- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Oh yeah, to this day, that massacre is the largest mass shooting ever committed in US soil. And it was done by the US government.
I keep telling Americans that common sense cop control would prevent more mass shootings than any gun law.
I want cop control legislation.
What would the donors think?
Largest mass shooting so far.
A regular civilian does not have the firepower needed to kill 300+ people unless you believe an AR-15 is as powerful as an entire artillery battery.
The guy who opened fire on a concert from a balcony in Las Vegas in 2017 shot about 450 people
He killed 50, no? Wounded Knee is still the record for most people killed. And the Las Vegas shooter was an actually special case, as he had dozens of illegally modified weapons and height advantage.
And white people wonder why we don’t trust them with anything.
“It’s so long ago! Who cares!”
“So you’re fine repudiating it, since you don’t care?”
“NEVER! THOSE MURDERERS WERE HEROES!”
It’s so frustrating to deal with people who reverse their position on racial justice as soon as it’s convenient for them to do so. Frustrating, too, to have fucking family who will look me in the eyes and say shit like that about other atrocities.
Counterpoint: Clarence Thomas. I think you’ll find that the problem is related to having power to abuse, not melanin concentration in the basal layer of the epidermis.
Counter-counterpoint: Jasmine Crockett. She’s fucking awesome.
I mean yeah assessing people on an individual level is different from collective. Look at the collective history of white people over the past few centuries and it’s pretty logical why PoC are going to have their guard up. When white folk came to your country as a group, historical precendent is such that killing and/or stealing are high on the list of potential outcomes.
The Democratic party supported the civil rights act of 1964 in the US, which ended race based segregation. Since then not a single democratic presidential nominee has won the majority of the white vote. That’s some pretty dark shit.
This doesn’t mean that any single individual white person is presumed bad.
I think you’re still missing the point of power imbalance. Sure, you don’t see these atrocities committed in America by colored people because they haven’t had enough power there. But look to other places where colored people had power (for just about any value of colored) and you see the same kind of atrocities. The biggest limiting factor seems to be the scope of their power, not the limits of their brutality.
The scale of colonial exploitation and the Atlantic slave trade trump many if not most atrocities by other groups through history.
Slavery in Africa was very different from the chattel slavery practiced in the US where slaveowners had the right to punish slaves to the point of manslaughter without reprecussion. See the Casual Killing Act of 1669.
Slaves in Africa at the time were integrated as household members or low-status laborers rather than treated as perpetual chattel. Legal frameworks allowed some slaves to marry, inherit, and sometimes ascend to military or administrative roles.
European colonists created such a demand for slaves from Africa that it destabilized local economies, promoted war through using weapons for purchase and even led locals to believe Europeans were cannibals just based on the sheer number of people they were purchasing and transporting.
I wouldn’t blame Africans for being skeptical if a large group of white folk showed up at their coast and thats not even getting into the legacy of South African apartheid or the perpetuation of exploitation that persists to this day through neocolonialism.
White man here: I don’t wonder shit. I know why people don’t trust us.
I apologize for what my race and gender have done to the world.
While I believe what you express above comes from a good place of empathy, care, and respect, if you’re open to suggestions, I would offer the following.
This hat-in-hand attitude often comes across as a tedious neoliberal brand of white guilt and “I acknowledge my privilege” performative social justice that primarily seeks personal absolution from allies rather than a hand in fighting systemic injustice.
Instead, it is a more useful exercise to consider your privileged identities, such as apparent gender or the color of your skin, as a disavowable inheritance like a family name, rendering them mere tools you bring to the cause of liberation, rather than a scarlet WM you must apologize to your comrades for at every turn.
Edit: concretely, I mean that it is no better to “other” yourself than someone else. Instead, acknowledge that our perceptions of race and gender are manufactured (and historically none more-so than whiteness and masculinity, easy proxies for explicit political and socioeconomic power). Whiteness and masculinity telegraph it the way a gun telegraphs strength. So instead of apologizing for how the weapons you were born with have been used by oppressors in the past, reject and subvert what they represent by committing them to the cause of those who are oppressed today.
