TIL: Today I Learned

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, but they did it by actually pushing the Indians out. The rest of us just take advantage of the old squats.
 
Isn't ‘pushing the Indians out’ 90% of the US' territorial expansion, except in Hawai'i and the former Mexican possessions?
 
Well, there was more than a lot of it. But many places the Indians just died of disease as fast as whites were able to expand. And the former Mexican possessions were not immune to Indians being pushed out. Many of the tribes famous from the Indian wars were in formerly Mexican territory. As a whole, yes, this nations was taken from the indigenous inhabitants, by many levels of force. So was yours.

My point was not to downplay other chapters of Indian removal. But rather that Little House has always been an iconic part of the American wholesome pioneer legend. Except, of course, that it was also Lebensraum.
 
Freaking Xenforo insists on not showing the posts I make.
 
Anyway (I've deleted the DP)…
Well, there was more than a lot of it. But many places the Indians just died of disease as fast as whites were able to expand. And the former Mexican possessions were not immune to Indians being pushed out. Many of the tribes famous from the Indian wars were in formerly Mexican territory. As a whole, yes, this nations was taken from the indigenous inhabitants, by many levels of force. So was yours.

My point was not to downplay other chapters of Indian removal. But rather that Little House has always been an iconic part of the American wholesome pioneer legend. Except, of course, that it was also Lebensraum.
Was it not SOP for company towns to just settle wherever back then?
 
Anyway (I've deleted the DP)…

Was it not SOP for company towns to just settle wherever back then?


Well, a company town settled where it made sense to have a company. Farmers settled wherever they could farm, and get access to transportation to send crops to market. Miners settled wherever they could open a mine. All of this was backstopped by the anything but free market approach of government of the day.

The Indians were doomed because there wasn't really much of anyone willing to not doom them.
 
Well, a company town settled where it made sense to have a company. Farmers settled wherever they could farm, and get access to transportation to send crops to market. Miners settled wherever they could open a mine. All of this was backstopped by the anything but free market approach of government of the day.

The Indians were doomed because there wasn't really much of anyone willing to not doom them.
And for the most part, 21st C values about Natives were not a significant part of 19th C life.
 
TIL that that thing I do when I stick a fork into uncooked dough to prevent it from blowing up like a balloon actually has a name. It's called ‘docking’. Also, ‘dock’ in the sense of the port structure has the same origin (although through a roundabaout way) as ‘duct’.
 
Apparently Cutlass does.
 
Actually manby of them do find the term "Native Americans" as offensive, i know of one guy in person who is proud to call himself an Indian.(I'm think he's Iroquois but i'm not sure)He always went on a rant when people used the term "Native American"(usually along the lines of "It's the f-in stupidest term ever made).
 
Indians is fine, you just have to make sure that the context makes it clear whether or not you mean those from India or the Americas.
 
TIL that Eden Hazard's first name is pronounced like the Irish 'Aiden' and not like 'the Garden of Eden.'

Yeah, I don't follow football much. I used to, but I think the only guy I recognize in today's match is Deschamps.

TIL Belgium lead the all-time series against France, 30-19-24. I never would've guessed that.
 
Last edited:
We just say "Indians" again now?! I can't keep up.


Charles C Mann, who wrote the books 1491 and 1493 devoted an appendix to the subject. His conclusion, there simply is not another name or title which is generally accepted across all the various groups. "Indian" is the most widely accepted word to use. Even among those groups. Remember, this is 100s of different 'indigenous Americans' groups. There just isn't a common word for all of them.
 
TIL that if you want people to do things that are in conflict with their morals and ethics, you better introduce a whole set of new words in their vocabulary that are being used for those things.

That language and culture are strongly related is ofc an open door.
That it helps to give new generation groups a group culture/identity also.
Nothing new as such.
But the ease at which it can minimise existing morals and ethics is much bigger than I thought.

And in military language this ofc also already happens. Neutralising etc.
The basic principle is that words in your native frequently used language are stronger connected to the morals and ethics you developed as a person. New words and languages are in general less embedded, less connectred in context and root convictions.

The danger I see is the fast development of new words all the time to discuss opinions and decisions.
If you do not succeed to connect and ground them in your being, talking with those words makes you vulnerable for "a kind of subliminal" influences.
Those subliminal influences can be desired, if for example you convert yourself to a religion or ideology or follow some rehab.
But those subliminal influences can also be undesired as with advertisements or political messaging.

Designing a set of words and phrases to get hold of populist potentials, repeating to learn them the new language, harvesting when launching decisions and actions that would cause moral and ethical conflicts in traditinal choice of words.

The flooding of new words, new meaning to words, the confusion, also an effective way to break down existing morals and ethics.

From: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/being-bilingual-can-help-you-make-better-decisions

To drive the point home, consider the following question: would you take the life of a stranger in order to save the lives of others? Most people say they would, which would exhibit reasoning of the greater good, but careful thought of ending a life would no doubt prompt a heavy emotional response. After all, killing violates many of our moral intuitions.

However, a recent study sheds light on factors that disrupt the cooperation of reason and emotion. Faced with an ethical problem – choosing whether to kill a stranger in order to save many others – the study found that, when the dilemma was posed in their second language, less proficient foreign language speakers were more likely to decide to kill a stranger compared to more proficient second language or native speakers. Interestingly, this foreign language effect was stronger when the mode of killing was more intimate, such as pushing someone off of a footbridge as opposed to pulling a switch to divert an oncoming train.

Hence, we hypothesize that moral judgments in a foreign language would be less affected by the emotional reactivity elicited by a dilemma. This hypothesis makes a clear prediction: when faced with moral dilemmas in a foreign language, utilitarian judgments should be more common than in a native language. We tested this prediction in two experiments using the well-known trolley dilemma [22].
 
Last edited:
when the dilemma was posed in their second language, less proficient foreign language speakers were more likely to decide to kill a stranger compared to more proficient second language or native speakers. Interestingly, this foreign language effect was stronger when the mode of killing was more intimate, such as pushing someone off of a footbridge as opposed to pulling a switch to divert an oncoming train.

That's pretty interesting.
If I ever take power I'll hire foreign henchmen who know just enough German to follow my orders. Or I'll recruit from remote Hessian, Saxon and Bavarian towns where the people don't speak proper High German.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom