INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: sg1008 on March 16, 2013, 06:07:50 PM
-
Onondaga Nation leaders visit D.C. with historic treasure, wampum belt from George Washington
(http://media.syracuse.com/post-standard/photo/2012/02/10620929-large.jpg)
Washington -- When the leaders of the Onondaga Nation traveled here today to file an appeal of their rejected land rights claim, they brought along a special piece of supporting evidence that had been sealed in a bank vault in downtown Syracuse.
For the first time in more than 20 years, the Onondagas publicly displayed a wampum belt commissioned by George Washington to mark the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua.
The peace treaty guaranteed the Six Nations of the Iroquois “the free use and enjoyment” of their land.
Onondaga Faithkeeper Oren Lyons, speaking at a news conference at the National Press Club, used the setting to appeal to all Americans for their support.
“You can’t go around the world proclaiming democracy when you can’t take care of what’s at home,” Lyons said of the United States. He said all Americans should be outraged by the October 2010 decision by a U.S. District Court judge to reject the land rights claim the Onondaga Nation filed in March 2005.
“It’s your duty to uphold that treaty,” Lyons said, referring to U.S. citizens. “We do not concede to the court. We do not concede. We will fight on. But we would hope to secure the help of the U.S. people. Remind your leaders: If you can’t keep your promise, and you can’t keep George Washington’s words, whose words can you keep?”
With that introduction, Lyons stepped aside as other chiefs representing the Six Nations of the Iroquois carefully unfurled the 218-year-old wampum belt. The treaty belt marked the peace and friendship between the United States and the Iroquois, or Haudennosaunee people.
WATCH VIDEO: :thumbup:
http://video-embed.syracuse.com/services/player/bcpid619299309001?bctid=1477742624001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAPLpuTok~,Mq6Bf5KTh4A6F2p4EzuWqPyz4bOUvoKu (http://video-embed.syracuse.com/services/player/bcpid619299309001?bctid=1477742624001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAPLpuTok~,Mq6Bf5KTh4A6F2p4EzuWqPyz4bOUvoKu)
It was the first time since New York state returned the wampum belt to the Onondagas in 1989 that it had been removed from its vault from M&T Bank in downtown Syracuse (the former Onondaga Savings Bank) and displayed in public. The chiefs held up the belt for the cameras. The well-preserved artifact stretches 6 feet and is 5 inches wide.
Joseph Heath, the Onondaga Nation’s general counsel, said the Onondaga people believe the law is on their side.
“The facts are not in dispute,” Heath said. “New York does not even dispute that the land was taken illegally.”
Heath also noted that the city of Syracuse and Onondaga County have supported their position. “What the Onondaga and Haudenosaunee people are asking for is truth and justice,” he said.
Suzan Shown Harjo, the guest curator at the Museum of the American Indian in Washington, is among those sympathetic to the Onondagas and their land rights action.
“We need to keep our word,” she said at the news conference. Shown Harjo said the museum will help emphasize the imporantance of the treaty when it opens an exhibit next year about treaties with American Indians.
A Russian television reporter was among more than 20 reporters and friends of the Onondagas who attended the news conference. He asked, “Just a hypothetical question: If you win, what do you want to do with the people in the state of New York?”
Lyons said, “Our intention was not to remove anybody. We were clear about that.”
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/onondaga_nation_leaders_visit.html (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/onondaga_nation_leaders_visit.html)
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
-
Indeed.
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
you really dislike white guys,huh
I have noticed per your habits, that you dont mind the white women, tho
-
I think there's something awesome about holding up that kind of physical evidence of a lie in front of the government courts.
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
you really dislike white guys,huh
I have noticed per your habits, that you dont mind the white women, tho
lol. I dislike ignorant statements that hint at a bit of racism.
I don't dislike white guys-what made you think that?...in terms of guys in general (because I don't know everyone's race) I guess I just don't disclose my affection for them as readily I do women ;)
-
I think there's something awesome about holding up that kind of physical evidence of a lie in front of the government courts.
I agree. Especially considering it's from George Washington...he's almost like America's creator God to most people.
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
you really dislike white guys,huh
I have noticed per your habits, that you dont mind the white women, tho
lol. I dislike ignorant statements that hint at a bit of racism.
I don't dislike white guys-what made you think that?...in terms of guys in general (because I don't know everyone's race) I guess I just don't disclose my affection for them as readily I do women ;)
wasnt nothing ignorant about it
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old
^That's ignorant. There are multiple things wrong about this statement- should I delineate, would anyone even care? I don't think so. Maybe...if they wanted to know they could ask. But it's probably more convenient to repeat a lie followed by "blah blah blah".
-
I think there's something awesome about holding up that kind of physical evidence of a lie in front of the government courts.
I agree. Especially considering it's from George Washington...he's almost like America's creator God to most people.
George was one of the elite, property owners, who used the sweat and blood of the common man to gain their own personal ideals.
The reason why the right to vote wasnt set up in the constitution. was because Washington and Jefferson couldnt decide whether it should be only property owners who had the right to decide matters.
-
Some people with american indian heritage, who have never known any part of reservation culture, kind of view it like educated blacks view the ghetto, and the stigma that comes along with that. Reservations are concentration camps, where someone opened the doors and the prisoners decided to stay. No matter how hard they fight, they'll always be poor, dependant and controlled by the government. They should assimilate.
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
-
Some people with american indian heritage, who have never known any part of reservation culture, kind of view it like educated blacks view the ghetto, and the stigma that comes along with that. Reservations are concentration camps, where someone opened the doors and the prisoners decided to stay. No matter how hard they fight, they'll always be poor, dependant and controlled by the government. They should assimilate.
or open another casino
they used to have tours of the Catawba reservation here. But they tore down the trailer park
The tribe has been wanting to open a casino, but the state, wont allow it. So broke they will remain
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off. Should I expect morality from this place? Or are ethics out the window?
Is this a place for nazi's or something?
-
Why do you quote parts, but address the blue one about parts?
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off.
I have nothing to do with your conversation with Parts,
But then again, I do share his view
And dont think think we are ignorant in the least.
Lawsuit this, lawsuit that.
Gets a little old to us older more experienced and much wiser folks.
But, keep tilting at all your windmills. Nothing wrong with it. Its good to have passion.
-
Is this a place for nazi's or something?
uhh, didnt see the nazi part
fuck you
-
The Golden Hill Paugussetts tried this in CT and failed but then again they didn't have a cool belt
-
Why do you quote parts, but address the blue one about parts?
Because skyblue1 said wasnt nothing ignorant about it
referring to my response to the ignorance of Parts' statement. So I've been responding to that, and avoiding responding to Parts because I might start cursing if I did.
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off.
I have nothing to do with your conversation with Parts,
But then again, I do share his view
And dont think think we are ignorant in the least.
Lawsuit this, lawsuit that.
Gets a little old to us older more experienced and much wiser folks.
But, keep tilting at all your windmills. Nothing wrong with it. Its good to have passion.
You do realize its not a money lawsuit, they aren't looking for money. It's a land claim/land rights suit, and they aren't looking to displace anyone.
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off.
I have nothing to do with your conversation with Parts,
But then again, I do share his view
And dont think think we are ignorant in the least.
Lawsuit this, lawsuit that.
Gets a little old to us older more experienced and much wiser folks.
But, keep tilting at all your windmills. Nothing wrong with it. Its good to have passion.
You do realize its not a lawsuit, they aren't looking for money.
Give me a fucking break, not looking for money what bullshit. Read all you want on their website and how they just want their land back but the truth is they are not going to get it. They will get something I am sure some land, money or both but not everything they say they want even they know it.
-
[Because skyblue1 said wasnt nothing ignorant about it
Meh, you got it wrong
My comment was about your comment about my comment....that you dislke white guys
thats my comment on that
yours?
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off.
I have nothing to do with your conversation with Parts,
But then again, I do share his view
And dont think think we are ignorant in the least.
Lawsuit this, lawsuit that.
Gets a little old to us older more experienced and much wiser folks.
But, keep tilting at all your windmills. Nothing wrong with it. Its good to have passion.
You do realize its not a lawsuit, they aren't looking for money.
Give me a fucking break, not looking for money what bullshit. Read all you want on their website and how they just want their land back but the truth is they are not going to get it. They will get something I am sure some land, money or both but not everything they say they want even they know it.
The Catawbas held up progress in my county for years, with their last Treaty lawsuit. ( 1980 -1991)
This after they had recieved a huge settlement in the 1950's to settle their original Treaty lawsuit.
Yep, its all about the money.
And thats taxpayer dollars
-
[Because skyblue1 said wasnt nothing ignorant about it
Meh, you got it wrong
My comment was about your comment about my comment....that you dislke white guys
thats my comment on that
yours?
Well, then, I misunderstood.
I wasn't calling your comment asking me if I dislike white guys ignorant btw. I was calling the statement made by Parts' ignorant. The answer to your question about disliking white guys is that I don't, and then I asked why you thought I did. Why did you think I dislike white guys?
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off.
I have nothing to do with your conversation with Parts,
But then again, I do share his view
And dont think think we are ignorant in the least.
Lawsuit this, lawsuit that.
Gets a little old to us older more experienced and much wiser folks.
But, keep tilting at all your windmills. Nothing wrong with it. Its good to have passion.
You do realize its not a lawsuit, they aren't looking for money.
Give me a fucking break, not looking for money what bullshit. Read all you want on their website and how they just want their land back but the truth is they are not going to get it. They will get something I am sure some land, money or both but not everything they say they want even they know it.
The Catawbas held up progress in my county for years, with their last Treaty lawsuit. ( 1980 -1991)
This after they had recieved a huge settlement in the 1950's to settle their original Treaty lawsuit.
Yep, its all about the money.
And thats taxpayer dollars
The Golden Hill Paugussetts did the same here in the 90s but they got nothing
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off.
I have nothing to do with your conversation with Parts,
But then again, I do share his view
And dont think think we are ignorant in the least.
Lawsuit this, lawsuit that.
Gets a little old to us older more experienced and much wiser folks.
But, keep tilting at all your windmills. Nothing wrong with it. Its good to have passion.
You do realize its not a lawsuit, they aren't looking for money.
Give me a fucking break, not looking for money what bullshit. Read all you want on their website and how they just want their land back but the truth is they are not going to get it. They will get something I am sure some land, money or both but not everything they say they want even they know it.
The Catawbas held up progress in my county for years, with their last Treaty lawsuit. ( 1980 -1991)
This after they had recieved a huge settlement in the 1950's to settle their original Treaty lawsuit.
Yep, its all about the money.
And thats taxpayer dollars
#1 to generalize from one nation to another is a racist notion that all Indians are the same no matter where they from, what language they speak, who they are.
#2 Also the racist politicians arguments that Indians are always looking for money, as if genocide, displacement, oppression, and continual "screwing-the-over" means nothing at all.
#3 1950's? Lets see... during that time...what was the US doing, oh yeah, kidnapping children forcing them into boarding schools where they were abused, molested, raped, and punished for speaking the language they knew. and what is that exactly?