Exactly this. Your job as an ally is to be angry when the oppressed need to keep the peace. Oftentimes, oppressors will blatantly oppress, then claim to be the victim when then oppressed gets angry and starts talking back. They hide behind decorum, and use it as a shield. Additionally, they’ll use the angry actions as justification for oppression.
When the oppressed needs to maintain decorum, it’s the ally’s job to get angry. The ally doesn’t fit into any of the boxes that the oppressor would otherwise use to villainize the oppressed.
As an example, here is what happened when Representative Keith Self intentionally misgendered Rep Sarah McBride. We see this exact scenario play out in real time. Self misgenders McBride, an openly transgender representative. McBride returns a simple “thank you madam” as a joke, but otherwise doesn’t react to it. Because she recognizes that anything she does will be used to further villainize trans people and justify their oppression. Self will use it to paint McBride as an unreasonable snowflake liberal. Instead, Rep. Bill Keating is the one to call out Self. Keating, a straight white middle-aged man, can’t have his identity weaponized against him. So he’s the one to go to bat in McBride’s place. He demands that Self explain his actions, and refuses to back down until Self does so. When Self realizes his “bait the anger” tactic worked against him by baiting the wrong person, he retreats by immediately ending the meeting.
As a humble gringo, I aspire to be the biggest fucking race traitor on God’s green earth
That’s the spirit!
Notice the stupid drunken rapist cunt called it a “battle”.
Its the Wounded Knee MASSACRE
Right?
I thought that more people played BioShock Infinite. That game was miles ahead of its time. I’m surprised more people don’t talk about it given how relevant the game is now.
I like how our favorite day drinker is all ‘this is final’ as if anyone’s position in this admin is in any way secure
why are they like this?
Also the left does a terrible job of advertising they’re like this. Like Charlie dying and everyone saying “He’s such a good christian”
The left needs to get their asses back on social media and post why they’re like this so there is no confusion who these people are.
“Battle”. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Was there some push to revoke their medals? They’ve been dead for many years. Who cares?
Just performative nonsense.
For this 1890 campaign, the U.S. Army awarded 31 Medals of Honor, 19 specifically for service at Wounded Knee.[7][8][56] 18 were awarded in the months after the massacre, and two more awarded in 1893 and 1897 respectively.[57]
In the Nebraska State Historical Society’s summer 1994 quarterly journal, Jerry Green construes that pre-1916 Medals of Honor were awarded more liberally; however, “the number of medals does seem disproportionate when compared to those awarded for other battles.” Quantifying, he compares the three awarded for the Battle of Bear Paw Mountain’s five-day siege, to the twenty awarded for this short and one-sided action.[58] Historian Will G. Robinson notes that, in contrast, only three Medals of Honor were awarded among the 64,000 South Dakotans who fought for four years of World War II.[59] However, historian Dwight Mears points out that awards prior to 1918 were “Medal[s] of Honor in name only,” making such comparisons with modern medals inappropriate, since “the medal that existed in 1890 is a materially different award.”[60] Mears notes that Army regulations in 1890 stated that “Medals of honor will be awarded, by the President, to officers or enlisted men who have distinguished themselves in action,” meaning that they could be awarded for actions that were merely distinguished, not gallant or heroic.[61]
Native American activists have urged the medals be withdrawn, calling them “medals of dishonor”. According to Lakota tribesman William Thunder Hawk, “The Medal of Honor is meant to reward soldiers who act heroically. But at Wounded Knee, they didn’t show heroism; they showed cruelty.” In 2001, the National Congress of American Indians passed two resolutions condemning the Medals of Honor awards and called on the U.S. government to rescind them.[16]
A number of the citations on the medals awarded to the troopers at Wounded Knee state that they went in pursuit of Lakota who were trying to escape or hide.[62] Another citation was for “conspicuous bravery in rounding up and bringing to the skirmish line a stampeded pack mule.”[58] Another medal was awarded in part for extending an enlistment.[63] One citation was just “bravery”.[57]
