freedom of speech at the Bioneers Conference

[Glia]

It would seem the Bioneers are not so open-minded. From Stop the Casino 101:

Adventures in Marin - Alden Olmsted, son of CA naturalist John Olmsted, picketed the Bioneers conference Saturday (20 Oct.) where Greg Sarris was a featured speaker. Magnify the attached picture so you can read the Sarris quote on the sidewalk sign.

Alden wrote:
"I'm down here at the Marin bioneers conference where Greg Sarris is speaking, and I'm being escorted off the premises to the sidewalk!"

[Clancy]

It would seem the Bioneers are not so open-minded...

Pardon the long reply, but I think George Carlin says it best, and it's pretty darn funny too :)



George Carlin on Victim Groups

Excerpt from Braindroppings, 1997, by George Carlin

First, I want to be really clear about one thing: as far as other people's feelings are concerned - especially those "victim groups" - when I deal with them as individuals, I will call them whatever I want. If I meet a woman who wishes to be referred to as a motion-impaired, same-gender-oriented Italian-American who is difficult to deal with, fine. On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to call her a crippled, Guinea dyke bitch if she prefers. I'm not trying to change anyone's self-image. But! But! When I am speaking generally, and impersonally, about a large group of people, especially these victim groups, I will call them what I think is honest and fair. And I will try not to bullshit myself.

Ok, so, who exactly are these victims? Well, first of all, I don't think everyone who says he's a victim automatically qualifies. I don't think a homely, disfigured, bald minority person with a room temperature IQ who limps and stutters is necessarily always a victim. Although I will say she probably shouldn't be trying to get work as a receptionist. But, maybe that's just the way it oughta be.

I'm more interested in real victims. People who have been chronically and systematically fucked over by the system. Because the United States is a Christian racist nation with a rigged economic system run for three hundred years by the least morally qualified of the two sexes, there were bound to be some real victims. People who have been elaborately fucked over.

The way I see it, this country has only four real victim-groups: Indians, blacks, women, and gays. I purposely left out the Spanish and Asians, because when you look at what happened to the Indians and blacks, the Spanish and Asian people have had a walk in the park. It's not even close. Not to downplay the shit they have had to eat, but in about one hundred years the Spanish and Asians are going to be running this country, so they'll have plenty of chances to get even with the gray people.

Let's get to some of these other non-victims. You probably noticed, elsewhere I used the word fat. I used that word because that's what fat people are. They're fat. They're not large, they're not stout, chunky, hefty or plump. And they're not big-boned. Dinosaurs are big-boned. These people are not necessarily obese, either. Obese is a medical term. And they're not overweight. Overweight implies that there is some correct weight. There is no correct weight. Heavy is also a misleading term. An aircraft carrier is heavy; it's not fat. Only people are fat, and that's what fat people are. They're fat. I offer no apology for this. It is not intended as a criticism or insult. It is simply descriptive language. I don't like euphemisms. Euphemisms are a form of lying. Fat people aren't gravitationally disadvantaged. They're fat. I prefer to see things the way they are, not the way people wish they were.

I don't believe certain groups deserve extra-special names. For instance, midgets and dwarfs are midgets and dwarfs. They're not little people. Infants are little people: leprechauns are little people. Midgets and dwarfs are midgets and dwarfs. They don't get any taller by calling them little people. I wish their lives were different. I wish they didn't have to walk around staring at other people's crotches, but I can't fix that. And I'm not going to lie about what they are. The politically sensitive language commandos would probably like me to call them "vertically challenged". They're not vertically challenged. A skydiver is vertically challenged. The person who designed the Empire State Building was vertically challenged. Midgets and dwarfs are midgets and dwarfs.

Also, crippled people are crippled. They're not differently-abled. If you insist on using tortured language like differently-abled, then you must include all of us. We're all differently-abled. You can do things that I can't do; I can do things that you can't do. Crippled people are simply crippled. It's a perfectly honorable word. There is no shame in it. It's even in the Bible: "Jesus healed the cripples." He didn't engage in rehabilitative strategies for the physically disadvantaged.

