¹George Bush Sr. pardoned a bunch of Iran-Contra plotters who he was directly involved with. Bill Clinton, in addition to pardoning Marc Rich, pardoned his brother Roger. George Bush Jr. was mostly pretty good, but he did commute Scooter Libby's sentence. And Trump in his first term reduced the system to rubble, granting clemency of one kind or another to Rod Blagojevich, Michael Milken, Joe Arpaio, Dinesh D'Souza, Bernie Kerik, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, George Papadopoulos, and seven (!) Republican congressmen convicted of crimes: Chris Collins, Duncan Hunter, Steve Stockman, Rick Renzi, Robin Hayes, Mark Siljander, and Randall "Duke" Cunningham. And, of course, Charles Kushner, his daughter's father-in-law.
I don't think the word "allergic" captures the primary characteristic of Noah Smith's response. Your later implication that he is uncharitable and harsh comes closer to the correct characterization, but still does not capture it.
I believe you have chosen two bad touchstones if you want to cobble together future victories that set America on a better path. I don't think a communication strategy alienates either of them. They are alienated by a political battle waged by people with a prioritized set of values significantly different than theirs.
There is a better reason for being annoyed at land acknowledgements. They partake--to some degree--of a particularly noxious stream of leftie ideology. Call it neo-Rousseauvianism, or perhaps paleo-Chomskyism, or perhaps Left Victimology. Noble Savage Always Good; White Man Always Bad. (Che Guevara Always Sexy.) This dichotomy gets a bit confused with Ukraine, but is otherwise an almost infallible guide to campus leftie orthodoxy. (Grownup lefties have immunity to this disorder.)
I don't mind the White Man Always Bad part of this ideology so much--it's mostly correct historically. But the Noble Savage Always Good part is pretty pernicious--conflating group oppression with individual and group virtue. It also sets up the Oppression Olympics.
The irony, of course, is that the political right buys into this, with a different set of Noble Savages and a White Man coming out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
What I object to in such incantations is their emptiness and back-handed self-flattery. As if saying such things changes anything. I mean, I get the point that these statements are (probably) better than nothing, but, if so, it ain't by much. The whites still have all the money, and I've also driven through Pine Ridge recently, and some redistribution would go a _very_ long way there...
Did we kill all the men and boys older than 12 and parcel out the women as handmaidens??? We killed all the buffalo so I guess that is like killing all their domestic animals.
The history of U.S. relations with American Indians is certainly a mess. The fact is, treaties between nations get broken all the time. (Just look at all the peace treaties broken in the Middle East.) The ability to break a treaty that no longer serves a nation's interest is one of the characteristics of sovereignty. So the fact that the U.S. failed to stop white gold miners from trespassing in the Black Hills is just the way history happens. IMO the real problem is that Indians were granted U.S. citizenship in 1924. This means they can sue in U.S. courts if the government breaks a treaty. So modern Indians are sort of dual citizens. (They are also largely exempt from racial discrimination laws.) It makes for very complicated legal rulings when these cases are tried.
And as for land acknowledgements in California? Well it seems to me they should be made in Spanish, because the Spanish took the land long before the Americans did.
True; but it was the Americans who, flowing en masse into the new territory, performed the massive extermination actions of 1850+. For more information, see the Oakland Museum.
Nukes on Tel Aviv and Damascus reminded me of doing a bit of proofreading of a paper by the Center Director of NASA Ames back in the day. Hans Mark. In his paper nukes on those two cities was cited.
Noah should save his rage for the Pardons!!
Some History of Presidential Pardons.
Now You Can Get Your Outrage On!!!
