Only in South Dakota do white legislators get to cancel a committee meant to promote better interracial relations by branding its Lakota chairman as racist:
“To be frank, it’s his racist behavior that caused numerous conflicts, and because of his racist conduct, there needed to be different leadership without a doubt,” [Senator Lee] Schoenbeck Saturday said of [Representative Shawn] Bordeaux, now the former chairman of the State-Tribal Relations Committee.
Schoenbeck said the beef with Bordeaux goes back to a 2019 committee meeting the Rosebud Sioux tribal member was chairing in which an apple was used to insult a Native American member of Gov. Kristi Noem’s administration. The term “apple,” Schoenbeck said, is used to insult Native Americans perceived to be “red on the outside and white on the inside” [“Top Republicans Suspend South Dakota Tribal Relations Work,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2021.06.05; quoted in Pat Powers, “Rep. Bordeaux Removed as Chair of State-Tribal Relations Committee. It Was Well Past Time,” Dakota War College, 2021.06.06].
Republican legislators started their push to remake the State-Tribal Relations Committee last winter with Senate Bill 97, which reduces the number of Democrats on that contentious committee and further subjugates the committee to the control of party leaders. But now they are glossing their power grab—canceling a State-Tribal Relations meeting and booting Rep. Bordeaux from the chair until they can name a more compliant figurehead to run the panel—and resistance to open discourse about South Dakota’s systemic racism by pretending they can accuse a representative of the oppressed minority population of racism.
Representative Bordeaux understands that the real racism is the systemic racism allowing the white leaders of the Legislature to kick him out of his position of meager but intolerable power:
Bordeaux says that leaderships move to shut down his planned meeting was due to systemic racism.
“I take offense when they act like this isn’t somehow a systemic thing they are building in, like racism isn’t a part of this,” Bordeaux said. “They wouldn’t be able to pull off all the bull**** they did, if they didn’t have some systemic, racism, institutionalized bull**** that is part of this whole system” [Austin Goss, “South Dakota Legislative Leadership Push Change to State-Tribal Relations Committee,” KSFY-TV, 2021.06.07].
We can see the systemic racism in Senator Schoenbeck’s blindness to the fact that the core of racism is power differential. Racism flows from the group in power to the group(s) the powerful oppress to maintain their power. White male Republicans don’t like it when racial minorities gain any power, because such minority power, even the meager power of one Lakota chairman of one limited Legislative committee, threatens the racists in power. They thus project their own sins onto the minorities they must continue to oppress.
Racism does not flow the other way, from the less-empowered to the powerful. When Representative Bordeaux used the term “apple,” he was describing an American Indian individual who plays along with the white powers and thus props up their systemic racism. Calling out that complicity is not racism; it is a challenge thereto.
But hey, this is South Dakota, where white folks and those whom they appoint are good and virtuous; it’s those darned racist Indians who need to sit down and shut up.
How we miss Governor Mickelson. The SD republican’s haven’t found an adult to enter it’s party’s leadership.
Cancelling meetings, replacing a capable chair, and realigning the make-up of the committee are all institutional racism in action. Also indicative of small-mindedness is grasping to a perceived utterance from over 2 years ago. The systemic legislative racists are incapable of moving on, incapable of learning from the past of their forebears and their own.
My German forebears face their infamy head-on, and thus lead the world with their humanity and cultural acceptance. Why. Can’t. We.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-can-we-learn-from-the-germans-about-confronting-our-history
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/03/slavery-us-germany-holocaust-reckoning/
Racist legislature!
Maybe time for Initiative.
2021 time for elections, 501-c-4, build something now so people can get elected.
Hens and roosters don’t wait every 2 years. Why should you?
Elections every 2 years under racist terms no good. Elections every 12 months, or less. It can be done!
I couldn’t disagree more with the premise of this article. Racism is a word with a real definition and that definition includes no element whatsoever about the cultural or socioeconomic status of the speaker. I am actually surprised how Cory defends behavior that would be considered appalling if the guy was white or black or anything other than a native american. This is pandering beyond rationale.
