I am not saying I agree with the White billionaires and their sense of grievance. Quite the opposite. But they believe they are aggrieved. They work so hard. They make jobs. They are the competent ones. They are the "makers" not the "takers." Read Atlas Shrugged. Mitt Romney said it, and he is among the more compassionate and reasonable of Republican officeholders. They consider themselves overtaxed and the GOP mostly agrees.
While the phrasing of the "apology statement" may smack of noblesse oblige, I see nothing wrong with regularly acknowledging what White Americans did to Black, Brown, and Red Americans. There is also quite a degree of difference between Indigenous peoples, who were oppressed, enslaved, and robbed since 1492, and Blacks since 1619, than for German discriminatory inconvenience from 1914 to 1918. And I speak as a descendant of Germans who settled in northern Wisconsin. Last night at dinner, an American friend described how he recently watched the movie "Dunkirk" with his grandchildren, who are in eighth grade. He asked them whether they knew what countries the United States fought during World War II. They were clueless. If we don't continue to talk about history with all its warts and progressive idealism, we are doomed to repeat the most awful parts. I fear we are doing just that.
I'd say that is a narrow-minded way of looking at the issue, Erich. Have you read the history with much depth? For example, "Red Americans" oppressed and enslaved oneanother for a very long time prior to any European contact. In fact, the history of Columbus, Cortez and the Plymouth colony began with local tribes wanting to align with them to fight against their original oppressors.
In the case of Black Slaves, their oppression began in Africa: the Atlantic Slave Trade was an extension of the trade in "people as property" that had been going on for a very long time and was run by West African "Big Men" who made great profits off it. Most Black slaves in what became the United States were better off than their fellow West Africans at home — most of whom were slaves of one kind or another. And, importantly, it was the British (mostly) and Americans who ended the trade at its source(Africa) despite aggressive resistance from those same Black slave traders. (There was no abolition movement in West Africa.)
(A great book here is "African Founders" by Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Hackett Fischer. He chronicles the many contributions both free blacks and slaves made during the colonial period. They had opportunities they never would have had in Africa.)
So much of the history has been *distorted* by ideology that it's rare to read good objective accounts. Yet those accounts tell a much more complicated story, with all parties participating in violence at one time or another. To single out "white" people is the product of ideology, not facts.
Of course. And it was 30,000 Tlaxcalans who joined forces with Cortes's roughly 800 men to defeat the Aztecs. But whether Spaniards, British, Americans, or Nazis, the overwhelming reason for the slaughter and expropriation of the peoples of America and Africa was greed! I majored in History and probably read at least one history book a week. Just because native peoples fought, enslaved, and killed one another, nowhere have I read that there was an inherent "right" for Europeans to do the same. As for enslaved Africans having opportunities in the Deep South, I guess they learned a trade.
Yes, but the settlers who came to what is now the USA did not come to slaughter the natives — or "steal" their land (most of which was legally purchased.) In fact, prior to 1830 — when the Democrat Party introduced Indian Removal and became the champions of White Supremacy — more "white" people were killed by "red people" than the other way around; by about 2 to 1.
There is no excuse for the violence and discrimation committed by white settlers. Where they differed was in having a moral vision that grew more broadly in empathy over time. Read Jefferson's letter to the Tribal Cheifs that he sent along with Meriweather Lewis. (He was also to distribute the new small pox vaccine.)
As for slaves in the "deep south" ... it is true that plantation slavery in South Carolina and Georgia, and later Mississipi and Alabama was particularly cruel. But compared to West African slaves who went North and East to the Ottoman Empire, it was not the worst example. And, yes, many there too gained skills, something Booker T Washington added to.
Add "African Founders" to your weekly list. It's a thick book, so it may take 2. Cheers.
