The Last Florida Indians Will Now Die: The Westward Plight of the Apalachee - <AUTHOR> http://www.oxfordamerican.org/magazine/item/930-the-last-florida-indians-will-now-die <comment><USER2> I've always been upset at how those of us in the indigenous communities cling to Christianity as some absolving attribute. Land stolen, dignity stolen, labor stolen, and for some reason we seek refuge in a religion that was largely imposed on us.

<comment><USER3> It's not just you; happens the world over. Phillipines, Africa ... nearly all colonized peoples - if not in "religion", then in culture and language.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Shame that this is what usually happens when you gets conquered. You're literally at the mercy of your conquerors.

Why don't conquerors ever treat the people they conquered with respect, and work hard to make their life better? Why do conquerors always make life harder and worst for the people they conquered?

<comment><USER5> Any perspectives on post WWII Germany and the Marshall Plan? American textbooks teach that honorable conquest was the exact goal of that initiative. Is Germany worse off now? Or Japan? Or South Korea?

<comment><USER4> Interesting. I am surprised that this was not widely taught in schools where I am from. They tend to focus on the negative aspects of America only.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Native Americans ..not Indians.

<comment><USER7> Both terms are fine unless someone personally asks you to stop.

<comment><USER8> As an Asian Indian, it confused me for a few seconds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This really hit home for me though I don't particularly care for the retelling of history as if it was a movie. I understand the need to give perspective in order to understand the effect that Europe had on Native Americans both in north and south america. I always relate it to an invasive species that out matches the an ecosystem and doesnt curb its hunger because there is no reason to.

I find it particularly poetic how the Chief said with pride "We were the first Christian tribe". Christianity originating from the middle east with the new testimate being under European rule. Has been used countless times in europe to excuse genocide and invasion. Was brought by europeans under a guise of peace mission whom eventually went on to completely ravage two continents. Christianity even today is used to excuse persecution and oppress. Yet despite all of this, knowing it is not native gods and being on the brink of extinction and erasure from memory. He takes pride in the lasting faith in the tribe. And imagining him say those words I think of dedication and love.

Im sensitive about this because I feel like I would be consudered a necessary sacrifice or even entertaining to dominate/exploit. This particular board tends to attract alpha mentalities in the startup industry So Im curious on your thoughts

<comment><USER10> Christianity, like Islam, and Secular Humanism is fundamentally internationalist, holding itself to be the universal ideal of correctness. Christianity and Islam both came out of, effectively the Roman Empire (in fact both the Mosque and Cathedral were built based on the plans of the same classes of Roman buildings). Secular Humanism is effectively a reinterpretation of Calvinism along atheistic lines.

As far as I can see, however, Orthodox Christianity didn't have the same history in this regard as Western Christianity did. Part of this was that the Eastern Empire lasted a lot longer, and part was that the spread occurred to Kiev and Novogorod under very different circumstances than it did to Denmark or the Franks. But in the West, the promise offered was that the Church (Roman) would help kings solidify power in return for conversion. It was from that promise that eventually the kings secured their independence by means of the reformation. And secular humanism is effectively an effort to banish competition to the state from the public square in this regard so it too is a further development of the same mistake.

<comment><USER3> That is a very astute observation. Those of us who've seen secular humanist tenets of "rights", being cynically used for all sorts of geopolitical ends, will realize how easy it is to excite folk with such talking points.

People don't realize the dangers of such universalist notions.

<comment><USER10> And of course there is no cross-cultural empistemology that allows us to know which rights are universal, so they always become an excuse to power.

<comment><USER3> Indeed. Worse yet, those alien to this sphere, are not even aware of this lack of understanding - which is probably why it is so destructive, culturally, for colonized peoples.

I would've hoped those in "social sciences" would work to rectify such issues, but in their new garb of post-modernism, they've yet more become the new priesthood.

<comment><USER10> Indeed. The only reason I can see the other side to this is that I have been married to a woman from a Indonesia for over a decade now. It has been a long process to understand the cultural differences. And I have enjoyed studying anthropology quite a lot.

