The rules are unfortunately, in many, many ways, inconsistent.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Racism is ok now?
- Thread starter s15119
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then call her a fraud, or a phoney, or faker. Why put the focus on the Native American aspect of it? Of you think she’s a liar, call her a Trump!
By your logic, calling Rachel Dolezal (the woman who claimed to be black for a long time and was exposed as a fraud) a porch monkey wouldn’t be racist.
She’s not actually black, right?
But it is racist because doing so is linking being black with the term “porch monkey” and using it as an insult. That she isn’t actually black is irrelevant.
Same here- whether or not Warren is a Native American is irrelevant.
I agree with this. Even public figures should be judged by their actions, using racial appellations should not be allowed. I understand the mods position here, it's a tightrope.
Exactly.
To you and those people you refer to the usage of Pochahontas is just a way to characterize her dishonesty and lack of integrity, as debate tool to keep a dishonest person from being elected into positions of power. I think one of the main issue a lot of people have with this is that they know the user know that others consider it a racist and misogynist remark.
In a lot of political debates it's not really the content of what is said that is important but how it sounds to people. If it didn't upset anyone or if it didn't inspire a certain feeling in the user it wouldn't be meaningful.
I understand the frustration the people who object to racial slurs have with allowing this, but to ban it without a long conversation with people about why it's inappropriate is counterproductive. I'm personally a strong proponent for political correctness, but if people are simply shut down without discussion you just create more polarity.
I'm actually surprised that the mods didn't close this thread after announcing a decision and move the discussion to PRSI.
But the thing is, as the debate rolls on, the question is this, is referring to Sen Warren as 'Pocahontas' racist? and i think you will find that this has been answered a few times, the answer is no. Is referring to Sen Warren as 'Pocahontas' an insult because it makes a joke/fun of her 'alleged' Native American heritage? the answer is yes BUT due to forum rules, insulting a public figure is allowed, which is why posts referring to her as 'Pocahontas' have been allowed to stay.
The reason this issue will go on is because there is a clear discrepancy between forum members on what they consider 'racist' and what they consider an 'insult'. Until the decision is made to ban ALL insults, issues such as this one will continue.
Only if you are selectively reading. A significant number of posters here think the answer is yes.
Why are people referring to Warren as Pocahontas? What is it about Pocahontas that they are alluding to?
Is it because Pocahontas was known for being dishonest? No.
Is it because Pocahontas was Native American? Yes.
Is there literally anything else about Pocahontas that is relevant to her name being used? No.
It's only about her race.
Thus, objectively, it is racist.
The administrators decided it was not to be seen as a racist remark in the forum moderation. I disagree, but I it's also not clear to me that it should automatically be moderated without proper discussion. The use of the term is in, my opinion, also an expression for a social or political standpoint, even if it's offensive and intellectually dishonest.
For a Native American user of this forum it might be somewhat more offensive than it is to me, but I can hardly be the judge of that.
The below quote sums it up pretty nicely:
And you've made my point eloquently.
This is the definition of the word 'racist'
Was Sen Warren being referred to as 'Pocahontas', in the context that the reference was used, come under the definition of the word as defined above...no it does not, therefore it's use was no 'racist'.
Was Sen Warren being referred to as 'Pocahontas', in the context that the reference was used, come under the definition of an 'insult' as defined above...yes.
Even so, we'd also probably still have been discussing moderation and the thread already does (and rightly, in SFF) contain such discussion.... in general, not specifically. Still it's a borderline issue to discuss moderation at all in PRSI because it might be considered off topic.
I completely agree though that this thread is a very odd duck. It's almost impossible to have the discussion here in SFF about whether the term in question as used to address or describe a candidate for office is racist or not, without getting into examples and queries about what is or has been deemed a violation in the past. Which examples are clearly PRSI material. And yet it's important to have the discussion... and yet we can't have it in PRSI...
[admins and mods go on strike to avoid pulling out their own or each others' hair]
You are for real? You can't look to dictionary's for this kind of thing. You should know that.