So, leaving aside women and gays for the moment, I've narrowed it down to blacks and Indians. Let's talk about what we ought to call them, and let's talk about what the language commandos would like for us to call them. And remember, this has nothing to do with the people themselves. It has to do with the words.

And, by the way, when it comes to these liberal language vandals, I must agree with their underlying premise: White Europeans and their descendants are morally unattractive people who are responsible for most of the world's suffering. That part is easy. You would have to be, uh, visually impaired not to see it. The impulse behind political correctness is a good one. But, like every good impulse in America it has been grotesquely distorted beyond usefulness.

Clearly, there are victims, but I don't agree that these failed campus revolutionaries know what to do about them. When they're not busy curtailing freedom of speech, they're running around inventing absurd hyphenated names designed to make people feel better. Remember, these are the white elitists in their customary paternalistic role, protecting helpless, inept minority victims. Big Daddy White Boss always knows best.

So, let me tell you how I handle some of these speech issues. First of all, I say "black". I say "black" because most black people prefer "black." I don't say "people of color." People of color sounds like something you see when you're on mushrooms. Besides, the use of people of color is dishonest. It means precisely the same as colored people. If you're not willing to say "colored people", you shouldn't be saying "people of color."

Besides, the whole idea of color is bullshit anyway. What should we call white people? "People of no color"? Isn't pink a color? In fact, white people are not really white at all, they're different shades of pink, olive, and beige. In other words, they're colored. And black people are rarely black. I see mostly different shades of brown and tan. In fact, some light-skinned black people are lighter than the darkest white people. Look how dark the people in India are. They're dark brown, but they're considered white people.

What's going on here? May I see the color chart? "People of color" is an awkward, bullshit, liberal- guilt phrase that obscures meaning rather than enhancing it. Should we call fat people, "people of size"?

I also don't say "African American." I find it completely illogical, and furthermore it's confusing. Which part of Africa are we talking about? What about Egypt? Egypt is in Africa. Egyptians aren't black. They're like the people in India, they're dark brown white people. But they're Africans. So why wouldn't an Egyptian who becomes a U.S. citizen be African-American?

The same thing goes with the Republic Of South Africa. Suppose a white racist from South Africa becomes an American citizen. Well, first of all, he'd find plenty of company, but couldn't he also be called an African-American? It seems to me that a racist white South-African guy could come here and call himself African-American just to piss off black people. And, by the way, what about a black person born in South Africa who moves here and becomes a citizen? What is he? An African-South-African- American? Or a South-African-African-American?

All right, back to this hemisphere. How about a black woman, who is a citizen of Jamaica? According to politically correct doctrine, she's an African-Jamaican, right? But if she becomes a U.S. citizen, she's a Jamacian-American. And yet, if one of these language crusaders saw her on the street, he'd think she was an African-American. Unless he knew her personally in which case he would have to decide between African-Jamacian-American and Jamacian-African-American. Ya know? It's just so much bullshit. Labels divide people. We need fewer labels, not more.

Now, the Indians. I call them Indians because that's what they are. They're Indians. There's nothing wrong with the word Indian. First of all, it's important to know that the word Indian does not derive from Columbus mistakenly believing he had reached "India". India was not even called by that name in 1492; it was called Hindustan. More likely, the word Indian comes from Columbus's description of the people he found here. He was an Italian, and did not speak or write very good Spanish, so in his written accounts he called the Indians, "Una gente in Dios." A people in God. In God. In Dios. Indians. It's a perfectly noble and respectable word.

