I'm sure the Texas schools have better things to do than concern themselves with a black kid's hair.

They do the same with Native American kids, constantly demanding that they cut their hair or they have forceably cut an NA kid's hair.

It's about control through conformity. 

It sure is.

Yes it is.    Something the liberal left is very familiar with.

Looks to me like this isn't about liberal conformity

Never said it was.    Only that it’s a standard tactic for the liberal left.

Know what I mean now?

Something the liberal left is very familiar with.

And something that the far right has learned well and is employing every chance they get

I'm pretty sure the dickless school administrator in the article isn't a raging liberal, but then again from your posts it doesn't look like you ever met one in person so unless they were handing out, "Being Gay Is Fun" pamphlets how would you really know?

That might hold some water if your house wasn’t made of glass and you stopped tossing rocks.

Conservatives are rookies at pushing control and conformity compared to my friends on the left.    Rookies.

LOL.  What you don't know is that evilone has a LOT of glass holding water in his house so he knows better than to throw rocks around. 

Says who? This guy...

Conservatives are rookies at pushing control and conformity compared to my friends on the left.    Rookies.

Sure... Happy Holidays, dude. 

Conservatives are the ones that want conformity and less individuality. They really do want everyone to be the same and not let anything change

Same to you home slice and may the rodent not see his shadow ….

Let's talk about people who live a lie about Others, please. The picture attached to this article is of a well-cuffed hairstyle being worn by a young black male. It's not on the shoulders. It is not 'all over the place- "wildin' out" - I see no need for a suspension or even 'concern' about the style. 

MAGAs are gaslighting this country everyday and it gets worse, they gaslight. . .themselves too! It's really sad and pathetic too, because 'nobody' can help them do better if they don't wish to do so.

Here is a relevant video on this person, school, and issue. IMPORTANT: At 43 seconds into the video this is stated: "The school has argued that their dress code does not violate the law ("Crown Act") because it does not mention length."

It is a becoming well-established and well-known that laws are crafted ("wordsmithing") to deliberately and intentionally minimize and stop select groups of people from expressions of their liberties. 

In the video, George's hair is off his shoulders (so its length is not a problem). Begs the question that he is under review and suspension.

According to CNN, the Barbers Hill independent school district forbids male students from wearing their hair in a style "that would allow the hair to extend below the top of a t-shirt collar, below the eyebrows, or below the ear lobes when let down".

“When let down?”

So, they don’t have to wait for your hair to actually be below the eyebrows or the ears. You’re in violation if it would reach that length, if you decided to let it down. Nevermind that you never actually let it down that far. If you could, it’s in violation. That’s an absurd standard. I can’t see any court allowing that nonsense.

I’d also argue that it’s sexist because I bet this doesn’t apply to girls. But knowing Texas, I’d be amazed if the state constitution prohibits discrimination based on sex.

Black hair discrimination is as old as Black presence in America itself

True enough, but the same can be said of Native Americans and other ethnicities from around the world. They’d have been suspending my white ass, too. In the 80s and 90s, I had some damned long hair.

True enough, but the same can be said of Native Americans and other ethnicities from around the world. They’d have been suspending my white ass, too. In the 80s and 90s, I had some damned long hair.

Here is how it worked at Indian Boarding Schools that were active until the 1970's in the US. You were forced to attend the school and when you first arrived you were taken to the ''cut'' room and your head was shaved. Next you were stripped of your clothes and given a bath with either kerosene or boiling hot water lye soap and a brush till your skin bled. Next up was burning your clothes and you were given a ''uniorm'' and if you said anything in our native language you were punched in the mouth. 

The cutting of NA hair is forbidden in many places today but it still take place on a fairly regular basis.

Well, you know, it takes a certain kind of person to do things like that:

[T]he Barbers Hill independent school district forbids male students from wearing their hair in a style "that would allow the hair to extend below the top of a t-shirt collar, below the eyebrows, or below the ear lobes when let down".

The specifications as listed are the definition of conformity. What appears to be the 'order' here is that minorities and marginalized people, as part of the system, will not be allowed to affect change within the the traditional value structure of this school community. Call it what it is. Conformity and Control.

"the Barbers Hill independent school district forbids male students from wearing their hair in a style "that would allow the hair to extend below the top of a t-shirt collar, below the eyebrows, or below the ear lobes when let down". "

One school system translates into "White America" is the definition of sweeping generalization.

While the rule is dumb is it enforced with everyone equally?  I also have to wonder if the community would not support having the rule changed at a school board meeting.

One school system translates into "White America" is the definition of sweeping generalization.

Well, damn here is another and another and another...a sweeping genralization that is true.

8-Year-Old Native American Boy Forced to Cut His Hair by School, ACLU Says

people

ACLU Texas files Civil Rights complaint against Sharyland ISD for 5-year-old boy told to cut hair

valleycentral

There are a lot more, but this is a good example.

With the advent of the internet you can always find several examples of anything you search for, especially examples of extreme idiots.  Try to remember there are over 330 million people in the US.  I hardly think a few is a valid sample size to make a valid conclusion about a population of that size.  Let me know when you get close.

As stated there are many more and I really shouldn't have to since the ''Crown Act'' covers it and both Federal courts and federal court of appeals have stated that Native Kids do not have to cut their hair since all are religious beliefs...You know that old freedom of religion thingy.

Try to keep up and you're welcome.

You do realize the claim is that "White America" has a problem with Black Children's hair don't you?

Try to stay on the point. I was talking about and the lack of polling to make such an outrageous generalization based on a few samples

Try to stay on the point. I was talking about and the lack of polling to make such an outrageous generalization based on a few samples

That is why the ''crown act'' came into existence and white America has a problem with NA kids hair as well and that has gone on since the late 1800s. Why do you think that the laws were passed in the first place?

talking about and the lack of polling to make such an outrageous generalization based on a few samples

Was it a white poll miss red, cause they do some spinning here at Barbers Hill...?

white America

How much of White America still has a problem with it?

You know that old freedom of religion thingy.

That only counts if you're Christian

With the number of cases that keep coming up it seems that it is still a problem. 

BTW at one time, there were over 500 Indian Boarding Schools in 37 states in the US and all used force to cut out hair off. All are run by the government and/or Christian denominations.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

addressed this especially and was upheld in 1994 and again in the 2000s.

It should be addressed where it is a problem without politicizing or sensationalizing it as a "White America" problem

It should be addressed where it is a problem without politicizing or sensationalizing it as a "White America" problem

American Indians nor blacks are demanding that their kids cut their hair nor Hispanics so it would seem that it is a white problem and has been for centuries.

The thing is it would be very easy to say, ''with the laws in place why can't these dumb asses just follow them and stop with the nonsense.''.

[deleted]

[deleted]

It is a "White America" majority "problem" because people of color are not OVERRULING themselves as to how they wear their hair.  What those who write "select" standards for hair length are dictating is that boys and girls should not look alike and be dissimilar in their features and it harkens back to the Old Testament - which is heavy and oppressive in the South (or at least has lingering traces). 

I would be outraged. Touching 'my' child's head with intention of doing harm?! Uh-uh. Hell no! Without giving support to the stupid kids who shoot up schools, and I mean it, without giving those kids support-this could lead to kids growing (up) resentment of their fellow students who abuse, mistreat, and take away something they value. They put their hands on this young man WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION. . . 'behinds' will and should roll!

Greg Poole, defended the school dress code, adding that "being an American requires conformity".

No...being an American means individuality. Conformity is exactly what Maoist China did

Yeah! Being an American requires conformity??? Where did he get that one?

C'mon now, Why do you think BARBERS HILL school would be worried about Long Hair...?

I wonder now if the sports teams are the Fighting Clippers

or the Battling Bald Eagles , 

Sports Highlight reel is called Great Clips

Linemen are all short and stout and the mobile goal posts are red and white

They had to sink the rowing team, crew couldn't make the cut, think they were all buzzed.

back in '67 when I was going to school in a little farm town north of denver, the district laid down the law on hair for boys. no hair touching the ears or collars. enforcement of the hair rule was left to the gym teachers. half way thru the school year we get an influx of kids from new york and jersey because of a new IBM plant that opened outside of town. one new kid in my gym class named rocky joins the class and has long hair. the gym teachers warn rocky in class about his hair length and threaten to give him a haircut if he shows up the next day without conforming to the hair length rules. he shows up the next day and the gym teachers give him a buzz cut in class. unfortunately for the gym teachers, rocky's dad is a corporate attorney for IBM. less than 2 weeks later the 3 gym teachers are gone and there's no more school district hair length code. all 3 teachers get drafted shortly thereafter and the last I heard, 2 of them were still in vietnam. bummer, sucks being a fascist.