And to be clear – it’s very possible that Mr. Bordeaux was wronged and I believe it is very possible that many of our white state reps are racist and use their positions inappropriately to limit the power of others. That is not the part I am disagreeing with. It’s the rest of the bull crap about how only white people can be racist ’round here. What an absurd concept.
Ryan—-“Racism, at its most basic definition, is when people think that one color or race is better than another, and they treat or mistreat people based on that belief.”
Please introduce me to an Indian who says their race is better than anyone else. No doubt there are individuals who despise the way they get treated, as I would be the same, but that doesn’t make anyone a racist.
cibvet, if you don’t think there are people of every race who believe their race is superior, then you and I won’t see eye to eye on this topic. There definitely are. As I have said for a long time, racism and discrimination is location-based. Go roll up onto a tribe’s land with white skin and see how superior you feel. Roll into south sioux city and tell me how the folks there feel about whites being superior. Roll into north omaha and ask the mostly black population their thoughts.
Based on the way Cory tells the story, one fella insulted another fella by accusing him of being acting white while having red skin. The insult behind the words is obvious – that acting “red” would have been superior to acting “white” in that circumstance. I don’t see any other explanation that makes sense unless you are bending over backwards to excuse a racial insult.
This is one topic where I vehemently disagree with Cory. Redefining racism as requiring some element of power is typically done to gloss over people’s garbage behavior. I am with you that there is a different level of damage done by one group’s racism versus another, but arguing someone is “acting white” or something similar is incredibly reductive and damaging and it irritates me that otherwise bright people will twist themselves into knots to deflect from it.
Well, well, welcome to Republican cancel culture. Whether it’s Critical Race Theory or Indian legislators, they can’t have THAT around to mess with their lily white supremacy. Too much truth is NOT a good thing for Republican sensibilities, especially if that truth is dispensed from a minority mouth. White power must be served, and Lee is right there to serve it. If any Indian takes issue with another Indian with what was probably, I think, an ill-advised term, well, doesn’t it make that smug white person feel so superior, odor free and non-racist when they do a racist thing, like stripping power from someone who could really move the discussion on Indian-white relations forward.
Look, Indian members in the South Dakota cabinet or Legislature don’t have any easy job. At best, they can make a few incremental improvements in communication, and partially smooth out what would be some rougher discussions. It’s frustrating if your constituents have a lot of needs and little power to get those needs met. If Rep. Bordeaux was trying to spur better communication, well, his approach failed. Or did it? Maybe smoothing out discussions is not what is needed in Republican cancel culture. Maybe Rep. Bordeaux is right to be a bit more direct and truthful. If his approach veered into some difficult territory, maybe that’s where the discussion needs to go. That’s what I think.
Ah yes, such truth, calling natives whom he doesn’t like ‘apples’ because they are white on the inside and red on the outside. Such deep insight. Really shaking the foundations of governance.
If you make certain words or actions OK for some people and not OK for other people, dependent exclusively on race, you are being racist and you are moving our country in the wrong direction. No wiggle room.
What’s really weird is that at least some of the comments were made towards American Indians, the same out of power group Cory seeks to argue for here. Come on.
I get it. People have snowflakitis by proxy around here. I understand empathy, and being called an “apple” by a member of your own race is hurtful. It’s not like how black people have turned a certain racist epithet into a friendly greeting. And, as I said, it was ill-advised. It was mean. Was it racist? No.
Calling people who disagree with you ‘snowflakes’ is a Trump supporter move. Can we not prove horseshoe theory correct today? Please?
I’ve seen much worse behavior by Republican committee chairs.
Then they should suffer consequences for that. I am in no way saying the GOP controlled legislature here in South Dakota is good, admirable, or anything even remotely close to that. I just don’t understand this desire to redefine words to undermine criticism of a guy who thinks reducing people to their skin color is a solid rhetorical tactic.
Today is the first day I have ever heard of the horseshow theory. Thanks, Dicta, for the introduction. I admit I did only a one-minute review of the basics, but it looks spot on so far. I’ll need to dig deeper, but it’s basically what I have been saying for the last decade or so. The crazies on the left are just as bad as the crazies on the right, and neither extreme is living in the real world. Only white people are racist in america? Gimme a break. That’s as ignorant of reality as the right wing crazies who say illegal immigration is ruing our country. It’s pandering to a base that is out of touch with reality, pure and simple.
