Question for Americans

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusmademe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jesusmademe

Guest
A question from Sweden: do most Americans think the “native americans” are innocent people? Or are they just seen as “normal” people?
Please explain!

www.catholicculture.org

They came for Covington Catholic; next will they come for you?

It’s time for the pro-life movement to grow up. The disgraceful treatment of students from Covington Catholic—and by that I mean the pell-mell rush of pro-life “leaders” to condemn innocent young men—illustrates a potentially fatal flaw in the movement. For much too long, some of the most...
www.catholicculture.org www.catholicculture.org
 
Huh? I never read Phil Lawler columns, they’re angry all the time. I only go on Catholic Culture to read about the saints. I’m not going to read that column either.

All people are just “normal people”.
 
Last edited:
The stereotype here is that Native Americans are honest and straightforward.
My own rational brain know that there are good and bad people in every race.
But my sentimental brain wants to trust and give a bit more benefit of the doubt to a Native American because they have been hard done by.
 
Regular people who we are proned to empathize with due to the terrible hand dealt to them and extreme poverty on many reservations.
 
I have no idea if they’re “trustworthy” or not or what that even means given that they’re opinion pieces. Like I said, I don’t read them so I don’t know what he says in them. He’s always angry and complaining and to me, boring.

I read very few opinion pieces as most people these days are just angry, complaining and boring. I also prefer to spend my Catholic reading time reading pieces by clergy and bishops. Not more laypeople. I can read that right here.
 
Last edited:
I read the article and the title question asked at the beginning of this thread, whether or not most Americans think Native Americans are innocent people, isn’t even asked in the article.

The article is about the media, sensible reporting and pro-life leaders. It doesn’t even mention Native Americans.

Then the title question of this thread is odd because when you say “Native Americans”, the word “American” is in the question.

???
 
Last edited:
Ok so…I’m Swedish and a had question about the article. You see, in the article it was said that people apoligized for the bad behaviour of the boys/men who were accused but without actually looking deeply into the matter.
I was wondering if they actually started to apoligize because “native americans” are thought to be the innocent people. As I am no American I know very little about the issue. Then Am also aware of other reasons mentioned in the article for the quick apologies from certain pro-life people.
This is what my question is all about.
 
Last edited:
Leaving Phil Lawler out of it, I can say there’s a big tendency in USA to believe and take the side of anybody who is seen as being from an “oppressed” group when they go up against a group perceived to be in the majority and privileged.

The Native American in this scenario is
  • Native American, standing up for the rights of Native Americans
  • a Vietnam-era veteran
  • Appears to be not very well-off economically
  • Was allegedly intervening on behalf of some African-American people who are also perceived as an oppressed group
  • Not perceived as a Trump supporter
All these factors tend to make him a sympathetic figure.

The kids in this scenario are
  • Young white males (perceived as “privileged” because of race and gender)
  • Attend an elite prep school that is very expensive to attend and has children of sports stars and other wealthy people going there (perceived as even more “privileged” because they are well off)
  • From a Southern state (perceived as probably racially prejudiced and “ignorant” by many)
  • Associated with the Christian right (they are at a conservative rally for a Christian cause)
  • Trump supporters (they’re in MAGA gear)
All these factors tend to make a majority of the US population upset with them.
 
Last edited:
jesusmademe said:
A question from Sweden: do most Americans think the “native americans” are innocent people? Or are they just seen as “normal” people?
Click to expand...
I am not certain I understand the question.

In general, I believe native americans to be just like any other group of people.
The group did not confront anyone at the rally, only a few individuals did.
Of those, there appears to be only one that appears to be seeking out self service at the expense of others.
Perhaps my first take on this is wrong. Time will tell.
 
jesusmademe said:
Ok so…I’m Swedish and a had question about the article. You see, in the article it was said that people apoligized for the bad behaviour of the boys/men who were accused but without actually looking deeply into the matter.
I was wondering if they actually started to apoligize because “native americans” are thought to be the innocent people. As I am no American I know very little about the issue. Then Am also aware of other reasons mentioned in the article for the quick apologies from certain pro-life people.
This is what my question is all about.
Click to expand...
No, many are apologizing because they snapped into a judgement without getting their facts straight.
Worse though, when more video is brought forward, the exact opposite of what they sat in condemnation of appears to be true.
I doubt it had anything to do with perception of the native americans as there was another group there that likewise got a pass that is anything but innocent.