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
#3 So, they should just assimilate, forget about their ancestors, forget about their cultures, forget about their languages, forget about their relationship with the land, flora, and fauna, forget about their history, forget about their duties in their respective communities, etc., and just assimilate.
WTF you think they survived this long to just assimilate? Hell no.
-
[Because skyblue1 said wasnt nothing ignorant about it
Meh, you got it wrong
My comment was about your comment about my comment....that you dislke white guys
thats my comment on that
yours?
Well, then, I misunderstood.
I wasn't calling your comment asking me if I dislike white guys ignorant btw. I was calling the statement made by Parts' ignorant. The answer to your question about disliking white guys is that I don't, and then I asked why you thought I did. Why did you think I dislike white guys?
Observation and interpretation of words you have written in the past
By the way doesnt matter to me whether you like us as a race or not. Thats your preference.
-
#3 1950's? Lets see... during that time...what was the US doing, oh yeah, kidnapping children forcing them into boarding schools where they were abused, molested, raped, and punished for speaking the language they knew. and what is that exactly?
citations for this comment?
-
[Because skyblue1 said wasnt nothing ignorant about it
Meh, you got it wrong
My comment was about your comment about my comment....that you dislke white guys
thats my comment on that
yours?
Well, then, I misunderstood.
I wasn't calling your comment asking me if I dislike white guys ignorant btw. I was calling the statement made by Parts' ignorant. The answer to your question about disliking white guys is that I don't, and then I asked why you thought I did. Why did you think I dislike white guys?
Observation and interpretation of words you have written in the past
By the way doesnt matter to me whether you like us as a race or not. Thats your preference.
Yeah, as in attraction, I do tend to like Irish ladies. That's because I happen to be proud of my Irish heritage. For the record, I don't dislike white guys. It may be that I reference them in politics a lot, but that's because they tend to be the leaders in this country.
If anything, I have a bias against wealthy people. it's nothing I'm proud of though...just something inherited from my father. Doesn't matter the race, if you are loaded (and spend like it) I have immediate weariness...
-
#3 1950's? Lets see... during that time...what was the US doing, oh yeah, kidnapping children forcing them into boarding schools where they were abused, molested, raped, and punished for speaking the language they knew. and what is that exactly?
citations for this comment?
Here is a nice resource:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865)
-
#1 to generalize from one nation to another is a racist notion that all Indians are the same no matter where they from, what language they speak, who they are.
#2 Also the racist politicians arguments that Indians are always looking for money, as if genocide, displacement, oppression, and continual "screwing-the-over" means nothing at all.
#1 not just all Indians all people are generally the same with few exceptions
#2 Generally anyone taking the government to court is looking for money. As for genocide, displacement, ect how long ago was that? Perhaps I should take Great Britain to court for their actions in the potato famine to demand reparations.
To the ignorant comment I feel it applies to you in your naive insistence that this is not about money but about some greater glory for their nation
-
#1 to generalize from one nation to another is a racist notion that all Indians are the same no matter where they from, what language they speak, who they are.
#2 Also the racist politicians arguments that Indians are always looking for money, as if genocide, displacement, oppression, and continual "screwing-the-over" means nothing at all.
#1 not just all Indians all people are generally the same with few exceptions
#2 Generally anyone taking the government to court is looking for money. As for genocide, displacement, ect how long ago was that? Perhaps I should take Great Britain to court for their actions in the potato famine to demand reparations.
To the ignorant comment I feel it applies to you in your naive insistence that this is not about money but about some greater glory for their nation
I never said that (bolded). Would you be interested to learn something about it? Or are you 'set in your ways' about the world?
-
#3 1950's? Lets see... during that time...what was the US doing, oh yeah, kidnapping children forcing them into boarding schools where they were abused, molested, raped, and punished for speaking the language they knew. and what is that exactly?
citations for this comment?
Here is a nice resource:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865)
Here's another:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/5127:new-documentary-tracks-cultural-genocide-of-american-indians (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/5127:new-documentary-tracks-cultural-genocide-of-american-indians)
-
#1 to generalize from one nation to another is a racist notion that all Indians are the same no matter where they from, what language they speak, who they are.
#2 Also the racist politicians arguments that Indians are always looking for money, as if genocide, displacement, oppression, and continual "screwing-the-over" means nothing at all.
#1 not just all Indians all people are generally the same with few exceptions
#2 Generally anyone taking the government to court is looking for money. As for genocide, displacement, ect how long ago was that? Perhaps I should take Great Britain to court for their actions in the potato famine to demand reparations.
To the ignorant comment I feel it applies to you in your naive insistence that this is not about money but about some greater glory for their nation
I never said that (bolded). Would you be interested to learn something about it? Or are you 'set in your ways' about the world?
Well what is it about then. As far as my ways they are set pretty firmly as skeptic and realist. Show me something current dealing directly with the people involved not something from history
-
#1 to generalize from one nation to another is a racist notion that all Indians are the same no matter where they from, what language they speak, who they are.
#2 Also the racist politicians arguments that Indians are always looking for money, as if genocide, displacement, oppression, and continual "screwing-the-over" means nothing at all.
#1 not just all Indians all people are generally the same with few exceptions
#2 Generally anyone taking the government to court is looking for money. As for genocide, displacement, ect how long ago was that? Perhaps I should take Great Britain to court for their actions in the potato famine to demand reparations.
To the ignorant comment I feel it applies to you in your naive insistence that this is not about money but about some greater glory for their nation
I never said that (bolded). Would you be interested to learn something about it? Or are you 'set in your ways' about the world?
Well what is it about then. As far as my ways they are set pretty firmly as skeptic and realist. Show me something current dealing directly with the people involved not something from history
Nothing wrong with being a skeptic or a realist...but just remember sometimes removing context, or applying your own context, can slant reality. Nothing wrong with that either, it's natural to prefer, or to perceive via some set of contexts (although it would appear aspies are more flexible in our contextual POVs...but we're not immune).
To start,
From what angle do you presume to know least:
Facts about this particular case-
Cultural Psychology behind these types of cases-
Indigenous Human rights-
or
Political tools/habits of colonial systems ?
You said you don't want to know history, does this mean you are aware of the history?
If you are, which history? Did you learn it from school, from TV, or from the people who experienced it? Which books are you familiar with?
It's hard to know where to begin without going in circles. I could write a book for you, but I don't want to, so I have to know where are most / least confident and start there.
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off. Should I expect morality from this place? Or are ethics out the window?
Is this a place for nazi's or something?
:indeed: I have a Bund meeting tonight. :finger:
-
I don't want a book and I am not a big fan of cultural guilt so spare me. I will concede indigenous peoples the world over have been treated like crap but how far back do you go with the reparations . So in this case is there anyone alive now who had their land stolen or is this a case of something that happened generations ago? The date I last saw referred to was 1822 anything a little more current?
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off. Should I expect morality from this place? Or are ethics out the window?
Is this a place for nazi's or something?
:indeed: I have a Bund meeting tonight. :finger:
I'll be late save me some Black Forest cake and schnaps
-
I don't want a book and I am not a big fan of cultural guilt so spare me. I will concede indigenous peoples the world over have been treated like crap but how far back do you go with the reparations . So in this case is there anyone alive now who had their land stolen or is this a case of something that happened generations ago? The date I last saw referred to was 1822 anything a little more current?
The short answer is this:
Water and environment are being polluted by negligence, or being sold to energy extraction companies which in turn pollute....killing off animals, but also effecting people. Without good land, not only would quality of life deteriorate for Americans, Onondaga would loose the fundamental aspect of their whole culture. They lived as a part of an eco system for thousands of years...their identity is tied to it in ways us colonized folks aren't inherently familiar with. Yes they WERE wronged, but they are also being wronged. How can they live freely and use lands that are wasted? That's a direct treaty breach. A current treaty breach. So they see that they are being wronged and the land is threatened, therefore, they are enforcing their treaty rights to make sure they have a say in the land and water policies/activities of the area.
A quick google search and you can find more information about this. Unless, would you like me to find sources for you?
What is particularly unique about this case is, it's similar to what canadian treaties are - that natives can either use their land, or live alongside canadians. Therefore, they can enforce that if the land is being mismanaged. US was much more intelligent when it came to genocide, because not only were treaties ignored and people moved to reserves, which were/are concentration camps, they also imposed individual land ownership (Dawes Act) on many, and in this way divided up the land and took it. The Lakota sued the gov't for the land stolen from them and won, but the Supremes court awarded them a settlement which they refused to take saying the Black Hills are not for sale. They are practically a third world country, but the Black Hills are sacred to them, and to their identity as Lakota. They can't and won't take money for it. But US hasn't made a move to give it back, so they currently are holding it illegally, and this is a current case (I think the ruling was in the 80s).
Anyways, the Onondaga however have a unique enforceable treaty history which ought to give them a say on what goes on with the land. They don't want a casino, they want to be able to protect it. It's a cause New Yorkans can latch onto, which many of them do.
-
Also as a realist...I hope you don't believe everyone is always out for money. Many are, and most of the loud, successful, or powerful ones are. Many people won't be your friend if you're poor.
But, there are people who care about things other than money. Indigenous people, there will be greedy ones among them (even greedy tribes), but MANY keep their traditions alive and are quite attached to the land, sky, and their culture. And they will do anything to protect it because in most traditions they are raised to believe they are protectors of the land and animals. Particularly if they are spiritual connected, they take names from the land and animals so thats an intimate connection with the environment. If your clan was the bear clan, you would be concerned if you didn't see any bears around. If your name is dirty chest (rolling in the dirt looking for herbs), you would be concerned if there are plants missing. If your religion valued the presence of eagles, you would be concerned not to see them flying around. Many non-native citizens feel that way too, especially farmers and ranchers and people who grow up fishing or in the country.... those who depend on healthy land. Also, people who feel the ill health effects of pollution tend to be grateful for efforts to protect the air, and water they use.
-
When you say there land do you mean land they lay claim to or land they have possession of? As far as pollution goes if any of the companies doing it are in violation of state or federal law they should address that as any other land owner could. Also as of right now fracking is still banned in NY till 2015 so energy companies may be buying up land but they are sitting on it so there is time for them to lobby to continue the ban.
They lived as a part of an eco system for thousands of years...their identity is tied to it in ways us colonized folks aren't inherently familiar with.
'colonized folks' Sorry it's 2013 not 1753
How many of them still do or even could? Romanticizing them is something I have never understood, they are people just like everyone else and they lived the way they did because they had to. I respect the knowledge and the ability in anyone who knows how to live off the land as a matter of fact that was an obsession of mine for a long time but it does not make the mystical they way you make it sound.
-
When you say there land do you mean land they lay claim to or land they have possession of? As far as pollution goes if any of the companies doing it are in violation of state or federal law they should address that as any other land owner could. Also as of right now fracking is still banned in NY till 2015 so energy companies may be buying up land but they are sitting on it so there is time for them to lobby to continue the ban.
