3 ms·

I have to object to the use of the word "we" to describe the actions of people many generations ago. Basically nobody today would approve of the first case, an

I have to object to the use of the word "we" to describe the actions of people many generations ago. Basically nobody today would approve of the first case, and proponents of the second case aren't part of the "we" who would be reading this comment.

rexpop 9y ago
The institutions through which we perpetrated those atrocities are still intact, and we continue to comprise them.
elil17 9y ago
The US federal government continues to violate treaties by providing substandard services to reservations. Additionally, the US continues to steal sacred lands (ie DAPL - the pipeline could easily have been built through a primarily white town with no religious significance to anyone). US state governments continue to use history textbooks which gloss over the Native American genocide and usually don’t mention the 20th century Native American Movement at all. I think that’s enough American institutions continuing the oppression of Native Americans to justify the use of the word “we.”
- DiabloD3 9y ago
  As a white man, I also objected to the US invasion of federally protected lands, both because of the legal contract we have with the remaining Native American tribes, and because I believe protecting nature is the highest duty of mankind, and there is not nearly enough profit in the oil industry to justify the rape of the land. So, lets not try to be reverse racist, okay? This is HN, not reddit.
monocasa 9y ago
We had a policy of forcibily sterlizing Native American women through the 1970s, so it's not exactly 'many generations ago'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_Amer...
- nitrogen 9y ago
  Again with the "we". You had no part in that I assume, nor did I, nor did most/all of the people here. It makes our language and our causes weaker to say that "we" "had" a policy that none present actually had.

rexpop 9y ago

The institutions through which we perpetrated those atrocities are still intact, and we continue to comprise them.

elil17 9y ago

The US federal government continues to violate treaties by providing substandard services to reservations. Additionally, the US continues to steal sacred lands (ie DAPL - the pipeline could easily have been built through a primarily white town with no religious significance to anyone). US state governments continue to use history textbooks which gloss over the Native American genocide and usually don’t mention the 20th century Native American Movement at all. I think that’s enough American institutions continuing the oppression of Native Americans to justify the use of the word “we.”

DiabloD3 9y ago
As a white man, I also objected to the US invasion of federally protected lands, both because of the legal contract we have with the remaining Native American tribes, and because I believe protecting nature is the highest duty of mankind, and there is not nearly enough profit in the oil industry to justify the rape of the land. So, lets not try to be reverse racist, okay? This is HN, not reddit.

monocasa 9y ago

We had a policy of forcibily sterlizing Native American women through the 1970s, so it's not exactly 'many generations ago'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_Amer...

nitrogen 9y ago
Again with the "we". You had no part in that I assume, nor did I, nor did most/all of the people here. It makes our language and our causes weaker to say that "we" "had" a policy that none present actually had.