Why are so-called "progressives" and "liberals" so deferential to religious nonsense by Indians?

[Derec]

See for example Thom Hartmann talk about Lakota opposition to the North Dakota pipeline. The reason they are against it? Some ridiculous doomsday "prophecy" of a "black snake" that they identify with the pipeline.

The kicker? Thom is talking about this silly "prophecy" with reverence and a straight face that he would not have if he was talking about Harold Camping for example. Why the double standard?

Also, Indians, including Lakota, use motor vehicles. It's not like they are not dependent on the oil economy. Do they believe gasoline/diesel magically (by the power of Manitou perhaps?) appear in the pump?

 

[Elixir]

See for example Thom Hartmann talk about Lakota opposition to the North Dakota pipeline.

Next white Europeans invade a land, kill most of the indigenous population and place the remainder of them on a barren patch of land and conscientiously destroy their culture, we should be careful not to coddle them so.

 

[Derec]

Next white Europeans invade a land, kill most of the indigenous population and place the remainder of them on a barren patch of land and conscientiously destroy their culture, we should be careful not to coddle them so.

I think Indians should be given same rights as any other American - no more, no less. Which also means no casino monopolies, no special legal status for reservations, no ethnicity based laws whatsoever.

But this thread is not about that. It's about people like Thom who would not show anything but contempt for a Christian fundamentalist show a great deal of deference to religious mumbo jumbo when it comes from Indians. Black snake prophecy? Give me a fucking break!

 

[Trausti]

See for example Thom Hartmann talk about Lakota opposition to the North Dakota pipeline.

Next white Europeans invade a land, kill most of the indigenous population and place the remainder of them on a barren patch of land and conscientiously destroy their culture, we should be careful not to coddle them so.

The Lakota should return the land they stole from the Cheyenne.

 

[Elixir]

Next white Europeans invade a land, kill most of the indigenous population and place the remainder of them on a barren patch of land and conscientiously destroy their culture, we should be careful not to coddle them so.

I think Indians should be given same rights as any other American - no more, no less.

So egalitarian of you, how very white. What if you, as the invader, were given every right due members of the tribe(s) whose land you now occupy?

The Lakota should return the land they stole from the Cheyenne.

As if they even have that option - no, they were stuck in a place no white man wanted ... until natural resources were discovered there. Lakota didn't actually have any concept of land ownership in the sense that Europeans did/do, anyhow.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

See for example Thom Hartmann talk about Lakota opposition to the North Dakota pipeline. The reason they are against it? Some ridiculous doomsday "prophecy" of a "black snake" that they identify with the pipeline.

The kicker? Thom is talking about this silly "prophecy" with reverence and a straight face that he would not have if he was talking about Harold Camping for example. Why the double standard?

Also, Indians, including Lakota, use motor vehicles. It's not like they are not dependent on the oil economy. Do they believe gasoline/diesel magically (by the power of Manitou perhaps?) appear in the pump?

Should Lakota do not have the right to protest?

- - - Updated - - -

Next white Europeans invade a land, kill most of the indigenous population and place the remainder of them on a barren patch of land and conscientiously destroy their culture, we should be careful not to coddle them so.

The Lakota should return the land they stole from the Cheyenne.

Then the Ojibwa need to return the land they pushed the Lakota off of.

 

[Trausti]

Then the Ojibwa need to return the land they pushed the Lakota off of.

And so on, and on, and on we go. Where we stop, only the progressive stack knows.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why are progressives and liberals so respectful of people, even so-called "Indians?"

 

[Valjean]

I sometimes find Thom's deference to religion annoying, too, but it's not exclusively the American Indians he defers to. He tends to defer to mainstream Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, as well.
His criticism of religion is mostly in it's application. Use religion to justify some abuse and he'll condemn the application, use it to promote some useful or progressive cause and he'll support it.

He judges them by their works.

 

[untermensche]

Another thread in praise of intolerance.

Some are not happy unless they are fucking with somebody else.

Or fucking up the environment.

 

[KeepTalking]

His criticism of religion is mostly in it's application. Use religion to justify some abuse and he'll condemn the application

To be fair, your typical conservative counts protesting against the Keystone XL as a form of abuse, hence their confusion.

 

[Deepak]

I'm at work so I can't watch the video, but does it differ from the progressives and liberals who are Xian? Surely someone on this forum doesn't think that there's any shortage of religious belief on either end of the political spectrum, or indeed that 'nonreligious' is equivalent to left wing.

Moreover, is their prophecy being used as a turn of phrase to potential externalities from the petrochemical industry, or is it actual belief in a real Black Snake? Inquiring minds would like to know...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I sometimes find Thom's deference to religion annoying, too, but it's not exclusively the American Indians he defers to. He tends to defer to mainstream Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, as well.
His criticism of religion is mostly in it's application. Use religion to justify some abuse and he'll condemn the application, use it to promote some useful or progressive cause and he'll support it.

