translating the convoluted

someone on the internet posted resentfully that “now i do X” – that X was some behavior he didn’t like having to do – but felt compelled to do due to social pressure – another person chimed in with “Translation: Help! You are forcing me to do X” – it took my breath away – it both revealed the thinking behind the other persons statement – and pointed to why it was invalid – all in one swipe

i used this technique in an exchange at the amazon product review pages – i had written a review condemning the john wayne classic ‘the searchers’ for its portrayal of american indians – a film that supposedly denounces racism – but which i pointed didn’t do anything of the sort – naturally there was much white backlash – (its all gone now that amazon no longer allows comments to reviews)

someone named Mark La Roue came to the defense of the movie defender = with a very convoluted screed – so rather than try to condense his confused thinking into something that can be summarily confronted  – i decided to use the translation method

Mark La Roue: I get your reaction to this movie.

>>Translation: i understand you better than you do – here is a litany of historical factors that prove you are wrong to not love this movie.

However, perhaps some knowledge of the tribal habits of Europeans might illuminate your problem with the ideas in the film.

>>Translation: You Indians don’t know European history, so I’ll enlighten you.

Europeans were historically invaded by Romans, Huns and Ghengis Kahn (who by the way brought all those diseases the American Indians reflexively blame “the White Man” for bringing to him).

>>Translation: Whites were victims to many dark-skinned peoples who additionally brought diseases to disease-free Europeans. All the diseases that killed Americans Indians were from those dark-skinned people. Don’t blame the whites the way I’m blaming the Asians. Ignore the fluidity of diseases between the connected continents of Eurasia & Africa.

These invasions, especially the ones of the Huns and famously Ghengis Kahn featured wholesale rape of women and capturing for slavery (sex slavery). Europe was also plagued over the centuries by marauders from the middle east and North Africa, that raided for women and children for slavery (again usually sex slavery).

>>Translation: Lotsa dark-skinned people tormented us whites lusting after OUR women the way no white conqueror ever did — so you see, it’s a fear-reflex planted in the European culture — nothing as mundane as racism.

The American continent might have been unfairly invaded by Europeans in your view, however this is naive,

>>Translation: The conquest of native Americans is fair in the eyes of everyone but the American natives.

(where on earth could we expect stone age cultures to not be changed by more advanced ones)?

>>Translation: Conquest is the only way to deal with stone age cultures.

But when the 19th century Indian Wars began, they began as a reaction to the Nebraska uprising of 1862(?) where many white settlers were attacked when the young braves… They attacked white settlers and killed the men and often raped and even carried away some women and children.

>>Translation: Ignore the idea that the conflicts began with the incursion of the first whites. It all began in 1862 by Indian attacks.

But perhaps you might better understand by the idea of rape by anyone, but especially non-whites would naturally awake earlier national and racial experiences and so was abhorred by whites.

(( note – La Roue evidently tried to edit his original statement and fouled it up – i do this occasionally – so i chose not to make an issue of it – especially since making an issue of his illogic is far more fun & effective – with rereading i was able to form an understanding of it ))

>>Translation: A history of rape and pillage by other dark-skinned peoples has made the non-raping, non-pillaging whites wary and sensitive to any dark-skinned malfeasance. It justifies their treatment of a totally different dark-skinned population. But those dark-skinned people do not possess the same justification to retaliate.

Whites had developed a very strong culture of protecting their women by the time of the New World epic.

>>Translation: Fear of rape by dark-skinned people of OUR women is built-in into the white culture due to the earlier dark-skinned invasions — not due to generalizing or bigotry. You darkies must not ever touch white women — they belong solely to white men. 

This film is about such a case and one man’s way of coming to human terms with it.

>>Translation: The main character in this movie ‘comes to terms’ with interracial sex – by killing those white women who have sexually united with a dark-skinned person. Tho the guy in this movie doesn’t kill the young girl, which can be seen as small change for the better. She is happily restored to her white family. Ignore the missing explanation or justification. Ignore that the story just assumes she wants to go with him – note that the movie was based on a real-life woman who had to be prevented from returning to her husband and son and her tribe. And ignore that the main character doesn’t come to terms with the Indians in general. Don’t you see what a great message that is? This is a great movie you should love.

I hope your days are good.

>>Translation: Your days should be better now that you’ve been enlightened by someone as well-informed as me.

in debate – before you can respond – you must understand the other persons claims – which can be very complex – so this step of translating is necessary anyway – and sometimes – when the thinking is as egregious as La Roues – a simple restatement is enuf to demolish them before the audiences eyes – tho it is unlike to affect the antagonist 

keep that mind when debating someone – your goal is not to convert them – your goal is let them and anyone listening in – know that there is a logical counterpoint – often they will angrily assert “you’ll never convince me” – to which you might respond “i don’t expect to convert you – you aren’t that important – pointing out your poor thinking is what is most important”

(revised slightly from what was originally posted way long ago on MySpace)