Its tough, was Ben Reifel an apple? Most likely but it was a different time.. It breaks on the reservation, which is like a tinier South Dakota really, except more stay on the reservation and how can you make it work? I don’t have any answers for that, who does? When I was a kid it was all melting pot and that was a joke. There are certainly no GOP answers on this one. They deny and dodge. Ryan doesn’t seem to get you have to have power to be a true racist. When I was in college my friend Steve and I were at the skin house in Vermillion, the name it was called by Native Americans. A fight was developing between a black football player and a large Native American. A guy who I liked and was talking with said “What are were fighting for, we’ve got a couple of Palominos here” done in his best rez voice. Calmed everyone down with laughs. Steve and I laughed drank our beer quicker and after a few minutes left. Was palomino racist? These days maybe, but it was hilarious and done at a perfect point
Ryan: I think horseshoe theory is largely bunk because it treats political belief as a single spectrum, rather than a collection of many different beliefs. Liberals and conservatives are more than just economic policy. There are other concerns about social, legal, moral values that often act as flashpoints for political debate. Neither side is a hivemind and can contain a variety of stances on these issues. What I do believe: the fundies on either side sure are prone histrionics and illogic.
Mark – I disagree completely that you need to have some power over a person to be racist against that person. You are warping the definition of the word from the “belief in a superior race, and words or actions in furtherance of that belief” to requiring some tangible level of actual control or manipulation of the person against whom you are being racist. I call malarkey.
Dicta, I suppose I have some reading to do, but the idea that is appealing to me out of this is more that the people on the far right and the people on the far left are more similar than they are different, not necessarily their actual political or economic ideals.
Being a lifelong resident of SD, I have heard racial epithets spoken about Indians, Mexicans and Blacks. I do call these people on their language and they always insist ” that is what they are and I’m not a racist”.”
I’m thinking only ryan and people like him would “roll up” on someone’s property and expect to be treated with dignity. It is power or perceived power that emanates superiority over another race or class of people.
Anything repudiating that fact is denial or mindless drivel.
cibvet, you reside in a fantasy world of your own creation. I don’t roll up onto anybody’s property and expect anything. I am far too jaded with all of humanity to expect anything from anybody at this point, regardless of race, gender, nationality or any other quality. People are either decent or trashy, and those categories exist within any group you want to identify. Some of the trashy ones are trashy because they think race matters in a person’s value to society. That is not exclusive to white people, just like being sexist isn’t exclusive to either men or women. It’s people.
The point I was making was obvious, and you distorted it nonsensically. Racism is a belief system in a vacuum, not dependent on the status of the speaker. Dance around that all you want, but your dance is unconvincing.
Well, maybe there is something to the horseshoe theory, but it fits a certain era in South Dakota. When I lived in South Dakota, I allied much more with arch-conservatives on issues than I did with the milquetoast liberals. Quite frankly, there wasn’t dimes worth of difference on many issues between the moderate Democrats and the moderate Republicans who controlled the state. In modern South Dakota history, the Oahe Project would provide the template for much of the work done on various issues for the years between the 1970’s and 2000. It was a mixture of progressives and conservatives against the middle. It would not be the same in the 2020’s, because the conservatives now have much more power and the middle is weaker. In South Dakota the progressives are weak, too.
My feeling about the liberals and moderates is they are cowards. In terms of race, they like to pass laws, telling everyone how great the system is for being responsive. They say, “Now everyone’s the same because the law says so. See, we aren’t racist. You’re racist if you complain.” Bull.
Critical Race Theory developed as a direct response to this kind of liberal/moderate nonsense. Passing laws is fine. South Dakota has some laws on the books about race discrimination. Ya’ think there isn’t a whole lot of white supremacy right in the Legislature and in state government where they pass those laws, and fail to enforce them? Ya’ think they don’t want to silence folks who point it out? Racism is a structural problem, not a problem of humans. All humans have some small bit of bigotry in them, but it only can gain traction when the system works in that direction. Racism is structural. You might be bigoted, but if you got no power, your bigotry goes nowhere.
