I can't intellectually agree with you on this. there is only one race -- science has proven this. our color and is modified by UV and altitude, but we're all the same species. thus, to say only one segment can talk about using the word nigger is absurd. humans are humans.
I'd say that's his point. It's NOT biological and yet all issues with so-called "race" have stemmed from this pervasive ignorance that god created various races which was later backed up by pseudo-science, all of which has become a prominent part of modern society.
Sorry Ken Burns. Your documentary about the Civil War has offensive flags in it. Until you rewrite history, Apple will be banning it from iTunes.
You clearly didn't read the article...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"We have removed apps from the App Store that use the Confederate flag in offensive or mean-spirited ways, which is in violation of our guidelines," a spokesperson said toBuzzFeed News. The company denied issuing a blanket ban however, stating that the flag can be shown for "educational or historical uses."
seems odd. i get that the gov shouldn't be posting the conf flag officially. but a business regulating? why should they care? will they ban nazi flags from video games? will the ban turkish flags as well (armenian genocide?). american flags (iraq)?
They'd have to ban Nazi flags in the German App Store by law. Wolfenstein had to change all the logos in order to be allowed to be sold in Germany in any outlet:
[VIDEO]
The end of the video makes the point that people don't have to worry about all of the obscene levels of violence being affected, brutal head explosions are in tact but the logos and references are switched, sometimes to Wolfenstein logos.
I think the censored version there shows that it really doesn't matter if the original logos and references are there or not, although it can be a lot of work to change. It actually makes sense to change who the enemy is depending on region because you are supposed to identify with the protagonist. Western games usually portray Russian, German or Asian characters as the enemy. Russian games like Metro portray Germany as the enemy too but someone from Germany wouldn't necessarily identify with either the protagonist or the enemy, just as Western players might not be ok playing the following:
Symbolism varies in importance depending on culture. There would be no reason to ban the confederate flag in China or even Europe really. This is happening too though, partly because of international trade:
There are positives and negatives to this kind of move. Maintaining the symbols in prominent locations helps people remember them and what they stood for. This can help people remember mistakes that were made in the past and prevent them being repeated. However, it can also indoctrinate people with these ideas by repeating them in a manner that people want to associate with. Just look at religion and how it has lasted through the years. If all that symbolism was relegated to history books, would religions have billions of followers today? We keep ideas alive by repeating them, when we don't, those ideas go away because new generations never hear about them.
Apple not too long ago took the opposite stance of allowing the muhammad cartoons into the store, deliberately allowing material previously rejected for being offensive. I wonder if Apple would allow the developers to switch the confederate flag for a religiously offensive image. Perhaps offensiveness is ok as long as it's restricted to satire but censorship rules tend to be made to appease victims or at least victims that align with the arbiter's own sense of what's right. Tim Cook pretty much said this in a tweet:
"My thoughts are with the victim's families in SC. Let us honor their lives by eradicating racism & removing the symbols & words that feed it."
The hardest choices are where you offend vocal groups with any decision you make. Perhaps in cases like games, they can crowd-source the decision. If the game received a certain amount of complaints, they'd assess the complaint and overturn or uphold it. When it's done by app store approval, it's probably one person making the decision. At least with a lot of complaints, Apple can present this to the developer as a reason for requesting a change. They are still right to ban clearly offensive apps outright but the ones that are harder to decide can be left to the public with a report button.
Google is taking similar action with Android apps:
"Google, too, has removed Confederate flags from its Google Shopping online retail network and product listing advertisements displayed on search engine results. The company confirmed in a statement that its policy extends to apps in its Google Play app store, but only against those apps whose primary function is to promote the Confederate flag.
"We announced on Tuesday that we will remove content containing the Confederate flag from Google Shopping and Ads. We can confirm that this applies to apps in Google Play.""
Google tends to maintain an image of being less restrictive than Apple but this partly comes from Apple's pre-emptive approach. On the following site, they mention that Google Play still had an app promoting the flag called "Southern Pride Wallpaper" but the link seems to be down now:
As I predicted, Apple is restoring any confederate-flag-containing games that do not present the flag in an offensive/racist manner. As usual, a lot of whining over nothing.
Apple reinstates select games with Confederate flag art to iOS App Store
According to the prevailing New World migration model, migrations of humans from Eurasia (in particular North Asia) to the Americas took place via Beringia, a land bridge which connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The majority of experts agree that the earliest migration via Beringia took place at least 13,500 years ago, with disputed evidence that people had migrated into the Americas much earlier, up to 40,000 years ago. These early Paleo-Indians spread throughout the Americas, diversifying into many hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes.
The European colonization of the Americas forever changed the lives and cultures of the peoples of the continents. Although the exact pre-contact population of the Americas is unknown, scholars estimate that Native American populations diminished by between 80 and 90% within the first centuries of contact with Europeans. The leading cause was disease. The continent was ravaged by epidemics of diseases such as smallpox, measles, and cholera, which were brought from Europe by the early explorers and spread quickly into new areas even before later explorers and colonists reached them.