The one thing that does save things a little bit is that Westerners are usually so out of touch that there really isn't much room for us to do much that doesn't just effectively turn into disengagement. But even that poses real problems. I do my best to help engage in dialog on both sides of very culturally bound issues in order to try to foster some room for dialog through disagreement but getting Westerners in general (and Americans in particular) to accept that an issue like abortion or same-sex marriage is dependent on culture and other cultural institutions (such as how family relates to the economic order) is virtually impossible.

That also gets to what is wrong with multiculturalism in the US, namely that it is being pushed by people who hate culture generally.

<comment><USER3> > That also gets to what is wrong with multiculturalism in the US, namely that > it is being pushed by people who hate culture generally.

I couldn't agree more; this'd have been okay had US not been so powerful geopolitically, but alas. You'll probably enjoy the tapestry around L. Carroll's "The Walrus and the Carpenter" given in "God and Gold".

([http://www.cfr.org/religion/god- gold/p13990](http://www.cfr.org/religion/god-gold/p13990))

<comment><USER10> Looks fascinating. The abstract dovetails on Hilaire Belloc's "The Servile State" in interesting ways. Belloc argued that the key to the success of the industrial revolution in the UK was the confiscation of Catholic church lands under Henry VIII because this created destitute masses that could be exploited in the factories. So to Belloc, Protestantism as a political system was the key to understanding the economic problems of Capitalism.

Thinking about Belloc's thesis a bit more, you have a parallel to the Confiscation of the monasteries in the US, and that was the liberation of the slaves. One can think about slave-based agriculture in the Antebellum South as increasingly industrialized (and even increasingly exploitative as a result). And the civil war not only empowered corporations with large military contracts but also in its resolution provided them with destitute masses pushed into the wage labor system. As I usually say, all racial oppression in the US has been economic in both ends and means.

But in both cases, the religious landscape evolved to match the economic landscape. And the ideological landscape quickly followed. In some rural parts of the US it is still possible to have a discussion about common good, even with people one politically disagrees with. But in the cities, it is all about individualism and rights and any questioning of the in-group orthodoxy gets one labeled as "the enemy."

It took me actually living in Indonesia for a number of years to grasp the depth of difference there. And one of the things that is worth repeating often is that when third worlders speak of first world problems, they don't regard these as trivialities. Indonesians and Malaysians don't want to become like Americans and grow old alone. To those in the third world[1], they have already rejected what Americans and British hold to be (paraphrasing Thatcher) without alternative. I now count myself in the same category.

[1] using the term in the original sense, namely countries which reject both Anglo-American capitalism and Soviet/Chinese Communism. I sometimes refer to Sweden as third world for this reason also, though it is far more Capitalist than others.

<comment><USER11> I reply to this just to say thank you! (and to save the comment for future reference)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Christianity even today is used to excuse persecution and oppress.

I guess that is totally fair as long as we also keep in mind that most of the biggest crimes against humanity were committed by proclaimed atheists.

<comment><USER13> Still, none of those were committed in the doctrine of atheism. Atheism has no doctrine yet you can point to many people who kill today and many in the past who point to their holy texts after they've cut people's heads off, drowned "witches" and otherwise stole life and land in the name of their gods.

<comment><USER12> Splitting hairs?

A number of atrocities has been made in effort to rid the world of the plague of religion. Call it ateism or what, point is they made a point out of being non-religious and they were extremely cruel and effective.

Now, listen up. I'm not here to attack atheists or non-believers. I only do when they start by proclaiming how religion is the root of all evil.

<comment><USER14> You are right to partially dismiss this, because the Indians weren't oppressed because of religion. The sense of supremacy responsible, racism and narcissism etc., are rooted way deeper.