Sounds like donald is agreeing with me – anybody can be racist, but racists with power do more damage than racists without. That’s a no brainer, but I don’t think that provides racism-immunity to those powerless racists.
1st things 1st. The US waged war on American Indians to steal their land, resources, and out of fear. Echos of that reverberate. Rounds, representing ALL of us in the state just boasted the new EAFB “B-21 is one bad-ass weapon of war.”https://twitter.com/SenatorRounds/status/1403065206658506753
Perhaps the low after burner flight over RC at 2 a.m. today was based on such idiotic bravado.
I am proud of Bordeaux and ashamed of Schoenbeck who does not deserve the high status of a law license nor a legislative seat and leadership. He out-Kristi-ed Noem. Does it ever end?
And Ryan, please stop.
Well..the Indian guy was teasing the pontificating, self important white guys and making them feel unappreciated. The white guys, who haven’t spent 10 minutes in ten years thinking or reading about racism, reacted in the same way they reacted as teenagers back in the Watertown pool hall. “OK, you can’t play snooker with us anymore.’This isn’t legislative leadership, this is teenage punk behavior by the Republicans goaded by some old fashioned ball busting by the Democrats.
Accepting for the sake of the discussion Ryan’s definition of “racism” as the “belief in a superior race, and words or actions in furtherance of that belief,” the assertion that calling someone an “apple” with the meaning of red on the outside and white on the inside doesn’t even seem to come close to meeting this particular definition. I will agree that calling someone an “apple” is an insult and is based on a negative view of white people, but it seems nonsense that this negative view is based on any Native claim of racial superiority. Instead, the negative view of white people shared by Natives seems much more likely based on US whites’ historical mistreatment and discrimination against Natives, including the numerous overt efforts to destroy the Native culture. Identfying a group of people believed to belong to a particular race that have consistently harmed and discriminated against another group (such as Natives) says nothing about whether either group or race is superior or inferior. It simply recognizes a horrible historical and too often current reality.
The problem with trying to equate this response to being attacked and harmed by whites to the white attitudes historically expressed toward Natives and other minorities seems pretty obvious. The groups or races attacked by white racists are not attacked because these groups or races committed some historical mistreatment of whites. Instead, white racists seem to be expressing a desire to feel superior to someone else based on factors beyond anyone’s control or responsibility. And that seems to meet Ryan’s definition to a tee.
But vice versa, I can’t really see it. As indicated above calling someone an apple or other term in an effort to attribute negative characteristics to that person may well be inappropriate stereotyping, but it is not in any way “racism” as defined by Ryan. Likewise, expressing anger toward whites through the “black lives matter” movement is based on reports of police officers, often white, seemingly killing blacks with impunity, not a claim of black superiority. Efforts to minimize the pernicious superiority attitudes of white racists by attempting to equate them with the angry responses of minorities to historical mistreatment by whites simply misses the mark.
Power is power Ryan, when the interstate went through Greenwood it was just like killing them in 1921, they later named it Martin Luther King Jr. Expressway. Nice isn’t it. When my college where I taught for 31 years had its street, 27th street renamed after Martin Luther King they switched its address to Tamiami Trail gee, why did they do that? The college now totally surrounds Martin Luther King Jr. Park in Sarasota.. Get it, power is everything, economic power.
Newtown was a black district near downtown with black businesses, they are all gone, now a nice white group of businesses are there, although there’s a great Japanese restaurant there too. Why do I need to even point this out, it’s so obvious.
Ryan, to whom am I pandering? Pandering presumes seeking favor from someone with power to return the favor. I’m not making an argument that wins me favor from anyone in power in South Dakota.
Pandering, like racism, depends crucially on power. Racism is far more in reality than a thin dictionary definition.
Dicta, may I contend that “acting white” isn’t a racist statement but a critique of behavior that upholds the oppressive power structure, which happens to have been constructed, right along with the concept of Whiteness, by European settlers to serve themselves and their descendants at the expense of those who were here first?