I know we had a dress code in high school but I don't think they said anything about boys' hair

You are just a bit younger than me. In my high-school boy's hair could not touch our ears, collars or eyebrows. We tried to get around it by combing our hair back and wearing collarless shirts. Principle Butthead had a huge collar he had cut off of a shirt and did class to class "hair checks". Those who failed were "dismissed" until we returned with passing haircuts...

by then, too many school districts had been sued over it...

One's hair is not part of a 'uniform,' And demanding a specific 'look' is ignorant of the nature and texture of different groups' hair.

Is this a public school?

Yes

Texas passed the crown act, this shouldn't be a issue, i hope the parents and their child get a nice settlement on their civil right case.

Natives don't have bad hair days.

Do you wear your hair long? 

Do you wear your hair long? 

Yes, I do.

If I had thick, glossy, black hair, it would be so long I could sit on it

For most of my life my long hair was down to my knees, and was jet black with blue highlights in the sunlight, much like the color of the raven's wings. It was the reason why my adopted Cherokee Grandfather gave me my Cherokee name of Raven Wing.

No, they don't. Not fair.

See now. . . that is a thing of beauty. And a sign of 'balanced' (good) health! I would 'kill' anybody who dared mess with it! Especially as an adult, people have no idea how hard it is to keep a good head of hair as it is with all the pollutants surrounding us everyday. And this is particularly a touchy subject for black people in the U.S. who have to deal with short, kinky, hair breakage all the time.

My two cents.

First, the title of the article is disingenuous. It implies something like "white America" having some sort of homogeneity and in cases like this we've all come together, perhaps on a whites only internet where we collectively make decisions like the one in this article. I seriously doubt anyone here actually believes anything even remotely close, no matter how much imagination you use, is actually true. I have no doubt that every single person here encounters kids of every color and ethnicity in their community with all sorts of hair styles. In fact, I have little doubt that, while I'm sure you can come up with examples to the contrary, for the most part your experience has been that conformity concerning hair went out the window a long time ago, probably for whites more than any other group. Claiming this is a "white America" thing is simply indefensible. 

Second, wanting a particular hair style because you're black or Indian or whatever has no more validity than a white kid wanting a particular hair style simply because they want it. 

Third, in the case of this particular article, the rule applied to all children, regardless of race or ethnicity.  Since any child, regardless of race or ethnicity would be subject to the same censure for violating the hair code, claiming that this is a "white America" thing is again indefensible. Saying it is a racial thing is simply another example of the penchant of elements from the Left insisting that everything is about race because that is the basis of their power.

Lastly, every society needs conformity and, if it wishes to prosper or grow, cannot do without it. The less conformity a society has, the less likely it will succeed. It is the difference between a place like Somalia and a place like Norway. But just as conformity is important, what that conformity is based on is as important. It is the difference between the Allied powers and the Axis powers of WWII. Conformity is not a bad thing unless it is based on a bad thing.

In this case, we're talking about hair styles for boys. One might think it's a stupid thing to fight over but I don't believe it is that simple. I think those who do can't see the forest because they only focus on a tree. The rule about hair isn't there to convey the idea that a hairstyle makes you a better (or worse) person, in and of itself. Rather, it is intended to instill the idea that you aren't simply an individual but a member of a whole that holds certain views and values to be true and need to be conformed to. That is not a bad thing unless those views and values are bad. 

...wanting a particular hair style because you're black or Indian or whatever has no more validity than a white kid wanting a particular hair style simply because they want it. 

Who are you to deny someone the freedom of religion? Or even the freedom of expression?

...every society needs conformity and, if it wishes to prosper or grow, cannot do without it.

I vehemently disagree. Conformity and non-conformity are neither right, nor wrong. It is the reason behind the actions that determine that.

It is non-conformity that most often leads to innovation, growth and prosperity.  Your religious icon Jesus was a non-conformist; Einstein - non-conformist ;Henry Ford - non-conformist;  George Washington (and all the founding fathers) - non-conformist; William Shakespeare - non-conformist.

That is not to say all non-conformists are good. Hitler was also a non-conformist, but then successfully (for a time) pushed the people of Germany to conform to his standard. Jim Jones was a non-conformist that also successfully (for a time) pushed his followers to conform to his standards. These two non-conformists pushed conformity to levels of authoritarianism.  

Who are you to deny someone the freedom of religion? Or even the freedom of expression?

You are reading what you quoted wrong. The quote has to do with validity, not denial. Someone wanting a particular hair style because of a connection to religion isn't more valid than someone who just wants it. If that is so then the implication is, does society have a compelling reason to force conformity concerning hairstyle in the first place? That goes for any issue, not simply hairstyle. 

I vehemently disagree. Conformity and non-conformity are neither right, nor wrong. It is the reason behind the actions that determine that.

Are you sure you disagree? I ask because what you say here doesn't actually disagree with what I said and, in fact, makes the same point I already have in my argument.  

Lastly, every society needs conformity and, if it wishes to prosper or grow, cannot do without it. The less conformity a society has, the less likely it will succeed. It is the difference between a place like Somalia and a place like Norway. But just as conformity is important, what that conformity is based on is as important. It is the difference between the Allied powers and the Axis powers of WWII. Conformity is not a bad thing unless it is based on a bad thing.

It is non-conformity that most often leads to innovation, growth and prosperity.  Your religious icon Jesus was a non-conformist; Einstein - non-conformist ;Henry Ford - non-conformist;  George Washington (and all the founding fathers) - non-conformist; William Shakespeare - non-conformist.

You are conflating thinking outside the box or new ideas of individuals with societal conformity in these examples. None of them, except Jesus in a limited sense (and is a special case), abandoned conformity to the mores, values or expectations of the society in which they lived. You are speaking of something different from what I am. 

That is not to say all non-conformists are good. Hitler was also a non-conformist, but then successfully (for a time) pushed the people of Germany to conform to his standard. Jim Jones was a non-conformist that also successfully (for a time) pushed his followers to conform to his standards. These two non-conformists pushed conformity to levels of authoritarianism.

Again, it seems to me you are speaking of something different than I am. You appear to be speaking of individuals whereas I am speaking of the society. My point is that if you have ten individuals in a house and none of them conform to a single standard as to how affairs are to be conducted within that household, that house will fall. If you have some states for slavery and some states against and who also care about a moral standard established for that country, that country will not stand. 

I think you might understand what I'm saying if you realize I'm not talking about any particular individual or idea about what a society should be based on. I'm speaking about the concept of conformity being necessary for a society. There's nothing in my argument about what a society should conform to; just that conformity to some standard is necessary or that society will not function well or will simply collapse. 

Lastly, thank you for your reply. What is happening to the student in the article needs to be addressed but it is not a racial issue. Rather, it has to do with what you and I are discussing here. The school system is trying to compel conformity to a particular standard; one the school, at least, believes should be a societal norm, apparently. The question we should be discussing is, does the school (or society) have a compelling reason for doing so? It is not impossible that it does but, in my opinion, it does not. To my mind, there are better ways to train and educate children into conforming to moral societal norms and values. 

Someone wanting a particular hair style because of a connection to religion isn't more valid than someone who just wants it.

Why not? 

None of them, except Jesus in a limited sense (and is a special case), abandoned conformity to the mores, values or expectations of the society in which they lived.

Einstein was the poster child of non-conformity. He did nothing that conformed to any social standard. He was promiscuous, wore two different shoes, ignored his appearance and shit on the both the scientific and academic societies in which he worked and lived. 

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for wearing men's cloths and leading the French army. Definitely not the cultural norm of her day.

Lenny Bruce challenged social norms & values to win freedom of speech for comedians.

I can go on and on and on. Social norms, values and morals are always being challenged and always shifting and sliding. This is part of being human and often the difference between conservative and liberal and various cultures.

What the article is discussing is a culture clash - a white school administrator has HIS version of cultural norm (males should have short hair) and whereas the student (and his family) have a different version of cultural norm. Which takes precedent? According to both state and federal law - the student seems to be in the right. 

Why not?

Assuming that all were created equal, how could one be more valid than the other? 

I can go on and on and on.

And still not be talking about what I'm talking about. 