The loss of lives was exacerbated by conflict between colonists and indigenous people. Colonists frequently perpetrated massacres on the indigenous groups and enslaved them. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1894), the North American Indian Wars of the 19th century cost the lives of about 19,000 whites and 30,000 Native Americans.
Diseases were brought over by animals before secondary European contact.
"The Solutrean hypothesis, first proposed in 1998, is a hypothesis about the settlement of the Americas that claims Europeans may have been among the earliest settlers of the Americas. This is in contrast with accepted theories that the North American continent was first populated by people from Asia, either by the Bering land bridge (i.e. Beringia) around 16,500–13,000 years ago, by maritime travel along the Pacific coast or by both."
"The Solutrean hypothesis has generally not been well received or enjoyed wide acceptance. Many archaeologists have criticized the proposed similarities as insignificant and just as likely to be due to chance as to shared origins. As David Meltzer put it in 2009, "Few if any archaeologists—or, for that matter, geneticists, linguists, or physical anthropologists—take seriously the idea of a Solutrean colonization of America." Recent DNA studies serve to weaken the case that Haplogroup X2A migrated to the Americas by way of the Atlantic."
"Emphasizing the “European connections” to the ancient Native American genome seems at first glance to be a particularly bizarre approach, because the genome showed absolutely nothing new in this context. So why do some reporters choose to report it this way?"
"I think one possibility is that such alternative explanations are very appealing to reporters, as they evoke the concept of “lost civilizations” and add a touch of mystery and drama to what might otherwise be rather dry genomics papers." "What journalists may not be aware of is that there is a long and unsavory tradition in the United States–going back to the very earliest days of European colonization–of attempts to insert Europeans into Native American history."
- Jennifer Raff is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas, with a joint Ph.D. in genetics and anthropology. She has published numerous scientific articles on population genetics, ancient DNA, and Native American prehistory, and conducts ongoing research in anthropological genetics, particularly the peopling of the Americas, and Midwestern and Arctic prehistory.
What else do you have up your sleeve? Some biblical quotations to disprove evolution?
Gee, how about that. Almost as though that’s the entire idea.
"Few if any archaeologists—or, for that matter, geneticists, linguists, or physical anthropologists—take seriously the idea of a Solutrean colonization of America."
I dunno; I’m liking the data I’ve seen. Who’s to say they didn’t fail in the same way the Vikings did?
there is a long and unsavory tradition in the United States–going back to the very earliest days of European colonization–of attempts to insert Europeans into Native American history."
That’s nothing to do with what I’m saying. Of course people crossed from Beringa; people ALSO crossed from the Atlantic.
What else do you have up your sleeve? Some biblical quotations to disprove evolution?
And you’re revealed for what you’re actually doing. Thanks.
Comments
anyone tried this website ? a friend of mine told me about it and he said that he received an iphone 5 from them .do they realy ?
how can post a review ? i would realy apreciate it
http://lnkgo.com/2IoH
I can't intellectually agree with you on this. there is only one race -- science has proven this. our color and is modified by UV and altitude, but we're all the same species. thus, to say only one segment can talk about using the word nigger is absurd. humans are humans.
This is about sociology, not biology.
I'd say that's his point. It's NOT biological and yet all issues with so-called "race" have stemmed from this pervasive ignorance that god created various races which was later backed up by pseudo-science, all of which has become a prominent part of modern society.
Sorry Ken Burns. Your documentary about the Civil War has offensive flags in it. Until you rewrite history, Apple will be banning it from iTunes.
You clearly didn't read the article...
"We have removed apps from the App Store that use the Confederate flag in offensive or mean-spirited ways, which is in violation of our guidelines," a spokesperson said to BuzzFeed News. The company denied issuing a blanket ban however, stating that the flag can be shown for "educational or historical uses."
They'd have to ban Nazi flags in the German App Store by law. Wolfenstein had to change all the logos in order to be allowed to be sold in Germany in any outlet:
[VIDEO]
The end of the video makes the point that people don't have to worry about all of the obscene levels of violence being affected, brutal head explosions are in tact but the logos and references are switched, sometimes to Wolfenstein logos.
I think the censored version there shows that it really doesn't matter if the original logos and references are there or not, although it can be a lot of work to change. It actually makes sense to change who the enemy is depending on region because you are supposed to identify with the protagonist. Western games usually portray Russian, German or Asian characters as the enemy. Russian games like Metro portray Germany as the enemy too but someone from Germany wouldn't necessarily identify with either the protagonist or the enemy, just as Western players might not be ok playing the following:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/chinese-video-game-glorious-mission-chooses-us-army-for-its-enemy/
Symbolism varies in importance depending on culture. There would be no reason to ban the confederate flag in China or even Europe really. This is happening too though, partly because of international trade:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-alibaba-will-remove-listings-with-confederate-flag-imagery-2015-6
China censors things that have a different meaning to Western countries:
http://www.businessinsider.com/words-china-banned-from-search-engines-after-tiananmen-square-2014-6
There are positives and negatives to this kind of move. Maintaining the symbols in prominent locations helps people remember them and what they stood for. This can help people remember mistakes that were made in the past and prevent them being repeated. However, it can also indoctrinate people with these ideas by repeating them in a manner that people want to associate with. Just look at religion and how it has lasted through the years. If all that symbolism was relegated to history books, would religions have billions of followers today? We keep ideas alive by repeating them, when we don't, those ideas go away because new generations never hear about them.
