In today’s article on how South Dakotans are racist, the Argus Leader has managed to find a way to make fishing about the white male patriarchy because many South Dakotans have traditionally not cared for carp.
It wasn’t a picture-perfect image of racial harmony, however; when white fishers discard a perfectly good fish like gar, David said that’s evidence some societal ley lines have yet to be crossed.
and..
This term, “rough fish,” is part of a racially biased vocabulary among the predominantly white fishing community, according to David, the fisheries expert who also runs Nicholls State University’s Gar Laboratory.
and..
According to a 2021 research paper from the American Fisheries Society, which David contributed to, European and white males have historically dominated the fisheries science in the U.S. Early fishery organizations, including the aforementioned society, laid the foundations of the nation’s management systems for freshwater fish, David said. However, since their contemporary leadership entirely or nearly-entirely comprised of white men, they followed a distinctly Euro-centric view.
Read the story on how most fisherman are racists here.
Nothing to do with the fact that many carp are bottom feeders, and people don’t care for the taste.
Darned white male patriarchy. Now they’re ruining fishing too.
Or maybe people just fish what they like to fish, and the Argus is calling it a white-male bias because their stylebook tells them that’s what they have to say.
Author Joe Lansdale has an interesting take on being “Woke” and “Anti-Woke”:
“I get s**t from those who think I’m Woke, and from those who think I’m not.
I’m not a fan of Woke due to the bully aspect. I’m not a fan of the rabidly anti-Woke for the same reason. Neither group gets to tell me what I think or how I think. I think everyone deserves a fair shake.”
Frankly, extremism on both sides indicates a lack of logic and an over-abundance of emotion.
“of emotion” stupidity.
Thus the lack of logic.
Next thing we know there will be a demand from Argus to rewrite the SD GF&P fishing handbook to eliminate “rough fish” and “white crappie” and “black crappie” and God forbid “rainbow trout”…WTH
I read their story and couldn’t believe they twisted this issue into a woke/racial/equity spin. Wasn’t it just a couple days ago they had reporter quoting the gender stylebook? They’re off the rail and have been for a long time. Wow. Wow. Woke.
this brings to mind what o’brien told winston to picture for the future – a boot continually stepping on a human face.
Tangential at best to that silly article: carp is actually decent when smoked. Cleaning the bones is a pain, though.
I made a post and it didn’t pass the censors and I don’t really feel like writing it out again. In short, there is a lot of truth to this but it isn’t racist, merely cultural. We should really quit calling things rough fish or trash fish because it just gives people a reason to throw them on shore or on the icea and feel justified.
For a number of years, Carp were commercially fished out of Lakes Poinsett and Albert by an Omaha company that cleaned the Carp, then ground them up, breaded them and sold the patties for Fish Sandwiches. I was told these Fish Sandwiches were a popular item at restaurants in Omaha. I’ve seen Indian people clean Gar for frying and others smoke them. Smoked Carp are a hot item in bars along the Missouri and in other parts of the Midwest. Great with beer, I’m told. Other rough fish, Buffalo (which look a bit like carp,) suckers, and “whitefish” are often smoked and fried whitefish livers are a favored item in Wisconsin. Rough fish eating does seem to be a “cultural” dietary preference, but more accurately, an acquired taste. Knowing how to clean them is probably the determining factor is how they are used or discarded.
Building a reputation takes a long time. Destroying one, as we’ve seen, simply takes a handful of mistaken hires and a few short years.
Modern day republicans really want to be the victim, I hope the straight white males catch a break…..some day.
10 years ago most people would read this, roll their eyes, and move on. The wording of this could be different, but it was a quote, an opinion, just let it go.
The fact that a style book actually exists should be alarming to all of us who value the First Amendment. By deciding what words to use or not use, they alter the debate. Things the liberals like get words with positive connotations, things they don’t like get words with negative connotations. We react emotionally to the words before we even consider the content of what we are hearing. It’s quite subversive. They are manipulating feelings in order to manipulate opinions. Nasty business.