What the article is discussing is a culture clash 

This is much closer to what I'm talking about, yet you still get it wrong, in my opinion, Since....

a white school administrator has HIS version of cultural norm

...could easily be a black school administrator as white, unless you believe there are no black men who believe men should wear their hair short? It is what that administrator believes or perhaps the school board behind him and why they believe it. If you insist that it is because the administrator is white you now have to explain why the majority of white school administrators don't appear to care about how a student wears their hair. If they did care, this would be a national issue rather than simply a local one. The argument is logically indefensible as a product of white America because whites in America don't seem to think hair style is an issue. 

So, I agree that this is a cultural issue but I disagree this is a racial issue. Black, white or anything else, as a culture, is not homogenous. In fact, people of different races can be culturally the same, generally. The question is, in order to prosper and grow as a society, there has to be, um, let's call it an "umbrella" culture that unites. To an extent, we already have that. Take a hundred random people with an even distribution of race born in the US and drop them into Afghanistan and Taliban society and you'll see what I mean. They would all have pretty much the same difficulties and frustrations and for the same reasons. 

Social norms, values and morals are always being challenged and always shifting and sliding. This is part of being human and often the difference between conservative and liberal and various cultures.

I agree. From my perspective it is like most things in life. A bell curve. At one end you have those who think change is good simply because it is change and on the other those who refuse any change because it is change. It is not my position that change is bad. My position is that change should be good and moral. It is my position is that those things exist and that society should conform to those things as much as possible. 

...could easily be a black school administrator

But its not. And to that degree I'm almost certain that no one would expect a black school admin to write up a hair policy to make all students wear dreds or a NA school admin to make all students to wear long braids. 

So, I agree that this is a cultural issue but I disagree this is a racial issue.

Are not cultural issues almost always inherently racial? The article isn't talking about 2 people of the same race with different cultures like you are trying to skirt around it.

The question is, in order to prosper and grow as a society, there has to be, um, let's call it an "umbrella" culture that unites.

In order to grow as a society people have to have common goals. That does not require a common culture. 

My position is that change should be good and moral.

My position is definitions of "good" and "moral" are cultural and change with time.

It is my position is that those things exist and that society should conform to those things as much as possible. 

It is my position that when people go out of their way to enforce their definition of "good" and "moral" on people who have different definitions they start becoming authoritarian. 

But its not.

Which means what? Racism? Then why is this simply a local issue? Why is it not a national issue? Why are white administrators everywhere making the same policy? Remember, the article asks the question, why can't white America...? 

Are not cultural issues almost always inherently racial?

Not to my way or many others way of thinking. Culture is not a product of skin color. If it were, all people of whatever race would have the same culture regardless of location. That is obviously not the case. There is a difference between conflict due to culture and conflict due to race. In the latter, it would not matter to a racist black man if a white person shared and lived the same culture he did. He would reject the white man regardless. In a cultural conflict, it is behavior that matters, not skin color. For myself and many others of every race and ethnicity, behavior is what matters and not skin color. 

Of course, there are those who can't separate the two and to my mind, it is generally those on the left that have the biggest problem with this. It is they that tend to lump groups together racially, like in this article; assuming or, at least treating each race as homogenous and all having the same values, cultures and goals. 

The article isn't talking about 2 people of the same race with different cultures like you are trying to skirt around it.

Just like you do here. For you, this must be a racial issue for no other reason than one individual is black and one is white. That view is the cool-aid of the hardcore Left. It is actually the literal definition of racism and comes from a Marxist view of the world where race replaces class struggle. It should be obvious to anyone that you can't eliminate racism by separating and classifying people and their interests by race, yet here we are. But it's being pushed that way because it gives people who don't actually have anyone's interest at heart other than their own a power base to stampede society into a direction they want it to go. 

In order to grow as a society people have to have common goals. That does not require a common culture.

Yes and no. It doesn't require that all people in a society have identical cultures but for the most part, they need to be pretty close for a peaceful and prosperous society. It's okay if not everyone celebrates Christmas but it is not okay to prevent someone from celebrating whatever it is they do celebrate. It's okay if one's taste in music isn't the same as another's but it is not okay to blast your music at 3:00 am. Those are cultural things and they need to be held in common by everyone. 

My position is definitions of "good" and "moral" are cultural and change with time.

My position is that they are not and we should be striving to find out what they are, but that isn't relevant to the discussion, really. 

It is my position that when people go out of their way to enforce their definition of "good" and "moral" on people who have different definitions they start becoming authoritarian. 

I take it that you're some flavor of Anarchist, then? 

And to that degree I'm almost certain that no one would expect a black school admin to write up a hair policy to make all students wear dre[a]ds or a NA school admin to make all students to wear long braids. 

Said administrator/s would be a fool not long employed if he did. Can you hear the 'howls' of conservative "Mom's for Liberty" in your imagination? 

Yes! I can hear MAGAs 'howling' at the mere suggestion of dreadlocks and long braids being forced onto the heads of "Mickey" and "Timmy."

Which means what? Racism? Then why is this simply a local issue? Why is it not a national issue? Why are white administrators everywhere making the same policy? Remember, the article asks the question, why can't white America...? 

So racism has to be national and if it's not national then it's not racism? That's a pretty weird take.

For you, this must be a racial issue for no other reason than one individual is black and one is white.

No, you are spinning further and further away from the topic of a white administrator treating a black cultural student to an unfair standard in direct violation of the law. How far are you going to go?

It is actually the literal definition of racism and comes from a Marxist view of the world where race replaces class struggle.

Did you come up with that on your own OR did that come directly from Conservapidia? Did you know the term Cultural Marixism was first ever found on a the old white supremist website stormtrooper.com?

...but for the most part, they need to be pretty close for a peaceful and prosperous society.

Can you back that up with any data?

It's okay if not everyone celebrates Christmas but it is not okay to prevent someone from celebrating whatever it is they do celebrate.

While I agree with the statement - that isn't a supporting statement for your point. It actually mirrors my point on authoritarianism. Glad we can at least agree with that. 

I take it that you're some flavor of Anarchist, then? 

Your logic is so flawed your making shit up now? Anarchist don't have any rules, which has nothing to do with what definitions people apply to "good" and "moral". It used to be good and moral for a school admin to cane a student. That will get one sued and maybe arrested today. Some people don't think its good or moral to marry and love someone of the same sex. I don't find that any more, or less good that me marrying someone of the opposite sex and those that do and have find it perfectly good for them. Everyone's goals of a happy healthy relationship are pretty much the same though. There is no anarchy anywhere in there and stable health homes both straight and queer promote community and social stability. 

So racism has to be national and if it's not national then it's not racism? That's a pretty weird take.

I think you've lost the plot. Here's what I said...

Which means what? Racism? Then why is this simply a local issue? Why is it not a national issue? Why are white administrators everywhere making the same policy? Remember, the article asks the question, why can't white America...?

Go back to my original post. My argument is that asking the question "Why can't white America...?" is disingenuous and unsupportable as it treats white people as a monolithic and homogenous whole rather than the disparate collection that happens to have the same skin color. It would be the same as asking why does black America have to be woman beating pimps?  

No, you are spinning further and further away from the topic of a white administrator treating a black cultural student to an unfair standard in direct violation of the law. How far are you going to go?

I started this thread. You are responding to what I said, not the other way around. You are the one spinning away. You have yet to comment on the actual subject. If this is a white America problem, why is this not a national issue rather than just a local one. If this really were a white America problem, the majority of white Americans and not just white administrators, would be making hair length an issue but we do not see that. In reality, claiming that this is a white America problem is just a Leftist dog whistle. 

Did you come up with that on your own OR did that come directly from Conservapidia? Did you know the term Cultural Marixism was first ever found on a the old white supremist website stormtrooper.com?

This isn't worth bothering with. 

Can you back that up with any data?

The current state of the US isn't good enough? 

Your logic is so flawed your making shit up now? Anarchist don't have any rules, which has nothing to do with what definitions people apply to "good" and "moral".

That other than my logic being flawed, I agree, which is why that wasn't what I was referring to. You said...

It is my position that when people go out of their way to enforce their definition of "good" and "moral" on people who have different definitions they start becoming authoritarian.

The subject of this statement isn't what is good and moral. The subject is the enforcement by people on other people of their definition of those things. That was what I was referring to when I asked if you are an anarchist. From the word go, every society is authoritarian or it cannot function as a society. The basis of every society, even an anarchistic one, is force or the threat of force. Most developed societies have what they think are good and moral laws concerning traffic, for instance. The same society will use whatever force is necessary to get people to comply with those laws, regardless of how those people feel about the morality of it. Authoritarianism. The only difference between us and, say, the Taliban is how far we take authoritarianism in the lives of the people. 

Further, consider that your statement was in response to where I said...