Ryan, believe it or not, I used to hold your semantic position: the inherent meaning of words must apply the same to all users. I used to argue that if my utterance of “ni****” is immoral, then so is everyone else’s.
But words don’t exist in a vacuum. Words are used for purposes. The same words can be used by different people to either uphold or expose and fight oppression.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2021/06/08/hunter-texts-n2590682
Since you made reference to the n word, is this acceptable to you?
Words are words, and they can make you feel good or make you hurt. I tend to view words like these through the lens of the least powerful person in the conversation.
I agree with Cory. With regard to words, context matters. My generation grew up during a time when the n-word was said as a racist reference to a whole group of people. We were the first generation to purposely not say the n-word. For my generation it is hard to listen to anyone, black or white using the n-word. But, it turned out that on the street, blacks were saying the n-word among themselves both as a term of endearment and as a particularly potent curse word. It’s like many words: it has different meanings in different contexts. Sometimes hateful or words that connote something bad, for example the word “bad,” are turned into the opposite, in the proper context. Kids used to say, “That’s bad,” to signify something that was good.
From my point of view, it is not proper for a white person to say the n-word, because when a white person says it to a black person the context occurs in a racial context, even if the black person is your dearest friend. I also think it is improper for a white person to say the n-word to or about or in the presence of a white person. And if you’re unclear about this, just ask a black person. They’ll clue you in quite quickly.
“Apple” is not a word I’ve ever heard as a street term of endearment. It’s always been a derogatory description or curse word used almost exclusively by Indians toward other Indians. I don’t ever recall hearing the word said by anyone other than another Indian. It’s never said about a white person.
Both sides-ism as an excuse is a flat out cop-out. The left is NOTHING like the right. Go back 40, 50, 60 years. McCarthy, Goldwater, Civil Rights, Kennedys and Martin Luther King assasinationsthe, Powell white paper, Reagan, both Bushes and the neocon/Cheneys, and finally tfg’s sociopathology. Power, war, religion, guns misogyny and racism. The right-wing.
leslie – don’t tell me what to do, you and I are both guests on this page. if you disagree with me, try to make some sense so I can debate your opinions, but if you think your nonsense bully crap is going to get me to “please stop” you overestimate your influence.
bcb – you are a smart guy and you are using every angle to come up with a way that I am wrong, but you said “calling someone an apple or other term in an effort to attribute negative characteristics to that person may well be inappropriate stereotyping, but it is not in any way “racism” as defined by Ryan.” Not in any way!? haha come on man. Antagonizing a person based on race, inappropriately stereotyping their behavior because their actions don’t jive with the color of their skin… is IN NO WAY racism? Pssshhhhhhhh agree to disagree i guess haha
Cory – this article panders to people who want to pat themselves on the back for being white and hating their whiteness because some other person did something bad and enough people like you told them to feel guilty so they did. and just like the superfluous element of power you included in the made-up definition of racism, no such element exists in the definition of the word pandering despite your desire to add it. pandering is indulgence. it’s gratification. it’s seeking favorable opinions. adding the element of power for the purpose of returning the favor altogether changes this from pandering to something else entirely. something more like what kristi is doing with her disgusting campaign letters. what she is doing is attempting to exploit the gullible, for financial gain, which is what I would have accused you of if your article had one or more requests for money. In this case, it’s merely pandering – exploiting the gullible for apparently agreement alone.
Mark – power is power, indeed. somebody with more “power” than somebody else can do more with that power – bad or good. We agree on the utility of power. However, that is irrelevant to the subjective belief one person has, and expresses through their words and actions, about the superiority or inferiority of a particular race. Racism is subjective. If you want to talk about “systemic racism” or “structurally racism” or “effects of racism on different groups of people based on demographic conditions” then fine, we can have those conversations… but those issues existing or not existing don’t automatically relieve all non-white people from the realm of being potential racists. baloney.
Shawn Bordeaux has a Facebook post out on the “apple” incident that Schoenbeck used as a reason for his racist power move. As we all might imagine, Schoenbeck shaded the truth.