I am not sure that Thomas Jefferson is the best example, given his slaveholdings and the Hemming illegitimate Black children he fathered. Coercion anyone? Jefferson did include Indigenous greetings in his message that Lewis and Clark carried West. However, the secret message to Congress requesting the $2,500 for the expedition reveals his more genuine motives. He kept the request secret (and used a secret cipher for communications) so European powers would not learn of America’s intentions on the West. Jefferson hoped to challenge the British fur trade in Canada and hoped for a Pacific base. These imperialistic intentions were eventually realized in 1846 when James K. Polk threatened war (“54-40 or Fight”)with Great Britain if they did not yield the Oregon Territory.
Jefferson *inherited* his slaves (it was not his choice), was instrumental in ending American participation in the African Slave Trade (which he blamed on the British Monarch), and wrestled throughout his life with the dilemma of freeing/resettling West African slaves in a successful manner. The (now) popular claim he fathered children with Sally Hemmings would not hold up in a court of law and should be treated with the kind of skepticism non-woke scholars used to practice.
Yes, the politics of slavery and race is much messier. However that does not negate the genuine moral concerns Jefferson championed. (He was not in alignment with his Democrat heirs: Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, et al.) Avoiding "presentism" and accepting the history in context, neither you nor I come close to exercising the kind of moral courage Jefferson exercised in his day. It was a very complicated matter, deserving nuanced reflection — I'd say.
I will order the book - because I am intrigued, open minded about learning more and need to be convinced that black slaves in the US were better off than fellow West Africans at home - but it's still no excuse for the continued discrimination and worse of many POC in our short relative history. Do you also have an academic source to excuse the internment of Japanese American citizens? The Exclusion Act against the Chinese? I know in great depth what we did to these peoples and the long-term effects on their descendants.
Thank you Peter. I always cringe at the land acknowledgements, they seem performative and hollow. I do like the sentiments in the Pledge as you pointed out.
In July of 2022 we drew about 100 people to the Jackson County Library Board meeting as they were considering the adoption of their current Land Acknowledgment which is read at all Library events. I made the point that these were politically-driven statements proffered by progressive activists and reflect the influence of Marxist-inspired critical theory. ("Settler Colonialism" — the doctrine that undergirds them — is a critical theory.) As such, they were yet another example of Library staff injecting their personal (progressive) politics into what should be a politically-neutral taxpayer funded community institution. Moreover, they are a clear example of virtue signaling — as you point out.
As an alternative, we suggested the library invest time and resources developing a program that would provide patrons with ongoing learning opportunities about local tribes. We met with leaders of local tribes who were all onboard and even offered to fund such an effort. But the library board refused that. (This is one of the primary reasons former JCLS Board Chairman Eric Duirza was overwhelmingly defeated in his 2023 re-election bid. His replacement, Kevin Keating, spoke against the Land Acknowledgment and in favor of our plan to promote education about the tribes.)
The issue is being revisted in early 2025 and I would encourage community members to weigh-in:
Do you support progressive virtue signaling that divides our community? Or learning opportunities that bring us together — bridging our political divide — to celebrate our local tribes?
One correction: There are no "indigenous" people in the Americas. The various "Indian Tribes" came to America the same way Europeans did: they migrated here from somewhere else (Asia, for the tribes). They came in various waves that violently displaced migrant groups who came before. In fact, Archeologists have confirmed that the Americas were much more violent *prior* to European settlement. The *actual* history is much more complicated. Reducing it to the confines of Marxist Critical Theory does a great disservice, in addition to being essentially propaganda.
I think this is interesting, but bristle at your use of "[progressive virtue signaling] that divides our community" repeatedly - and other clearly biased wording. Marxist Critical Theory does a great disservice? Do you have any books or research to offer that reinforce your history prior to European settlement as I'm open to learning more on this topic, but I need to be convinced that there are no "indigenous" people - unless you encompass the entire globe outside of Africa?
Yes Lisa. I am launching the Oregon Education Project in January. I will be publishing alot of information — including an Ethnic Studies Resource List at the request of the Medford School District's curriculum director.