However, the points you argue weren't stated as absolute as you make them (using exaggeration as literary device?). On the one hand, "holding itself to be the universal ideal of correctness" is a correct characterization of religions. On the other, your view is partial in favor of religion, while religions as well state that atheism or any other religion is the root of all evil.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Compleat Coffee Cup Redesign: Say Goodbye to the Lid - <AUTHOR> http://bostinnovation.com/2011/11/16/a-compleat-coffee-cup-redesign-say-goodbye-to-the-lid/ <comment><USER2> plus no fussing with getting the lid to snap on. a truly cool innovation.</comment>


Show HN: I built an Instagram influencer analysis tool - <AUTHOR> http://influencerwizard.com <comment><USER2> Very interesting! How did you come to your pricing model? To me (not intended audience), it seems really expensive for a 1-time report. Is this due to market analysis or fixed costs or is it kind of a shot in the dark?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> We analyze an Instagram account's followers and tell you which influencers they listen to: 1\. Uncover the influencers and brands your IG followers care about most 2\. Identify the influencers your competitors' followers will listen to

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this within IG's t&cs?

<comment><USER4> I don't think so, afaik.</comment></comment>


Ditch React. Ditch Angular. Go Vanilla with Zam - <AUTHOR> http://zamjs.com <comment><USER2> The title is pretty ridiculous. There are legitimate reasons why people use frameworks like React and Angular. Things like Zam and jQuery could be fine for small projects, but there's no way this is a replacement for frameworks that have build systems, virtual DOMs, etc. Maybe I'm taking the cheeky headline too seriously?

<comment><USER3> I totally agree with you. I think this guy states it pretty well when it comes to React vs. VanillaJS.

There is no doubt that React.js is a great approach towards managing state in the view layer of a browser application. However, from my own limited experience as well as just comparing raw numbers from time spent in rendering to the amount of memory consumed, there is a clear price to pay in any convenience gained from a library like React. From a pure performance perspective it does appear there may be some merit in evaluating a pure JS DOM approach to a given problem. However, from the perspective of managing a team of developers who want to deliver a large amount of maintainable code, there can be a clear advantage to leveraging libraries and frameworks such as React, Polymer, Angular, etc.

[https://objectpartners.com/2015/11/19/comparing-react-js- per...](https://objectpartners.com/2015/11/19/comparing-react-js-performance- vs-native-dom/)

<comment><USER4> Have you looked into Preact? Aside from the convenience of being (almost) a drop-in replacement for React, I recall it was also supposed to be much more performant. While I'm sure pure JS DOM could eke out even better performance, it's possible that compared to Preact (or some other fast VDOM implementation like mithril), the benefits are not worth it anymore.

(I'm not sure of any of this though, so I'd love to hear others, who _have_ kicked the tires, weigh in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Good work. It seems like a working library. And it's fast at the things it chooses to do. But ...

1\. Ditching React and Angular for this is like ditching Photoshop for MS Paint.

2\. Someone using Zam isn't "going vanilla JS", they are going Zam JS.

3\. Going into a performance arms race with jQuery is not a one man job. It would be nice to know how you achieve such performance gains. What tradeoffs are involved? Like, is it faster because it uses native dom selection functions? If so, then this is just an extra layer of indirection with no added value over something like a polyfill. If that's not the case, what kind of groundbreaking work did you do here to achieve the impressive looking benchmarks on the Github page?

<comment><AUTHOR> I see your points.

"Like, is it faster because it uses native dom selection functions?"

Yes, this library is fast because it's based around native dom functions.

"If that's not the case, what kind of groundbreaking work did you do here to achieve the impressive looking benchmarks on the Github page?"

I'm not claiming there's anything "groundbreaking" about this library. I made it to encourage vanillajs development, which I believe to be important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Genuine question: in 2017, why would you create a JS framework that didn't use futures?

eg in the documentation, ".fadeIn(selector, time)" \- "Returns nothing". Why not return a future that resolves when the fade completes?

<comment><AUTHOR> From a performance stand point -- does it really matter?

You are right. fadeIn and fadeOut should have some optional callback for completion.