It is my position is that those things exist and that society should conform to those things as much as possible. 

I think you would agree with me that in a society were religious freedom is a desirable value, it is also a desired value that religious freedom should not prevent a child from getting the medical attention they need in spite of their parents religious beliefs. I think you would agree with me that society has the right to compel the parents to seek treatment. Authoritarianism. 

This is why I asked if you were an anarchist. That is, your statement seemed not to recognize that every society involves authoritarianism. 

'Talk' about missing the point. Do "continue," Sir with your focus on alternative points of interest.

My argument is that asking the question "Why can't white America...?" is disingenuous and unsupportable

We know it isn't because this is just the latest report of a long historical ongoing issue. As Kavika has been trying to tell you, it's the reason for the laws being passed in the first place. You continue to ignore it and spin and frankly it's getting a bit boring.

If this is a white America problem, why is this not a national issue rather than just a local one. 

I suppose I could go and do some research for you on how and why this has been a historical systemic problem and laws like The Crown Act have been passed but why should I have to. It's fairly obvious to everyone else.

This isn't worth bothering with. 

You don't want to own your truths?

Most developed societies have what they think are good and moral laws concerning traffic, for instance.

Again you are twisting logic to fit your narrative. Safety laws are not considered morality laws. Morality laws are/were things like not selling liquor on Sundays or current laws banning abortion. 

The only difference between us and, say, the Taliban is how far we take authoritarianism in the lives of the people. 

This is why I asked if you were an anarchist. That is, your statement seemed not to recognize that every society involves authoritarianism. 

From twisting logic right into reductio ad absurdum. You've logiced your way into the ground trying to absolve the US white people of their guilt by saying they ain't as bad as the Taliban.

frankly it's getting a bit boring.

Well, that I can agree with. This is getting rather boring so, other than responding to one other thing you said, I think I'll just call it quits.

You don't want to own your truths?

Not my truths. Yours, projected onto me. 

Have a nice day. 

Second, wanting a particular hair style because you're black or Indian or whatever has no more validity than a white kid wanting a particular hair style simply because they want it. 

Why is it that because they are entitled to wear their hair long (Indians) that you feel that it has no validity. You are aware that there is a law drafted in 1978 that protects Indians and their religion. Do you not believe in freedom of religion? The reason that law was passed in 1978 was that Indian religions were outlawed by the so called Christians that are the majority in this country. So much for freedom of religion if your not white Christian. Thank goodness that there were some that saw what a horrible experience this was for a country where ''freedom of religion'' is a cornerstone of our democracy.

So much for freedom of religion if your not white Christian.

Amen

Why is it that because they are entitled to wear their hair long (Indians) that you feel that it has no validity.

I'm doing my best to write what I say as carefully as I can. I've reread it several times and I can't figure out where you think I've said anything like this. Somewhere, sometime in my white ancestry my ancestors had long hair, braided it, put trinkets in it and not all that long ago, either. Why should I have to use that as a reason, though, in order to have long hair? It shouldn't be necessary without a compelling, moral reason. 

So, let me turn your accusation around on you. Do you feel that because you're a Native American you somehow have a more valid reason for wearing long hair than some white man who just wants to wear his hair long?

The rest of your comment is an attempt to make this about race and is invalid, since my argument has nothing to do with race, nor have I said anything at all about whether either you, as a Native American, or the kid in the article should or shouldn't conform to hairstyle policies or any other policy whatsoever. 

Apparently you think this issue is about race. I don't. I've stated what I think it is about. I have no desire to waste my time pretending this issue is about something I don't believe it is about. If you don't think it's about what I think it's about then I don't think we have much to talk about. 

So, let me turn your accusation around on you. Do you feel that because you're a Native American you somehow have a more valid reason for wearing long hair than some white man who just wants to wear his hair long?

I suggest that you speak to the US Congress which passed this.

 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) (42 U.S.C. § 1996.) protects the rights of Native Americans to exercise their traditional religions by ensuring access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.

This includes wearing our hair long and has been upheld in court numerous times. 

The rest of your comment is an attempt to make this about race and is invalid, since my argument has nothing to do with race, nor have I said anything at all about whether either you, as a Native American, or the kid in the article should or shouldn't conform to hairstyle policies or any other policy whatsoever.  Apparently you think this issue is about race. I don't. I've stated what I think it is about. I have no desire to waste my time pretending this issue is about something I don't believe it is about. If you don't think it's about what I think it's about then I don't think we have much to talk about. 

Of course, it's about race why in the world do you think that AIRFA was passed and only covered Native Americans or the ''Crown Act''?

I see that you avoided responding to NA religions being outlawed. You are correct in the fact you being a denier we do not have anything to talk about.

Wow. From what you've highlighted I think someone needs to read more of your stories and articles. Of course this hair thingy is all about race. You have to blind not to see that

I suggest that you speak to the US Congress which passed this.

To what end? How does this answer my question? Because here's what I see you saying. Because of your race you, by nature of your race, have a privilege that a white person doesn't get. That doesn't sound a bit like not being able to sit in a particular part of the bus because you're not the right color to you??? I, on the other hand, believe the issue is about conformity and whether the school system has a reasonable defense for their policy. 

Of course, it's about race why in the world do you think that AIRFA was passed and only covered Native Americans or the ''Crown Act''?

I wasn't aware that the kid in the article was a Native American. I thought he was African American, so why would I think about AIRFA at all? 

I see that you avoided responding to NA religions being outlawed. You are correct in the fact you being a denier we do not have anything to talk about.

That would be because I don't see it as relevant to the conversation and if you do, haven't given any real argument as to why it should be. In spite of that and so we can end that portion of this nonsense, I am against the compulsory observation of religion or, in denying access to religion unless there is compelling reason for denial, such as one that sacrifices people to their deity for instance. Furthermore, as I have said on more than one occasion, what was done to your people in the name of Christianity was wrong, for the most part. Why it is necessary to state this I can't answer.

Wow. From what you've highlighted I think someone needs to read more of your stories and articles. Of course this hair thingy is all about race. You have to blind not to see that

Then I'm willing to listen to your argument as to why. 

Because of your race you, by nature of your race, have a privilege that a white person doesn't get. 

Try learning some words/concepts such as TRADITION/CUSTOMS/RELIGION/HERITAGE - those "new" words will give you a much, much better understanding of what is being said and why it is being discussed.

It ain't our race that grants us those privileges - it is the laws that were passed to afford ALL the opportunity to live/adhere/cherish those TRADITIONS/CUSTOMS/RELIGIONS/HERITAGES within their cultures.

That ain't racism.

Try learning some words/concepts such as TRADITION/CUSTOMS/RELIGION/HERITAGE - those "new" words will give you a much, much better understanding of what is being said and why it is being discussed.

(Frustrated groan) What difference does any of that make to the decision of whether the administrator's policy is either right or moral? Are you actually saying that he has no right to impose such on your race because of "TRADITION/CUSTOMS/RELIGION/HERITAGE" but it's perfectly okay to impose such on his white students? If so, you're stating that morality is based on race. If you believe that nonsense then NA's have no basis for complaining about what whites did to them. 

It ain't our race that grants us those privileges - it is the laws that were passed

I disagree. It was neither. A person's privileges, worth, value or whatever aren't granted by either race or human laws. They are intrinsic to merely existing. Trying to attach those things to either law or race is a bastardization of the concept that all men are created equal. Were it otherwise, what man can grant, man can take away, thereby justifying what the Nazis did to so many people. 

Here's what I'm asking you to do, Warrior. Forget about your cultural heritage. Is it right for the administrator to impose the strictures on hair style for boys that he does, regardless of race, culture or heritage? And if you can't do that, fine. Then let's talk about how he can impose his own ideas about what is proper within his own race, culture or heritage, even though history will not support him. 

That ain't racism.

When you base the morality of a thing based on one's race, I don't see how it can be otherwise. That is, if it is okay for an NA student to have long hair but not okay for a white student, how can you possibly conclude that racism isn't involved? Put another way, how can it not be racism when the moral acceptability of a particular thing or action is based on the physical attributes of an individual rather than the morality or immorality of an action? 

No, morality is not about race. It is about compassion for others, especially those who are different. As in, the Good Samaritan, the Angel of Mercy and the Forgiveness and Grace of your GOD...

The school administrator in this instance had none of those!

No, morality is not about race. It is about compassion for others, especially those who are different.

The hypocrisy contained in that comment is substantial.   

[deleted]

How do you figure that? 

Beau coup empirical data ….

No, really, based on what? What evidence?

I lack compassion for racists and sexists...