They lived as a part of an eco system for thousands of years...their identity is tied to it in ways us colonized folks aren't inherently familiar with.
'colonized folks' Sorry it's 2013 not 1753
How many of them still do or even could? Romanticizing them is something I have never understood, they are people just like everyone else and they lived the way they did because they had to. I respect the knowledge and the ability in anyone who knows how to live off the land as a matter of fact that was an obsession of mine for a long time but it does not make the mystical they way you make it sound.
I mean the land that the treaty states they have rights to live freely within.
That's how I consider us anyways...colonized.
I'm not romanticizing, I don't mean to make it mystical. It's either my experience, or the experience I learned from listening to others. For example, I guarantee, if you believed in spirits, and knew what your guardian animal spirit was (like an angel), and were told to learn all you could about that spirit, then in your lifelong studies you would notice if they ended up on the endangered list. But that's religion, and unless you're spiritual, it might sound super mystical.
Although I agree that romanticizing is something that is done, among other stereotypes (I am highly skeptical of new age versions of things...gotta be careful what you read about them)... But like you said living in the bush was just a fact. They had to live in some sort of harmony with nature in order to survive, and their imagery and religion was tied to it- either their drums were made from animal hides, or their medicine came from the forest. Either way they were connected. For instance, I believe the Wampanaog word for 'man' actually means 'earth walker'. The language reflects their position to the earth.
In a similar way, the cree word means earth protectors. Again a relationship to the earth, and even a step into protection.
Today, many at least acknowledge the environment if they have an attachment to it. If someone's gonna practice their traditions which are tied to the environment, they tend to hold that space sacred...they're gonna notice change with more nostalgia. That's just what happens when ppl are raised with that kind of heritage. Family, and history do make a difference in the way ppl tend to experience the world. Thats the difference.
They are just like us, in terms of physiology, etc, but they have a different family, history, and understanding. And if they don't they have access to certain knowledge, which is not so accessible to us. Therefore they are not the same as us, just as one can't say black people are the same as white people and got about removing their entire context from them. I don't believe is total sameness.
For instance, being transgender and Navajo, from a traditional family, is not so confusing or scary to come out with because they have words for that, and a tradition of that, and historical figures like that. It's a different experience than being transgender and white, or being transgender and black.
I could recommend some books if you're interested in indigenous cultures.
At any rate...even if you disagree, I appreciate this conversation now.
-
I guarantee, if you believed in spirits, and knew what your guardian animal spirit was (like an angel), and were told to learn all you could about that spirit, then in your lifelong studies you would notice if they ended up on the endangered list. But that's religion, and unless you're spiritual, it might sound super mystical.
I give such beliefs as much credence as I do Balaam's donkey talking to him in Numbers 22:28 or Maui pulling a huge fish out of the water to use it (the fish) to form the North Island of New Zealand.
And if they don't they have access to certain knowledge, which is not so accessible to us.
That position that someone like a Shaman, a Pope, the Prophet of the LDS church, Jim Jones or Charles Manson, possesses special knowledge has been used since before recorded history to install and maintain a social order that benefits those with such special knowledge, often to the detriment of their followers.
For being non racist you certainly appear to be placing the Onondaga on a decidedly higher plane than the rest of humanity. Of course many religions lay claim to preferred status from their created divine beings. Without such a belief backing them, as well as the publication of Der Judenstaat in 1896, the ancient alien Jews would probably not have founded the modern state of Israel so such a belief can produce results.
-
I guarantee, if you believed in spirits, and knew what your guardian animal spirit was (like an angel), and were told to learn all you could about that spirit, then in your lifelong studies you would notice if they ended up on the endangered list. But that's religion, and unless you're spiritual, it might sound super mystical.
I give such beliefs as much credence as I do Balaam's donkey talking to him in Numbers 22:28 or Maui pulling a huge fish out of the water to use it (the fish) to form the North Island of New Zealand.
And if they don't they have access to certain knowledge, which is not so accessible to us.
That position that someone like a Shaman, a Pope, the Prophet of the LDS church, Jim Jones or Charles Manson, possesses special knowledge has been used since before recorded history to install and maintain a social order that benefits those with such special knowledge, often to the detriment of their followers.
For being non racist you certainly appear to be placing the Onondaga on a decidedly higher plane than the rest of humanity. Of course many religions lay claim to preferred status from their created divine beings. Without such a belief backing them, as well as the publication of Der Judenstaat in 1896, the ancient alien Jews would probably not have founded the modern state of Israel so such a belief can produce results.
I didn't mean special religious knowledge. I just meant cultural knowledge...like oral traditions and such. Stuff that you learn from being around your aunties and uncles, and grandparents, stuff that isn't in books. That's what I mean. Every family has it's particular culture, and every community has its cultures, and when communities all have a similar experience (such as blacks around the country) there are certain cultural things we "get" and are even a given because we are around it, we know the stories, we know the history. An outsider couldn't possibly get it unless they were raised around it...or were really interested and embedded themselves in the culture.
That's what I meant. Not like pope has special knowledge about god--I don't believe that.
Placing someone on a higher moral ground? Not really. I am just stating what I know of them in relation to US history, the treaty and land claims. I am not very familiar with the Onondaga.
But, speaking kindly of people does produce results, plus I am an outsider I can only give a compassionate outsiders understanding because there's a lot of ignorance and bigotry surrounding these issues. You never know when racism slips in. Our popular and political culture is teaming with it so its hard to pry from (even well-meaning allies make silly comments and assertions). But, you will find (perhaps), if you get me talking on issues relating to other communities I will likely talk as kind.
Doesn't mean I don't know the "dirty laundry", so to speak. I'm not usually about to point the finger unless it's at myself or society in general. Or politicians. I don't mind ragging on certain politicians.
Geez, just because I talk about people of different races doesn't mean I'm a racist. Far from it...I am a million times more interested in culture than race, it just so happens the two often mesh and become interchangeable (in certain countries, not all).
-
Okay sg I'll accept that explanation.
Your question about whether this is a place for nazi's came across to me as a tacit accusation* that it is such a place.
You directly calling Parts ignorant for not agreeing with your point of view is just ridiculous IMO. http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant (http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant) Parts is a crappy speller but he is not even close to being destitute of education or knowledge. He is a big boy though and can deal with any bad impression of him that you may have on his own. I will leave that between you two. You are free to consider him ignorant or stupid if that suits you.
*There have been a couple of members here with some beliefs in common with nazi beliefs and admiration of Hitler. And by a couple I actually mean two that I am aware of. Neither is active here right now and one was banned. That does not make this place White Aryan Resistance or any thing like it. People do not get banned from here for expressing such beliefs.
But, speaking kindly of people does produce results, plus I am an outsider I can only give a compassionate outsiders understanding because there's a lot of ignorance and bigotry surrounding these issues. You never know when racism slips in. Our popular and political culture is teaming with it so its hard to pry from (even well-meaning allies make silly comments and assertions). But, you will find (perhaps), if you get me talking on issues relating to other communities I will likely talk as kind.
From my own perspective Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other black racists played out the dreaded R word decades back. If you are intent on reading racism into something you probably will find it. Early 2000 was the last time someone called me racist and it was because he was losing an argument. My response was something to the effect of No I am not! And just to prove it I will agree with everything you say! At that point he had a shocked look on his face and I followed up with Yeah that is just what you want me to do isn't it?
Cornel West was the first person that I am aware of to make the claim that because of lack of institutional power that blacks are inherently incapable of being racist and bring that claim to the notice of the general public, back in the 1970s IIRC. Smells like bs to me, Colin Ferguson is no less racist than Joseph Paul Franklin. Here is a younger version of West making that same claim. I don't give any credence to such merde.
Dr Claud Anderson - BLACK PEOPLE CANNOT BE RACIST! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exBZ1gD1PWQ#)
-
Okay sg I'll accept that explanation.
Your question about whether this is a place for nazi's came across to me as a tacit accusation* that it is such a place.
You directly calling Parts ignorant for not agreeing with your point of view is just ridiculous IMO. http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant (http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant) Parts is a crappy speller but he is not even close to being destitute of education or knowledge. He is a big boy though and can deal with any bad impression of him that you may have on his own. I will leave that between you two. You are free to consider him ignorant or stupid if that suits you.
*There have been a couple of members here with some beliefs in common with nazi beliefs and admiration of Hitler. And by a couple I actually mean two that I am aware of. Neither is active here right now and one was banned. That does not make this place White Aryan Resistance or any thing like it. People do not get banned from here for expressing such beliefs.
But, speaking kindly of people does produce results, plus I am an outsider I can only give a compassionate outsiders understanding because there's a lot of ignorance and bigotry surrounding these issues. You never know when racism slips in. Our popular and political culture is teaming with it so its hard to pry from (even well-meaning allies make silly comments and assertions). But, you will find (perhaps), if you get me talking on issues relating to other communities I will likely talk as kind.
From my own perspective Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other black racists played out the dreaded R word decades back. If you are intent on reading racism into something you probably will find it. Early 2000 was the last time someone called me racist and it was because he was losing an argument. My response was something to the effect of No I am not! And just to prove it I will agree with everything you say! At that point he had a shocked look on his face and I followed up with Yeah that is just what you want me to do isn't it?
Cornel West was the first person that I am aware of to make the claim that because of lack of institutional power that blacks are inherently incapable of being racist and bring that claim to the notice of the general public, back in the 1970s IIRC. Smells like bs to me, Colin Ferguson is no less racist than Joseph Paul Franklin. Here is a younger version of West making that same claim. I don't give any credence to such merde.
Dr Claud Anderson - BLACK PEOPLE CANNOT BE RACIST! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exBZ1gD1PWQ#)
I have to admit I got a little over excited. If I called him ignorant, it was due to the ignorant remark, but I don't think he's ignorant or stupid. I dislike such remarks because it gives little to respond on and I can therefore only can assume it's part of a stereotype. And, of course I got angry (thinking of it as such)...but as I was repressing cursing myself away (anger mngmt may be needed), nazi is what came out. My bad.
Recently...I discovered some really disturbing things about US history pertaining to medical experimentation, and for the past few days I have been thinking "they were as bad as nazi's" over and over and over. Not trying to justify anything, just explaining I don't actually think this is a place of nazis (everyone has been really nice), it's just been on my mind.
As far as racism goes, no one is immune to it truly. It's a really complex thing...can take the form of assumptions, generalizations, not just harassment or exploitation...and not even always negative. But pop culture really does a number on people- to give an example: it's common for blacks to actually be racist against blacks, or to have a sort of self-hate. That's something that develops unless a family can intervene and talk to them about race at a young age, and teach them positive things about themselves and their race.
The joke is, white people don't generally have to take lessons in liking their race, and many take it for granted. Then it becomes an issue of privilege....and thats where racism gets murky because not everyone is equal and it's hard to explain that race has to do with that (when the presumption is that we are equal), and yet also explain it has not to do with character, just the way things are set up.