There are literally hundreds of prestigious, well-known, often-cited dictionaries. If you want a certain definition, you will eventually find it. As an attorney, I do it all the time; so I know how bogus it is. Here:
Cambridge defines "racist" as "a person who believes that some races are better than others, or who acts unfairly to someone because of his or her race."
Is calling Warren "Pocahontas" acting fairly to either Warren's or Pocahontas' race? It isn't acting fairly to the Native Americans, and this it is racist.
Oxford defines "racist" as "A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."
Merriam Webster's third definition is "racial prejudice or discrimination." Prejudice is defined as "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge."
Surely calling upon an entire race for the purpose of insulting is prejudice, and thus racist.
Your references do not apply in this situation because they all relate to a person being 'treated' unfairly, being 'treated' with prejudice, being 'treated' with discrimination. Was she made to feel inferior to everyone else, no, was she prevented from doing anything because of who she is, no. Sen Warren was subject to none of them. What she was subject to or 'treated' to was a ridiculing of her 'alleged' Native American heritage by reference to a person who is more commonly associated with a cartoon character, thus to do so is insulting but not racist.
Except that the answer can certainly be "yes, it does" as explained in an earlier post:
And more in another post:
You're focusing on Warren. But it is Native Americans being prejudiced.
Well if you put it that way........I wouldn’t think of calling Dolezal a porch monkey. It’s well known how that could offend black people.
Perhaps it could be taken better by most if she was referred to as a fraud, phoney or faker. But by using Pocahontas, isn’t it more efficient? You are specifically calling her out on what she was lying about, yes? I’ve never heard ‘Pocahontas‘ used derogatorily toward Indians so I don’t feel it’s viewed in the same way as slurs that are known. I’d like to think American Indians would be a lot more upset at how she used their heritage to gain their benefits. Shouldn’t that be more of the focus?
And I feel political correctness has gotten out of hand. Way out of hand. I do agree if people are shut down without discussion no one wins. I’m certainly learning a bit through this thread.
The point is you can do both without making it about race. As I said above, the ONLY thing about Pocahontas that is relevant here is that she is a Native American. Functionally, what's the difference between calling her a pocahontas, red skin, or chief wahoo? It's all the same, right? Let's call Warren a word that belittles an entire race into a single word, and then use that word as a negative insult.
I actually think a word exists for what Warren-haters purport she did: carpetbagger. Thought that was a north/south thing, it could be adapted to Warren.
I also think charlatan, impersonator, or opportunist work too.
Better yet, why not use persuasive argument? It's not winning over any Native Americans who vote by calling Warren a racial epithet. Warren opponents could point out the downsides of what Warren did - diluting a culture, stealing benefits, unfairly trying to get affirmative action, and so on. That might do more to persuade that making it racial.
Not sure if I'm venturing into off topic and PRSI now but I find it to be relevant to the discussion. Quoted from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
Political correctness is not about censorship or avoiding talking about problems in society. It's about avoiding using negative stereotypes. There's been a lot of focus in the description about political correctness as avoiding offending people at all cost and that's not the main point at all.
One reason I find the Pochahontas slur to be politically incorrect is not that it insults Warren, but that it unnecessarily uses a minority character as the focus of the insult. By using that type of way of ridiculing or describing something unpleasant about Warren the politician, the stereotyping and "otherness" of American natives is kept alive.
And this is why we have the problems that we do when it comes to issues of racism. Referring to one individual as 'Pocahontas' does not equate to the whole race being characterized as such, and in my opinion it is a bit of a stretch to do so but there will be some who will twist the argument that it is the 'whole race' that is being insulted, when in reality it is not.
The only reason this is a big issue is because as the reference was made by Trump, there are many trump haters who want to see the man taken down and thus what better way to claim he is being racist against a minority group of American citizens, rather than just one individual.
This then has a knock on effect on the issue being discussed here, Do the admins accept it as a racist or an insult, and i still stick to my argument, it is an 'insult' and thus be treated as such per the forum rules.