My wording is not *biased*. It is what is used academically to describe what I am talking about. I'm a retired social science educator. The effects of (what is accurately labeled) Marxist Critical Theory can be seen in recent studies of "Diversity, Equity & Inclusion", especially in work environments. DEI is divisive and counterproductive to bridging people's differences in terms of ethnicity and race. Data demonstrates that.
The term "Indigenous" means "originating or occuring naturally in a particular place." There were no homo sapiens in North America until about 30,000 years ago. No Indian tribes originated or occured naturally here. They all *migrated* from other continents. No difference between them. That was my point.
Glad to take in your views and chat more. In learning mode. Cheers
I spent 8 years working as a VP in higher education, and I still think the way you have offered your *opinion* is biased - as you put a negative connotation on each "progressive"="divisive" statement. So, check your unconscious bias - and please enlighten me as to how current DEI efforts are divisive and counterproductive? I spent 7 years before COVID at the Japanese Garden and as CEO of the Chinese Garden in Portland - traveling 3 times on diplomatic trips to China and hosting Consul General and other leaders, while also sitting on homeless committees for the City/County/Metro and involved with many urban renewal projects. Please share with us some of your "data"? And I'll share with you the history of the Albina neighborhood or Old Town/Japantown/Chinatown.
Maybe visit the literature on so-called “unconscious bias”. Like other framings from The Left today, it has no scientific grounding. My assertions are based on factual analysis and are informed by a deep history comparing political dogmas from all sides. If there is something I’ve said that can be disproven, please provide an argument — not an ad hominem.
I find the land statements to be virtue signaling and it is distasteful to me for all the reasons others have stated. My surname is Scottish and I am also Irish, English, Germanic, Norwegian, and a tiny bit American Indian and an even smaller bit Nigerian according to DNA tests. Of course, these designations are made to indicate a region of my ancestry by a current place name. All of those areas were at various times invaded by incomers. We are mostly a mongrel nation of mixed ancestries. I don’t like that in the nearly 400 years my European ancestors have been on this continent many engaged in armed conflicts with people of various tribes including the Rogue River Indian War. I also don’t like that some of my ancestors were slave owners. Nevertheless, I did not do those things myself and I don’t feel it is necessary to engage in endless repetitions of land statements. We can only make sure we do better in treatment of our fellow humans.
Well stated Peter. I couldn’t agree with you more completely. I simply find it cringeworthy when land acknowledgments are stated before meetings. I hope it is a trend that quietly disappears.
And a short word about Poland. Are there Indigenous Poles? Probably not, given the large numbers of invaders who criss-crossed its flat plains for two millennia. Is it a legitimate country? Of course. It has a flag, a national airline, defined borders, and a national anthem courtesy of Frédéric Chopin. Poles know that despite Hitler's Lebensraum and Stalin's Slavic hegemony, they have a history and a culture. The same Western and Eastern Europeans who stole the homes of Indigenous Americans and displaced the homes of Africans did this to the Polish people. It does not mean they were morally right or that power should always prevail. If America's Manifest Destiny implies that it was right that Indigenous Americans and Mexicans were swept aside, then the anger and distrust that those people feel toward Americans is no less justified.
There is a Polish language. There are Polish saints (Our Lady of Chestenova). There is Polish culture, Polish foods, Polish ways of doing things. Poland has a center but the edges have been moved around. Polish language and culture survived being occupied by others. The Polish people are not exactly co-terminus with the boundaries of the nation called Poland. Prussia is a place, too, and it has variously been in Poland and adjacent to it.
When Vietnam's General Võ Nguyên Giáp met with Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara, he asked if General Giap could forget about the My Lai massacre. The general replied that he could forgive but not forget because it was history. Vietnam decided to move on and make the best of the present but not forget history because it was best for everyone.
I was with you all the way until you got to the aggrieved white male Billionaires. I'm having a hard time with that one.