He judges them by their works.

Well, that's still not a good reason to give credence to weird religious ideas. There are enough good reasons to oppose bad ideas that we don't need to pretend that bad reasons are valuable contributions.

If you want to oppose a real estate development because it will destroy an endangered species' mating ground, then that's a good reason to be against it. If you want to oppose that development because it will destroy some Wendigo's mating ground then it's a bad reason to be against it. (Wendigos, as you know, are perfectly capable of renting hotel rooms). You don't need to throw the chaff in with the wheat simply because the people who like chaff add some numbers to your side.

It's the same with oil pipelines. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to oppose them. You don't need to undercut legitimate arguments by lumping them in with this dumb black snake crap just because the people behind it want to end up in the same place as you.

 

[Toni]

I sometimes find Thom's deference to religion annoying, too, but it's not exclusively the American Indians he defers to. He tends to defer to mainstream Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, as well.
His criticism of religion is mostly in it's application. Use religion to justify some abuse and he'll condemn the application, use it to promote some useful or progressive cause and he'll support it.

He judges them by their works.

Well, that's still not a good reason to give credence to weird religious ideas. There are enough good reasons to oppose bad ideas that we don't need to pretend that bad reasons are valuable contributions.

If you want to oppose a real estate development because it will destroy an endangered species' mating ground, then that's a good reason to be against it. If you want to oppose that development because it will destroy some Wendigo's mating ground then it's a bad reason to be against it. (Wendigos, as you know, are perfectly capable of renting hotel rooms). You don't need to throw the chaff in with the wheat simply because the people who like chaff add some numbers to your side.

It's the same with oil pipelines. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to oppose them. You don't need to undercut legitimate arguments by lumping them in with this dumb black snake crap just because the people behind it want to end up in the same place as you.

You also don't need to dump all over someone's reasoning if the end goal is the same as yours.

FWIW, the religious/cultural grounds may have a greater chance at advancing the cause of stopping a pipeline project that merits extremely serious concern for environmental reasons. I can understand why Indians would promote this reasoning as well, regardless of their stand on science and environmental objections. It's politically expedient, for one thing. It can generate a certain amount of sympathy and serves to remind people of the tremendous harms that were done in the past, even as they continue to ignore the current harms being done now.

Many, but certainly not all, conservative and religious conservative people have sympathy for wrongs done to Indians in the past-and in the present. Religious people are sometimes swayed by some measure of respect for expressions of religious belief by other peoples (except for Muslims. Muslims are baaaaaad. ) Unless it interferes with their right to hunt or fish wherever they want.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You also don't need to dump all over someone's reasoning if the end goal is the same as yours.

FWIW, the religious/cultural grounds may have a greater chance at advancing the cause of stopping a pipeline project that merits extremely serious concern for environmental reasons. I can understand why Indians would promote this reasoning as well, regardless of their stand on science and environmental objections. It's politically expedient, for one thing. It can generate a certain amount of sympathy and serves to remind people of the tremendous harms that were done in the past, even as they continue to ignore the current harms being done now.

Many, but certainly not all, conservative and religious conservative people have sympathy for wrongs done to Indians in the past-and in the present. Religious people are sometimes swayed by some measure of respect for expressions of religious belief by other peoples (except for Muslims. Muslims are baaaaaad. ) Unless it interferes with their right to hunt or fish wherever they want.

Yes, I get the usefulness of pretending that their reasoning isn't stupid because it helps our cause, in the same way that the establishment GOP was more than happy to pretend that they cared about what the Tea Party was saying because they could get a reliable voting bloc by throwing a few scraps their way and have themselves a nice, safe and tame little animal which totally wasn't ever going to escape from its cage and go rampaging around the countryside. It's still not the type of reasoning skills that we should be promoting or giving credence to, however.

There's nothing wrong with saying "These are the Natives' traditional lands and we should respect their decisions as to what to develop on them" and stop there. We don't have to pretend that we respect their bullshit fairy tales at the same time.

 

[Toni]

You also don't need to dump all over someone's reasoning if the end goal is the same as yours.

FWIW, the religious/cultural grounds may have a greater chance at advancing the cause of stopping a pipeline project that merits extremely serious concern for environmental reasons. I can understand why Indians would promote this reasoning as well, regardless of their stand on science and environmental objections. It's politically expedient, for one thing. It can generate a certain amount of sympathy and serves to remind people of the tremendous harms that were done in the past, even as they continue to ignore the current harms being done now.

Many, but certainly not all, conservative and religious conservative people have sympathy for wrongs done to Indians in the past-and in the present. Religious people are sometimes swayed by some measure of respect for expressions of religious belief by other peoples (except for Muslims. Muslims are baaaaaad. ) Unless it interferes with their right to hunt or fish wherever they want.