So lets look at this pussified, trendy bullshit phrase, Native American. First of all, they're not natives. They came over the Bering land bridge from Asia, so they're not natives. There are no natives anywhere in the world. Everyone is from somewhere else. All people are refugees, immigrants, or aliens. If there were natives anywhere, they would be people who still live in the Great Rift valley in Africa where the human species arose. Everyone else is just visiting. So much for the "native" part of Native-American.

As far as calling them "Americans" is concerned, do I even have to point out what an insult this is?! We steal their hemisphere, kill twenty or so million (Before 1492 there were 25 million people in Central America. By 1579 there were only 2 million) of them, destroy five hundred separate cultures, herd the survivors onto the worst land we can find, and now we want to name them after ourselves?? It's appalling. Haven't we done enough damage? Do we have to further degrade them by tagging them with the repulsive name of their conquerors?

As far as those classroom liberals who insist on saying "Native-American" are concerned, here's something they should be told: It's not up to you to name people and tell them what they oughtto be called. If you'd leave your classroom once in a while, you'd find that most Indians are insulted by the term Native American. The American Indian Movement will tell you that if you ask them.

The phrase "Native American" was invented by the U.S. government Department of the Interior in 1970. It is an inventory term used to keep track of people. It includes Hawaiians, Eskimos, Micronesians, Polynesians, and Aleuts. Anyone who uses the phrase Native American is assisting the U.S. Government in it's effort to obliterate people's true identities.

You know, you'd think it would be a fairly simple thing to come over to this continent, commit genocide, eliminate the forests, dam up the rivers, build our malls and massage parlors, sell our blenders and whoopee cushions, poison ourselves with chemicals, and let it go at that. But no. We have to compound the insult.

Native American! I'm glad the Indians have gambling casino's now. It makes me happy that the dimwitted white people are losing their rent money to the Indians. Maybe the Indians can get lucky and win their country back. Probably they wouldn't want it. Look what we did to it.

By George Carlin

[tommy]

I love George Carlin. I have alot more respect for Arden Olmstead, who picketed Bioneers over their showcasing Sarris as a representative of Native people.

"Follow the money" as they say. It's not the Natives who will primarily benefit from this monstrosity. It's the Las Vegas developer, Station Casinos, and you can be sure Sarris himself, as head of this small tribe, who will rake in the money. It's a $700 million project (construction and land, per the PD). Sure, a few peanuts will go to the tribe, local government, and some jobs. This is clearly the ONE PERCENT, benefiting from CA Initiatives & government, masquerading as Native rights.

Pardon the long reply, but I think George Carlin says it best, and it's pretty darn funny too :)

George Carlin on Victim Groups

Excerpt from Braindroppings, 1997, by George Carlin

...
Now, the Indians. I call them Indians because that's what they are. They're Indians. There's nothing wrong with the word Indian. First of all, it's important to know that the word Indian does not derive from Columbus mistakenly believing he had reached "India". India was not even called by that name in 1492; it was called Hindustan. More likely, the word Indian comes from Columbus's description of the people he found here. He was an Italian, and did not speak or write very good Spanish, so in his written accounts he called the Indians, "Una gente in Dios." A people in God. In God. In Dios. Indians. It's a perfectly noble and respectable word.

So lets look at this pussified, trendy bullshit phrase, Native American. First of all, they're not natives. They came over the Bering land bridge from Asia, so they're not natives. There are no natives anywhere in the world. Everyone is from somewhere else. All people are refugees, immigrants, or aliens. If there were natives anywhere, they would be people who still live in the Great Rift valley in Africa where the human species arose. Everyone else is just visiting. So much for the "native" part of Native-American.

As far as calling them "Americans" is concerned, do I even have to point out what an insult this is?! We steal their hemisphere, kill twenty or so million (Before 1492 there were 25 million people in Central America. By 1579 there were only 2 million) of them, destroy five hundred separate cultures, herd the survivors onto the worst land we can find, and now we want to name them after ourselves?? It's appalling. Haven't we done enough damage? Do we have to further degrade them by tagging them with the repulsive name of their conquerors?