<comment><USER6> Yes, it absolutely does matter. Chaining promises together, running them in parallel with Promise.all, and the abortable-promise pattern, make developing (and especially debugging!) much much easier than having to deal with callback hell.

      zam.fadeIn(el, duration)
        .then(zam.ajax(url))
        .then(response => response.json())
        .then(json => el.innerHTML = json.results[2].message)

This code is nearly self-documenting, is easier for a transpiler to handle, and doesn't scream "refactor me!" right after you've deployed your app.

<comment><USER7> I saw this "then-heavy" style in many places, but I never really understood: I find perfectly fine to make "fadeIn" return a promise, or an ajax call, and find "the right way" to join them with then / when / Promise.all etc.

But what is the meaning to add a lambda function as "response => response.json()" in a then? why a different lambda "json => el.innerHTML = json.results[2].message" ?

isn't it a "gratuitous" use of a then-able object? I found more readable to have a (sincronous, debuggable, "old-style") function without the need to split in one thousand one line lambdas.

moreover, my python background makes me looks as "ugly" the last one, as it's a lambda function with an assignement, and not a simple expression.

<comment><USER8> Not sure what you mean but response.json() is promise that can fail with parse/read error. It's where error handling should happen making it imperative doesn't solve anything

<comment><USER9> I don't know why you assert that that's where error handling should happen because I disagree. My thought was that promises were for values that are calculated asynchronously or anyways aren't immediately available. They support errors but I don't think this means that all code which emits errors should use promises to do error handling, that seems like a bastardization of the original idea.

<comment><USER8> It is calculated asynchronously. Response body is lazy and calling .json() on it consumes it and returns promise. That is API of WHATWG fetch and many other JS HTTP clients [https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#body- mixin](https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#body-mixin)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So this is vanilla jquery? :)

<comment><USER11> Eventually everything in javascript will be reinvented by hipster hackers.

<comment><USER12> Who are these hipster hackers?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When writing a framework, I always ask myself _what is this doing that cannot easily be done with the native APIs?_. Answering this question is easy for both Angular and React: in both cases they enforce conventions that make certain flavours of software development easier.

What advantage does Zam have over using the regular DOM api? AFAICT, Zam doesn't introduce significant changes to the underlying paradigms so by Occham's Razor I have a hard time believing this additional framework will help me.

On a side note, I'm not sure why everyone attacks React and Angular so much. Believe it or not, they work very well for their intended purpose. There will always be hacks in every community who chose bazookas to catch butterflies but it's a fallacy to attribute that to the framework itself. Both React and Angular, IMO, enforce concerns that scale super-linearly w.r.t. to project size: e.g. mutating a DOM element is fine if you're the only actor on the document but definitely doesn't work when n actors all depend on the same DOM node to broker a shared state.

</comment><comment><USER14> Why are the methods you provide better than the existing document methods? Also why is the AJAX method better than fetch?

<comment><AUTHOR> Zam's methods are overall document methods. For example: .each() and .addStyle()

Things get a little more complex with some of the methods though. For example: .css()

Fetch is only faster on certain browsers. I'm thinking about incorporating it in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd recommend reading the code[0], it's pretty short, and can help as a good introduction if you want to get a bit more into VanillaJS.

0: [https://github.com/roecrew/zam/blob/master/zam.js](https://github.com/roecrew/zam/blob/master/zam.js)

</comment><comment><USER16> It seems like your examples page is broken on firefox quantum 57.0.1 (64-bit) for MacOS. It shows up halfway off the screen to the left side for me.

[https://i.imgur.com/v3IHIoV.png](https://i.imgur.com/v3IHIoV.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the catch!! Fixed it.

I had to explicitly set "left: 0"

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> A new JS framework! Finally!

Seriously though, this looks interesting, but the "ditch React/Angular" claims are silly, there's gotta be a better way to differentiate yourself and convey your value prop.

</comment><comment><USER18> Silly title.</comment>


The Matt Cohler Exit Interview - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/19/the-matt-cohler-exit-interview/

<comment><USER2> A very insightful interview</comment>