I am not saying I agree with the White billionaires and their sense of grievance. Quite the opposite. But they believe they are aggrieved. They work so hard. They make jobs. They are the competent ones. They are the "makers" not the "takers." Read Atlas Shrugged. Mitt Romney said it, and he is among the more compassionate and reasonable of Republican officeholders. They consider themselves overtaxed and the GOP mostly agrees.
While the phrasing of the "apology statement" may smack of noblesse oblige, I see nothing wrong with regularly acknowledging what White Americans did to Black, Brown, and Red Americans. There is also quite a degree of difference between Indigenous peoples, who were oppressed, enslaved, and robbed since 1492, and Blacks since 1619, than for German discriminatory inconvenience from 1914 to 1918. And I speak as a descendant of Germans who settled in northern Wisconsin. Last night at dinner, an American friend described how he recently watched the movie "Dunkirk" with his grandchildren, who are in eighth grade. He asked them whether they knew what countries the United States fought during World War II. They were clueless. If we don't continue to talk about history with all its warts and progressive idealism, we are doomed to repeat the most awful parts. I fear we are doing just that.
I'd say that is a narrow-minded way of looking at the issue, Erich. Have you read the history with much depth? For example, "Red Americans" oppressed and enslaved oneanother for a very long time prior to any European contact. In fact, the history of Columbus, Cortez and the Plymouth colony began with local tribes wanting to align with them to fight against their original oppressors.
In the case of Black Slaves, their oppression began in Africa: the Atlantic Slave Trade was an extension of the trade in "people as property" that had been going on for a very long time and was run by West African "Big Men" who made great profits off it. Most Black slaves in what became the United States were better off than their fellow West Africans at home — most of whom were slaves of one kind or another. And, importantly, it was the British (mostly) and Americans who ended the trade at its source(Africa) despite aggressive resistance from those same Black slave traders. (There was no abolition movement in West Africa.)
(A great book here is "African Founders" by Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Hackett Fischer. He chronicles the many contributions both free blacks and slaves made during the colonial period. They had opportunities they never would have had in Africa.)
So much of the history has been *distorted* by ideology that it's rare to read good objective accounts. Yet those accounts tell a much more complicated story, with all parties participating in violence at one time or another. To single out "white" people is the product of ideology, not facts.
Cheers.
Of course. And it was 30,000 Tlaxcalans who joined forces with Cortes's roughly 800 men to defeat the Aztecs. But whether Spaniards, British, Americans, or Nazis, the overwhelming reason for the slaughter and expropriation of the peoples of America and Africa was greed! I majored in History and probably read at least one history book a week. Just because native peoples fought, enslaved, and killed one another, nowhere have I read that there was an inherent "right" for Europeans to do the same. As for enslaved Africans having opportunities in the Deep South, I guess they learned a trade.
Yes, but the settlers who came to what is now the USA did not come to slaughter the natives — or "steal" their land (most of which was legally purchased.) In fact, prior to 1830 — when the Democrat Party introduced Indian Removal and became the champions of White Supremacy — more "white" people were killed by "red people" than the other way around; by about 2 to 1.
There is no excuse for the violence and discrimation committed by white settlers. Where they differed was in having a moral vision that grew more broadly in empathy over time. Read Jefferson's letter to the Tribal Cheifs that he sent along with Meriweather Lewis. (He was also to distribute the new small pox vaccine.)
As for slaves in the "deep south" ... it is true that plantation slavery in South Carolina and Georgia, and later Mississipi and Alabama was particularly cruel. But compared to West African slaves who went North and East to the Ottoman Empire, it was not the worst example. And, yes, many there too gained skills, something Booker T Washington added to.
Add "African Founders" to your weekly list. It's a thick book, so it may take 2. Cheers.