As far as those classroom liberals who insist on saying "Native-American" are concerned, here's something they should be told: It's not up to you to name people and tell them what they oughtto be called. If you'd leave your classroom once in a while, you'd find that most Indians are insulted by the term Native American. The American Indian Movement will tell you that if you ask them.

The phrase "Native American" was invented by the U.S. government Department of the Interior in 1970. It is an inventory term used to keep track of people. It includes Hawaiians, Eskimos, Micronesians, Polynesians, and Aleuts. Anyone who uses the phrase Native American is assisting the U.S. Government in it's effort to obliterate people's true identities.

You know, you'd think it would be a fairly simple thing to come over to this continent, commit genocide, eliminate the forests, dam up the rivers, build our malls and massage parlors, sell our blenders and whoopee cushions, poison ourselves with chemicals, and let it go at that. But no. We have to compound the insult.

Native American! I'm glad the Indians have gambling casino's now. It makes me happy that the dimwitted white people are losing their rent money to the Indians. Maybe the Indians can get lucky and win their country back. Probably they wouldn't want it. Look what we did to it.

By George Carlin

[Peace Voyager]

I fully agree Tommy. Thanks for being brave enough to state it.

This county is moving towards much more clean energy production; the tribes can make good profits from their land in many ways which enhance our environment. EcoTourism is another.

I have sadly seem some good community members fall blind to the organized crime behind the casino'd hooterville winos' dismantling of quality in our county. Maybe it has something to do with a grant or benefactor?

This County, city officials and our Federal representatives have sold us out; there will be no end to the regrets. I foresee an exodus of the quality kind of people who made up the sustainable fabric which has made this region shine, and given it such high value.

If I had some extra money, I'd give it to the StopThe101Casino folks for their lawsuit to stop it.

Remember my previous post? If developed, this will be Back to the Future II, without the happy ending.

I love George Carlin. I have a lot more respect for Arden Olmstead, who picketed Bioneers over their showcasing Sarris as a representative of Native people.

"Follow the money" as they say. It's not the Natives who will primarily benefit from this monstrosity. It's the Las Vegas developer, Station Casinos, and you can be sure Sarris himself, as head of this small tribe, who will rake in the money. It's a $700 million project (construction and land, per the PD). Sure, a few peanuts will go to the tribe, local government, and some jobs. This is clearly the ONE PERCENT, benefiting from CA Initiatives & government, masquerading as Native rights.

[aldeno]

Thanks to both of you, and sadly I think the Back To The Future analogy is very applicable as well. Don't believe the naysayers tho' - my dad and his band of grassroot folks had to stall the bulldozers not once but FOUR times before the lawsuit stuck to save Jug Handle state park. It can happen again!

[jbox]

I fully agree Tommy. Thanks for being brave enough to state it.

This county is moving towards much more clean energy production; the tribes can make good profits from their land in many ways which enhance our environment. EcoTourism is another.

I have sadly seem some good community members fall blind to the organized crime behind the casino'd hooterville winos' dismantling of quality in our county. Maybe it has something to do with a grant or benefactor?

This County, city officials and our Federal representatives have sold us out; there will be no end to the regrets. I foresee an exodus of the quality kind of people who made up the sustainable fabric which has made this region shine, and given it such high value.

If I had some extra money, I's give it to the StopThe101Casino folks for their lawsuit to stop it.

Remember my previous post? If developed, this will be Back to the Future II, without the happy ending.

I'm glad to finally see a little push-back against this unwanted and destructive casino. The tribes should wake up and see that they are being taken advantage of by organized crime with the acquiescence of Mr. Sarris who I'm sure will personally rake in millions. Care to disagree, Mr Sarris? I've been called a racist by a couple of guilty apologists on this forum by my questioning the legitimacy of what is happening. That's bunk. I can see the tribes using their unique status by doing something better than preying on the 99% by employing vice.