- 5:15 pm - Tue, Nov 8, 2011
- 178 notes
Just a reminder.
Erasing a person’s indigenous heritage and condemning them to ‘whiteness’ because they’re not dark enough for you, is disgusting and vile.
Sorry for not looking like an Edward Curtis picture.
Add: Also counts if you think they’re ‘too black’.
Being a white passing anti-black douchebag who receives white privilege and is exercising it against those who don’t couldn’t make me care any less about your heritage than you care about mine, and it makes you even more disgusting and vile. :D
i’m all about the bolded.
this dude really thinks he’s going to get off with his anti-black bullshit. oh no, dickbag, i seen you and your anti-blackness, stop fucking acting like you some innocent motherfucker and erasing the entire context of what actually happened, you know like WHITE MEN DO TO BLACK WOMEN ALL THE TIME AND LIKE NATIVE MEN HAVE DONE TO BLACK WOMEN TOO!
WOOO LET’S HAVE A FUCKING HISTORY LESSON!
And allow me to add a serious fucking lol at “being condemned to whiteness”. OH NO, THIS POOR NIGGUH IS CONDEMNING THIS WHITE PRIVILEGED ASSHOLE TO BEING LIKED AND ACCEPTED IN SOCIETY NO MATTER HOW BIG OF A DOUCHE HE IS! HOW EVIL OF ME!
How is it any “better” to erase/ignore someone’s indigenous heritage because they have passing privilege? Seriously, this is two different conversations.
You are completely missing the point, likely because you didn’t see all the comments made by ayiman, so I’m going to go urge you to read all his bullshit and then come back later. K? K.
Seriously, I find it interesting how quickly the fact Ayiman was one of the people spouting stuff like blood myth at DTWPS & denying that southern blacks with Blackfoot ancestors had indigenous heritage has been obscured. And that, despite me trying to explain that Blackfoot was a term used historically for more than the Blackfoot Confederacy, he decided I was wrong & has since refused to listen to anything that didn’t support his views. And that very few folks are engaging with the fact that there was a good few hours of denying that blacks with slave ancestors had any kind of indigenous heritage including someone trying to claim that Cherokee slave owners didn’t have sex with their female slaves. Just saying, I see a lot of dirty hands in this conversation.
That isn’t exactly what I was saying. You put (heterosexual) men and women together and some of them are going to have sex with each other and have babies. What I was saying is that you can’t assume that tribes have white rape culture, where the men disrespect women, and hate them enough to do that to them.
But I don’t know the culture of the five civilized tribes, and there is some other things I didn’t consider. It sounds like originally the two peoples came together for protection, strength in numbers. There was no racism or slavery in the brutal way that whites did it. In fact I read that what they describe as slavery is that the Indians had land, but didn’t know how to grow cash crops like cotton, former slaves did, so it sounds more like a partnership to me. I’m thinking that the whites chose to call it slavery so they could point fingers and say, “See! We’re not so bad, those people had slaves too!” The whites taught racism and slavery, and they could have also taught sexism and rape culture. I know they have now, there is rape on reservations where it would have been taboo and unheard of in the past.
Culturally black women weren’t exactly seen as women, much less as worthy of respect or protection. There were laws explicitly stating that we were unrapeable, & if we were assaulted then we could face punishment for leading men astray. Also, part of the Five Civilized Tribes being civilized was that they modeled their slave culture after that of the Old South. While I won’t deny the probability that there were some more equal relationships on an individual level, the reality is that for female slaves the chances of making it through life without being raped were very low. And relationships between slave owners & slaves were so imbalanced that without the possibility of No, how could there be a yes?
-Indian masters, however, rejected the worst features of southern white bondage. Travelers reported enslaved Africans “in as good circumstances as their masters.” A white Indian Agent, Douglas Cooper, upset by the Native American failure to practice a brutal form of bondage, insisted that Indians invite white men live in their villages and “control matters.” Force, division, and law threatened but failed to end Black- Indian friendships.
-Prominent whites, including Governor Perrier of Louisiana, claimed Indians had “a great aversion” to Africans. But this was wishful thinking. In 1730 his Choctaw allies, captured dozens of Black runaways who had served as military allies of the Natchez nation, but then refused to surrender them. When the Africans were finally returned after 18 months, they boasted of their freedom with the Natchez and the Choctaw.
-Whatever unfairness African Americans felt living among Indians, they knew did not compare with what they could expect from southern whites. “The opportunities for our people in that [Indian] country far surpassed any of the kind possessed by our people in the U.S., ” wrote editor O.S. Fox of the Cherokee Afro-American Advocate. His people knew that they lived among Indian men and women who would never brutalize or lynch their sons and daughters.
These are quotes from “Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage” written by William Loren Katz. There may be more to it than either of us know, but I know we would like to find out.