Nah, in this “modern” time using the term savages is a way to dehumanized them, and push a view point that the white man helped them…when clearly that is not the case.
I think it’s about context. When Dennis Reynolds in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia goes on an insane tirade calling his friend group, “IDIOTS! SAVAGES!” it’s a clear indication that their actions are reckless to his perceived way of the world.
On the other hand, when Marina Sapozhnikov says it, she says it with things like,
that before Europeans came to North America, First Nations Peoples “didn’t have any sophisticated laws. They were savages. They fought each other all the time.”
When the Vancouver Island University student interviewing Sapozhnikov challenged the candidate, she replied: “Not 100 per cent savages, maybe 90 per cent savages.”
During the hour-long interview, a recording of which was given to Postmedia News late Thursday, Sapozhnikov spoke about her concerns with Indigenous history courses being taught in B.C. universities, her view that B.C.’s adoption of the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act renders every non-Indigenous British Columbian a “second-rate citizen,” and said that “90 per cent of Indigenous people use drugs.”
indicating that she believes that at least 90% of indigenous people were drug abusing savages. It’s not even using it to depict specific actions as archaic, which would be in poor taste but at least more understandable (example: the Mayans sacrifice rituals being described as savage, indicating that a practice in the culture is vicious or merciless). Compared to calling 90% of indigenous people savage is very different - at no point in the article does she even try to claim that she was talking about specific practices. She literally says, “the didn’t even have an alphabet”.
She clarified that she didn’t mean that Indigenous Peoples in the present are “savages” but “hundreds of years ago.”
Later, Sapozhnikov, a former family doctor, said: “When I used to see Indigenous people as patients, I wasn’t able to talk to them. Because they don’t talk. As soon as I’d ask just, sometimes, very innocent questions, they just shut up. They don’t talk.”
Yeah, I wonder why they wouldn’t want to talk to you, lady.
The slur was savages
Pretty mild and not worth the headline compared to the rest of the comment
Nah, in this “modern” time using the term savages is a way to dehumanized them, and push a view point that the white man helped them…when clearly that is not the case.
Did you read the rest of the comments?
She was straight up dehumanizing, the term doesn’t matter if they are straight up saying everything it represents
I read it, but that term alone is enough, even without doubling down. She is just garbage
My view is she could replace it with whatever preferred term and it wouldn’t be any less offensive so it’s worse than just saying a slur
Fair
I think it’s about context. When Dennis Reynolds in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia goes on an insane tirade calling his friend group, “IDIOTS! SAVAGES!” it’s a clear indication that their actions are reckless to his perceived way of the world.
On the other hand, when Marina Sapozhnikov says it, she says it with things like,
indicating that she believes that at least 90% of indigenous people were drug abusing savages. It’s not even using it to depict specific actions as archaic, which would be in poor taste but at least more understandable (example: the Mayans sacrifice rituals being described as savage, indicating that a practice in the culture is vicious or merciless). Compared to calling 90% of indigenous people savage is very different - at no point in the article does she even try to claim that she was talking about specific practices. She literally says, “the didn’t even have an alphabet”.
Yeah, I wonder why they wouldn’t want to talk to you, lady.
Thanks for pointing out the rest of the comment that I said was worse and should have been the focus
Ah I see I misinterpreted your comment. You were saying that savages wasn’t as bad as all of the other things she said about indigenous people
It’s a good thing there’s a whole article with context as to why this is bad. I think the headline is apt.
Mild enough that it should have been in the headline. Not mild enough that there shouldn’t be outrage at it.