Trump has a bully pulpit traditionally reserved to POTUS and since he uses Twitter to amplify it, then when he makes a meme out of a possibly ambiguous insult --which is what he has done-- and does that in the context of catering to a base that includes white supremacists, then he has created a meme that at best is a wink-and-nod form of racism offered up to the world at large. At worst he is just pandering to a segment of his base (yearning for the public approval they thought they'd get more of when Trump stuck a few white nationalists into his administration) that is still attuned to dog whistles.
He's clearly trying to brush off a dangerous political opponent, one who can wipe the floor with him in debate. That does not excuse the manner in which he's trying to dismiss Elizabeth Warren.
As far as I can tell in the (newishly) revised standard version of the blood sport of politics, skill at policy debate plus ability to lay hands on $4 or $5 will fetch one a fare card in most metro stations.
What's left after policy debate is consigned to the dustbin is the art of insult. At that, Trump is pretty good. He should not be permitted, however, nor should be his supporters, to convert a questionable insult of Warren into a racist reminder to his base of where he's coming from, which is so far still a place of failure to be convincing in his tepid disavowals of racist or white supremacist views. And why does MacRumors want to risk underwriting that mode of Trump's political operations?
It seems less than desirable to me for this to be a site where one can even wonder whether it's ok to post a negative remark about a public figure --here, Sen.Warren-- that also references sarcastically a token of an entire minority group of people --here, "Pocahontas"-- while seeming to aim the sarcasm itself only at said public figure (and so presumably to fall within guidelines for debate). That strikes me as a very very fine slice away from the prohibition against making slurs against a public figure based on membership in generally immutable groups like ethnicity.
We've already established that at least one other token nickname, "Sambo," is out of bounds as being firmly in the public domain as a racist reference. The things that together obscure the same issue in the case of Warren and "Pocahontas" are
a) Pocahontas herself was not a caricature or a character in a book, but a real person and the equivalent of royalty in an indigenous North American tribe and
b) longstanding stereotyping of indigenous North American tribes as "redskins" and recognition of that term as a racial slur, even though it's still in use by some sports teams
c) Senator Warren's pale face, yep... and
d) Senator Warren's own use of minority heritage in "identity politics".
b) longstanding stereotyping of indigenous North American tribes as "redskins" and recognition of that term as a racial slur, even though it's still in use by some sports teams
c) Senator Warren's pale face, yep... and
d) Senator Warren's own use of minority heritage in "identity politics".
If Warren looked more like either Deb Haaland or Sharice Davids, two recently elected Native American members of the US House of Representatives, more people might have accepted Warren's embrace of her indigenous heritage and fewer might have accepted political foes sarcastically tagging her as "Pocahontas"... regardless of the stature of the real Pocahontas in the history of her own tribe and in our colonial history. In other words, the emphasis in the nickname would have shifted away from games of identity politics towards recognition that tagging Warren as "Pocahontas" was tagging her as "a redskin" without uttering that slur. Admittedly, the slur itself is obscured in some people's minds since it is still used as a sports team name.
But in fact, by her physical appearance, Elizabeth Warren is one of those citizens with minority heritage who might be tagged "passing for white" by fans of white supremacy. Calling her "Pocahontas" then amounts to slyly calling her out for what she is: a person of mixed racial heritage with a Caucasian appearance.
But her mixed heritage is public record now. Some of us may figure that while tagging Warren as "a redskin" is out of bounds, using a token in place of that slur should work, the way some people figured "Sambo" should have worked too. But use of "Sambo" became a violation of guidelines. I still think MacRumors should not be up for allowing a differentiation in those cases, even given Warren's questionable use of identity politics herself.
I think the key words here are belittling, ridiculing and demeaning that get slapped together with Pochahontas and in extension Native Americans.
Just because Warren is being insulted doesn't mean it can't also be racist. The problem people have with this expression isn't the insult, but that it uses a minority character as a base of the insult. As a comparison: if you tried to fake your heritage to be of royal blood and a member of the British royal family, I could call you King George and it wouldn't amount to the same thing, because the British people haven't been discriminated like the Native Americans and therefore not as sensitive to stereotyping.