I really believe it's an "everyone's a victim" type of thing and there is a huge misconception that facing the facts means you have to feel shame, or dislike yourself, or have to admit your lowly or whatnot. No, it's the opposite actually. Facing facts is empowering for anyone, and it gains them a lot of respect and camaraderie. Like Parts said, we all have been wronged somewhere down the line. We all have something to share, it's just a matter of being respectful of another's point of view. See what I am saying?
Edit: I do not consider stereotypes as a point of view...they are more like points of blindness.
-
Oh lol, I just realized something. I use "ignorant (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignorant)" in the way southerners (from US) use it. I used to think it was a black thing, until an old white lady from the south used it and we busted out laughing. Then she said it was a southern thing cause her husband, old indian dude from the northwest, looked at us funny, and I realized it's cause american blacks are from the south. lol
-
I have to admit I got a little over excited. If I called him ignorant, it was due to the ignorant remark, but I don't think he's ignorant or stupid. I dislike such remarks because it gives little to respond on and I can therefore only can assume it's part of a stereotype. And, of course I got angry (thinking of it as such)...but as I was repressing cursing myself away (anger mngmt may be needed), nazi is what came out. My bad.
It happens. I used to get set off easier when I was younger. I am 53 now and less inclined to snap but I can still be a dick. How old are you? That is a genuine query not an attempt to make my POV matter more than yours because of age. I see young aspies at the M.I.N.D. Institute meetings and sometimes I can see a difference in how we deal with things and certain things took decades for me to get better at. If you have any such meetings available it might be worth checking out.
Recently...I discovered some really disturbing things about US history pertaining to medical experimentation, and for the past few days I have been thinking "they were as bad as nazi's" over and over and over. Not trying to justify anything, just explaining I don't actually think this is a place of nazis (everyone has been really nice), it's just been on my mind.
When I first heard of the Tuskegee study I seriously thought it was paranoia from black nationalists. When I looked into it and confirmed to my satisfaction that it was true I was repulsed. Before antibiotics were used to cure syphilis heavy metals were used and were effective. They had bad side effects but the cure was still better than the disease. The benefits of that study confirming all the bad things that happen in tertiary stage, like hole in the soft palate, paresis etc are interesting but entirely fucking unconscionable. Unfortunately, like with Dr Watson's inducing a conditioned response of fear in baby Albert, some scientist lack the decency and discernment to do what is right.
As far as racism goes, no one is immune to it truly. It's a really complex thing...can take the form of assumptions, generalizations, not just harassment or exploitation...and not even always negative. But pop culture really does a number on people- to give an example: it's common for blacks to actually be racist against blacks, or to have a sort of self-hate. That's something that develops unless a family can intervene and talk to them about race at a young age, and teach them positive things about themselves and their race.
A lot of stereotypes persist because they are supported by facts. Jesse Jackson himself made a comment back in the 1980s to the effect that when he was walking down the street and heard footsteps at night in Chicago he would be relieved to see a group of whites as opposed to a group of blacks. I am reasonably certain that he did not mean black men dressed in their hard hats and orange vests. Context comes into play but does not make that issue go away.
The joke is, white people don't generally have to take lessons in liking their race, and many take it for granted. Then it becomes an issue of privilege....and thats where racism gets murky because not everyone is equal and it's hard to explain that race has to do with that (when the presumption is that we are equal), and yet also explain it has not to do with character, just the way things are set up.
And it really is up to the fucked up black underclass in this country to address these issues. Ice Tea bragging on national TV that he was a pimp certainly does not help give the youngsters from his old community a good example IMO. I did not accidentally or casually use the term fucked up either. Businesses do not generally want to build in the more crime ridden parts of town or where a severe riot is likely to happen - think LA. If you were here in Vallejo I could show you exactly where not to hang out if you don't want trouble.
I really believe it's an "everyone's a victim" type of thing and there is a huge misconception that facing the facts means you have to feel shame, or dislike yourself, or have to admit your lowly or whatnot. No, it's the opposite actually. Facing facts is empowering for anyone, and it gains them a lot of respect and camaraderie. Like Parts said, we all have been wronged somewhere down the line. We all have something to share, it's just a matter of being respectful of another's point of view. See what I am saying?
Edit: I do not consider stereotypes as a point of view...they are more like points of blindness.
I see exactly what you are saying and disagree. I have had various teachers, most notably a Social Studies teacher named Tyndall, try to imbue white guilt into students. Having dealt with race riots in 5th, 6th, and 8th grade I really did not want to hear that and let him know. A few of my ancestors in the South owned slaves prior to the Civil War, one rode with Quantrill which I thought was cool when I was young and then I found out about Lawrence KS. Others in Minnesota and Michigan were part of the Underground Railroad. I believe a lot of whites have similar backgrounds.
That is not an argument for not knowing history. I don't trust fuckers like my teacher Tyndall, Cornel West or Jesse Jackson to stop putting it on whitey.
At this point I will leave this thread since we have both stated our respective points of view unless you would like me to respond to something else.
Oh lol, I just realized something. I use "ignorant (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignorant)" in the way southerners (from US) use it. I used to think it was a black thing, until an old white lady from the south used it and we busted out laughing. Then she said it was a southern thing cause her husband, old indian dude from the northwest, looked at us funny, and I realized it's cause american blacks are from the south. lol
I think that may have something to do with why so many blacks say ont and more whites say ant for aunt. Noticing language useage is something I do. Anyway see you in another thread. Aurevoir.
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off. Should I expect morality from this place? Or are ethics out the window?
Is this a place for nazi's or something?
Where exactly is the racist bullshit SG? Not with Parts or Skyblue.
As to whether you should expect morality from this place or us to be without ethics, I can answer that one.
We are people on the spectrum. That is our commonality. Some are interested in on thing or in another BUT this is not an Activist forum, nor is it a religious forum, nor a political forum nor a philosophical forum nor is it a science forum nor is it a forum on anything other than being a forum of adults on the spectrum. Some members are interested in some of these aspects.
Now if a member is NOT interested in a position you hold or holds a different position, it does not mean that they are bigots, ignorant, Nazis, wrong, or any bloody other comment you with to throw at them........does it?
It also doesn't mean that the forum is unethical or without morality, or Nazis.......does it?
So, why are you coming to the forum and making these pronouncements about our moderator and our forum membership as a whole?
Curious. It sounds a little intolerant, a little ignorant, and a little bigoted.
-
When you say there land do you mean land they lay claim to or land they have possession of? As far as pollution goes if any of the companies doing it are in violation of state or federal law they should address that as any other land owner could. Also as of right now fracking is still banned in NY till 2015 so energy companies may be buying up land but they are sitting on it so there is time for them to lobby to continue the ban.
They lived as a part of an eco system for thousands of years...their identity is tied to it in ways us colonized folks aren't inherently familiar with.
'colonized folks' Sorry it's 2013 not 1753
How many of them still do or even could? Romanticizing them is something I have never understood, they are people just like everyone else and they lived the way they did because they had to. I respect the knowledge and the ability in anyone who knows how to live off the land as a matter of fact that was an obsession of mine for a long time but it does not make the mystical they way you make it sound.
I mean the land that the treaty states they have rights to live freely within.
That's how I consider us anyways...colonized.
I'm not romanticizing, I don't mean to make it mystical. It's either my experience, or the experience I learned from listening to others. For example, I guarantee, if you believed in spirits, and knew what your guardian animal spirit was (like an angel), and were told to learn all you could about that spirit, then in your lifelong studies you would notice if they ended up on the endangered list. But that's religion, and unless you're spiritual, it might sound super mystical.
Although I agree that romanticizing is something that is done, among other stereotypes (I am highly skeptical of new age versions of things...gotta be careful what you read about them)... But like you said living in the bush was just a fact. They had to live in some sort of harmony with nature in order to survive, and their imagery and religion was tied to it- either their drums were made from animal hides, or their medicine came from the forest. Either way they were connected. For instance, I believe the Wampanaog word for 'man' actually means 'earth walker'. The language reflects their position to the earth.
In a similar way, the cree word means earth protectors. Again a relationship to the earth, and even a step into protection.
Today, many at least acknowledge the environment if they have an attachment to it. If someone's gonna practice their traditions which are tied to the environment, they tend to hold that space sacred...they're gonna notice change with more nostalgia. That's just what happens when ppl are raised with that kind of heritage. Family, and history do make a difference in the way ppl tend to experience the world. Thats the difference.
They are just like us, in terms of physiology, etc, but they have a different family, history, and understanding. And if they don't they have access to certain knowledge, which is not so accessible to us. Therefore they are not the same as us, just as one can't say black people are the same as white people and got about removing their entire context from them. I don't believe is total sameness.
For instance, being transgender and Navajo, from a traditional family, is not so confusing or scary to come out with because they have words for that, and a tradition of that, and historical figures like that. It's a different experience than being transgender and white, or being transgender and black.
I could recommend some books if you're interested in indigenous cultures.
At any rate...even if you disagree, I appreciate this conversation now.
When will we cease being colonials? Sorry I am just stuck on that one.
I mean the land that the treaty states they have rights to live freely within.
That is not an answer is it their land or not.
If you mean access to the land for various things like fishing, hunting, hiking ect I am all for more openness, NH has some good laws on that.
The spiritual stuff is also lost on me whether it's shamans,priests, rabbis or imams it makes little difference to me it's all the same, a bunch of stories.
If it's all about saving the land from pollution and destruction they would better serve the cause by dropping their land claims as it reeks of ulterior motives. They say they don't want a casino or to kick people off their property if they win and maybe they don't but who is to say the next generation of leaders will not change their minds. Greed and the lust for power is a human thing no culture is immune.
-
It's "nazis" if you mean two or more of them, but "nazi's" if you mean what he possesses.
The grammar nazi in me had a fit.
-
Is this a place for nazi's or something?
Yes.
-
Where exactly is the racist bullshit SG? Not with Parts or Skyblue.
As to whether you should expect morality from this place or us to be without ethics, I can answer that one.
We are people on the spectrum. That is our commonality. Some are interested in on thing or in another BUT this is not an Activist forum, nor is it a religious forum, nor a political forum nor a philosophical forum nor is it a science forum nor is it a forum on anything other than being a forum of adults on the spectrum. Some members are interested in some of these aspects.
Now if a member is NOT interested in a position you hold or holds a different position, it does not mean that they are bigots, ignorant, Nazis, wrong, or any bloody other comment you with to throw at them........does it?
It also doesn't mean that the forum is unethical or without morality, or Nazis.......does it?
So, why are you coming to the forum and making these pronouncements about our moderator and our forum membership as a whole?
Curious. It sounds a little intolerant, a little ignorant, and a little bigoted.
I kind of addressed those things, here's one part:
I have to admit I got a little over excited. If I called him ignorant, it was due to the ignorant remark, but I don't think he's ignorant or stupid. I dislike such remarks because it gives little to respond on and I can therefore only can assume it's part of a stereotype. And, of course I got angry (thinking of it as such)...but as I was repressing cursing myself away (anger mngmt may be needed), nazi is what came out. My bad.