Apple not too long ago took the opposite stance of allowing the muhammad cartoons into the store, deliberately allowing material previously rejected for being offensive. I wonder if Apple would allow the developers to switch the confederate flag for a religiously offensive image. Perhaps offensiveness is ok as long as it's restricted to satire but censorship rules tend to be made to appease victims or at least victims that align with the arbiter's own sense of what's right. Tim Cook pretty much said this in a tweet:
"My thoughts are with the victim's families in SC. Let us honor their lives by eradicating racism & removing the symbols & words that feed it."
The hardest choices are where you offend vocal groups with any decision you make. Perhaps in cases like games, they can crowd-source the decision. If the game received a certain amount of complaints, they'd assess the complaint and overturn or uphold it. When it's done by app store approval, it's probably one person making the decision. At least with a lot of complaints, Apple can present this to the developer as a reason for requesting a change. They are still right to ban clearly offensive apps outright but the ones that are harder to decide can be left to the public with a report button.
Google is taking similar action with Android apps:
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-removing-apps-that-contain-confederate-flag-imagery/
"Google, too, has removed Confederate flags from its Google Shopping online retail network and product listing advertisements displayed on search engine results. The company confirmed in a statement that its policy extends to apps in its Google Play app store, but only against those apps whose primary function is to promote the Confederate flag.
"We announced on Tuesday that we will remove content containing the Confederate flag from Google Shopping and Ads. We can confirm that this applies to apps in Google Play.""
Google tends to maintain an image of being less restrictive than Apple but this partly comes from Apple's pre-emptive approach. On the following site, they mention that Google Play still had an app promoting the flag called "Southern Pride Wallpaper" but the link seems to be down now:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/06/25/apple-bans-civil-war-games-from-app-store-over-confederate-flag/
do yourself a favor and take some Native American history courses before you say anything more on the topic.
Not a word of this is true, so you really ought to be the one doing research.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/26/apple-reinstates-select-games-with-confederate-flag-art-to-ios-app-store
Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy
do yourself a favor and take some Native American history courses before you say anything more on the topic.
Quote:
Not a word of this is true, so you really ought to be the one doing research.
Indigenous peoples of the Americas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas
According to the prevailing New World migration model, migrations of humans from Eurasia (in particular North Asia) to the Americas took place via Beringia, a land bridge which connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The majority of experts agree that the earliest migration via Beringia took place at least 13,500 years ago, with disputed evidence that people had migrated into the Americas much earlier, up to 40,000 years ago. These early Paleo-Indians spread throughout the Americas, diversifying into many hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes.
The loss of lives was exacerbated by conflict between colonists and indigenous people. Colonists frequently perpetrated massacres on the indigenous groups and enslaved them. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1894), the North American Indian Wars of the 19th century cost the lives of about 19,000 whites and 30,000 Native Americans.
The majority of experts agree that the earliest migration via Beringia took place at least 13,500 years ago
Solutreans came over from Europe first.
Diseases were brought over by animals before secondary European contact.
Solutreans came over from Europe first.
Diseases were brought over by animals before secondary European contact.
"The Solutrean hypothesis, first proposed in 1998, is a hypothesis about the settlement of the Americas that claims Europeans may have been among the earliest settlers of the Americas. This is in contrast with accepted theories that the North American continent was first populated by people from Asia, either by the Bering land bridge (i.e. Beringia) around 16,500–13,000 years ago, by maritime travel along the Pacific coast or by both."
"The Solutrean hypothesis has generally not been well received or enjoyed wide acceptance. Many archaeologists have criticized the proposed similarities as insignificant and just as likely to be due to chance as to shared origins. As David Meltzer put it in 2009, "Few if any archaeologists—or, for that matter, geneticists, linguists, or physical anthropologists—take seriously the idea of a Solutrean colonization of America." Recent DNA studies serve to weaken the case that Haplogroup X2A migrated to the Americas by way of the Atlantic."
"Emphasizing the “European connections” to the ancient Native American genome seems at first glance to be a particularly bizarre approach, because the genome showed absolutely nothing new in this context. So why do some reporters choose to report it this way?"
What else do you have up your sleeve? Some biblical quotations to disprove evolution?
This is in contrast with accepted theories
Gee, how about that. Almost as though that’s the entire idea.
"Few if any archaeologists—or, for that matter, geneticists, linguists, or physical anthropologists—take seriously the idea of a Solutrean colonization of America."
I dunno; I’m liking the data I’ve seen. Who’s to say they didn’t fail in the same way the Vikings did?
there is a long and unsavory tradition in the United States–going back to the very earliest days of European colonization–of attempts to insert Europeans into Native American history."
That’s nothing to do with what I’m saying. Of course people crossed from Beringa; people ALSO crossed from the Atlantic.
And you’re revealed for what you’re actually doing. Thanks.
It’s on wikipedia so it has to be true...
‘cause they can’t put it on the internet it if’s not true.
Bonjour...
Besides, here is the proof.