I am intolerant of hatred and intolerance...

That is not hypocrisy. That is consistency!

I am intolerant of hatred and intolerance

You're intolerant of yourself? That is what it sounds like.

I am going to assume that you don't understand the topic nor the parameters necessary to discuss it.

Just because YOU don't believe it is a very, very far cry/hue of many thousands/millions of readers who can and do understand exactly what is being stated and why.

Why don't you try the Ol' "plop, plop, fizz, fizz - oh what a relief it is" when reality actually sinks in.

Thanks and quit denigrating other commenters just because you don't understand the issue/concern.

Look, well I guess you would be okay with a conformity policy that stated all boys should 'go' bald. . .and let's make it interesting. . .for a quarterly period or a 30 day period on campus. Now, if that draws ire. . . it's because it should. Because very view individual boys think they look 'cool' or even 'good' bald.

The point of the hair rule 'exercise' is to not have boys looking like girls on campus. And by expansion, the policy dictates the hair length of boys. . . off campus too if/when it insist on length - styles are limited. Moreover, boys probably are not allowed to put their hair in a bun under this dress code. Or, large braids in a 'stalk/s' on their heads. Again, indicative of the way a female wears/styles her hair.

I get the demand for a cleanliness aspect within the policy. . .for all races and ethnicities. However, to insist students should conform their hair to a certain length goes beyond simply putting out a policy about a hair adornment that can be added or removed. It is asking an individual and individuals, plural, to do something superfluous (more than what is needed; for good order). 

Public school is not a military boot camp where an adult male's hair is temporarily cut short as a means of "breaking him down" in order to build him up again.

It reminds me of something else, certain people and groups try to demand of Others, that they conform to sexual norms . . . which they can not do and were they able to do so. . . they would not do so well or as a means of good mental health: Heterosexual social and cultural norms which demand homosexuals 'be" or live up to the idea of being the same as them

To what end? How does this answer my question? Because here's what I see you saying. Because of your race you, by nature of your race, have a privilege that a white person doesn't get. That doesn't sound a bit like not being able to sit in a particular part of the bus because you're not the right color to you??? I, on the other hand, believe the issue is about conformity and whether the school system has a reasonable defense for their policy. 

Not just my race but my religious rights. It seems that your not well informed when it comes to Indians and their treatment. It was the same as blacks, segregation in all forms, slavery, lynching, forced sterilization, and busses were a minor part when compared to the racist crap we had to endure. You may want to get a better grip on US history before entering into a conversation about it.

It was

I note that by far, you have to speak in the past tense in order to make your points. And thanks for avoiding the question. 

You may want to get a better grip on US history before entering into a conversation about it.

I wasn't aware that I had entered a conversation about it in the first place. Rather, for whatever reason, you seem to be taking whatever I say about the article under discussion as having some relevance to your grievances concerning the history of your people. 

Kavika, seeded this article. And according to the rules, seeders get to determine what is fit for discussion in their role as seeder. If you do not wish to discuss what Kavika is addressing the room about-don't. But, hanging out, to fill the comment section with 'filler' ain't what we are here doing. Race may not be an issue for you and yours, but that does not give you license to dictate or negotiate what others are permitted to add in discussion.

I note that by far, you have to speak in the past tense in order to make your points. And thanks for avoiding the question. 

If speaking in the past tense seems to be a problem for you that is on you. The laws passed were passed because of the racism directed towards Indians and sadly many of those laws are being ignored currently, not in the past. 

It is my article I'll make the choice as to what is relevant and what isn't, that is how it works on NT and as stated in my opening comment the hair issue isn't just with blacks it is also with NAs and has been for decades that is why the law was passed addressing it as the Crown Act was for blacks. The links I posted are situations that exist today if you bothered to read them you would know that.

I wasn't aware that I had entered a conversation about it in the first place. Rather, for whatever reason, you seem to be taking whatever I say about the article under discussion as having some relevance to your grievances concerning the history of your people. 

If you were not aware that you had entered a conversation about it what in the world are you doing here, trying to excuse the behavior of the violators? They do have relevance to our history both past and present and should be obvious to you that it doesn't seem to be is on you and you'll have to deal with it. As far as grievances those are cold hard facts that I post with back up hardly just a grievance.

If you would like to speak or have me speak about current situations that are negatively affecting Indians I'd be happy to, we could start with court cases involving voter suppression of the Native vote and move on to court cases involving land/minerals/sovereignty or whatever you like.

In fact there is movement by the Feds that requires universities/museums both public and private to abide by the 1978 law that they have tried to avoid since the 1990s. Really good stuff now that they have abide by the law we'll see them whining for years. 

So anytime that you're ready to discuss or debate them just let me know.

If speaking in the past tense seems to be a problem for you that is on you. The laws passed were passed because of the racism directed towards Indians and sadly many of those laws are being ignored currently, not in the past. 

Yeah - you wouldn't dare to open and read some of Felix Cohen's "Handbook on Federal Indian Law" that is updated annually with NEW, SUPPLEMENTAL laws against the Tribes/Nations and NONE OF THE OLD laws being taken out.

Nope - no racism there

If speaking in the past tense seems to be a problem for you that is on you.

True, but that doesn't make me wrong. If you find it necessary to refer to what is past and, for the most part, no longer present in society in order to give the illusion of relevance to your grievances today, that is on you.  

The laws passed were passed because of the racism directed towards Indians and sadly many of those laws are being ignored currently, not in the past. 

I assume that most of what you are talking about here has to do with treaties. If so, I agree that is a present issue, although I find no correlation with the article being discussed. 

It is my article I'll make the choice as to what is relevant and what isn't,

No, actually, you won't. Not for anyone other than yourself, anyway. The point of NT is discussion, not to create echo chambers. If you feel the need to contest this, then perhaps we should appeal to Perrie? 

If you were not aware that you had entered a conversation about it what in the world are you doing here, trying to excuse the behavior of the violators?

Addressing the fact that this is a "white America" issue is disingenuous. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. 

They do have relevance to our history both past and present and should be obvious to you that it doesn't seem to be is on you and you'll have to deal with it.

Perhaps the fault is not with me but you, since you have yet to prove this is a racial issue. Nor has anyone else. They simply say that it is without providing any argument. You cannot logically make the connection that because some thing happened to your people in the past, therefore the rule about hairstyle in the case of the article is based on the same thing. Clearly it is not because many whites, regardless of age, have long hair. In other words, it is not a "white" position that men should have short hair. 

As far as grievances those are cold hard facts that I post with back up hardly just a grievance.

I have a different opinion. 

If you would like to speak or have me speak about current situations that are negatively affecting Indians I'd be happy to, we could start with court cases involving voter suppression of the Native vote and move on to court cases involving land/minerals/sovereignty or whatever you like.

I would, if I thought it would be productive. I don't. 

So anytime that you're ready to discuss or debate them just let me know.

Again, if I thought it would be productive. Again, I don't. In my opinion, you are too wrapped up in your identity as a NA. As if that bestows some sort of worth on you as an individual. Being NA doesn't determine whether you are an angel or a monster any more than my whiteness does me. To my mind, I see no difference in basing your pride in being NA and those white people who are concerned with the purity of their skin color. There has never been a moment in my life where I thought my worth was based on my skin color or that it had anything at all to do with worth. 

The only thing I value about you as a member of the NA community is those aspects of that community that I find good and moral, and that is not a product of your genetic heritage. Beyond that, your value simply comes from being a member of the human race. The same goes for me. I find the notion that my value has anything to do with my whiteness as ridiculous as being based on the fact that I'm right handed. 

Another reason I think such a discussion wouldn't be productive is that I don't think you would admit that Europeans weren't doing anything to your ancestors that you weren't already doing to yourselves. Just like everyone else everywhere all over the world. What happened to your people also happened to white people in Europe, both by other whites as well as non-whites. Welcome to the human race. Generally, every culture that had the motive and the means did unto others if they could. Your people were no different. They suffered the same virtues and vices as everyone else everywhere. 

Lastly, I don't think it would be productive because I don't think you are interested in an actual, real discussion where we examine our beliefs in a dispassionate manner. In my view, my interest is in discussing what is best for everyone as human beings. In my opinion, yours is to promote whatever you think it means to be NA and what benefits them regardless of the expense to anyone else. Example. I read an article concerning California and Newsome's efforts to remove dams for the sake of salmon. NA's want it for cultural reasons but I couldn't care less about that. What I care about is, does it provide the best benefit to everyone or not? Equally, I have zero interest in any action that is designed to preserve "white culture" (whatever that is. I have no idea) if it doesn't benefit everyone, in which case it wouldn't really be white culture. 