Recently...I discovered some really disturbing things about US history pertaining to medical experimentation, and for the past few days I have been thinking "they were as bad as nazi's" over and over and over. Not trying to justify anything, just explaining I don't actually think this is a place of nazis (everyone has been really nice), it's just been on my mind.
I don't mind people disagreeing. The remark was ignorant (wrought with stereotypical assumptions, and false information, also leaving not much to respond to) and I got a little more upset than usual. I also wasn't making pronouncements, they were questions. Finally though, someone decided to ask a question rather than make assertions based on (what is generally racist driven) erroneous impressions...the same impressions that support a certain status quo that is very nazi-like in origin (hence the reference, which was really a society reference, not personal).
Of course, there are likely better ways I could have handled my frustration. I apologize if anyone got their feelings hurt, as stated previously as well, everyone has been pretty nice, its been good here.
-
It's "nazis" if you mean two or more of them, but "nazi's" if you mean what he possesses.
The grammar nazi in me had a fit.
lol
-
No not at all mate. Parts, statement was not ignorant or bigoted. You chose to read that into it but on base tacks it wasn't.
Parts has no real interest or investment in the subject matter, but responded to you in terms of saying that every indigenous people have been fucked over and that the people who fucked them over and cheated them and so forth, are responsible BUT bringing an action on their descendents or seeking retribution or compensation off their descendants is not an appropriate remedy.
So it DOES leave the same indigenous people inbetween a rock and a hard place. Either the descendents of those that screw them over or the government choose to accept that though they personally did nothing wrong and have no guilt in respect to this matter, seek to give an equitable solution to the claim that reduces rights of the descendants to the land use OR they seek to keep the status quo. He is saying too that the Irish would have a claim against the English, The English against the Vikings and hell possibly the Caanites against the Jewish.
No easy answers here, wrongs have been done but by who and to whom? Who ought to own that guilt or accountability?
No. Not good enough, you instead like to call him racist and intolerant. <----- definition of intolerance.
See what I mean now mate? It is great you have a strong activism streak. It is great that you have strong convictions. Just keep in mind someone having a different opinion to you does not mean that they are racist or that they are bigoted or intolerant. It may simply be that they disagree or have a different perception and that may be JUST as valid as yours.
If you want to see how this can go rather badly look up a call out with Rissy and myself. She came on here and tried to call us out on being cissexist. Did not end well for her.
I think it a mistake best avoided.
-
No not at all mate. Parts, statement was not ignorant or bigoted. You chose to read that into it but on base tacks it wasn't.
Parts has no real interest or investment in the subject matter, but responded to you in terms of saying that every indigenous people have been fucked over and that the people who fucked them over and cheated them and so forth, are responsible BUT bringing an action on their descendents or seeking retribution or compensation off their descendants is not an appropriate remedy.
So it DOES leave the same indigenous people inbetween a rock and a hard place. Either the descendents of those that screw them over or the government choose to accept that though they personally did nothing wrong and have no guilt in respect to this matter, seek to give an equitable solution to the claim that reduces rights of the descendants to the land use OR they seek to keep the status quo. He is saying too that the Irish would have a claim against the English, The English against the Vikings and hell possibly the Caanites against the Jewish.
No easy answers here, wrongs have been done but by who and to whom? Who ought to own that guilt or accountability?
No. Not good enough, you instead like to call him racist and intolerant. <----- definition of intolerance.
See what I mean now mate? It is great you have a strong activism streak. It is great that you have strong convictions. Just keep in mind someone having a different opinion to you does not mean that they are racist or that they are bigoted or intolerant. It may simply be that they disagree or have a different perception and that may be JUST as valid as yours.
If you want to see how this can go rather badly look up a call out with Rissy and myself. She came on here and tried to call us out on being cissexist. Did not end well for her.
I think it a mistake best avoided.
The bolded part. I sort of touched upon it earlier:
I really believe it's an "everyone's a victim" type of thing and there is a huge misconception that facing the facts means you have to feel shame, or dislike yourself, or have to admit your lowly or whatnot. No, it's the opposite actually. Facing facts is empowering for anyone, and it gains them a lot of respect and camaraderie. Like Parts said, we all have been wronged somewhere down the line. We all have something to share, it's just a matter of being respectful of another's point of view. See what I am saying?
Edit: I do not consider stereotypes as a point of view...they are more like points of blindness.
So...for some odd reason (and there's a history behind it I am sure) people generally seem to think that looking at a situation for what it is automatically means they ought to feel incredible guilt, self hatred or what ever string of emotions they imagine other's want them to experience... I at least am not of that opinion AT ALL.
So parts says they ought to get over it, I say we ought to get over feeling like someone has to be the predator in order for us to actually look at the issue. I don't have time to go into more detail (at the moment...), but it's a paradigm shift I am referring to... do you kind of see what I am saying? Will explain more later...
-
Do Australians have a claim against the British for exiling them from their homes forcibly?
Can you let me know this? If so, what claim and against who and for what?
I have aboriginal blood, therefore what ought the government give me and why?
I can pose a number of similar questions but these are obviously more pertinent to me. But I can take it back and back. You can say it is not the same and it is not. BUT the things that separate one from another is likely to be semantics. Yes we can find more examples and slowly make every instance of this kind of thing related to another and in the end it would mean that all of us would have been stolen from and have stolen off, even though we didn't personally do this, and we all give and take back. It would be a mess.
I know you are saying "yes but it requires a paradigm shift" No really it doesn't. It requires that you accept people have a right to a very different belief than you and that they do not have to think differently and that by thinking differently they are not wrong, bigoted, intolerant, uneducated or not sensible. You know this right? If not, you are being intolerant.
-
Do Australians have a claim against the British for exiling them from their homes forcibly?
Can you let me know this? If so, what claim and against who and for what?
I have aboriginal blood, therefore what ought the government give me and why?
I can pose a number of similar questions but these are obviously more pertinent to me. But I can take it back and back. You can say it is not the same and it is not. BUT the things that separate one from another is likely to be semantics. Yes we can find more examples and slowly make every instance of this kind of thing related to another and in the end it would mean that all of us would have been stolen from and have stolen off, even though we didn't personally do this, and we all give and take back. It would be a mess.
I know you are saying "yes but it requires a paradigm shift" No really it doesn't. It requires that you accept people have a right to a very different belief than you and that they do not have to think differently and that by thinking differently they are not wrong, bigoted, intolerant, uneducated or not sensible. You know this right? If not, you are being intolerant.
Why do I feel saying that everyone has been wronged detracts from the issue at hand? We could go on and on discussing different wrongednesses (and I would enjoy that conversation), but in relation to the OP, I don't want that to be an excuse to forget all about the situation at hand. Is this really how things are thought to get done?
I am more interested in looking at the current problem and figuring out how we can prevent further harm. That requires understanding that oppression and genocide don't just go away because new children were born. yeah right, if that was so we could really say "time heals all wounds", but that is clearly not the case.
As for your specific examples (aboriginal blood, British exile), I suggest you look into those things yourself. I don't know much about Australian history, and I'm not about to speak for aboriginal peoples, you can find their various points of view online. You can also look up the UN declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples and see if Australia adheres. Once you have facts, and look at them with a clear head then you can be in the position to enter a philosophical debate about what questions to ask.
That's the problem, people take the little understanding of an issue that they have, and then assert some sort of opinion feeling that it will be validated even if its based on false information. That's like bringing a bunch of men around who never experienced harassment and only know of women being raped who had short skirts and were drunk and seductive, and then sitting the men down to chat (w/o a moderator) the ethics and laws and concerns relating to the protection of women and prosecution of rapists.
Does that sound like a reasonable course of action to take if the goal is to prevent future harm of women and lenient prosecution of rapists?
Now if there was someone more knowledgable about the issues at hand who had something to say, to disagree, I am HAPPY OVERJOYED ECSTATIC because a productive conversation can emerge. And if one doesn't know about the issue, the natural gesture ought to be to ask and listen, and then formulate an opinion based on real facts, real statements, and real history...even if it's very little, its better than nothing.
-
I should add, what I say regarding facts is in response to the questions about specifica claims and issues. In other words, with regards to specific issues, don't expect your opinion to be helpful or valid without proper information. I also mentioned, asking questions to find out facts and hear a POV does no harm.
On the other hand, with regards to the social, moral, or procedural points concerning the collecting, discussing, or sharing of such facts and POVs, thats a debate anyone and everyone can probably join into. Just wanted to make that distinction in case someone thinks I am saying "well you can't have this conversation because you don't know enough", because that's not what I am meaning to say.
-
I should add, what I say regarding facts is in response to the questions about specifica claims and issues. In other words, with regards to specific issues, don't expect your opinion to be helpful or valid without proper information. I also mentioned, asking questions to find out facts and hear a POV does no harm.
On the other hand, with regards to the social, moral, or procedural points concerning the collecting, discussing, or sharing of such facts and POVs, thats a debate anyone and everyone can probably join into. Just wanted to make that distinction in case someone thinks I am saying "well you can't have this conversation because you don't know enough", because that's not what I am meaning to say.
This is horribly condescending SG and I am not sure that you don't mean it to be.
Stop it.
You are a smart guy and a passionate guy. That I will not question but you are essentially going school teacher on us in a way that one of the members GA used to and it is arrogant and uncalled for. Do not pretend for a moment that you are the font of knowledge and we uniformed, unread, ignorant, stupid or unreasoned.
You have one opinion and there are many here. Your opinion is not better than others. Don't think to infer we ought to go off and read this or that and come back with an educated POV to debate with you.
On top of your Nazi comment, this looks REALLY bad and is shooting the credibility of your words to shit. C'mon mate.
You are better than this.
-
Do Australians have a claim against the British for exiling them from their homes forcibly?
Can you let me know this? If so, what claim and against who and for what?
I have aboriginal blood, therefore what ought the government give me and why?
I can pose a number of similar questions but these are obviously more pertinent to me. But I can take it back and back. You can say it is not the same and it is not. BUT the things that separate one from another is likely to be semantics. Yes we can find more examples and slowly make every instance of this kind of thing related to another and in the end it would mean that all of us would have been stolen from and have stolen off, even though we didn't personally do this, and we all give and take back. It would be a mess.
I know you are saying "yes but it requires a paradigm shift" No really it doesn't. It requires that you accept people have a right to a very different belief than you and that they do not have to think differently and that by thinking differently they are not wrong, bigoted, intolerant, uneducated or not sensible. You know this right? If not, you are being intolerant.
Why do I feel saying that everyone has been wronged detracts from the issue at hand? We could go on and on discussing different wrongednesses (and I would enjoy that conversation), but in relation to the OP, I don't want that to be an excuse to forget all about the situation at hand. Is this really how things are thought to get done?
I am more interested in looking at the current problem and figuring out how we can prevent further harm. That requires understanding that oppression and genocide don't just go away because new children were born. yeah right, if that was so we could really say "time heals all wounds", but that is clearly not the case.
