Skip to main content

View Diary: "Native languages in 'a state of emergency'" (256 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Them" - what a bigoted atitude. (0+ / 0-)

    Exactly what "Them" am I, Tyto Alba?

    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

    by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 05:20:05 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Quit offending from the victim position, (7+ / 0-)

      it's boring.

      She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

      by Winter Rabbit on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 05:27:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have a substantive response (0+ / 0-)

        to the questions I posed?

        Can you present it without personal attacks or judgment, in the spirit of two equal individuals exchanging ideas on the Internet with the view of mutual benefit from such an exchange?

        If so, I look forward to your response, and will read it without being tainted by your prior insults or condescension, purely on the merit of your arguments.

        Hopefully, you will choose to do the same.

        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

        by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 07:22:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If it describes your attitude, why not? (5+ / 0-)

      You're like Andy Breibart calling his victims racist.  Stop it.

      But by now, we know how the Obama administration deals with those who would destroy it: it goes straight for the capillaries. --Krugman

      by mbayrob on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 05:29:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, exactly what "Them" am I? (0+ / 0-)

        What ideology, position, or policy do I support?

        In particular, what is my position vis a vis preservation of native languages?

        Since you prefer not to address what I actually have discussed in my comments in this diary, why don't you make explicit the presumptions you make about what I represent - besides "Andy Breibart"?

        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

        by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 06:41:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You appear to be an ideological descendent of (4+ / 0-)

          John Locke, putting forward an atomistic view of radically isolated individuals who possess universally recognized human rights.  Locke's view of individual property rights (including the individual's right to intellectual property) downplayed the notion of communal rights -- as does your view.  

          This is the same ideology that drove the forced assimilation policies of the Dawes Act and Indian boarding schools, with their suppression of Native languages.  Late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century reformers liked to call it "killing the Indian to save the man."

          •  I see. (0+ / 0-)

            And you derive this comprehensive view of my beliefs, and the policies I support, and their similarity to past policies, based on what, exactly?

            And why the preoccupation with me and my beliefs - a classic ad hominem - rather than addressing directly and substantively the questions I raised vis a vis thinking about the most effective policies to pursue with regard to preserving native languages?

            Let's assume for the moment that I am every bit the White Devil I have been portrayed here, and that my sole motive for commenting in this diary is to promote the forced assimilation of Native Americans in order to bring about a Final Solution and erase any trace of anything but pure Arian English language and culture.

            How does that address the questions I raised?

            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

            by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 08:45:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You asked, "what is my ideology," and I answered. (0+ / 0-)

              I directly addressed a question you raised.  Do you have an issue with my answer?  Have I mischaracterized your ideology?

              •  Yes, you have. (0+ / 0-)

                But

                a) my ideology is irrelevant in this discussion, and

                b) you clearly have absolutely no interest in my ideology, and

                c) ideology does not, history teaches us, necessarily (ever?) yield practical solutions for real people.

                What really underlies the hysterical response to questioning whether individual choice fits into a discussion about cultural preservation?

                If you insist on engaging in meta-discussion, that is a far more interesting question than what you presume to define as my personal ideology.

                After all, it is a crucial, practical question underlying the debate about Muslim women's veils, indigenous children's hairlength in Canadian schools, and virtually every other debate around the tension between preserving the old and embracing the new.

                So, why the nearly pathological evasion and defensiveness about a simple, nonpersonal, nonideological question?

                Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 09:11:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  The kind you express yourself with. (0+ / 0-)

      YOU figure it out.

      Our lives depend on our love for our earth, and all she gives and has given to us for milleniums. Without her support, we will not survive.

      by Tyto Alba on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 08:29:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps you could condense (0+ / 0-)

        your points in a paragraph or two.

        Then perhaps we could catch on to your meaning.

        In the meantime, all I see is Random Acts of Reasoning, just as your name promises.

        Take care.  I mean no harm.

        Our lives depend on our love for our earth, and all she gives and has given to us for milleniums. Without her support, we will not survive.

        by Tyto Alba on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 08:33:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site