True, but that doesn't make me wrong. If you find it necessary to refer to what is past and, for the most part, no longer present in society in order to give the illusion of relevance to your grievances today, that is on you. 

Be consistent. You look in a 3,000 plus year old book, the Bible, for its relevance to today . . and find it, too.

Addressing the fact that this is a "white America" issue is disingenuous. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. 

Let's cut the crap. White conservatives (not white liberals) have been code-talking for and against minorities and marginalized people since this countries inception. Own the crap conservatives do! Stop trying to gaslight people who are coherent, consistent, and trying to have a factual discussion with you 'face to face.' 

It's 'child's play' to realize and accept that the use of the phrase: "White America" is not indicative of every white in the country, everywhere, for all times. You be genuine!

Either talk (shit) or get off the pot. White America, by a numbers comparison, are more interested and more in control of the styles of dress and hairstyles that minorities put forward than minorities by comparison are of their own or Whites dress and hairstyles.

Intelligent people can process a: figure of speech, simile, hyperbole, antithesis (as in use of the subject line of this article). 

Ignoring the effect of the writing to move to just argument, misses the important point being expressed and delivered.

That's gotta burn...

That's gotta burn...

Nope.

“There has never been a moment in my life where I thought my worth was based on my skin color or that it had anything at all to do with worth. “

That is not surprising at all, being a white male in today’s United States. But I have to wonder, if you were NA or Black, and experienced what they have experienced in their life times, do you still think there would have “never been a moment in my life where i thought my worth was based on my skin color or that it had anything at all to do with worth” ?

Because you can “think” you would be impervious, but without your “White” background, are you sure of this, cause I believe you might have a vastly different interpretation of the value and worth of ones color and cultural heritage, and the indentation it can leave on ones soul, because sometimes that indentation can be an actual hole. 

 But, just my humble opine, or a white wine, i red about.

Personally I prefer a rose eh.

O’Donnell…?

Interesting a page of your denials that racism isn't the problem or issue in the hair controversy and you keep disregarding the laws that have been passed to offset it. 

True, but that doesn't make me wrong. If you find it necessary to refer to what is past and, for the most part, no longer present in society in order to give the illusion of relevance to your grievances today, that is on you.  

I'm sure you don't want to discuss any of today's prevalent problems since all go back to racist views by whites of Indians, which is very clear in the history of the US. And to your lack of knowledge or willful ignorance, those problems do exist today and many instances are being brought to light after being hidden by the government or in many cases the Christian denominations that subjugated and killed thousands of Indians in the name of conversation.

But I have to wonder, if you were NA or Black, and experienced what they have experienced in their life times, do you still think there would have “never been a moment in my life where i thought my worth was based on my skin color or that it had anything at all to do with worth” ?

That's a really good question. One I was thinking about when I wrote what you responded to, believe it or not. The answer is, no one can know for sure. However, I like to think that if I understood what I do about where worth comes from, even under such circumstances, I would still feel the same. I believe this because there are NA's, blacks, Asians and whatever else, who did have those experiences and feel the same way I do now. I think MLK did, for instance. 

Also, while there was never a moment where I thought my worth was a product of my skin color (nor anyone else's theirs), that is not to say I did not struggle with my self-worth, even now. I think the best example of what I want to get across that everyone should be able to relate to is growing up in the school system. Do you recall the constant struggle for place and status? I grew up in a nearly all white school system but we found other means of discrimination, didn't we? Even though we were all white, there were still castes from the untouchables to those everyone envied and wanted to be. The only reason education was even possible was the presence of adults in our lives. Left to ourselves, it would have devolved into some version of the Lord of the Flies. 

As for the one black family that was in the same school system I was in, whether they had problems due to skin color I can't say. I can say that, to the extent I could know, they were extremely popular. When I was in grade school I played with them and hung out with them, going swimming at the pool and such. After that, we drifted into different circles as I was never one of the cool kids and all of them were. One of the guys in my circle of friends had one of that family as a girlfriend but I can't recall one instance where anyone said anything about it, positive or negative. It was just something that was. 

Because you can “think” you would be impervious, but without your “White” background, are you sure of this, cause I believe you might have a vastly different interpretation of the value and worth of ones color and cultural heritage, and the indentation it can leave on ones soul, because sometimes that indentation can be an actual hole.

Of course I'm not sure. I can only state that I never thought that the color of one's skin was important as far as their worth is concerned. But I hope you can understand from my school example that most people experience some form of discrimination and, for a child, that can feel pretty intense regardless of what the basis for discrimination is. Or perhaps it's just me. I've struggled with self-worth most of my life, it just had nothing to do with the color of my skin or anyone else's. 

But, just my humble opine, or a white wine, i red about.

Thank you. It was a good point to bring up. 

I'm sure you don't want to discuss any of today's prevalent problems since all go back to racist views by whites of Indians, which is very clear in the history of the US.

They may have begun from racist views but I don't think that is the main basis of NA's problems today. Rather, I think your biggest obstacle is not racism but rather, convincing others that you deserve access to opportunities and resources they feel should belong to everyone. 

which is very clear in the history of the US. And to your lack of knowledge or willful ignorance, those problems do exist today and many instances are being brought to light after being hidden by the government or in many cases the Christian denominations that subjugated and killed thousands of Indians in the name of conversation.

Undoubtedly I don't know as much as you do about such things, but that doesn't mean I don't know anything. I know more than you seem to think. And honestly, it wouldn't matter if I spent the next year letting you educate me on all you wished to educate me on because there's one thing I think you refuse to see or acknowledge. What we did to your people wasn't anything you weren't already doing to yourselves. The only difference between us and you was that our tech gave us the advantage, along with the fact that disease killed so many of your people, which wasn't anyone's fault, morally. 

That's the reason that, while I regret what happened to your people, I have very little sympathy for your grievances. It's hypocritical has one can get. There isn't anything about your people that distinguishes them from the rest of human history concerning oppression except scale. [deleted] And when whites did finally arrive, the first thing your people did was enlist them as allies against their enemies. They wanted the white's tech so that they could use it against their enemies. 

Welcome to the human race, Kavica. Your people were and are no different than the rest of humanity throughout all of time. To the extent your tech allowed, you did unto others just like every other people group in history. So forgive me if I don't feel like standing around listening to your speeches from your moral high horse. 

They may have begun from racist views but I don't think that is the main basis of NA's problems today. Rather, I think your biggest obstacle is not racism but rather, convincing others that you deserve access to opportunities and resources they feel should belong to everyone. 

Nice... white people aren't racists - everyone else is?

What we did to your people wasn't anything you weren't already doing to yourselves.

Oh wow!

I have very little sympathy for your grievances.

That's obvious.

The only reason your pre-contact history wasn't more violent than it was is that you barely made it beyond the hunter/gatherer stage and into farming in some areas.

Oh those poor savages... (wtf??)

Interesting... This whole rant could have come right off any neo-nazi white supremist website, but here we are.

Nice... white people aren't racists - everyone else is?

Sorry. Don't know how you got there. 

As for the rest, did I say anything that wasn't true? If so, what? If not, what's the problem?

I saw your post, Trout Giggles, before you deleted it. You are correct. Many NA cultures were incredible farmers. If I remember the vid on the subject correctly, they were as or more advanced than many cultures around the world. Again, if I remember right, the contribution of new types of food to the rest of the world would be hard to overstate. The potato alone, which came from South or Central America, absolutely changed the course of European history. 

We to the human race, Kavica. Your people were and are no different than the rest of humanity throughout all of time. To the extent your tech allowed, you did unto others just like every other people group in history. So forgive me if I don't feel like Restanding around listening to your speeches from your moral high horse. 

Thank you we Indians have been part of the human race since the beginning it's the US government that relegated us to the savage or non-human, it's all over history, you should read it sometime.

Our tech and civilizations were quite advanced, again a bit of study would help with your lack of knowledge on the subject matter. The relationships between the US and Indian nations is quite different than anything in history of course the US government had the backing of the genocidal Christian denominations. I won't take time to explain either to you, a closed mind is had to penetrate. 

Please don't stand around although I'm not on a moral high horse, they are simply facts that you cannot accept.

They may have begun from racist views but I don't think that is the main basis of NA's problems today. Rather, I think your biggest obstacle is not racism but rather, convincing others that you deserve access to opportunities and resources they feel should belong to everyone

That makes little sense, I think your biggest problem is denying the obvious. 

What we did to your people wasn't anything you weren't already doing to yourselves.