As for your specific examples (aboriginal blood, British exile), I suggest you look into those things yourself. I don't know much about Australian history, and I'm not about to speak for aboriginal peoples, you can find their various points of view online. You can also look up the UN declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples and see if Australia adheres. Once you have facts, and look at them with a clear head then you can be in the position to enter a philosophical debate about what questions to ask.
Thanks for the suggestions. This had been done before I raised the question. Thank you though. I mean thank you for being helpful enough to set up a series of steps I have to pass before I am deemed reasoned and of education enough to be able to hold a decent position on this subject.
Again you are being condescending and patronising and more than a little arrogant. Cut that shit out.
The Australian Aboriginals are not unlike the Native Americans in respect to the history of subjugation and invasion. They like the Native Americans were an indigenous tribal people. They were hunter gatherers and a Patriarchal society with Elders passing down knowledge to the young. The land was spiritually connected to the people. They believed in Dreamtime and spirits (good and bad) associated with particular locations.
Pretty much every effort to destroy their culture was thrust onto them by Early settlers. These practices continued on and on.
Settlers shot them on sight for being on "their land". They cheated them. They stole from them. They developed their sacred places into farmland or housing. They took their children off them and placed them in missions to break up the family relationships and teach them God. They plied the Elders with grog until they could no longer care about their culture. They spread disease through the tribes. They poisoned their well and often massacred them. They either put them in communes or bought them away from the bush and into the city areas to work for them and usually underpaid them if at all. They also tried to breed them out (which needs no explanation)
Effectively they took a wrecking ball to their culture. Most aboriginal kids do not know their sacred sites nor the legends of their people. They have few if any role models. Their health and life expectancy is alarming ( yes as expressed by UN). They are jail at a rate in population that is massive. Education is generally remedial and unemployment rate huge
For the most part apart from a few lucky communities, the culture is irretrievably lost.
However even with this there are still many aboriginal activists. Mostly I do not have the time of day for them and consider most of them full of self-importance, hot air and using their positions of power to get a bit of fame and pay before they die.
Mostly. I REALLY like Noel Pearson and Tania Major. They talk the talk and walk the walk and do not do anything less than everything they can do for their people. It is probably not nearly enough but it IS having big impacts in their communities and for Aboriginals as a whole.
I know my shit SG. It was an ignorant position you took suggesting I and others here don't and are not able to take part in your debate unless you believe they meet your standards of intellect, foreknowledge or morality to venture their opinions.
I will say it again. People holding different perspectives does not make them immoral, bigoted, racist, intolerant, Nazis, unreasoned, unintelligent, uneducated or any bloody other thing. Do not be throwing this about.
That's the problem, people take the little understanding of an issue that they have, and then assert some sort of opinion feeling that it will be validated even if its based on false information. That's like bringing a bunch of men around who never experienced harassment and only know of women being raped who had short skirts and were drunk and seductive, and then sitting the men down to chat (w/o a moderator) the ethics and laws and concerns relating to the protection of women and prosecution of rapists.
Does that sound like a reasonable course of action to take if the goal is to prevent future harm of women and lenient prosecution of rapists?
Does it sound like a reasonable analogy to compare people saying: that the Land Usage rights stolen of the Native American tribal community by non-Americans, generations ago is not easily given back to the descendants of the people it was stolen off; to a lot of morally challenged and bigoted men talking about rape?
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
So by this analogy....let me guess? Anyone who is not as wise and educated as you believe you are is unable to hold a moral position, nor make an informed choice and is bigoted (at best) because of their ignorance.
How about....no? You are completely wrong and I suspect you are either:
1) Completely misreading everything you are reading to get such and ignorant, uninformed, and bigoted standpoint
2) You have stopped reading and just want a platform to moralise and talk others down. Like a Zealous Christian Fundamentalist.
3) You are deliberately trolling for a rise from us
4) You are fucking stupid.
Sorry there is not really too many options, are there?
Now if there was someone more knowledgable about the issues at hand who had something to say, to disagree, I am HAPPY OVERJOYED ECSTATIC because a productive conversation can emerge. And if one doesn't know about the issue, the natural gesture ought to be to ask and listen, and then formulate an opinion based on real facts, real statements, and real history...even if it's very little, its better than nothing.
Here is a question.
Why ought we even try and humour or share with you...with this shitful attitude you have adopted in this thread. You seem ignorant of anyone's position but your own (and it does not look like you have really thought through your own positions), you are being arrogant, condescending, patronising, you seem to place a more moral/educated/informed/reasonable/rational viewpoint than others and you have seemingly no position to respect.
Why should anyone here visit your threads or give you the time of day with this current disrespectful attitude?
I don't know what has come over you SG but you should really drop the attitude and back the fuck up. If you can not post a thread to discuss something without spending the thread railing on the membership then don't start the stupid fucking thread in the first place.
Expected better from you, of all people.
-
:popcorn:
-
Will be back after a brief commercial break.
Btw, I wasn't meaning to be condescending. It's just a fact, you wouldn't want a bunch auspeaks people without asperger's and whose only knowledge of the subject to be that we are dangerous, trapped, and in need of training to be sitting around discussing what is appropriate treatment for us, and what is criminal.
Anything coming out of their mouths however opinionated, is based on lies, and therefore either supports a certain status quo, or detracts from actually helping us.
But, I have to return later and give you a fuller reply...
Commercials:
10 Very Funny Commercials (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT0ReOjS_6s#)
-
I should add, what I say regarding facts is in response to the questions about specifica claims and issues. In other words, with regards to specific issues, don't expect your opinion to be helpful or valid without proper information. I also mentioned, asking questions to find out facts and hear a POV does no harm.
On the other hand, with regards to the social, moral, or procedural points concerning the collecting, discussing, or sharing of such facts and POVs, thats a debate anyone and everyone can probably join into. Just wanted to make that distinction in case someone thinks I am saying "well you can't have this conversation because you don't know enough", because that's not what I am meaning to say.
This is horribly condescending SG and I am not sure that you don't mean it to be.
Stop it.
You are a smart guy and a passionate guy. That I will not question but you are essentially going school teacher on us in a way that one of the members GA used to and it is arrogant and uncalled for. Do not pretend for a moment that you are the font of knowledge and we uniformed, unread, ignorant, stupid or unreasoned.
No that's not what I am saying. You and others were wondering why Parts' comment was considered ignorant by me. It is something repeatedly brought up that it is not ignorant, and he is entitled to his opinion, and so forth.
I am trying to explain why that comment was indeed ignorant, and why it is not helpful. I was also trying to explain that that very attitude seems to permeate the political arena, where decisions are made and public opinion is influenced. I was trying to point out that we are not getting anywhere constantly talking and talking, believing everyone's opinion is valid with regards to issues they are misinformed, or uninformed about. In general this is an issue we struggle with, in USA, in Canada...anywhere where there is a majority making decisions about a minority's experience.
I believe it's a bad habit we ((as a society)) have, so I do admit I get into a school teacher tone, but it's not to be condescending... I am just trying to affect a paradigm shift... it's not going very well though, obviously I need to change my approach, I am hoping this conversation will help me with that.
-
Not that the analogy is better at describing the differences of opinions than the revolting rape case analogy. At every point and turn you are saying the same thing over and over in different ways . You are no better for holding your positions than others are for holding theirs. You are not more reasoned nor moral. Until you reframe this and drop the......bigoted beliefs (I am sorry I have to call it like it is. Not necessarily racist but you are.being bigoted against the membership) and start thinking through what they are saying and why (no they are. not being uninformed, bigoted, or holding a morally corrupt position - look deeper), you will continue to misread what is before you and insult the membership and though they are a fairly easy going bunch, they will likely not give you the time of day.
-
Thanks for the suggestions. This had been done before I raised the question. Thank you though. I mean thank you for being helpful enough to set up a series of steps I have to pass before I am deemed reasoned and of education enough to be able to hold a decent position on this subject.
Again you are being condescending and patronising and more than a little arrogant. Cut that shit out.
The Australian Aboriginals are not unlike the Native Americans in respect to the history of subjugation and invasion. They like the Native Americans were an indigenous tribal people. They were hunter gatherers and a Patriarchal society with Elders passing down knowledge to the young. The land was spiritually connected to the people. They believed in Dreamtime and spirits (good and bad) associated with particular locations.
Pretty much every effort to destroy their culture was thrust onto them by Early settlers. These practices continued on and on.
Settlers shot them on sight for being on "their land". They cheated them. They stole from them. They developed their sacred places into farmland or housing. They took their children off them and placed them in missions to break up the family relationships and teach them God. They plied the Elders with grog until they could no longer care about their culture. They spread disease through the tribes. They poisoned their well and often massacred them. They either put them in communes or bought them away from the bush and into the city areas to work for them and usually underpaid them if at all. They also tried to breed them out (which needs no explanation)
Effectively they took a wrecking ball to their culture. Most aboriginal kids do not know their sacred sites nor the legends of their people. They have few if any role models. Their health and life expectancy is alarming ( yes as expressed by UN). They are jail at a rate in population that is massive. Education is generally remedial and unemployment rate huge
For the most part apart from a few lucky communities, the culture is irretrievably lost.
However even with this there are still many aboriginal activists. Mostly I do not have the time of day for them and consider most of them full of self-importance, hot air and using their positions of power to get a bit of fame and pay before they die.
Mostly. I REALLY like Noel Pearson and Tania Major. They talk the talk and walk the walk and do not do anything less than everything they can do for their people. It is probably not nearly enough but it IS having big impacts in their communities and for Aboriginals as a whole.
I know my shit SG. It was an ignorant position you took suggesting I and others here don't and are not able to take part in your debate unless you believe they meet your standards of intellect, foreknowledge or morality to venture their opinions.
I will say it again. People holding different perspectives does not make them immoral, bigoted, racist, intolerant, Nazis, unreasoned, unintelligent, uneducated or any bloody other thing. Do not be throwing this about.
The suggestions were not expressed to be condescending, they were part of my answer to the questions you gave. If anyone asks me a bunch of questions about claims of which I have no expressed prior knowledge, I would suggest looking more into the issues to understand the different angles expressed. Because, as I mentioned, anything I say will likely be based on false information and wouldn't be helpful for debate, and therefore I would be overreaching. I could give a general answer though, (it's sort of the same thing I was saying, but from a different vantage point). It would be:
In general, one cannot presume to dictate was another group's experience has been, or what they need in order to heal from it. If they express that they need sovereignty and land to live on, it is something that ought to be heard and considered remembering that they are underdogs. Then, bring your own experience to the table. Say it point blank, you're afraid of loosing your land (even if your forefathers stole it), you're afraid they will divide the country, you're concerned about this and that....
That's valid. But what is usually done is, an indigenous nation says they want sovereignty and land to live freely on, and the colonial nation says, well sorry our concerns are more important, we believe your experience is actually this (based on false information and stereotypes), we won't have a discussion because we know that you can only heal if you just assimilate and get over the past.
And thus, the problems continue, and so does the oppression. Now, addressing the specific issues of the different aboriginal peoples in australia, I don't know. I would have to research. I do know that mining activities and development threaten a lot of scared site. But I cannot speak more on that.