Like you, I'm not automatically on board with the banning of Pochahontas references, but I consider it important to think about what we are accepting in the debate. It doesn't matter that it was Trump who started it, but he set the precedence for its use. I hope it's not being defended because it is used against one of Trump's political opponents.
I think this is the very essence of the point of being politically correct. No matter if Warren had been a democrat or a republican, there's absolutely no point in using the Pochahontas slur. It's not about silencing a debate concerning Warrens fitness as a political candidate, but it's about weighing ones word and not worsening a minority group's position in society.
The only reason I think MR is correct in not banning the use of Pochahontas is because I suspect a lot of people simply hasn't thought this through. Naturally there are some people using it and defending it knowing full well what they are doing, but a lot of people just aren't used to thinking like this. But the truth is that every time the Pochahontas reference is used in this way is an ethnic aggression against the Native Americans, and considering Pochahontas also is a woman there's an added effect because women has in general lower standing in society (this combined effect is what some users in here has referred to as intersectionality). Like calling you Queen Elisabeth would have been worse than calling you King George.
The context matters a lot and words change meaning. Racial slurs start out somewhere and I think we will find that Pochahontas is now equivalent with Sambo. MR allows the use of the Pochahontas reference (so far), but that doesn't mean you can't call it out when you see it. Personally I find it slightly depressing that this is even a discussion.
Last edited:
I never really thought about labeling Warren as Pocahontas as racist, because to me it was just shorthand for "not being really truthful about her claim of being Native American". Though now I can see where certain people might be offended and will refrain from calling Warren Pocahontas from now on, besides there are more important issues to discuss about Warren in the PRSI forum.
P.S. Come to think of it that is also insulting to Pocahontas who in her own right is an interesting person.
P.S. Come to think of it that is also insulting to Pocahontas who in her own right is an interesting person.
The status and prominence of the accused is a big factor in how debates go forward. The more powerful the accuser (status), the stronger the impetus is to do that person harm (physically, mentally or social economically). If the issue had taken place between two low level politicians, it would have been taken as an insult, the accuser either resigning or being fired. The press would have also reported it as 'x resigns due to inappropriate remarks towards a female colleague'.
The fact that in this case the accuser happens to be Trump, due to his high status and prominence level, it means finding something stronger to hurt him with and thus it is spun that he made a racist comment towards a female senator whist as the same time insulting a minority group of Americans. Makes for a better agenda to go after the man instead of just using the lesser 'he insulted her' (this still being bad). As such, the media persistently reporting it as a 'racism' issue has the power to influence the thoughts of others. So naturally, when people use the same reference in the forum, it automatically gets called out as racist and report it.
Unfortunately, the forum admins have left themselves open to heavy critic because as you saw in Doc's post, insulting a public figure is within the rules. Therefore it then leans on them to make the decision, is the comment against a public figure a racist comment or an insulting comment. If it's not deemed racist then it must be an insult.
If insults of any kind against any person, forum member or not were banned then we wouldn't be having this discussion because even if the admins considered the comment to not be racist, it would still fall under the category of an insult, and thus would have been removed. Until that policy is change, discussions like this could be more commonplace.
Yes, status and power are always factors of course.
However, I have the feeling that we are talking past each other about who is the target of this aggression and why it's problematic even if it's not Trump who is doing the aggression. If I for instance called all rapists regardless of ethnicity "whites" it's not really the rapist who is the target of that, but a negative stereotyping of white men.
I also don't think you are entirely correct in that only people using or defending the Pochahontas reference are immune to "media spin".
But anyway, this discussion has as you said already been decided and ruled on by the site administrators, and it's difficult to ban insults of public figures. This is starting venture into PRSI material, so I'll take a step back now since I don't think I have anything further constructive to add to this subject.
I know we've all jumped down our Crisco'd slopes and done the semantic tango but in the end a group of people came together and made a decision, this decision doesn't mean that racism is OK it means they made a judgment call on this issue in this thread.
The report button is there and judgments will be made.
The report button is there and judgments will be made.