That truly is a crock, I could list numerous things but I doubt that they would sink in.

I have very little sympathy for your grievances.

Shocking /s

The only reason your pre-contact history wasn't more violent than it was is that you barely made it beyond the hunter/gatherer stage and into farming in some areas.

 Sounds like something out of ''Birth of a Nation''. 

it's the US government that relegated us to the savage or non-human, it's all over history, you should read it sometime.

Thanks for the advice but I am already thoroughly aware of how badly your people were treated by whites and the government. I neither deny it or excuse it.

Our tech and civilizations were quite advanced,

True, in some areas. Not in others. Especially considering the subject currently under discussion. 

The relationships between the US and Indian nations is quite different than anything in history

For example???

of course the US government had the backing of the genocidal Christian denominations.

Exaggeration of a complicated dynamic but generally legitimate. 

 I won't take time to explain either to you, a closed mind is had to penetrate. 

My mind is not closed so don't hide behind a false excuse or making this personal. Make your argument and I will listen to it. So many seldom do that, preferring to simply choose to cast aspersions. 

Please don't stand around although I'm not on a moral high horse, they are simply facts that you cannot accept.

I am uncertain of your complete meaning due to the syntax of this sentence. However, it seems at least one meaning is along the lines that I don't accept that whites did bad things to NA's. If so, that is untrue. If you think that any of my posts are about denying that whites did bad things or that because your people did the same things excuses what whites did, you have no idea what the posts are about. 

They may have begun from racist views but I don't think that is the main basis of NA's problems today. Rather, I think your biggest obstacle is not racism but rather, convincing others that you deserve access to opportunities and resources they feel should belong to everyone

That makes little sense, I think your biggest problem is denying the obvious.

If you think it makes little sense, why not try asking clarifying questions rather than projecting? Since you didn't ask clarifying questions, I'll take a stab at trying to further explain it so that perhaps you can understand my point better. 

They may have begun from racist views... 

From the very first encounter, Europeans viewed NA's on a racial and cultural basis that placed them as inferior. For most of the rest of history, such views justified the treatment of NA's in the minds of whites. 

but I don't think that is the main basis of NA's problems today.

In my view, white consciousness of what had happened to NA's began to expand in the 60's and has accelerated ever since. The attitude of whites toward NA's is not what it was in times past. I remember my own awakening to the issue back in grade school in the 60's. I checked out a book from the school library. I don't recall what it was called. To that point, my understanding of NA's was mostly informed by movie westerns. This book was about a white boy who had been taken by a NA tribe and his experiences in that tribe, how his views of his captors changed over time and so on. I really wish I could remember the name of the book but the relevant point is that I could never watch a western again in quite the same way. The US cavalry weren't always the heroes they seemed to be. 

I don't think I'm alone in that sort of thing as a white person. You don't see the sort of westerns you once saw, for instance. You see whites standing in protest with NA's and so on. No politician campaigns on the notion that NA's have to be dealt with, as they once did. Today's whites simply are not the same as those who persecuted your people in the past. 

Rather, I think your biggest obstacle is not racism but rather, convincing others that you deserve access to opportunities and resources they feel should belong to everyone

But even though they are not, that doesn't mean they are going to support what NA's want to the detriment of themselves or their children's future. Human nature makes it a hard sell that an NA has the right to take as many salmon as they want, whenever they want when they themselves can only fish at limited times and, often, can only take one. It is unreasonable to state that one wants a society based on equality while at the same time giving privileges that are decidedly unequal to one race, especially when the supposed goal is to end racism. As whites are so often told, privilege based on race is racism, right? 

But it gets worse than that. NA's aren't simply concerned with what they want for themselves, they want to control what others who are not NA do. Few, if any, farmer wants anything remotely like an archeologist on their land. You probably know that. Because if anything NA is found on that land, the government will step in and, effectively, that farmer will lose the use of that land. We see it all the time. Any time any NA discovery is made, whether on NA land or not, it suddenly becomes a "Sacred NA" issue. Hell. it doesn't even have to be on this planet! The Navajo's tried to stop a mission to the moon because a portion of that mission involved burying the remains of people on the moon. Moon

Now, you can couch these issues in racial terms, as you have done, but it isn't racial. It is that, " regardless of what happened in the past, here we all are now. Convince me that your interests supersede our own ." That is what you're fighting against, not racism. In my opinion, though, you can't do that. You're stuck in the past rather than the present. 

What we did to your people wasn't anything you weren't already doing to yourselves.

That truly is a crock, I could list numerous things but I doubt that they would sink in.

Then please do so. That is the purpose of this place, after all. It isn't to establish an echo chamber. 

I have very little sympathy for your grievances.

Shocking /s

I don't think you understand. I have great sympathy for what happened to your people. I have no sympathy for your personal grievances. 

The only reason your pre-contact history wasn't more violent than it was is that you barely made it beyond the hunter/gatherer stage and into farming in some areas.

Oh, now that is not only wrong but racist as well. Sounds like something out of ''Birth of a Nation''. 

Thanks for outing yourself, refreshing when so many try to hide behind dog whistles and the like. 

While I understand your effort to make that about race, I don't understand how you can convince yourself it is valid. I'm sure you know it isn't. 

[ deleted ]

Speaking of closed minds, I suspect that you cannot but see what I am saying as a disparagement of NA culture. That would be wrong. Or, more accurately, what I am saying is that there isn't anything special about NA culture that differentiates your people from any other people on the planet that I can see. And because of that, I take issue with your personal attitude about the past, as if NA's were sweet Care Bears living a bucolic life of perfect peace and prosperity until we showed up. The only difference between what whites did to you that you weren't already doing to yourselves is that they were white and had better tech. If you believe otherwise then friggin present your case rather than simply disparage me. That is the refuge of those without an argument. 

Addendum. In order to aid you in understanding who you are talking to, I literally don't care what race anyone is. I care no more that you are NA than I care about how tall or short you are or what color is your favorite. That isn't a political statement or virtual signaling. My only consideration concerning an individual or a culture is their morality. My view is that there is a right and wrong way to treat another human being that is true regardless of color or culture. Anything outside such a view invites conflict, suffering and pain. Perhaps that will better help you understand what I have said. 

As whites are so often told, privilege based on race is racism, right? 

Which explains the questionable commentary some conservatives make about equity. As if it is a dirty word. But that is the 'ticket.' Some conservatives "think-tank" everything for ways they can benefit from it to the loss of those Others surrounding them. Even though, all things are paid into by Others just as often or more so.

In order to aid you in understanding who you are talking to, I literally don't care what race anyone is. I care no more that you are NA than I care about how tall or short you are or what color is your favorite. That isn't a political statement or virtual signaling. My only consideration concerning an individual or a culture is their morality. My view is that there is a right and wrong way to treat another human being that is true regardless of color or culture. Anything outside such a view invites conflict, suffering and pain. Perhaps that will better help you understand what I have said. 

Done! Then don won't mind when I rip the band-aid off concerning evangelicalism. Because as the saying goes: I have found somethings with which I take issue. 

Member addressed responded to 9.1.4  11 hours ago, flag from 2 hours ago dismissed by charger

For example???

1. Native lands are a sovereign nation within a Nation (the US)

2, Over 375 treaties, covering everything from peace to fishing and hunting rights

3. Decision by SCOTUS recognizing Indian lands as sovereign lands where state laws do not apply.

4. The Indian Bill of Rights is separate from the Bill of Rights for all other citizens.

5. Indians are citizens of their own tribe/nation as well as citizens of the US.

6. Indian Law is a separate judicial part of US law and is heard as such.

Exaggeration of a complicated dynamic but generally legitimate. 

A reading of the ''Doctrine of Discovery'' will show you that there is no exaggeration involved. Both the Doctrine of Discovery and the  papal bull or decree, “Inter Caetera," in which he authorizes Spain and Portugal to colonize the Americas and its Native peoples as subjects. The decree asserts the rights of Spain and Portugal to colonize, convert, and enslave. It also justifies the enslavement of Africans.

I am uncertain of your complete meaning due to the syntax of this sentence. However, it seems at least one meaning is along the lines that I don't accept that whites did bad things to NA's. If so, that is untrue. If you think that any of my posts are about denying that whites did bad things or that because your people did the same things excuses what whites did, you have no idea what the posts are about. 

I have said that you deny that racism was involved, in particular, AIRFA law. If racism wasn't involved why would the law have been passed? The same applies to many laws that protect natives from racism including the VAWA NA/AI, ICWA all based on the same concern racism against NAs. Our people did none of those things nor did they use Indian Boarding Schools or force others onto Reservations. You seem to forget that it was the Europeans that invaded our land and we fought for centuries to protect it.

