I’m not sure if this is exactly where this should go or if it’s already been mentioned, but nonetheless, here it is!
I also can’t say I know much about the film, yet, but I appreciate the acknowledgement of Taylor’s Christianity and the three “main ideas” that embodied his life.
-It doesn’t matter where you start; it matters where you finish.
-Life is too short for any man to hold bitterness in his heart.
-Dream big!
That will be a good watch.
Unfortunately the following is not about cycling but it is a bout sports and indigenous people.
I’m not sure what your point is.
It is true that scalping possibly existed as early as 600 a.d… I would think it would have happened during hostilities between tribes.
That being the case are you saying that it is okay to celebrate it in today’s world as Indians did it first?
“From one writer’s point of view, it was a “uniquely American” innovation that the use of scalp bounties in the wars against indigenous societies “became an indiscriminate killing process that deliberately targeted Indian non-combatants (including women, children, and infants), as well as warriors.”[59]: 204 Some American states such as Arizona paid bounty for enemy Native American scalps.[60]”
Should we openly be using the term collect some scalps when talking to sporting events or electing a new speaker of the house?
Would it be just as appropriate in this day and age to say on the news that we should go find a black man and lynch him when our team loses or some vote does not go our way. I am sure lynching happened way before white America started doing it to punish slaves.
What about when things don’t go our way we should find some Jewish people and take them to the showers?
I am not being flippant here. I would appreciate you explaining to me why it matters when it started. It was popularized in racist Hollywood in old westerns as a way to tame the Indians and for white society to make money.
Why is that ok?
Because “both sides”, ya know? 
I have to give Escape Collective a shoutout here……in one of their articles about the opening TT in the Giro, Johnny Long used the term “taking scalps” in re: to Remco’s dominant ride.
When the nature of the term was pointed out to him and he acknowledged it and revised the article quickly.
Scalping was regularly practiced by whites, Natives and Mexicans. All of General Custer’s men were scalped after the battle of Little Bighorn.
Bounties for scalps was an American and Mexican governments practice.
I do not think stifling conversation because it does not fit your narrative is a good way to bring people to the table. No, using the term is not okay but shutting him down when he made a valid point is not okay either.
Natives scalped whites, whites scalped Natives and Mexicans (hard to tell a Mexican scalp from a Native), and Mexicans scalped Natives. The West was a brutal violent place.
I also do not think scalping is the same as gas chambers and lynching. Scalping was fear tactic used by all parties. The person being scalped was dying either way. I would say coughing at a Native is more analogous to the gas chambers and lynching as it was disease that destroyed the Native populations.
Why did you respond to a months-old thread to “both-sides” scalping?
I get why someone would talk about cultural appropriation in the cycle industry, but I don’t get your response.
Maybe this little Craig Ferguson quote will help explain what I mean.
Just in case - alt text:
Does this need to be said? Does this need to be said by me? Does this need to be said by me now?
How about we don’t say it because there is not reason to draw similarities between winning a race and killing people?
Yes you were very clear in opening something from 8 months ago and saying “but they did it first”. I believe it was to say that it was not as bad as it was and it was their own fault.
No question it was used before in conflicts between tribes.
However early America’s was the place where it has been popularized in modern movies as a tool to eradicate, control or genocide against indigenous people. It was also the time when white colonists paid for scalps of non-combatants WOMEN AND CHILDREN. It is in these movies that most North Americans have recieved this info through modern culture. It is in these movies that racist sterotypes and information is passed on.
It has been used in sports. It has also been used in coverage of the 12 votes on electing speaker kevin mccarthy just to name 2 events. Would it be ok in the speakers election to say that he should lynch some boys to get control of the vote?
Again both sides did it when you go to the history books. Lycnchings have been done for thousands of years. When you bring up those terms for most people of my age it brings up points in time of the early americas of attacks on indians and black people as that is what has been told in modern media and that is where most people have got there education except for the racists like my mother in law where it was handed down generation to generation.
You see now that its an emotional subject after opening it up 8 months later. You got your shot in by making sure indian’s get their share of the blame. Now YOU have opened this can of worms and you want to get back to training.
UH-HUH!
Both sides did it. Only one side paid to do it and went after non-combatants and only one side doing it has been popularized in modern culture against the dirty indians.
My opinion.
Bottom line is should it be used at all in modern reporting? It describes a very bad practice. There is no excuse for using it.
Lynchings have been done since the beginning of time. Yet we dont use it to describe sporting events or elections.
Not certain why you are responding to my post with this, since I am clearly in agreement with you.
I read your response and found it vague and as I read it I think it could go either way.
