Typophile

node 1979

unknown

The American Nickel is having the back side of it being redesigned for release next year. It has two designs and I find one offensive. There is the boat Lewis and Clark used during their explorations (ho hum) but the other design that has a white person shaking the hand of an indian while the type mentions the Louisiana Purchase makes me gag. Wasn't after that purchase the first of the indian wars began where the US Government systematicly stold the lands of the Indians. Shake their hand and then imprision them for the riches of the west.

unknown

If you find a coin offensive, check out how Native Americans have been reduced to living.

hhp

unknown

Hrant, my point is isn't like rubbing salt into the wounds. Its one America's biggest shames.

unknown

Dude, there's a holiday to celebrate it.

Most Americans don't think it was a big deal, which is why they keep repeating it.

hhp

unknown

Hrant, I've never been farther west than St. Louis, sorry, I don't qualify as a Dude. I do assume you refer to the Trail of tears. If I am wrong, educate me. I'm always willing to learn. Ignorance is not bliss its just ignorance. Dan

unknown

I'm talking about Thanksgiving.

And the coin isn't salt, it's part of the ongoing propaganda, to make people feel better, and keep the rich from having to make reparations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3236083.stm

"Smilla's Sense of Snow" and "Smoke Signals" are recommended movies.

hhp

unknown

Loved the book Smilla's Sense of Snow, didn't think the movie was deep enough.

unknown

Didn't know there was a book. Makes sense.

Anyway, the Palestinians should have a holiday celebrating not being American Indian.

hhp

unknown

Very funny Hrant, Iraqies should too. You would like the book better, its very well written. Its like the book "All the pretty horses" a beautiful book, lousy movie.

unknown

This was used about 15 years ago before the trhee zeros were removed from money in Mexico. (it�s from a 50,000 pesos ticket)

unknown

Thanks H�ctor, for the image, at least the Mexican government (were/are) honest. One other point on the American Nickel design, its just plain old bad. Another amusing part of the design is crossing of a hatchet and a peace pipe. Its insulting, Dan

unknown

The Aztecs unhorsed a conquistador? Who knew?

Dan -- I'm not insulted.

unknown

Well Daniel, there is not much honestity needed to put that image on a ticket (is that the name for the paper money?). Mainly because we are not ashamed of that issue, only sore.

I would feel insulted by a ticket showing a hand shake between Santa Anna and James K. Polk or between Cuauhtemoc and Cortez.

About the image: The conquest was won mainly by the aztec beliefs and their tributarian nations, it�s not an historically faithful illustration but we like the metaphor in it, for the mesoamerican natives death was both the vital goal and a durable state of life.

unknown

H�ctor, I guess what bothers me most about the new American Nickel's back is its another case of spin-doctoring history. Everything was rosy and nice with the relations between the Indian nations and the government of the United States. Dan

unknown

Dan, get over it.

unknown

Ok I get it, at least everybodo knows it�s a farce.

unknown

>>Dan, get over it.

John, I'm not sure where you're coming from. Are you actually as blinkered as you sound, or are you trying to be funny?

unknown

If having a different opinion makes me blinkered, well then, color me blinkered.

unknown

Its not the opinion that riled me, just the attitude.
'Get over it' is not really an opinion, is it?
Its just an expression of contempt for someone else's opinion.
Perhaps you would like to furnish us with the benefit of your opinion on the matter.

unknown

John

Most Americans don't think it was a big deal, . . .

Is Hrant talking about people like you? I think that's what Steve is getting at? At least I am!

unknown

Well, OK, you asked for it.

Quite frankly, I think the "politically correct" thought process demonstrates condescension towards those people whom the ethos ostensibly defends. It all boils down to some weird left-over Enlightenment duality idea that non-Westerners are some sort of receptacles for Western culture -- good or bad -- rather than being people with their own motivations and foibles.

If Native Americans want to object to the way they are depicted in American culture, rock on. I support their right to express their opinion. I may not necessarily share that opinion, or support their movement, but I support their right to speak up.

