3 ms·

> I'm sure a huge amount of American material depicting the English or French would be considered racist if that standard were applied I think what you are mi

> I'm sure a huge amount of American material depicting the English or French would be considered racist if that standard were applied I think what you are missing here is that there is no history in the US of genocide against people of English or French descent. The US has a long history of exploiting American Indians, forcibly relocating them at gunpoint, or just killing them outright. Part of what made this possible was systematic dehumanization of American Indians by portraying them as ignorant savages who were incapable of being "civilized" due to their race. This is the exact dehumanization that Disney was engaging in for laffs in Peter Pan. Obviously, we need to do more to make up for this history of injustices against American Indians. But I find that those who speak loudest to justify racist caricatures against them are the ones least likely to want to do anything to redress those injustices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_of_Native_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_of_Native_A...

zozbot234 5y ago
[flagged]
- teachrdan 5y ago
  You're making my point for me. The US was capable of fighting multiple wars against the English without a campaign of dehumanization against all people of English descent, based on claims that the English were inherently and irredeemably savage and uncivilized. I invite you to find a Disney movie with caricatures of English people that portrays them with exaggerated features, outlandish clothing, and speaking incomprehensibly, and where non-English people then dress and act like them as a goofy lark. The best I can think of is specific goofs on the English aristocracy at specific historical times (like revolutionary America) -- as opposed to American Indians, who were often shown to just be primitive barbarians, whether it was in the 1700s, 1800s or 1900s.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Maybe not against all people of English descent, but certainly those who stayed loyal to the Crown. Tarring and feathering especially was not only a form of physical torture and public humiliation but also of rather overt, unambiguous dehumanization, since to be subjected to it meant being treated as akin to a medieval outlaw: someone who would altogether lose the protection of the law as a consequence of their "savage and uncivilized" crimes.
    - teachrdan 5y ago
      Exactly. Individuals were treated based on their individual political beliefs. Compare that to a Disney song about how American Indians are dark savages who speak a nonsense language. These are two completely different treatments, one of which is based entirely on race and white supremacy.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    Did the Americans do that with Native people? Historically, some native tribes were aligned with the US government, and some were not. It would be weird to malign your allies as irredeemably savage. For example, modern day Western racists might not differentiate between Chinese and Japanese, but the US government in WWII made sure to try teach people how to differentiate between the two(using racist tropes - negatives one for Japanese and positive ones for Chinese): http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6795/ http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6795/
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > a campaign of dehumanization against all people of English descent, based on claims that the English were inherently and irredeemably savage and uncivilized. I think you're running a bit ahead of yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes: > Americans of European descent classified them as "civilized" because they had adopted attributes of the Anglo-American culture.[3] Examples of such colonial attributes adopted by these five tribes, included Christianity, centralized governments, literacy in English, market participation, written constitutions, intermarriage with white Americans, and chattel slavery practices, including purchase of enslaved African Americans.[4][5] For a period, the Five Civilized Tribes tended to maintain stable political relations with the European Americans, before the United States promoted Indian Removal of these tribes from the Southeast.
- throaun3numbe 5y ago
  > Maybe you should educate yourself about... This tone isn't helpful and it's not the tone we expect in hacker news. Additionally, the parent commenter talks explicitly about genocide, not wars. And I don't think the particular displacement you're talking about compares to systematic displacement and genocide in some cases of the native americans
ratboy666 5y ago
War of 1812. The Acadians. The Irish.
tablespoon 5y ago
>> I'm sure a huge amount of American material depicting the English or French would be considered racist if that standard were applied > I think what you are missing here is that there is no history in the US of genocide against people of English or French descent. I'm not missing that, and I'm well aware that kind of logic is used to justify the different standards. However, those justifications aren't terribly relevant to what I was describing, which was the standards themselves and their results. As an aside, that justification isn't terribly satisfying, and has some pretty significant rough edges/internal contradictions (e.g. implying that racist/stereotyped depictions are OK so long as there's "no history in the US of genocide against" against the stereotyped group).

zozbot234 5y ago

[flagged]

teachrdan 5y ago
You're making my point for me. The US was capable of fighting multiple wars against the English without a campaign of dehumanization against all people of English descent, based on claims that the English were inherently and irredeemably savage and uncivilized. I invite you to find a Disney movie with caricatures of English people that portrays them with exaggerated features, outlandish clothing, and speaking incomprehensibly, and where non-English people then dress and act like them as a goofy lark. The best I can think of is specific goofs on the English aristocracy at specific historical times (like revolutionary America) -- as opposed to American Indians, who were often shown to just be primitive barbarians, whether it was in the 1700s, 1800s or 1900s.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Maybe not against all people of English descent, but certainly those who stayed loyal to the Crown. Tarring and feathering especially was not only a form of physical torture and public humiliation but also of rather overt, unambiguous dehumanization, since to be subjected to it meant being treated as akin to a medieval outlaw: someone who would altogether lose the protection of the law as a consequence of their "savage and uncivilized" crimes.
  - teachrdan 5y ago
    Exactly. Individuals were treated based on their individual political beliefs. Compare that to a Disney song about how American Indians are dark savages who speak a nonsense language. These are two completely different treatments, one of which is based entirely on race and white supremacy.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Did the Americans do that with Native people? Historically, some native tribes were aligned with the US government, and some were not. It would be weird to malign your allies as irredeemably savage. For example, modern day Western racists might not differentiate between Chinese and Japanese, but the US government in WWII made sure to try teach people how to differentiate between the two(using racist tropes - negatives one for Japanese and positive ones for Chinese): http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6795/ http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6795/
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > a campaign of dehumanization against all people of English descent, based on claims that the English were inherently and irredeemably savage and uncivilized. I think you're running a bit ahead of yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes: > Americans of European descent classified them as "civilized" because they had adopted attributes of the Anglo-American culture.[3] Examples of such colonial attributes adopted by these five tribes, included Christianity, centralized governments, literacy in English, market participation, written constitutions, intermarriage with white Americans, and chattel slavery practices, including purchase of enslaved African Americans.[4][5] For a period, the Five Civilized Tribes tended to maintain stable political relations with the European Americans, before the United States promoted Indian Removal of these tribes from the Southeast.
throaun3numbe 5y ago
> Maybe you should educate yourself about... This tone isn't helpful and it's not the tone we expect in hacker news. Additionally, the parent commenter talks explicitly about genocide, not wars. And I don't think the particular displacement you're talking about compares to systematic displacement and genocide in some cases of the native americans

ratboy666 5y ago

War of 1812. The Acadians. The Irish.

tablespoon 5y ago

>> I'm sure a huge amount of American material depicting the English or French would be considered racist if that standard were applied > I think what you are missing here is that there is no history in the US of genocide against people of English or French descent. I'm not missing that, and I'm well aware that kind of logic is used to justify the different standards. However, those justifications aren't terribly relevant to what I was describing, which was the standards themselves and their results. As an aside, that justification isn't terribly satisfying, and has some pretty significant rough edges/internal contradictions (e.g. implying that racist/stereotyped depictions are OK so long as there's "no history in the US of genocide against" against the stereotyped group).