Either it was re-written to use the argument both sides did it so it was ok that it was mentioned. Or it was re-written because it was in fact a term that should have not been used.
I reacted to your post in the way I incorrectly understood it and for that I apologize. Understanding your post I appreciate it and would appreciate it if you could give me the link to the story as I cannot google it.
So this is now the third time you have responded negatively to me when I have been in agreement with you…twice on this thread and once in the weight loss thread.
Quite honestly, I’m kinda done with it. You need to learn to read what is posted and stop flying off the handle at everyone.
I am sorry. I said in my response I misunderstood your post and I took it incorrectly. In your quote I explained that I did not understand it and there is an apology in the quote!
That was my fault and I stated it and I apologized. There was no sarcasm there. I do not understand why you responded this way. It does not matter. You did and I am sorry that you felt the need to.
I apologized for my mistake and thanked you for your post.
I was trying to explain my confusion on your original post and I obviously did a very poor job.
I apologize for my first response to you. I apologize for my second response to you as it was poorly written and did not get my feelings across to you in the way I meant.
I am very sorry that I made you even more angry and frustrated with my reply. That was sincerely not my intention.
I do not see where I flew off the handle at you. That does not matter as you feel I did and I apologize that you feel that way. It was not my intention.
The other thread your point is well taken and I am working on that. I do not feel the same applies to this thread but that is only my opinion and it does not make it reality.
To be fair…nothing needs to be said on this forum by anyone ever about anything.
I don’t even know what was said…but it’s an internet forum. Nothing is getting solved…we’re just discussing. For example…what you just said did not NEED to be said by you or anyone. But if’s certainly part of a reasonable discussion. As are the posts by everyone recently as best I can tell.
What makes a cute picture more important to post than other peoples responses exactly?
I don’t mean to attack you directly. But IMO it isnt your job, or anyone elses other than the possible exceptions of TR and Chad to be the gatekeeper of who gets to contribute and what they contribute.
Good response. I understand you more now.
“INDIAN” used in Canadian language has many meanings to indigenous people.
“INDIAN” is the language used in the “INDIAN ACT” and that is the act of governing indigenous people in this country. There have been more than a few attempts to change the title of the “INDIAN ACT” and also the contents of the “INDIAN ACT” that would in the end severely reduce and damage indigenous rights in Canada.
At this time the federal government has an ongoing plan to try and deed out the land within reserves to individuals. This would then allow individuals to sell the land piece by piece on the open market and thereby extinguish all indigenous land in Canada and would be a massive blow to eradicating indigenous people and cultures.
That said there are many different opinions on the word “INDIAN” in Canada.
Here is a much better explanation than I can write up.
“The term Indian , when used to identify Indigenous peoples in South, Central and North America, is considered outdated and offensive. In Canada, the term has been used historically to refer to Indigenous peoples, but it also has modern legal significance. It is used to refer to legally defined identities set out in the Indian Act, such as Indian Status. For some Indigenous peoples, the term Indian confirms their ancestry and protects their historic relationship to the Crown and federal government. For others, the definitions set out in the Indian Act are not affirmations of their identity.”
As Indigenous I defer to the legal status of “INDIANS” as that is the document that legally defines us as a people and protects us. It was not our choice to be known and defined as “INDIANS” as we are not from India. But this like many other choices were not ours to make!
Also
“In a unanimous decision, the court found that Métis and Non-Status peoples are considered Indians under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 — a section that concerns the federal government’s exclusive legislative powers.Jan 18, 2019”
I will admit that “INDIAN” is inaccurate and can be an unflattering term depending how it is used. There are lots of ways to fix it. Start honouring treaties. Make reparations for the past. Create partnerships moving forward. Give all Canadians access to the resources that are theirs and not sell them at pittances on the dollar to foreign multinationals. Mostly stop trying to crush indigenous society by eradicating them. Give them the same rights and access as the rest of Canadians…
LET’S START WITH CLEAN DRINKING WATER.
If anyone is curious on the INDIAN ACT here is a very quick starter.
and
and
I own a Colnago Master… Until I read your post, I never in a million years would have interpreted “master”, in the context of a bicycle, as anything other than meaning “the pinnacle of expertise.” Would any black person see it in the context of master-slave? We’re all blind to our own blindness when it comes to a lot of this kind of thing. Certainly a Colnago Slave would be a problem. As well as the Native-related examples you mentioned. Awareness of it comes from education. Until I took a Native American Anthropology course in college, my awareness of indigenous people was a nostalgic look at the past, not as living, breathing cultures still embedded and separate nations within a nation.
In my state, we recently renamed quite a few mountains and other place names for their derogatory origins. Change is slow but steady, and always accompanied by backlash.