In my view, white consciousness of what had happened to NA's began to expand in the 60's and has accelerated ever since. The attitude of whites toward NA's is not what it was in times past. I remember my own awakening to the issue back in grade school in the 60's. I checked out a book from the school library. I don't recall what it was called. To that point, my understanding of NA's was mostly informed by movie westerns. This book was about a white boy who had been taken by a NA tribe and his experiences in that tribe, how his views of his captors changed over time and so on. I really wish I could remember the name of the book but the relevant point is that I could never watch a western again in quite the same way. The US cavalry weren't always the heroes they seemed to be.  I don't think I'm alone in that sort of thing as a white person. You don't see the sort of westerns you once saw, for instance. You see whites standing in protest with NA's and so on. No politician campaigns on the notion that NA's have to be dealt with, as they once did. Today's whites simply are not the same as those who persecuted your people in the past. 

Things have improved over time, yet the majority of those changes were brought on by Natives demanding, protesting and suing to get them. I can provide the law cases, the any other information on many of them since I was personally involved in some of them. Those advances were not done out of the good heart of the government. 

But even though they are not, that doesn't mean they are going to support what NA's want to the detriment of themselves or their children's future. Human nature makes it a hard sell that an NA has the right to take as many salmon as they want, whenever they want when they themselves can only fish at limited times and, often, can only take one. It is unreasonable to state that one wants a society based on equality while at the same time giving privileges that are decidedly unequal to one race, especially when the supposed goal is to end racism. As whites are so often told, privilege based on race is racism, right? 

The fishing rights are guaranteed by treaty and later by Federal Court Decisions. It seems that you are not aware of any of the legal aspects of what you speak. The reason there are Federal legal decisions on this is because the white world would not allow Indians to use the fishing rights granted by treaty. The Supreme Court has said that Treaties are the highest law in the land, some that you and others don't think applies to Indians. The Salmon wars took place in the PNW in the 1960s and 70s when Natives were attacked, beaten and arrested for exercising their fishing rights it was ended by the Bolt Decision upholding the legality of treaty fishing rights. The Bolt Decision was upheld by SCOTUS in 1978.

One other major case involving fishing rights took place in WI and MN and is known as the ''Walleye Wars'' and took place in the 1980s and '90s. Again the Ojibwe were exercising their fishing rights and the white residents of WI tried to stop them, this resuls in shootings, beating attacks and racist demonstrations and signs. Some of the signs read ''Save a Fish, Spear a Squaw'' another read, ''Save two fish spear a pregnant Squaw'', how do I know this, I was there and was shot at, and a couple of different times attacked by mobs which we Indians defended ourselves and it resulted in broken bones for racists. This was again went to court and they ruled in our favor again and that is the Voight Decision of 1983 upheld again in 1991. The same situation took place in MN and again courts sided with the tribes. To this day we are still harrassed when exercising our fishing right in those areas.

While I understand your effort to make that about race, I don't understand how you can convince yourself it is valid. I'm sure you know it isn't. 

You don't understand my effort to make it about race, it is about race always has been and as I have already stated is now. Why on earth do you think the court cases were necessary? I'm sure you're trying to convince yourself that it isn't but all facts say you are wrong. 

Speaking of closed minds, I suspect that you cannot but see what I am saying as a disparagement of NA culture. That would be wrong. Or, more accurately, what I am saying is that there isn't anything special about NA culture that differentiates your people from any other people on the planet that I can see. And because of that, I take issue with your personal attitude about the past, as if NA's were sweet Care Bears living a bucolic life of perfect peace and prosperity until we showed up. The only difference between what whites did to you that you weren't already doing to yourselves is that they were white and had better tech. If you believe otherwise then friggin present your case rather than simply disparage me. That is the refuge of those without an argument. 

I say as does the US government that there is a lot that differentiates us from other peoples as do archeologists anthropologists and linguists. 

So you take issue with my attitude about the past...LOL now that is funny, I don't care what your issue is, my attitude is based on verified facts, and personal experience all verifiable yours are based on your prejudices. 

I do believe otherwise and I have presented my case with backup, you simply won't accept facts much to your detriment, and that Drakk is the refuge of one that deals in untruths, bigoted statements, and lies.

You have taken over more than enough bandwidth with pages of nonsense all of which I have responded to and further posts by you will be deleted.

Very well said, Kavika!    

I read through the CoC again to see if you can just arbitrarily delete my comment but go ahead. I will appeal to Perrie and let her make the call.

In any case, this will be my last post concerning this as I agree this has pretty much been a waste. Judging by the content of this and your other posts, we aren't even talking about the same thing. I began my participation in this seed by starting a new thread so as not to derail any others. I stated that the title of the seeded article was bogus and unsupportable. I tried to stick to that subject but you kept talking about NA history, as if what was happening to the kid in the article was being done for the same reason as it had been done to your people, but correlation is not causation. 

When I finally realized that you weren't interested in the actual article itself, but rather a means for you to stuff all white people into the same box for the purposes of talking about how bad and oppressive white people were to your people I went along with it. My purpose for going along with your chosen subject was to point out that if you're going to do that then you have to put your people in that same box because you did the same things even before we ever got there as well as after. The Commanche nearly wiped out the Apache for example and there are plenty more. I don't say that to be offensive. I don't say it in the sense that because you did it then you have nothing to complain about because we did it to you. I say what I've said because if you're going to stuff all people of a particular race into the same box because of what they did, you'd better be sure that you don't fit in that box yourself. Because you do. 

That is why I keep saying there's nothing different about your people than any other people anywhere, any when. Telling me that NA's are a nation within a nation has absolutely nothing to do with your chosen subject. The box you put white people in. Everything I've said has been an effort to show you the criteria you use for putting whites in that box has been met by NA's as well. That criteria? Oppression in all its forms. The reality? All of humanity is in that same box and there's no significant difference concerning that subject. One need only look at history. 

Does such a view excuse anything that happens, either now or in the past? No, but it is a more honest understanding of ourselves as human beings rather than singling out one group for doing what you've done yourself. 

the pending extinction of xtian nationalists and fringe evangelicals will be a hilarious topic in 100 years.

And when the moon and planets align the Earth will crack in two.    

Get your affairs in order

Once again you have not used any facts mostly it's your feelings and you don't dispute my facts because you cannot, facts are funny that way. You keep making accusation that I'm being bigoted against whites, no Drakk I point out facts and unfortunately for you, they show to the extent that Europeans and later Americans have devasted the Native population.

It seems that you cannot accept those facts. 

This is to both Drakk and Kavika: I am putting up a restriction on the both of you engaging since it doesn't seem to be ending well. 

fast forward 1 decade... ... remember when thumper madrasas were tax exempt? ha ha ha...

Good luck and pack a lunch.    You’ll need it …..

9.1.31 was responded to by member addressed so flag was dismissed by charger

tyvm.

Welcome to the human race, Kavica.

At least have the decency to use the correct spelling of the name.

have the decency

.

I know, but damn - it seems some here can get away with an insult by misspelling a person's name ON PURPOSE just to be disrespectful and not get dinged for it.

I am just going to say the quiet part outloud now: He looks sweet and cute. And his hairstyle (braids up off his ears) with a fade on the sides has feminine fashion overtones and enhancements. I can see where this can be a tad disconcerting and 'skirting' the guidelines as established by Texas conservatives.  But it is not enough reason to suspend or mess with this young man's psyche, attendance, or school record!

The part that gets me is girls can wear this hair all day. It is sexism. 

So as you have 'clocked,' this is about eradicating 'hints' of boys modeling, intentionally or unintentionally, the female head. And when George accomplished the modeling of the female 'head' . . .the 'system' came down on him. 

Scholar of the Week	Athlete of the Week	Eagle of the Week	Fine Arts Student of the Week

hs.bhisd

Hair on full display at Barber's Hill Independent High.

One more thing: MAGAs let me drop this into your spirits: Liberals are getting really sick and tired of your 'protesting' and 'ogling' nearly every behavior, conduct, or manner of living we engage in and indulge in doing. Away with you-go fix your 'broken' religious worldviews (into One instead of thousands of mini-worldviews).and the schisms occurring in your GOP/MAGA party. And yes, fix the fact that there is a self-indulgence JERK leading the GOP whom some of you SWEAR is not what you wish. Well, go fix that and kick his sorry butt to the curb by getting somebody else. Your work is cut out for you if you choose to do it and leave liberals out of it.