Fifty Places to Fly Fish Before You Die (by Chris Santella)

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:21:26 -0500, "Joe McIntosh"
wrote:

You guys cannot even enjoy a picture book ???

Uh, who said anything about not enjoying a picture book, Joe??

On Dec 27, 2:49 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Joe McIntosh wrote:
"jeff" wrote:
' who appreciates euphony'
Damm Jeff you don"t even like my Yani concert tape !
think I have been lucky enough to fish in 13.7 % of the places and my squaw
won"t let me return to New Zealand as I would stay.
You guys cannot even enjoy a picture book ???

Why don't you keep that racist language to yourself, it's
not appreciated here.

--
Ken Fortenberry

A native Indian using the word to describe his wife is NOT racist;

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/squaw.html

There are plenty of other examples.

You should try to learn about something before you attack people on
the basis of your faulty or non-existent knowledge.

MC

"rw" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
...

Dave LaCourse wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:32:49 -0800, rw
wrote:



I didn't ask for the book, Dave.


Yeah, I know. Funny how things like that happen at Christmas time.

It wasn't me that complained about the "obscene consumerism". Glass
house and all that..... You could have refused it, dontchaknow. And
what did you GIVE this year?

That's none of your business.


Absolutely right! It is no more his business than is what you GOT for
Christmas.......or, for that matter, all of the bigger fish than anybody
else has caught in all the strictly non-consumer places that you have
been to (and/or those you will yet get to) and nobody else has. Come to
think of it, all those "shared" photos of all those enormous, firm,
virile (and presumably male) fish are probably none of his business
either......nor anyone else's here. And then there's you relationships
with all those nubile young female body parts.....that's probably none of
our business either.

Gosh, don't it make you wish there was some way of keeping us from prying
so deeply and frequently into your personal life? It certainly does me.

Wolfgang

I can assure you only of this much: I didn't give anyone anything even
remotely related to fly fishing.

Does it ever occur to you to wonder whether, after lo these many years on
this planet, you should be able to assure someone of something more than
that? For that matter, does it ever occur to you that assurances should be
worth something or other?

Wolfgang

Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Why don't you keep that racist language to yourself, it's
not appreciated here.

A native Indian ...

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Dec 27, 3:28 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:


You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So you often say, doubtless in order to at least imply that you do,
and that as usual you are the final arbiter of racism, sexism, etc
etc As for that, you have long since proven to anybody on here with
any sense, that you are far worse than a racist, as you wish to
control what people say and think. You call people racists, homos, etc
etc, when it suits you to insult and provoke them, doubtless mainly to
make your own insignificant and miserable existence more bearable, by
hurting or damaging others, the actions of an emotionally disturbed
pervert, and yourself seem more important.

It merely makes you look foolish and inadequate. Which is a good
thing, as people are then well aware that your ranting is simply
nonsense.

There is a large body of interesting literature, from Native Americans
and others, which states that the word "squaw" was never considered an
insult by Indians. It´s just more of the white man´s bull****.

MC

Mike wrote in news:29ed9f80-2be1-4558-aef1-
:

There is a large body of interesting literature, from Native Americans
and others, which states that the word "squaw" was never considered an
insult by Indians. Itïs just more of the white manïs bull****.


Mike, are we reading the same article you pointed to?? It says that the
word was not considered an insult BEFORE the arrival of the colonist, but
it has been used as an insult outside the Native American community
since.

"Indigenous people must publicly declare that we will no longer allow our
words, names, skin color, beliefs, etc., to be used against us. Whenever
the word "squaw" is used as an insult, my response is: "I do not accept
that definition. Among my people, WOMEN are honored and respected. The
sound "squaw," regardless of its spelling, is OUR word for woman, and it
is NOT to be used as an insult! When I hear it spoken by Native peoples,
in its proper context, I hear the voices of the ancestors. I am reminded
of powerful grandmothers who nurtured our people and fed the strangers,
of proud women chiefs who stood up against them, and of mothers and
daughters and sisters who still stand here today. In their honor I demand
that our language, our women, and our history, be treated with respect."

And her follow-up--
"By way of explanation to readers, I wish to clarify my stance on the
controversies regarding the use of the word "squaw." I have NEVER
supported continued use of the word as a pejorative insult directed at
Native women, and I am NOT opposed to the concept of changing place
names...."

"Yet, in the modern era, given the tragic history of non-Native treatment
of Native American Indian women, the word "squaw" is often interpreted as
an insult. For some, it represents the rape and abuse of Native women by
white soldiers and fur traders; for others, it represents the prejudice
experienced by reservation Indians. That being said, there is no need to
rewrite or reframe the history of America to imply that every instance of
its use was pejorative."


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Mike wrote in news:29ed9f80-2be1-4558-aef1-
:

There is a large body of interesting literature, from Native Americans
and others, which states that the word "squaw" was never considered an
insult by Indians. Itïs just more of the white manïs bull****.


