Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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-)


          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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site