Does it sound like a reasonable analogy to compare people saying: that the Land Usage rights stolen of the Native American tribal community by non-Americans, generations ago is not easily given back to the descendants of the people it was stolen off; to a lot of morally challenged and bigoted men talking about rape?
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
No. Seems like a valid analogy of a group unfamiliar with/misinformed about another groups plight, making assertions about them and their experience.
So by this analogy....let me guess? Anyone who is not as wise and educated as you believe you are is unable to hold a moral position, nor make an informed choice and is bigoted (at best) because of their ignorance.
No that's not what I said. First, I don't assume to be super informed. Second, I clearly stated that I make a distinction between talking about SPECIFIC issues, and talking about the social, MORAL, and procedural aspects of collecting, discussing, and sharing facts and POVs.
Here is a question.
Why ought we even try and humour or share with you...with this shitful attitude you have adopted in this thread. You seem ignorant of anyone's position but your own (and it does not look like you have really thought through your own positions), you are being arrogant, condescending, patronising, you seem to place a more moral/educated/informed/reasonable/rational viewpoint than others and you have seemingly no position to respect.
Why should anyone here visit your threads or give you the time of day with this current disrespectful attitude?
I don't know what has come over you SG but you should really drop the attitude and back the fuck up. If you can not post a thread to discuss something without spending the thread railing on the membership then don't start the stupid fucking thread in the first place.
Expected better from you, of all people.
Well, I am trying to clarify myself. If you still think I have a shit attitude then it's not use going on, I am obviously making this worse.
-
Who says that Parts or anyone here IS misinformed or ignorant about a group's plight? You do SG. Just you.
Making it worse? Not explaining yourself well? No, I think you are, in that you are consistently disrespectful and in the same way. You rephrasing lends no more to the discussion but again is consistent on what you apologised before about, so no I do not think that you are not explaining it well.
Myself? I would have loved to share MY opinion on this rather than defend Part's that I do not necessarily agree with and browbeat you. In fact you would possibly find similarities between mine and yours.
As for your attitude being shitfull...yeah it really is. Repeating it a number of different ways is not making it any more palatable either
-
I never prevented anyone from sharing their opinion. I had issue with Parts statement because it is inaccurate and ignorant. Are you telling me I should just not call out a lie when I hear it?
If you have a problem with me calling him out on that, then so be it, but don't let it be an excuse not to add your own two cents. It is OBVIOUS he is misinformed, otherwise he wouldn't have made that statement. I asked if it needed to be delineated why it was inaccurate, nobody said it did, but if you insist lies need to be defended go ahead.
>:(
-
if he would have just said
Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
I wouldn't have called it ignorant. That's a valid POV and statement and warrants interesting discussion. it's the first bit I took issue with.
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old.
I can't believe one by one people defend a statement like that, in relation to the OP, in relation to Indigenous rights.
How can someone say something which is inaccurate and wrong, and then be defended when their called out on it?
:cbc: < thats me, as humpty dumpty, teetering on the wall of composure....well I am also broken in half because I've already fallen off lost my temper once or twice, but I am now teetering again.
-
I never prevented anyone from sharing their opinion. I had issue with Parts statement because it is inaccurate and ignorant. Are you telling me I should just not call out a lie when I hear it?
If you have a problem with me calling him out on that, then so be it, but don't let it be an excuse not to add your own two cents. It is OBVIOUS he is misinformed, otherwise he wouldn't have made that statement. I asked if it needed to be delineated why it was inaccurate, nobody said it did, but if you insist lies need to be defended go ahead.
>:(
Because whilst simplistically stated it is a point of view worth stating and debating, equally as valuable as your own.
What does it say and not say?
In Australia there is a National Sorry Day that white Australians are supposed to endorse and seek to placate and reconcile with Aborigines. Most white people say "Reconcile? For what? I did nothing and if you try to bring up my forefathers, never met them, don't know them and your issue is with them not me. I will not feel any responsibility or accountability to their actions."
This is similar to Parts position and it is NOT a lie nor ignorant nor wrong nor inaccurate.
Reconciliation means different things to different people. Different tribes and families band individuals. Some people will be OK with something that can be given and some aren't. Some will ask for a return to how things were.
There are no easy answers or convenient fixes that will fix or please everyone.
There IS plenty of bigotry though. A lot of this happens when people choose to judge others beliefs and devalue POV in open discussion.
-
In Australia there is a National Sorry Day that white Australians are supposed to endorse and seek to placate and reconcile with Aborigines.
Interesting. What's the name of this day? How is it celebrated? Here we have thanksgiving, gather the family, eat like pigs, and watch the parade.
-
Except the notion of thanksgiving is sort of like an annual slap in the face to the indians, but hey that's america.
-
I never prevented anyone from sharing their opinion. I had issue with Parts statement because it is inaccurate and ignorant. Are you telling me I should just not call out a lie when I hear it?
If you have a problem with me calling him out on that, then so be it, but don't let it be an excuse not to add your own two cents. It is OBVIOUS he is misinformed, otherwise he wouldn't have made that statement. I asked if it needed to be delineated why it was inaccurate, nobody said it did, but if you insist lies need to be defended go ahead.
>:(
Because whilst simplistically stated it is a point of view worth stating and debating, equally as valuable as your own.
What does it say and not say?
In Australia there is a National Sorry Day that white Australians are supposed to endorse and seek to placate and reconcile with Aborigines. Most white people say "Reconcile? For what? I did nothing and if you try to bring up my forefathers, never met them, don't know them and your issue is with them not me. I will not feel any responsibility or accountability to their actions."
This is similar to Parts position and it is NOT a lie nor ignorant nor wrong nor inaccurate.
Reconciliation means different things to different people. Different tribes and families band individuals. Some people will be OK with something that can be given and some aren't. Some will ask for a return to how things were.
There are no easy answers or convenient fixes that will fix or please everyone.
There IS plenty of bigotry though. A lot of this happens when people choose to judge others beliefs and devalue POV in open discussion.
The reason why it is inaccurate is because their issue is not with our forefathers. It is a PRESENT DAY issue with US, and it's a myth (propagated by our neat little history books) that all oppression and wrongdoing occurred a couple hundred years ago. Yes, for some reason when a constitutional right is invoked (written a couple hundred years ago) it is as powerful as any law. yet when a treaty is invoked (which in most cases is MORE contemporary) then it is dismissed as ancient history. It's a racist double standard we still hang onto and shrug our shoulders and say it happened so long ago, when it's happening right underneath our noses.
And I will call anyone and everyone out on it if they decide that Indian laws can expire whenever we decide while our laws can't. And I will call it out as ignorance because that is what it is.
-
While in the US we have treaties (which are legal documents, and some of which are upheld, and some are not (depending on our whims))...but I don't think there were any treaties signed in Australia...maybe one or two, right?
-
The reason why it is inaccurate is because their issue is not with our forefathers.
This is about upholding 1794 treaty.
-
The really funny thing is, the tribes don't even own reservation land.
-
The Indian forefathers knew the greedy ways of our gov't and people...they knew people would decide to expire the treaties unless Indians made it clear in writing that the treaties were to last "as long as the sun shines, as long as the mountains stand, and as long as the rivers run".
That really didn't matter to us because racist citizens looked at that as said "stupid poetic Indians, we're taking it anyways". And we CONTINUE to do this today. And they continue to have the right to challenge us. And they continually do.
They are sovereign and have the legal obligation to.
-
As I'm not an American, I've kept out of this discussion. Until now. This is more than a little condescending and more than a little bigoted:
The Indian forefathers knew the greedy ways of our gov't and people...they knew people would decide to expire the treaties unless Indians made it clear in writing that the treaties were to last "as long as the sun shines, as long as the mountains stand, and as long as the rivers run".
That really didn't matter to us because racist citizens looked at that as said "stupid poetic Indians, we're taking it anyways". And we CONTINUE to do this today. And they continue to have the right to challenge us. And they continually do.
They are sovereign and have the legal obligation to.
Here's how I read this: nothing is ever the fault of the noble Indians who lived in complete harmony with each other and the universe. The government and people of the USA are all greedy racists intent on not keeping a single treaty, ever.
That about right?
I know this is a Nazi board and all, but don't you think it's time to stop with the sweeping generalisations if you want anyone to listen to whatever actual points you'd like to make? FFS, I'm offended by proxy and the closest I've come to visiting your country was a two-hour stop at JFK last year.
-
As I'm not an American, I've kept out of this discussion. Until now. This is more than a little condescending and more than a little bigoted:
The Indian forefathers knew the greedy ways of our gov't and people...they knew people would decide to expire the treaties unless Indians made it clear in writing that the treaties were to last "as long as the sun shines, as long as the mountains stand, and as long as the rivers run".
That really didn't matter to us because racist citizens looked at that as said "stupid poetic Indians, we're taking it anyways". And we CONTINUE to do this today. And they continue to have the right to challenge us. And they continually do.
They are sovereign and have the legal obligation to.
Here's how I read this: nothing is ever the fault of the noble Indians who lived in complete harmony with each other and the universe. The government and people of the USA are all greedy racists intent on not keeping a single treaty, ever.
Well, you heard wrong because that's not what I said.
But, yes our gov't is greedy, and yes citizens voted them in.
Also, I've been referring to the nation to nation relationships between USA and indigenous nations. In that relationship, it's pretty clear who in consistently in the wrong. Here's a nice source of all the legal documents we do not honor, for one reason: they're Indian.
source: http://www.honorthetreaties.org/educate/ (http://www.honorthetreaties.org/educate/)
That is systematic racism, and it prevails today! Imagine, today in the 21st century USA...it baffles me. But what frustrates me is that after explaining that, after calling that out, I am getting accused of bigotry and whatnot. And I never called this a nazi thread geez, it was a question. And I already explained, my anger could have been better handled and that I don't think of y'all as nazis.
-
It's how I read it. It's all about perception. And you pretty much confirmed it after the initial denial because you repeated the same mistake.
If you want to argue effectively, learn to respect your opposition. Don't assume that they are racist, bigoted or ignorant just because they don't agree with you. At least, don't let it show. They might well be all that and worse, but if that is the case, your (successful) argumentation will make it obvious without you having to resort to generalisations.
As things stand, you are hurting your case worse than your opposition ever could.
-
It's how I read it. It's all about perception. And you pretty much confirmed it after the initial denial because you repeated the same mistake.
If you want to argue effectively, learn to respect your opposition. Don't assume that they are racist, bigoted or ignorant just because they don't agree with you. At least, don't let it show. They might well be all that and worse, but if that is the case, your (successful) argumentation will make it obvious without you having to resort to generalisations.
As things stand, you are hurting your case worse than your opposition ever could.
I give up. I don't respect statements that are lies, nor those that are racist. And I will call someone out on it. I don't care if you all have no idea how that was racist. I've tried to explain it, but you're set on believing stating "your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago" blah blah blah is #1 a valid and accurate statement with regards to the OP, and #2 in need of respect despite.