Mike, are we reading the same article you pointed to?? It says that the
word was not considered an insult BEFORE the arrival of the colonist, but
it has been used as an insult outside the Native American community
since.

"Indigenous people must publicly declare that we will no longer allow our
words, names, skin color, beliefs, etc., to be used against us. Whenever
the word "squaw" is used as an insult, my response is: "I do not accept
that definition. Among my people, WOMEN are honored and respected. The
sound "squaw," regardless of its spelling, is OUR word for woman, and it
is NOT to be used as an insult! When I hear it spoken by Native peoples,
in its proper context, I hear the voices of the ancestors. I am reminded
of powerful grandmothers who nurtured our people and fed the strangers,
of proud women chiefs who stood up against them, and of mothers and
daughters and sisters who still stand here today. In their honor I demand
that our language, our women, and our history, be treated with respect."

And her follow-up--
"By way of explanation to readers, I wish to clarify my stance on the
controversies regarding the use of the word "squaw." I have NEVER
supported continued use of the word as a pejorative insult directed at
Native women, and I am NOT opposed to the concept of changing place
names...."

"Yet, in the modern era, given the tragic history of non-Native treatment
of Native American Indian women, the word "squaw" is often interpreted as
an insult. For some, it represents the rape and abuse of Native women by
white soldiers and fur traders; for others, it represents the prejudice
experienced by reservation Indians. That being said, there is no need to
rewrite or reframe the history of America to imply that every instance of
its use was pejorative."

I don't see anything in the quoted text that is inconsistent with what Mike
wrote.

Wolfgang
who, in a place where content, intent and meaning are generally considered
irrelevant (when they are considered at all), can hardly wait to see where
this one goes this time around.

"jeff" wrote in message
there was nothing in your post that required or even invited a negative
comment, imo. i read it and appreciated it. thanks.

Taken in isolation, his Fifty Places post is as you suggest; but coming as
it did less than 24 hours following a complaint about obscene consumerism,
the irony of boasting of one's fly fishing travels practically jumped out of
the screen at me. Personally, I got a chuckle; but I'm not surprised at the
subsequent flames and defensiveness.

It *does* sound like a great book; but the timing of the review coiuld have
been better. :-)

Joe F.

"rb608" wrote in message
news:yyPcj.2730$si6.959@trndny08...
"jeff" wrote in message
there was nothing in your post that required or even invited a negative
comment, imo. i read it and appreciated it. thanks.

Taken in isolation, his Fifty Places post is as you suggest; but coming as
it did less than 24 hours following a complaint about obscene consumerism,
the irony of boasting of one's fly fishing travels practically jumped out
of the screen at me. Personally, I got a chuckle; but I'm not surprised
at the subsequent flames and defensiveness.

It *does* sound like a great book; but the timing of the review coiuld
have been better. :-)

As usual, clear, concise, insightful, reasonable, pin-point accurate,
economical.......and moderate. Man, you just suck ALL the joy out of this
stuff.

Wolfgang

On Dec 27, 4:23 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:

"Yet, in the modern era, given the tragic history of non-Native treatment
of Native American Indian women, the word "squaw" is often interpreted as
an insult. For some, it represents the rape and abuse of Native women by
white soldiers and fur traders; for others, it represents the prejudice
experienced by reservation Indians. That being said, there is no need to
rewrite or reframe the history of America to imply that every instance of
its use was pejorative."

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Well, quite apart from anything else, and as stated above, one can not
simply assume that the word is being used as an insult. If an Indian
gentleman refers to his wife as his squaw, it is highly likely that he
does so without the intention of insulting her.

It is also extremely unlikely that he was attempting to offend
Mr.Fortenberry´s admittedly extremely delicate sensibilities, or
indeed those of anybody else on here. He merely referred to his wife
as he normally does, and has often done in the past.

It is extremely foolish to go out of one´s way to turn something into
an insult, or to start screaming "racist" because somebody uses a
word, about which there is in any case a great deal of controversy, in
a perfectly normal manner.

There is plenty of contention here to go around, on all manner of
matters, and it merely seems very silly to attempt to generate more on
such pretentious and artificial grounds. Also, if one allows
Mr.Fortenberry to get away with such tactics, he might actually end up
believing he is right, and that simply can not be allowed, because as
he has demonstrated in the past, he will then very likely continue in
the same or a similar vein. Furthermore, it behooves sensible and
civilised people to at least protest about the bad manners and
insulting conduct towards the gentleman who posted the undoubtedly
perfectly innocuous post in the first place.

This serves the dual purpose of assuring that gentleman that not
everybody here is as foolish and pretentiously contentious as
Mr.Fortenberry, and that there are at least some here who know he is
just being a complete **** as usual, and will not take his nonsense
seriously.

MC