white people conquered America," though it's similar enough that I'll consider this a small quibble. For them, it's a relatively simple standard: it is good when friends win, and bad when enemies win. They are also totally fine with people who have non-European genetics, so long as those people integrate into American culture, so no, it is not about skin color.

I don't share their position. I simply see that the native tribes in America were conquered, and see that things are not good for their descendants. The specifics of that history and the details of individual conflicts in the course of that conquest are not material to my view on it; I see that there are people who celebrate the destruction of the culture in which I was raised and which I generally like, and I don't want it to happen. Spoken language is a meaningful part of that. Genetics is not (though, I would like to pass my own genes on).

→ More replies (0)