Hantlers explains why things are the way they are on reservations

[Stoked]

In my opinion you didn't ask. There was no "Hantlers Please explain..." or "Hantlers what did you mean by..."?

You posted "Hantlers explains why things are the way they are on reservations" as your thread title. Now as I have said before I am not wading into this debate. But your post, to me at least, drips with condemnation and disdain. It comes off as a thread where you are trying to have a "gotcha" moment. As for who is right or wrong, I do not know.

Just my opinion.

 

[One Brow]

OB, some of us are actually very long-suffering souls when it comes to just enduring the way other people are. Did it never occur to you that it might seem to some that starting a thread on another person might make them feel like they are being hounded, stalked, ridiculed, and mocked, however subtly?

I didn't think it was all that subtle.

Can you take a suggestion to rename the thread and take Hantlers out of the title?

I'm not a moderator, I have not the power, even if I wanted to.

And who am I to criticize you, I could see where you could feel much the same, if not more "hounded, stalked, ridiculed, and mocked" by me, even for just saying this.

I'll just say that there are very few posters that I would call out this way, and you are not among them.

And it does the exact same thing for all other people, which is why I see the need for a restoration of American principles of self-determination economically, which is linked to the need for people to have more access to the land and the resources that can be drawn from it, to the exclusion of cartelists who are using environmentalism to strengthen their monopoly positions on supplies of everything.

Societal approval and blessing is needed for economic self-determination; there is no economic self-determination for groups that have the disapproval of society.

 

[Stoked]

I did not make one, but again, it's no surprise you think being asked to justify or explain your opinion is some sort of trap.

I didn't think it was all that subtle.



I'm not a moderator, I have not the power, even if I wanted to.



I'll just say that there are very few posters that I would call out this way, and you are not among them.



Societal approval and blessing is needed for economic self-determination; there is no economic self-determination for groups that have the disapproval of society.

So which is it? Perhaps I simply used a term you did not want to agree to?

 

[One Brow]

What of hermits, mountain men, old farmers who live dirt poor even though they're sitting on millions in developable land, rich misers who grew up in the great depression and can't stand the thought of parting ways with their money, Amish communities...

That wasn't the original point anyway. It was you denying a moral hazard of a welfare state by claiming that NOBODY wants to live that way if there is a better life through hard work, etc. You steered off course of your message by framing in such a fanatical way.

There are individual dissenters to every cultural and natural rule.

Amish communities are an interesting point. In rejecting technology, are they also rejecting status? If you raise more crop, sew better dresses, building bigger barns, etc., in an Amish community, does it gain you status? Do people try to raise more/sew better/house more animals/etc. for the purposes of gaining status? I'd guess yes, but perhaps I'm wrong. Do you have any knowledge on that? If I'm wrong, what would you say are some of the factors involved?

Here, I would have no objection to a claim that some individual Native Americans do not object to living in poverty, but I object to the claim that nearly the entirety of the tribe on the reservation feels that way. Again, perhaps I'm wrong, but I would need to hear some reason why.

 

[One Brow]

Oh really? Wouldn't that contradict the entire idea of basic human nature?

Discussing whether basic human nature has a specific attribute is an endorsement of the existence of basic human nature.

 

[One Brow]

No, I gave an explanation, including a quote from a respected member of his tribe. You just chose to ignore/disagree with it. I'll quote it again, just in case you forgot…

""Successful entrepreneurs are considered sell-outs, they’re ostracized. We have to promote the dignity of self-sufficiency among Indians. Instead we have a culture of malaise: ‘The tribe will take care of us.’ We accept the myth of communalism. And we don’t value education. We resist it.”"

They accept that the tribe will take care of them. How does the tribe take care of them? Through the myth of communalism, which is essentially handouts. Because they accept that the tribe will take care of them, they do not have to work, further their education, further themselves, which then leads to their current situation, poverty.

I neither ignored it nor disagreed with it. However, I also do not accept it as a base cause. What you have offered is shallow and at the level of a symptom. I responded to your description it by comparing it to a similar response I was familiar with, and pointing out that in the case I was familiar with, the root cause of the attitude was the belief that, due to the racist structure of society, the young people I knew felt they had little or no legitimate opportunity to advance.

Of course, you did not respond to my comparison, whether to agree or disagree, that this same attitude applied to the reservations. Instead, after I respond to and agreed with what you said, you interpreted that as ignoring/disagreeing with it. That's revealing.

 

[One Brow]

You provide one source and yet request that I provide a few? Where's the intellectual honesty in that?

Fair enough, one will do. However, it will need to be one addressing motivation, not effect. Your quote described the effect of a potlatch as preventing the accumulation of wealth, but did not say this was a motivation to have a potlatch.

 

[One Brow]

But your post, to me at least, drips with condemnation and disdain.

Low expectations, I'll grant you. However, for all I know, Hantlers really got to know the people and culture, and really has something insightful to offer. Maybe it'll be in his next post. I always hold out hope, even for you.

 

[Stoked]

There are individual dissenters to every cultural and natural rule.

Amish communities are an interesting point. In rejecting technology, are they also rejecting status? If you raise more crop, sew better dresses, building bigger barns, etc., in an Amish community, does it gain you status? Do people try to raise more/sew better/house more animals/etc. for the purposes of gaining status? I'd guess yes, but perhaps I'm wrong. Do you have any knowledge on that? If I'm wrong, what would you say are some of the factors involved?

Here, I would have no objection to a claim that some individual Native Americans do not object to living in poverty, but I object to the claim that nearly the entirety of the tribe on the reservation feels that way. Again, perhaps I'm wrong, but I would need to hear some reason why.

That is actually quite interesting Brow. It would be interesting to know the answer. If so they are rejecting one "status" (society at large) for another "status" (amish society). Perhaps something holds true for various Native American tribes.

 

[Stoked]

Low expectations, I'll grant you. However, for all I know, Hantlers really got to know the people and culture, and really has something insightful to offer. Maybe it'll be in his next post. I always hold out hope, even for you.

Good, hope is always good.

 

[One Brow]

So which is it? Perhaps I simply used a term you did not want to agree to?

It was, to some degree, hounding and mocking, but it was not a trap. When I make statements about large groups of people or humans generally, I fully expect to be called out on them. Usually I can provide, once in a while I can't, and I publicly withdraw the statement. I never consider myself to have been trapped by any other poster for this.

I didn't goad or entrap Hantlers into mouthing off about the lack of motivation among Native Americans, he decided to do that for himself, and I called him out on it. If there was a trap, he laid it out for himself.

 

[One Brow]

That is actually quite interesting Brow. It would be interesting to know the answer. If so they are rejecting one "status" (society at large) for another "status" (amish society). Perhaps something holds true for various Native American tribes.

That is a possibility. It's one reason I'm trying to frame things as questions rather than dismiss them outright. I don't think it applies to all Native American tribes, but it might apply to the tribes Hantlers interacted with.