Here is the link:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10215479416499168&id=1851139523
Historical fiction has long been used to keep minorities in their place and good people divided. The sad part of this whole thing is that people, even me, took what Schoenbeck said regarding the apple incident to be fact. It is fiction. Does that change your perspective? We all got in a big argument about words when the context, which Schoenbeck didn’t bother to know or fill us in on, was not provided. It is not even clear that one word was even spoken. Historical fact is important. In this case Schoenbeck shows us just how easily a white person spewing and believing historical fiction can crush a minority person and minority issues. There is nothing I’ve seen that is a more potent example of why Critical Race Theory is important. It’s not so much that Shoenbeck as a person is racist. It’s that he is a huge cog in the power structure of government, and he used that power like a sniper to pick off one small way that tribes could get their issues heard, while even the good people here on this left of center blog argued among ourselves about an effing word.
Ryan, your reponse to my comment seem to be based on a different and much broader definition of racism. I responded to the definition that you posted: the “belief in a superior race, and words or actions in furtherance of that belief.” Your response to my observation doesn’t directly address the accuracy of my point – antagonism by minorities against whites is more likely based on the historical and current mistreatment and abuse by whites as an identifiable and discreet group, not a claimed superiority of the minority race. Do you agree with this particular point?
As an aside, if you are changing the definition of “racism” to “Antagonizing a person based on race, inappropriately stereotyping their behavior because their actions don’t jive with the color of their skin,” then that new definition would seem to encompass anyone that judges an another individual based on skin color alone, whether by attributing negative, positive or even neutral characteristics believed to be a feature of most persons with the same skin color. Maybe this could be restated as “the opinion that all people with a particular inherent characteristic, such as skin color or ethnicity, necessarily will behave in a particular way.”
Even that more inclusive definition, however, becomes difficult to apply. It is relatively easy to determine whether historically most people of a particular race have behaved in a particular way. For example, whites as a group attempted to extingush Natives and the Native culture as a group, and whites in the US as a group enslaved and jim crowed blacks as a group. But, it also a fact that that there were individual whites that opposed the murder and attemt to extinguish all Natives and Native culture and there were whites that opposed slavery and jim crow laws.
So when a Native (or anyone else for that matter) calls another person an “apple” how can one know by that action alone whether the Native is saying the individual has acted in a manner consistent with the historical bad behavior of whites as a group, or that all white people necessarily act in the same manner? Thus, even under your expanded definition of racism, judging someone a racist simply because that person called someone an “apple” doesn’t seem justified. Indeed, such a judgment seems based on the stereotype that all people labeling others must be basing the label on a factor different than the labeled individual’s actions.
It’s easy. Palomino, apple, Oreo, it’s all the same, actions always speak louder than words. Its just amazing that all of the minorities in America aren’t “word racists”. They have a right to be. As soon as Biden attempts to address real racism, the trumpies step in to say its discriminating against whitey and so it goes. The basic structure of America has always been racist and until that’s addressed it always will be. Just look at Trumps 1776 vs 1619 and all the trumpies in their villages putting out laws that restrict voting and education. The Pub party is now a joke, they must ban mirrors in their homes like the vampires they are.
bcb – it seems like you are saying that a white person and a native person may have different reasons for being racist, which is probably true, but that doesn’t excuse the belief or behavior. In on of my previous posts, I explained exactly why i believe the apple insult is racist. I said: “one fella insulted another fella by accusing him of acting white while having red skin. The insult behind the words is obvious – that acting ‘red’ would have been superior to acting ‘white’ in that circumstance.” And now you say that we don’t know what the speaker meant – basically asking “did the speaker mean that the other guy was acting like just the ‘bad’ white people or ‘all’ white people – but i think you are ignoring the fact that he used the skin color of the victim and of the scapegoat as the premise for the insult. that’s frickin racism, man, even if you think his racism is justified in some way, which I don’t.
I stand by my interpretation of the behavior that cory described. I wasn’t there so I don’t know whether or not this guy actually said it, but I am not judging this guy in particular. My comments were not about this one guy or what he said, but that cory was incorrect in suggesting only white people can be racist because racism requires power over the person being victimized.
