![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dreamer_easyHaving wound down the Zoloft to nil, I took my first dose of Cymbalta this morning. Now I have to go out for a routine eye checkup. Could be an interesting day. :)
As you know, I like to derp around a little with language, and yesterday I got quite hung up on the simple English word "us", in the context of a blog posting called 10 Things Most Americans Don’t Know About America. It's just the guy's personal observations, which I know for a fact aren't always accurate - for example, Britons and Australians are positively snide about people from the US - but it raises points worth considering.
I think this short extract gives the central thrust of the entire posting's argument:
Now, there are multiple problems with this statement. I suppose that "largely" acknowledges the efforts at genocide which post-date the smallpox plagues which decimated* the native population. But these were failed efforts. As in Australia, the locals have survived despite all attempts to erase them. There are more than five million Native Americans living in the United States today.
Who, then, is "us"?
This isn't just a cute question of grammar. In Australia, intentional efforts to help the locals along on their assumed way to a natural extinction are thought of as being something that happened in The Olden Days, not something that was done by "us". And yet, hundreds of Aboriginal children were still being forcibly removed from their families within my lifetime - as late as 1976. Meanwhile, in the US, the century-long policy of the removal of Lakota children continues to this day.
So I ask again: who is "us"?
As you know, I like to derp around a little with language, and yesterday I got quite hung up on the simple English word "us", in the context of a blog posting called 10 Things Most Americans Don’t Know About America. It's just the guy's personal observations, which I know for a fact aren't always accurate - for example, Britons and Australians are positively snide about people from the US - but it raises points worth considering.
I think this short extract gives the central thrust of the entire posting's argument:
"... the Vietnamese believe the Vietnam War was about China (not us), Hitler was primarily defeated by Russia (not us), Native Americans were wiped out largely disease and plague (not us), and the American Revolution was “won” because the British cared more about beating France (not us). Notice a running theme here?"It was that third point that stuck in my mind (and not because of the missing preposition). "Native Americans were wiped out largely disease and plague (not us)."
Now, there are multiple problems with this statement. I suppose that "largely" acknowledges the efforts at genocide which post-date the smallpox plagues which decimated* the native population. But these were failed efforts. As in Australia, the locals have survived despite all attempts to erase them. There are more than five million Native Americans living in the United States today.
Who, then, is "us"?
This isn't just a cute question of grammar. In Australia, intentional efforts to help the locals along on their assumed way to a natural extinction are thought of as being something that happened in The Olden Days, not something that was done by "us". And yet, hundreds of Aboriginal children were still being forcibly removed from their families within my lifetime - as late as 1976. Meanwhile, in the US, the century-long policy of the removal of Lakota children continues to this day.
So I ask again: who is "us"?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-07-11 02:44 pm (UTC)My biggest problem with the assertion about the massive deaths of Native Americans is that the diseases and plagues that destroyed much of the population were brought to them by "us"--by European explorers and settlers. And "we" used that knowledge, delivering plague blankets, deliberately sending in people who had smallpox, etc. in order to hasten the advance of diseases. So to say it wasn't "us" is disingenuous at best.
I'd also like to ask why, if "the Vietnamese" believe that the war wasn't about "us," do they call it "The American War"? I think they know pretty well who was invading their country and killing them and it was not the Chinese. That many Americans convinced ourselves we were stopping the spread of Chinese Communism is clear, but that might make the war not about "them," but hardly not about "us".
no subject
Date: 2013-07-11 05:51 pm (UTC)If I knew that, I'd forgotten it. In this context, it's hilarious.
(Egad, another gaping hole in my knowledge of history. Fortunately I have some resources floating about the house with which to try and plug it.)