I am not sure that Thomas Jefferson is the best example, given his slaveholdings and the Hemming illegitimate Black children he fathered. Coercion anyone? Jefferson did include Indigenous greetings in his message that Lewis and Clark carried West. However, the secret message to Congress requesting the $2,500 for the expedition reveals his more genuine motives. He kept the request secret (and used a secret cipher for communications) so European powers would not learn of America’s intentions on the West. Jefferson hoped to challenge the British fur trade in Canada and hoped for a Pacific base. These imperialistic intentions were eventually realized in 1846 when James K. Polk threatened war (“54-40 or Fight”)with Great Britain if they did not yield the Oregon Territory.
Jefferson *inherited* his slaves (it was not his choice), was instrumental in ending American participation in the African Slave Trade (which he blamed on the British Monarch), and wrestled throughout his life with the dilemma of freeing/resettling West African slaves in a successful manner. The (now) popular claim he fathered children with Sally Hemmings would not hold up in a court of law and should be treated with the kind of skepticism non-woke scholars used to practice.
Yes, the politics of slavery and race is much messier. However that does not negate the genuine moral concerns Jefferson championed. (He was not in alignment with his Democrat heirs: Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, et al.) Avoiding "presentism" and accepting the history in context, neither you nor I come close to exercising the kind of moral courage Jefferson exercised in his day. It was a very complicated matter, deserving nuanced reflection — I'd say.
Cheers.
I will order the book - because I am intrigued, open minded about learning more and need to be convinced that black slaves in the US were better off than fellow West Africans at home - but it's still no excuse for the continued discrimination and worse of many POC in our short relative history. Do you also have an academic source to excuse the internment of Japanese American citizens? The Exclusion Act against the Chinese? I know in great depth what we did to these peoples and the long-term effects on their descendants.
Thank you Peter. I always cringe at the land acknowledgements, they seem performative and hollow. I do like the sentiments in the Pledge as you pointed out.
In July of 2022 we drew about 100 people to the Jackson County Library Board meeting as they were considering the adoption of their current Land Acknowledgment which is read at all Library events. I made the point that these were politically-driven statements proffered by progressive activists and reflect the influence of Marxist-inspired critical theory. ("Settler Colonialism" — the doctrine that undergirds them — is a critical theory.) As such, they were yet another example of Library staff injecting their personal (progressive) politics into what should be a politically-neutral taxpayer funded community institution. Moreover, they are a clear example of virtue signaling — as you point out.
As an alternative, we suggested the library invest time and resources developing a program that would provide patrons with ongoing learning opportunities about local tribes. We met with leaders of local tribes who were all onboard and even offered to fund such an effort. But the library board refused that. (This is one of the primary reasons former JCLS Board Chairman Eric Duirza was overwhelmingly defeated in his 2023 re-election bid. His replacement, Kevin Keating, spoke against the Land Acknowledgment and in favor of our plan to promote education about the tribes.)
The issue is being revisted in early 2025 and I would encourage community members to weigh-in:
Do you support progressive virtue signaling that divides our community? Or learning opportunities that bring us together — bridging our political divide — to celebrate our local tribes?
One correction: There are no "indigenous" people in the Americas. The various "Indian Tribes" came to America the same way Europeans did: they migrated here from somewhere else (Asia, for the tribes). They came in various waves that violently displaced migrant groups who came before. In fact, Archeologists have confirmed that the Americas were much more violent *prior* to European settlement. The *actual* history is much more complicated. Reducing it to the confines of Marxist Critical Theory does a great disservice, in addition to being essentially propaganda.
Thanks for weighing in on this, Peter.
Cheers.
I think this is interesting, but bristle at your use of "[progressive virtue signaling] that divides our community" repeatedly - and other clearly biased wording. Marxist Critical Theory does a great disservice? Do you have any books or research to offer that reinforce your history prior to European settlement as I'm open to learning more on this topic, but I need to be convinced that there are no "indigenous" people - unless you encompass the entire globe outside of Africa?
Yes Lisa. I am launching the Oregon Education Project in January. I will be publishing alot of information — including an Ethnic Studies Resource List at the request of the Medford School District's curriculum director.