The reason I broadened the scope of the definition of racism is because your comment made me do some googling for definitions to see if I missed something. Nope, turns out the definition of racism includes antagonizing a person based on skin color. An insult about skin color, or antagonizing somebody about it, or saying somebody isn’t black enough for a certain behavior, or that somebody is too white to do something, etc. – those are all racist behaviors and opinions because they necessarily include a determination that one skin color is preferable to another in a particular circumstance. that is racism, plain and simple. if i wanted to join a rec league basketball team and they told me “nah we don’t pick white guys because black guys are better basketball players” that would be racist, even if I had more money and opportunity in my life and in the lives on my ancestors. those issues are flat out irrelevant to whether or not an action is racist.
people on here want to get uppity and make this a conversation about historical racism or systemic racism or any other variation, but I’m not buying into that bait and switch. The premise of cory’s article that minorities can’t be racist is flat out wrong, and that’s all I’ve been saying the whole time.
When racism is so obvious, the alt right wannabes in our SD Legislature simply deny that it is racist and there are no Republican voices that dissent.
Summary: The SD GOP has no problem when racist members, representing us and them, use racist reasoning.
They are disgusting. How is it that an entire party is suddenly blinded?
Growing up on the rez i did experience racism from white classmates. Through the years i just assumed white people were racist and lived with it. Today i know everybody has some degree of racism including me. I treat all people nice and stay away from those that are not. I am much happier for it. I admire people like Mr. Bordeaux who probably is experiencing pressure from all sides.
White people claiming to be “victims” of racism?
It can’t happen.
Whitey can be discriminated against; but he can’t be a victim of racism.
Schoenbeck sticking his nose in an Indian committee is just a bad as a man telling a woman what she can’t do with her reproductive choices.
And, Schoenie and his little buddy Fred Deutsch do that continually by claiming the RCC tells them to.
porter, just stating it as a fact that whitey can’t be a victim of racism doesn’t make it so. Everyone arguing that point on here is just spouting personal opinion with nothing to back it up linguistically or rationally. If what you are saying is true,, why is the power dynamic among peoples mentioned in the definition?
You folks are making a different point about the varying levels of impact racism may have on different individuals or groups, and bastardizing the word racism to mean only a particular flavor of racism that fits your apologetic and pandering narrative.
correction due to typing on a phone:
“why ISN’T the power dynamic among peoples mentioned in the definition?”
“Uppity?”
Wiktionary. “First attested around 1880 in Uncle Remus by Joel Chandler Harris to describe Jack Sparrer (Jack Sparrow), who tattled on Br’er Rabbit (see quotations below)”.
“Please” English Dictionary
Search domain dictionary.cambridge.orghttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/engliish
please definition: 1. used to make a request more polite: 2. used to add force to a request or demand:
Ryan, your addition to the definition of racism seems to indicate at least two points:
First, you either agree with, or haven’t thought of an effective rebuttal to, the proposition that minority comments about skin color generally do not seem to be not based on some claimed superiority of their minority race, but are generally premised upon perceived mistreatment of minorities. Meanwhile, white comments about skin color generally seem to be based on a perceived superiority of the white race, as there is lacking any type of similar mistreatment in the actions of minorities against whites. At least I have yet to see any evidence supporting the opposite supposition.
Second, broadening the definition creates a false equivalency by failing to consider the significant difference between a white person’s comments or actions based on the supposed inferiority of a minority race and a minority person’s comments or actions based on a supposedly shared characteristics by members of a dominant race.
(Incidently, I will not have internet access and be able to continue this discussion until sometime next week)
ryan … just because you disagree with the truth doesn’t make you correct. It makes you contrary. Dakota contrary, as a matter of record. You go on these “I’m a white victim.” rampages, often and BCB always puts you in your proper place. I just watch as you slink away, continually.
Have a beautiful weekend, mi amigo.
My thought off the top….
Racism is a word that became important after slavery became a capitalistic endeavor which had extremely evil consequences.