What gets my goat is when people try to make political points by painting one group or another as being a victim. The Aztecs weren't victims, they were the meanest bastards on the continent. Native Americans weren't some special people. They were just people. Wanna-be social scientists concocting a myth of Native Americans as being some sort of noble savages is, in my opinion, a form of condescension.

Do people complain about the Mongols murdering and raping their way through Europe and the Middle East? Or about the Franks conquering the Anglo Saxons? The Moors invading Iberia? No, because respect is involved. Two cultures meet. One is hungrier than the other, more desperate, more greedy, whatever. They fight. One wins.

The PC mindset doesn't allow for this. It elevates victimhood to be almost desirable. But in doing so it insults the people it supposedly defends.

What I sensed in Dan's post was the knee-jerk, PC middle class Sociology 101 pissing and moaning that its practitioners think is showing respect for this other culture, but really is the exact opposite.

And Steve, don't pretend for one second you have respect for my opinion. You have already labeled me blinkered, which is the same as ignorant. So -- because I have a different opinion than you, I'm ignorant?

unknown

John, I respect your point but my target wasn't about being polically correct it was about the government trying to be politically correct. I personally feel they should put the Buffalo back on the nickel. At least it was well drawn. Dan

unknown

>>You have already labeled me blinkered
Read it again, I asked if you were as blinkered as you sound. I see you are.

>>blinkered, which is the same as ignorant
No, its worse, its wilful disregard which is different from just not knowing. Its possible that you are indeed ignorant of the holes in your argument, but it actually appears as if you are aware of those holes, and too self righteous to care.

You ask: 'Do people complain about the Mongols murdering and raping their way through Europe and the Middle East? Or about the Franks conquering the Anglo Saxons? The Moors invading Iberia?'
Well I think you might hear a few complaints if the royal mint cast a new 2 quid piece depicting Harold losing the throne to William the Conqueror in a game of scrabble.

You also complain that 'people try to make political points by painting one group or another as being a victim'.
Does this also count for the last 2 world wars, the holocaust, Vietnam, Uganda, Biafra, Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Indonesia etc etc?
Is your answer to all of these: 'get over it'?

unknown

Steve, if you're trying to make political points off those tragedies, shame on you.

unknown

OK, we have to stop now.
I am tempted to respond, but to come out with a comment like that demonstrates that the way your brain works is so fundamentally different from the way mine works that there really is no point in continuing.
There isn't anything either of us could say that would have any impact on the way the other views the world, so no useful purpose could be served by this.

unknown

John,

No, shame on you!


unknown

Steve: Finally, we are in complete agreement.

Gerald: At the risk of repeating myself, get over it.

unknown

> get over it.

Right - genocide, shmenocide.

hhp

unknown

John,

don't pretend for one second you have respect for my opinion.

Believe me, I am over it.

unknown

Well no matter if you are on or against this point. The cynism on the coin�s version of history is burdensome (and so is the design as i have heard). By the way Aztecs weren�t mean, human sacrifice was a sacred honor.

unknown
unknown

Which is meaner, I wonder: killing someone, or convincing someone that he wants to be killed?

unknown

Mean is in the intention not in the action. Human sacrifices mainly were made to feed the sun and to maintain the cosmical equilibrium, not doing so would unleash the universe destruction; but they loved the life and saw in death it�s natural continuation. The most important thing in life was the way you died (which determined the afterlife) and doing so in sacrifice was not for everyone.


Amo el canto del Tzenzontle
pajaro de cuatrocientas voces.
Amo el color del jade
y el enervante perfume de las flores.
Pero amo m�s a mi hermano el hombre.

Nezahualcoyotl

I love the Tenzontle�s trill,
four hundred voices bird.
I love the color of the jade
and the enervant perfume of the flowers.
But I love the most to the man my brother.

Captured from web.archive.org on 18 May 2005. view this capture