¹George Bush Sr. pardoned a bunch of Iran-Contra plotters who he was directly involved with. Bill Clinton, in addition to pardoning Marc Rich, pardoned his brother Roger. George Bush Jr. was mostly pretty good, but he did commute Scooter Libby's sentence. And Trump in his first term reduced the system to rubble, granting clemency of one kind or another to Rod Blagojevich, Michael Milken, Joe Arpaio, Dinesh D'Souza, Bernie Kerik, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, George Papadopoulos, and seven (!) Republican congressmen convicted of crimes: Chris Collins, Duncan Hunter, Steve Stockman, Rick Renzi, Robin Hayes, Mark Siljander, and Randall "Duke" Cunningham. And, of course, Charles Kushner, his daughter's father-in-law.
I don't think the word "allergic" captures the primary characteristic of Noah Smith's response. Your later implication that he is uncharitable and harsh comes closer to the correct characterization, but still does not capture it.
I believe you have chosen two bad touchstones if you want to cobble together future victories that set America on a better path. I don't think a communication strategy alienates either of them. They are alienated by a political battle waged by people with a prioritized set of values significantly different than theirs.
There is a better reason for being annoyed at land acknowledgements. They partake--to some degree--of a particularly noxious stream of leftie ideology. Call it neo-Rousseauvianism, or perhaps paleo-Chomskyism, or perhaps Left Victimology. Noble Savage Always Good; White Man Always Bad. (Che Guevara Always Sexy.) This dichotomy gets a bit confused with Ukraine, but is otherwise an almost infallible guide to campus leftie orthodoxy. (Grownup lefties have immunity to this disorder.)
I don't mind the White Man Always Bad part of this ideology so much--it's mostly correct historically. But the Noble Savage Always Good part is pretty pernicious--conflating group oppression with individual and group virtue. It also sets up the Oppression Olympics.
The irony, of course, is that the political right buys into this, with a different set of Noble Savages and a White Man coming out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Land acknowledgments are a display of the self-righteous rather than the righteous.
His attitude reminds me of Senator Samuel Ichiye Hayakawa who said, "We should keep the Panama Canal. After all, we stole it fair and square."
Or, there is a Natural Statute of Limitations that applies to land theft and genocide.
What I object to in such incantations is their emptiness and back-handed self-flattery. As if saying such things changes anything. I mean, I get the point that these statements are (probably) better than nothing, but, if so, it ain't by much. The whites still have all the money, and I've also driven through Pine Ridge recently, and some redistribution would go a _very_ long way there...
That last paragraph is certainly off the main line but nonetheless I'll toss in some remarks by David Dayen: https://prospect.org/politics/2024-12-02-what-is-democratic-party/
Did we kill all the men and boys older than 12 and parcel out the women as handmaidens??? We killed all the buffalo so I guess that is like killing all their domestic animals.
We’re all still living in Societies of Domination - including the current and historical USA.
Land acknowledgements are a story we have created that elides looking in the mirror and admitting it.
The history of U.S. relations with American Indians is certainly a mess. The fact is, treaties between nations get broken all the time. (Just look at all the peace treaties broken in the Middle East.) The ability to break a treaty that no longer serves a nation's interest is one of the characteristics of sovereignty. So the fact that the U.S. failed to stop white gold miners from trespassing in the Black Hills is just the way history happens. IMO the real problem is that Indians were granted U.S. citizenship in 1924. This means they can sue in U.S. courts if the government breaks a treaty. So modern Indians are sort of dual citizens. (They are also largely exempt from racial discrimination laws.) It makes for very complicated legal rulings when these cases are tried.
And as for land acknowledgements in California? Well it seems to me they should be made in Spanish, because the Spanish took the land long before the Americans did.
The Spanish took the indigenous off the land and via converting them made them serfs. American settlers chose the quicker route of exterminating them.
True; but it was the Americans who, flowing en masse into the new territory, performed the massive extermination actions of 1850+. For more information, see the Oakland Museum.
Nukes on Tel Aviv and Damascus reminded me of doing a bit of proofreading of a paper by the Center Director of NASA Ames back in the day. Hans Mark. In his paper nukes on those two cities was cited.