winstonsmith
Member
Bias: n.
1. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
2. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
-dictionary.com
A People and a Nation, mostly written by Mary Beth Norton is a compendium of reasons white people are guilty for most of the evil in the Western Hemisphere. The most striking examples of this exist in it's chapter 17, describing the transformations in Native American Culture, the West and it's natural resources, and the South during 1877 to 1892. Norton uses many tools to cast the guilt upon whites, including biased language, use of race as pejorative, non-sequiturs, opinion-as-fact, and biased perspectives, and manufactured negative association toward a race, otherwise known as: prejudice.
There is much biased language in this chapter. Biased language is when the written words are crafted to impress an idea that is not outright said. It is a subliminal and sneaky way to write, because is presents information in a specific way to further one’s own ideals. For example, after talking three whole paragraphs to display how much Native Americans loved the earth and were consummate habitors of earth, on page 319 Norton says; “For white Americans, however, natural reasources were to be utilized for economic gain.†She is, in effecting stating that whites don’t value nature and Indians did, leaving no room for interpretations of different ideas of valuing nature. Intolerance of this type peppers the rest of the text.
However, the real biased language comes directly after the above. She says : “...they dug into the earth to remove valuable minerals...†While yes, this is technically true, why didn’t she say “Americans sae economic opportunites in the west, and they mined.†It’s much shorter, much easier, and also less racist. And why say “white?†Why single out whites as the guilty party in this? And all this on the first page of the chapter! One senses an ulterior motive. Read on:
The most damning evidence of this double standard and anti-white bigotry comes out on page 321, the mere third page of the chapter. The language speaks for itself: “Moreover whites seldom accepted treaties of the Indians’ future land rights; whites assumed that they could settle whereever they wished. Some [Indian] bands acquiesced; others took revenge by attacking settlements, herds, and troops. the army responded with murers and massacres of entire villages.†She addresses both sides actions, which are basically the same. We know she knows Native Americans DID attack civilians, as did the US Army. However, when the Indians do it, it’s merely “attacking.†When The US Army does it, it’s “mudering†and “massacreing.â€
She also makes nonsensical statements that have no basis in fact, and refuse to adress them. It’s almost like one is reading an Opinion/Editorial (more like Agitprop) until one realizes that one is reading a textbook; supposedly fact based. The stunning example of such is on pages 324-325. “Whites ... exploitation of nature’s wealth gave rise to careless interaction with the environment and fed habits of racial and sexual oppression.†Norton implies that that’s all America was. It didn’t feed the nation and give many a great standard of living comparatively, all it did was “[feed] habits of racial and sexual oppression.†It’s not enough that she makes this wild claim, but she refuses to back some of it up fact. There is no further mention of the correlation between environmental utilization and sexism/racism, except if one counts stating the obvious fact that conditions were bad for minorities and women in the West. But then again, so were they everywhere.
Another indictment one could provide for Nortons “text†is this: She presents her opinions as fact. This proves beyond a doubt that she has ulterior motives. For example: â€... Indians had no alternatives but to yield their lands to market oriented whites. Although they tried to retain their culture by both adapting and yielding to the various demands they faced, by the end of the century they had lost control of the land and were under increasing pressure to shed their group identity. To this day they remain cusualties of an aggressive age.†[pg. 324] She just finished emoting about how justified the Indians were in attacking white civilians, as was proven above. But she switches her story; now the indians “have no alternatives.†They lost control of the land because they were militarily inferior, not because of any vileness or evilness of whites, as is implied above. And what does she mean by “To this day they remain casualties of an aggressive age?†This seems to be the most emotive, editorialzed and opinion as fact oriented statement in the whole chapter.
However, by far the worst tactic she uses is to build prejudice. The repeated use of the word “white (s)†in the place of “Americans†only when describing negative actions builds a gut reaction in the reader to dislike whites. The word “white†is used at an average of 5 times a page, and sometimes as much as 12. That is more than the word “nigger†in rap songs. Some say racism is like pornography, one cannot define it, but one knows it when one sees it. All one has to do is read that “Land-grabbing whites were particularly cruel to Ojibwas of the nothern plains..†Indeed they were, however, scalping doesn’t even rate a mention. Norton would rather talk about the shooting of bison (a word she doesn’t seem no know). She focuses on the flaws of the whites and ignores the flaws of the Indians.
This chapter in this textbook is a cesspool of racism and anti-white bias. It’s almost sickening to see this, yet not surprising. We have a culture that assumes people need extra help simply because of their skin color, and destroys meritocracy for racial quotas. Same as before, we still live in a Pigmentocracy. The more things change...
1. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
2. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
-dictionary.com
A People and a Nation, mostly written by Mary Beth Norton is a compendium of reasons white people are guilty for most of the evil in the Western Hemisphere. The most striking examples of this exist in it's chapter 17, describing the transformations in Native American Culture, the West and it's natural resources, and the South during 1877 to 1892. Norton uses many tools to cast the guilt upon whites, including biased language, use of race as pejorative, non-sequiturs, opinion-as-fact, and biased perspectives, and manufactured negative association toward a race, otherwise known as: prejudice.
There is much biased language in this chapter. Biased language is when the written words are crafted to impress an idea that is not outright said. It is a subliminal and sneaky way to write, because is presents information in a specific way to further one’s own ideals. For example, after talking three whole paragraphs to display how much Native Americans loved the earth and were consummate habitors of earth, on page 319 Norton says; “For white Americans, however, natural reasources were to be utilized for economic gain.†She is, in effecting stating that whites don’t value nature and Indians did, leaving no room for interpretations of different ideas of valuing nature. Intolerance of this type peppers the rest of the text.
However, the real biased language comes directly after the above. She says : “...they dug into the earth to remove valuable minerals...†While yes, this is technically true, why didn’t she say “Americans sae economic opportunites in the west, and they mined.†It’s much shorter, much easier, and also less racist. And why say “white?†Why single out whites as the guilty party in this? And all this on the first page of the chapter! One senses an ulterior motive. Read on:
The most damning evidence of this double standard and anti-white bigotry comes out on page 321, the mere third page of the chapter. The language speaks for itself: “Moreover whites seldom accepted treaties of the Indians’ future land rights; whites assumed that they could settle whereever they wished. Some [Indian] bands acquiesced; others took revenge by attacking settlements, herds, and troops. the army responded with murers and massacres of entire villages.†She addresses both sides actions, which are basically the same. We know she knows Native Americans DID attack civilians, as did the US Army. However, when the Indians do it, it’s merely “attacking.†When The US Army does it, it’s “mudering†and “massacreing.â€
She also makes nonsensical statements that have no basis in fact, and refuse to adress them. It’s almost like one is reading an Opinion/Editorial (more like Agitprop) until one realizes that one is reading a textbook; supposedly fact based. The stunning example of such is on pages 324-325. “Whites ... exploitation of nature’s wealth gave rise to careless interaction with the environment and fed habits of racial and sexual oppression.†Norton implies that that’s all America was. It didn’t feed the nation and give many a great standard of living comparatively, all it did was “[feed] habits of racial and sexual oppression.†It’s not enough that she makes this wild claim, but she refuses to back some of it up fact. There is no further mention of the correlation between environmental utilization and sexism/racism, except if one counts stating the obvious fact that conditions were bad for minorities and women in the West. But then again, so were they everywhere.
Another indictment one could provide for Nortons “text†is this: She presents her opinions as fact. This proves beyond a doubt that she has ulterior motives. For example: â€... Indians had no alternatives but to yield their lands to market oriented whites. Although they tried to retain their culture by both adapting and yielding to the various demands they faced, by the end of the century they had lost control of the land and were under increasing pressure to shed their group identity. To this day they remain cusualties of an aggressive age.†[pg. 324] She just finished emoting about how justified the Indians were in attacking white civilians, as was proven above. But she switches her story; now the indians “have no alternatives.†They lost control of the land because they were militarily inferior, not because of any vileness or evilness of whites, as is implied above. And what does she mean by “To this day they remain casualties of an aggressive age?†This seems to be the most emotive, editorialzed and opinion as fact oriented statement in the whole chapter.
However, by far the worst tactic she uses is to build prejudice. The repeated use of the word “white (s)†in the place of “Americans†only when describing negative actions builds a gut reaction in the reader to dislike whites. The word “white†is used at an average of 5 times a page, and sometimes as much as 12. That is more than the word “nigger†in rap songs. Some say racism is like pornography, one cannot define it, but one knows it when one sees it. All one has to do is read that “Land-grabbing whites were particularly cruel to Ojibwas of the nothern plains..†Indeed they were, however, scalping doesn’t even rate a mention. Norton would rather talk about the shooting of bison (a word she doesn’t seem no know). She focuses on the flaws of the whites and ignores the flaws of the Indians.
This chapter in this textbook is a cesspool of racism and anti-white bias. It’s almost sickening to see this, yet not surprising. We have a culture that assumes people need extra help simply because of their skin color, and destroys meritocracy for racial quotas. Same as before, we still live in a Pigmentocracy. The more things change...
. To the FIRST NATIVE Americans I am sure the White settlers were treated as invaders......You guys were the illegal immigrants of the day 
"Flame on!"