Tribes fought the US government’s broken promises. They came to see the horrifying treatment they were subject to as racism too.
Now Ryan argues something, perhaps that a white legislator calling an Indian legislator an “apple” is fair game because it is not fair for Schoenbeck to have to receive DFP critique because Indians are in fact racists, with all those evil connotations that entails, because of or when Indians may call fellow Indians “apples”. Not being of color, I would never justify calling an Indian an “apple” because of lighter skin or greater acculturation. I know radical left professionals who have.
But it is common for some Indians to refer to “breeds” as less than. Privately or more publicly. The effects of American Racism, predominately white, are complex and fatal to those neighbors of ours so labeled with discrimination. It is neither appropriate, nor convincing to listen to Ryan here struggle on his own petard.
To call the victims of extraordinary, extreme racism as “racists” themselves because they are not lily white in their own behavior, seems to fail to understand this evil. Whether it be institutional, systemic, ignorant, red neck, or however else it manifests itself.
Pick a team. Or please, just stop. Go experience native, black and other minorities and soften your harsh “logic”. Trump has no empathy. He is a sociopath (i think). We all can benefit by stepping out of our comfort zone. You live in Paha Sapa, He Sapa, you displace a culture that is struggling against genocide by the greater America. Bordeaux is a capable, determined political leader. I don’t know why Lee says such stupid things, but he often does. If you defend him, you may as well defend Trump.
There is a NPR Discussion about this topic w/Scott Simon/ John McCord linquistics Prof, Columbia Univ this a.m.
It is always science, it seems, yet as i observed here a few days ago on a related thread, it is always about race, or racism. There will always be a pugnacious Ryan to school.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rs8Guzb0l5w
Check out Bordeaux trading post (a museum) outside of Chadron.
June 12th is known as “Loving Day.” On this day in 1967 the US Supreme Court’s decision declaring laws banning interracial marriage violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I wonder if kids learn about this in high school American History. If they do, I’m sure conservatives want that banned from the classroom. Can’t be learning about such things, you know. American was perfect from day one. I was in high school, or rather between sophomore and junior year in high school when the decision came down. I was pretty tuned into civil rights issues even then. Still am.
Does anyone know if South Dakota had such a law? I sort of doubt it. There was a lot of interracial marriage in South Dakota on the reservations.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/12/1005848169/loving-day-interracial-marriage-legal-origin?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=nprnews
Yes, South Dakota had such a law. Mary Garrigan wrote an article about it some years ago.
https://rapidcityjournal.com/mary-garrigan-couple-married-despite-s-d-law/article_b44917a1-2009-524e-94c3-30569ccf4602.html
Of course, Loving v. Virginia demonstrates that whites are also victims of racism. I always looked at racism as harming everyone in society. Certainly, white people aren’t harmed as much, but in the case of laws that kept people from loving one another, yeah, a white wife or husband or a potential mate is harmed. Racism is a structure that harms everyone, it’s just that in most cases it harms minorities much, much more.
well…skin color or race as you call it, as criteria for any kind of discernment, is silly and vacuous. We’ll never get anywhere if we believe skin color is of any importance in human interaction.
White privilege is what has kept my pastey white hide from being hassled by cops every day of my life, like POC. White privilege is a thing. I, and most of you other whites, have benifited from it, whether you want to admit to it or not.
All of your all interesting and amazing opinions on this subject aside, it is known that Mr. Bordeaux is the worst snooker player in the legislatures. It is known.
Well Donald, its nice to see that Mary Garrigan article, she put a dent in my 63 Ford in high school. I always knew she was bound for better things. She also wrote about my wife’s Pysanky but that another story. Bordeaux a bad snooker player Grudz, why when I played in Pierre the bartender who had been there 20 years said he never seen anyone shoot as well, I had to point out I only won by five but then I was just a shootmaker I’m much more than that now. Just play once a week for 40, 50 years you learn.
Just saw this video on Youtube and thought it might be of interest showing Rapid city cops disdain for Indian rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1h9mzoOeoM
Some salty langwidge from Mr Indian to the rescue.