I believe it has to do with these teenagers matching up with everything the left in this country has come to despise.
They are Catholic.
They apparently support Trump as they have the MAGA hats.
They stand against abortion.
And they also offered no apologies to anyone.
All of these together, the left just jumped on it.
 
jesusmademe said:
I was wondering if they actually started to apoligize because “native americans” are thought to be the innocent people.
Click to expand...
I think, yes, they originally wanted to accuse the teens because, as said by someone else, native Americans would be considered a group that is oppressed, and since most of our main stream media has sadly portrayed our President as racist, anyone showing any favor toward him would be considered racist. So the original first thought was, yes, that the Native Americans had to be innocent and the teens the guilty racist group.

Due to the main stream media and the social media lighting up with all kinds of unjust accusations toward the teens the media later then had to apologize becauses it was the teens who were innocent, not the Native Americans.
jesusmademe said:
Then Am also aware of other reasons mentioned in the article for the quick apologies from certain pro-life people.
Click to expand...
I think in the article he is speaking of the pro-life groups who, sadly, believed what the main stream media was saying at first and so then distanced themselves from the teens and actually condemned them before knowing the whole story.

I think there are just many people who realized they jumped the gun and had to apologize, need to apologize or hopefully will apologize to these teens.
 
Last edited:
I think Tis_Bearself nailed the unofficial “standard” American viewpoint.

(Although I’ve heard there is some question as to whether or not the particular native American was a Veteran. I haven’t researched it so I don’t know.)

It’s generally important to Americans to think of themselves as open-minded and unprejudiced. There is no doubt that indigenous people in the United States were frequently ill-treated and even today often live in poverty. And today many Americans view the pre-European influence era lives of indigenous Americans as noble and environmentally-friendly. For many people, it’s considered a status symbol to claim indigenous ancestry.

So saying something bad about a specific native American tends to immediately be seen as an attack on an entire people and their history, as well as being an attack on a romantic dream lifestyle that many Americans subconsciously long for.
 
Last edited:
Washington Post has just issued a correction that he wasn’t a “Vietnam veteran”. He was a Marine during 1972-1976 which is Vietnam era (the war ended in 1975), but he was never actually deployed to Vietnam.

I don’t think that matters. First of all, if he was in the military during that era, there was a risk of him being sent to Vietnam. Second, even if he didn’t actually go to Vietnam, being a Marine anywhere is a tough job - it shows he did more than the average person who was drafted and is worthy of respect. Third, members of US military were not popular at all in the USA in the early 1970s, regardless of whether they actually were sent to Vietnam or not.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Washington Post has just issued a correction that he wasn’t a “Vietnam veteran”. He was a Marine during 1972-1976 which is Vietnam era (the war ended in 1975), but he was never actually deployed to Vietnam.

I don’t think that matters. First of all, if he was in the military during that era, there was a risk of him being sent to Vietnam. Second, even if he didn’t actually go to Vietnam, being a Marine anywhere is a tough job - it shows he did more than the average person who was drafted and is worthy of respect. Third, members of US military were not popular at all in the USA in the early 1970s, regardless of whether they actually were sent to Vietnam or not.
Click to expand...
Just to point out, even though he wasn’t deployed, the Native Americans have contributed many of their man and women to serve in the military. As you said, being a Marine is not easy.
I have not followed this story as closely as some. I heard the initial story and then the
backtracking, but I have not seen any video
of the confrontations and what actually took place. So I really don’t know what these Native Americans were doing.
I don’t like the fact that anyone wearing a red MAGA hat is stereotyped or that someone who is Catholic is stereotyped.
 
While I’m generally in favor of free speech for everybody, I do think that sending high school students to go explore DC unsupervised in a bunch of MAGA gear was not a bright move on the part of the school or the parents. It basically makes the kids targets for those who dislike Trump, who are legion in DC. If it were my school and I made the rules, I’d tell the kids that the dress code for the trip is school sweatshirts, t-shirts, hats only, nothing else. Some of the groups did have their students all dressed in the same school gear and it not only looks good marching and makes it easier to keep track of each other, but it also doesn’t make you a target.

If adults want to run around town in MAGA gear, fine, they’re grownups, they can handle it, but these are kids. People have been attacked for wearing a MAGA hat in the wrong place in DC.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I do think that sending high school students to go explore DC unsupervised in a bunch of MAGA gear was not a bright move on the part of the school or the parents.
Click to expand...
Not all had on MAGA hats and Nick Sandmann said he bought his there in DC, probably so did some of the other youth. There were chaperones. One was interviewed on Fox yesterday and stated she did not see any misbehavior in the youth.
 
Last edited:
The chaperones are not very visible in the videos. When a strange man came beating a drum into the midst of a group of students, many of whom are minors, I would have expected the chaperone to step in and intervene, not just leave it to the kids to decide how to react.

I see this primarily as a failure of adults.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top