Yes, I get the usefulness of pretending that their reasoning isn't stupid because it helps our cause, in the same way that the establishment GOP was more than happy to pretend that they cared about what the Tea Party was saying because they could get a reliable voting bloc by throwing a few scraps their way and have themselves a nice, safe and tame little animal which totally wasn't ever going to escape from its cage and go rampaging around the countryside. It's still not the type of reasoning skills that we should be promoting or giving credence to, however.

There's nothing wrong with saying "These are the Natives' traditional lands and we should respect their decisions as to what to develop on them" and stop there. We don't have to pretend that we respect their bullshit fairy tales at the same time.

And you can even go all the way and respect seome else's beliefs, even if you don't share them. Unless and right up to the point where their beliefs cause actual harm to others.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And that point seems to be right where they're at. They want this business to not make money and cost however many hundreds of jobs because of their beliefs. That's a point at which their swinging fist has hit someone else's face.

I have no problem respecting someone else's right to have a belief, no matter how stupid that belief may be. When they want other people to alter their actions in order to confirm to their religion, however, they have crossed a line into unacceptability.

I really don't see much of a difference between their position and "We don't want you opening an LGBT bookstore on this street because our community finds your lifestyle to be an abomination" or "A lot of Muslims come to this mall, so take your bikini store elsewhere because your whorish outfits offend our sense of modesty". They're telling other people to stop doing business because that business conflicts with their religious dogma. I am against that sort of practice.

Do you see this tribe doing something different from that and why?

 

[RavenSky]

Next white Europeans invade a land, kill most of the indigenous population and place the remainder of them on a barren patch of land and conscientiously destroy their culture, we should be careful not to coddle them so.

I think Indians should be given same rights as any other American - no more, no less. Which also means no casino monopolies, no special legal status for reservations, no ethnicity based laws whatsoever.

In general, they are not the same as any other American, "no more, no less". They are sovereign nations within our borders. The rules ARE different for them because they are supposed to be. So unless you are talking about breaking YET ANOTHER TREATY with them, you can drop all of the boo-hooing about casinos, reservations, etc.

But this thread is not about that. It's about people like Thom who would not show anything but contempt for a Christian fundamentalist show a great deal of deference to religious mumbo jumbo when it comes from Indians. Black snake prophecy? Give me a fucking break!

Please post a video of Thom Hartmann discussing a Christian religion so I can compare his level of deference vs contempt.

 

[RavenSky]

And that point seems to be right where they're at. They want this business to not make money and cost however many hundreds of jobs because of their beliefs. That's a point at which their swinging fist has hit someone else's face.

I have no problem respecting someone else's right to have a belief, no matter how stupid that belief may be. When they want other people to alter their actions in order to confirm to their religion, however, they have crossed a line into unacceptability.

I really don't see much of a difference between their position and "We don't want you opening an LGBT bookstore on this street because our community finds your lifestyle to be an abomination" or "A lot of Muslims come to this mall, so take your bikini store elsewhere because your whorish outfits offend our sense of modesty". They're telling other people to stop doing business because that business conflicts with their religious dogma. I am against that sort of practice.

Do you see this tribe doing something different from that and why?

I think you are correct and I agree with your position on this, but I think the bigger point is a comment Toni made - that religious/cultural grounds likely have a better chance of success through constitutional legal means than simply rational environmental concerns. "Freedom of religion" is a concept conservatives understand very well, and not all of them are stupid enough to be too obviously discriminatory about which religion.

 

[Deepak]

I sometimes find Thom's deference to religion annoying, too, but it's not exclusively the American Indians he defers to. He tends to defer to mainstream Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, as well.
His criticism of religion is mostly in it's application. Use religion to justify some abuse and he'll condemn the application, use it to promote some useful or progressive cause and he'll support it.

He judges them by their works.

Well, that's still not a good reason to give credence to weird religious ideas. There are enough good reasons to oppose bad ideas that we don't need to pretend that bad reasons are valuable contributions.

If you want to oppose a real estate development because it will destroy an endangered species' mating ground, then that's a good reason to be against it. If you want to oppose that development because it will destroy some Wendigo's mating ground then it's a bad reason to be against it. (Wendigos, as you know, are perfectly capable of renting hotel rooms). You don't need to throw the chaff in with the wheat simply because the people who like chaff add some numbers to your side.

It's the same with oil pipelines. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to oppose them. You don't need to undercut legitimate arguments by lumping them in with this dumb black snake crap just because the people behind it want to end up in the same place as you.

So I just watched the video and I'm missing the part where the doomsday prophecy was the reason that they were against the pipeline. The reasons I recall were (1) aquifer contamination, (2) climate change from burning fossil fuels, and (3) damage to historical cultural sites. The imagery about the black snake seemed to be for effect. Surely we don't all think Oppenheimer really believed himself to be a Hindu god?