My wording is not *biased*. It is what is used academically to describe what I am talking about. I'm a retired social science educator. The effects of (what is accurately labeled) Marxist Critical Theory can be seen in recent studies of "Diversity, Equity & Inclusion", especially in work environments. DEI is divisive and counterproductive to bridging people's differences in terms of ethnicity and race. Data demonstrates that.
The term "Indigenous" means "originating or occuring naturally in a particular place." There were no homo sapiens in North America until about 30,000 years ago. No Indian tribes originated or occured naturally here. They all *migrated* from other continents. No difference between them. That was my point.
Glad to take in your views and chat more. In learning mode. Cheers
I spent 8 years working as a VP in higher education, and I still think the way you have offered your *opinion* is biased - as you put a negative connotation on each "progressive"="divisive" statement. So, check your unconscious bias - and please enlighten me as to how current DEI efforts are divisive and counterproductive? I spent 7 years before COVID at the Japanese Garden and as CEO of the Chinese Garden in Portland - traveling 3 times on diplomatic trips to China and hosting Consul General and other leaders, while also sitting on homeless committees for the City/County/Metro and involved with many urban renewal projects. Please share with us some of your "data"? And I'll share with you the history of the Albina neighborhood or Old Town/Japantown/Chinatown.
Maybe visit the literature on so-called “unconscious bias”. Like other framings from The Left today, it has no scientific grounding. My assertions are based on factual analysis and are informed by a deep history comparing political dogmas from all sides. If there is something I’ve said that can be disproven, please provide an argument — not an ad hominem.
Cheers.
I find the land statements to be virtue signaling and it is distasteful to me for all the reasons others have stated. My surname is Scottish and I am also Irish, English, Germanic, Norwegian, and a tiny bit American Indian and an even smaller bit Nigerian according to DNA tests. Of course, these designations are made to indicate a region of my ancestry by a current place name. All of those areas were at various times invaded by incomers. We are mostly a mongrel nation of mixed ancestries. I don’t like that in the nearly 400 years my European ancestors have been on this continent many engaged in armed conflicts with people of various tribes including the Rogue River Indian War. I also don’t like that some of my ancestors were slave owners. Nevertheless, I did not do those things myself and I don’t feel it is necessary to engage in endless repetitions of land statements. We can only make sure we do better in treatment of our fellow humans.
Peter, it had to be said and I fully agree with you.
Liberty and Justice for all is a pretty tall hurdle and we should keep striving for it for ourselves and the next generations.
Well stated Peter. I couldn’t agree with you more completely. I simply find it cringeworthy when land acknowledgments are stated before meetings. I hope it is a trend that quietly disappears.
100% agree
And a short word about Poland. Are there Indigenous Poles? Probably not, given the large numbers of invaders who criss-crossed its flat plains for two millennia. Is it a legitimate country? Of course. It has a flag, a national airline, defined borders, and a national anthem courtesy of Frédéric Chopin. Poles know that despite Hitler's Lebensraum and Stalin's Slavic hegemony, they have a history and a culture. The same Western and Eastern Europeans who stole the homes of Indigenous Americans and displaced the homes of Africans did this to the Polish people. It does not mean they were morally right or that power should always prevail. If America's Manifest Destiny implies that it was right that Indigenous Americans and Mexicans were swept aside, then the anger and distrust that those people feel toward Americans is no less justified.
There is a Polish language. There are Polish saints (Our Lady of Chestenova). There is Polish culture, Polish foods, Polish ways of doing things. Poland has a center but the edges have been moved around. Polish language and culture survived being occupied by others. The Polish people are not exactly co-terminus with the boundaries of the nation called Poland. Prussia is a place, too, and it has variously been in Poland and adjacent to it.
When Vietnam's General Võ Nguyên Giáp met with Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara, he asked if General Giap could forget about the My Lai massacre. The general replied that he could forgive but not forget because it was history. Vietnam decided to move on and make the best of the present but not forget history because it was best for everyone.