I am sorry. WHY DON'T YOU GET IT?? WHY is it a given that Indians only have legit grievances with the past and not with the present. IF THAT WAS SO, then statements such as 'your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' would be accurate and valid addition to the conversation.
-
While in the US we have treaties (which are legal documents, and some of which are upheld, and some are not (depending on our whims))...but I don't think there were any treaties signed in Australia...maybe one or two, right?
There was one treaty signed but it pertained to a particular tribe and an individual, thus unenforceable. But a treaty has been sought for around the last 100 years. Government Herr sometimes pretend to consider it.
Will be back from work soon and dedicate some time to this
Treaty is still wanted by various Aboriginal people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7cbkxn4G8U#ws)
-
I am sorry. WHY DON'T YOU GET IT?? WHY is it a given that Indians only have legit grievances with the past and not with the present. IF THAT WAS SO, then statements such as 'your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' would be accurate and valid addition to the conversation.
They say it for themselves on their own website. The fact of the matter is, this particular suit is exactly a matter of your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago.
How did New York State and others come to possess Onondaga lands if they were not acquired legally?
Between 1790 and 1822, the State of New York signed five so-called "treaties" with individual members of the Onondaga Nation, supposedly acquiring all of the Nation's lands except for the 7,300-acre territory where the Nation resides today. The State later sold most of the land to others. None of these "treaties" was ever ratified or approved by the Onondaga Nation itself, by the Haudenosaunee, or by the United States government.
http://www.onondaganation.org/land/faq.html (http://www.onondaganation.org/land/faq.html)
-
Odeon is right here.
But, yes our gov't is greedy, and yes citizens voted them in.
Native Americans are not citizens?
They are different. A different class? Not suffering from greed and not citizens themselves. Bearing no responsibility for voting in government. Sounding a bit....what is the word?
Bear with me here. When was the treaty first broken?
No, "it is still broken" or how legally enforceable it is, but WHEN was it first broken and by which specific people?
Now there are your culprits and there are the people that did wrong and need to fix the problem that they have caused every Native American with claim on the land and every non-Native American with claim on the land.
You are making it sound like a series of treaty breaks...but it simply is not. There was a break and a non-recommencement. Not a breaking of the treaty in each successive government or by every person who elected the government.
If this is your argument then it is not a worthy argument at all and it not just a simplistic argument but wrong and basing any assumptions off this wrong.
Of course for the courts and government, it is embarrassing and uncomfortable. It shows non-Native American people, possibly even related to them or their forefathers, who have quite obviously lied and deceived and stolen from Native Americans and the Native Americans are saying that they want the treaty honoured.
Obviously the land in question has not been in the Native Americans possession for a while and non-Americans have been using it. Again to say "just give it back" is said so easily.
It is simplistic and idealistic. Let's say...just out of argument that they did and said OK, NY state is your's. Go and collect. What happens there? At the very least I imagine that there would non-Native Americans would have their land rights reduced and seek compensation. From who? Not the Native Americans, but the Government. What if they could not afford the value of the claims. What if there was jurisdictional problems with maintaining order in NY State due to the fact that the land could now be considered a sovereignty? What effect on the State's economy in general? What if there was confusion or differences in opinion as to the rights assumed by the Native Americans? Was if there was a legislative follow on yet unconsidered?
You may say "Doesn't matter" I say that this would be overly simplistic an answer.
Now Parts may say "'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old."
This too, I find simplistic BUT it does get old. Why? Because it is the same thing occurring again and again. Who would be the judge ruling on this case? Non-Native Americans, stole, cheated and lied and it is clear they did. It is equally clear that the agreement is a contract.
Now who lied to who? Who stole off who? Those people who originally broke the agreements are long dead as are the people that they broke it with. Now they are asked to reactivate and make good the treaty again. They also have all the unknowns listed above.
Now what stops them or the government okaying this? (I will give you hint, I don't think it is greed or that greed plays a big part). They are shitting themselves as to what such a nod will do?
So they do nothing. Then it hangs in the air and is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about and everyone wants to ignore. It is old and unresolved.
Parts would possibly say "Fuck that. Why should some Non-Native American have their rights extinguished or reduced on the basis of what some dickheads did 200 years ago?"
It would be a great point. They shouldn't.
Parts may say, "Look past is past and what someone did to someone 200 years ago ought not impact on people now. Every race, creed or nation has screwed over or been screwed over by someone at some point and it is not fair but it is. We make the best of it. I will not take up arms against the English for the way they treated my Irish forefathers years ago. I am over it We get on with things. You can only really take issue with the here and now"
It is simplistic but a fair call.
Now my view:
The treaty is broken. The people have been wronged. It WAS wrong. No one needs to say they are personally responsible or accountable. They need to say "Yup you guys were screwed over". Now as benevolent society will help the handicapped, the sick, the injured and the aged, and for no financial windfall or agenda, society should acknowledge "something" needs to be done for the people that were screwed over and had their land stolen.
That is the starting point. The next part ought to involve ALL stakeholders and accept relevant concerns and treat everyone in good faith. It ought to be a situation where whilst acknowledging every concession will be a diminishing of rights to at least someone, to work on this. Slowly work to what is a compromise. This compromise to allow all parties the best result.
But hey, that is me.
Not only indigenous people can have the "Give it back" answer to land rights. It is not that easy. Never is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E#ws)
-
It's how I read it. It's all about perception. And you pretty much confirmed it after the initial denial because you repeated the same mistake.
If you want to argue effectively, learn to respect your opposition. Don't assume that they are racist, bigoted or ignorant just because they don't agree with you. At least, don't let it show. They might well be all that and worse, but if that is the case, your (successful) argumentation will make it obvious without you having to resort to generalisations.
As things stand, you are hurting your case worse than your opposition ever could.
I give up. I don't respect statements that are lies, nor those that are racist. And I will call someone out on it. I don't care if you all have no idea how that was racist. I've tried to explain it, but you're set on believing stating "your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago" blah blah blah is #1 a valid and accurate statement with regards to the OP, and #2 in need of respect despite.
I am sorry. WHY DON'T YOU GET IT?? WHY is it a given that Indians only have legit grievances with the past and not with the present. IF THAT WAS SO, then statements such as 'your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' would be accurate and valid addition to the conversation.
Feel free to call people on being wrong, ill-informed, bigoted, or racist.
IF you get it wrong, then be prepared for anyone who thinks you are wrong to let you know about it. It is I2. Be prepared to back your claims.
You do not need to agree with every position. You do not have to understand every position BUT if you stupidly, irrationally, illogically, unreasonable and intolerantly pursue your own viewpoint at the exclusion of others then you are zealous, bigoted and stymie communication. I know you wanted one point of view, and one way of communicating ideas, and one framework with which to work. You wanted your presuppositions about who people were, to be true. You did not want to be questioned. If you were questioned you wanted everyone to agree with your intellect and morality once explained.
It did not happen. That in itself is not such a problem.
The bigger problem is that the efforts that you went to to denounce bigotry, racism, ignorance, lies, and the like, backfired rather badly. It made YOU look like the one with all of these issues. as seen in the long arsed above post, I presented my view whilst contesting two opposing viewpoints that I understand (I may be wrong and fine with having you or Parts contest them.....) and not disrespecting either position that is different from my own.
Compare that to your position against differing opinions.
Oh well...I did tell you to cut the shit out more than once, (and because I DO like you. I think you are a good bloke), nope you were too invested in your bullshit and judgmental and ignorant bigotry - why was it that valuable to you? You made no end point ultimately. You did not raise the bar in what I think is an interesting subject. You did nothing to show intellect or intellectual honesty. Nothing learned, nothing but a rather poor display of debate.
I think you are better than this. Hoped for more
-
It may have been lost in the shuffle, Sir, but this was a legitimate interest. Didn't know Australia has a national ancestral guilt day.
In Australia there is a National Sorry Day that white Australians are supposed to endorse and seek to placate and reconcile with Aborigines.
Interesting. What's the name of this day? How is it celebrated? Here we have thanksgiving, gather the family, eat like pigs, and watch the parade.
-
It may have been lost in the shuffle, Sir, but this was a legitimate interest. Didn't know Australia has a national ancestral guilt day.
In Australia there is a National Sorry Day that white Australians are supposed to endorse and seek to placate and reconcile with Aborigines.
Interesting. What's the name of this day? How is it celebrated? Here we have thanksgiving, gather the family, eat like pigs, and watch the parade.
Ah sorry mate.Yes, it is still publicised. It is not done in an official capacity. It is not recognised by most people.
It is literally "National Sorry Day". It will never really grow legs. It is an opportunity for those White Australian with "White guilt" to celebrate or mourn or whatever they do and for some Aboriginals to feel placated.
-
I've been busy with work and am surprised it's still going so strongly. Thanks Sir les your thoughts on what I would say were about right.
-
It may have been lost in the shuffle, Sir, but this was a legitimate interest. Didn't know Australia has a national ancestral guilt day.
In Australia there is a National Sorry Day that white Australians are supposed to endorse and seek to placate and reconcile with Aborigines.
Interesting. What's the name of this day? How is it celebrated? Here we have thanksgiving, gather the family, eat like pigs, and watch the parade.
Ah sorry mate.Yes, it is still publicised. It is not done in an official capacity. It is not recognised by most people.
It is literally "National Sorry Day". It will never really grow legs. It is an opportunity for those White Australian with "White guilt" to celebrate or mourn or whatever they do and for some Aboriginals to feel placated.
National guilt day, more like. I'd be offended by that sort of thing if I lived there, and even more so if I was an Aboriginal.
Why does the recognition of a wronged party always seem to entail invoking a collective guilt trip?
-
I give up. I don't respect statements that are lies, nor those that are racist. And I will call someone out on it. I don't care if you all have no idea how that was racist. I've tried to explain it, but you're set on believing stating "your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago" blah blah blah is #1 a valid and accurate statement with regards to the OP, and #2 in need of respect despite.
Basically, then, you are not really interested in other people's POVs unless you get to define their intent.
-
It may have been lost in the shuffle, Sir, but this was a legitimate interest. Didn't know Australia has a national ancestral guilt day.
In Australia there is a National Sorry Day that white Australians are supposed to endorse and seek to placate and reconcile with Aborigines.
Interesting. What's the name of this day? How is it celebrated? Here we have thanksgiving, gather the family, eat like pigs, and watch the parade.
Ah sorry mate.Yes, it is still publicised. It is not done in an official capacity. It is not recognised by most people.
It is literally "National Sorry Day". It will never really grow legs. It is an opportunity for those White Australian with "White guilt" to celebrate or mourn or whatever they do and for some Aboriginals to feel placated.
National guilt day, more like. I'd be offended by that sort of thing if I lived there, and even more so if I was an Aboriginal.
Why does the recognition of a wronged party always seem to entail invoking a collective guilt trip?
I guess it doesn't really bother me. I view it like I do Lent. I don't really have an idea of exactly when it occurs in the year, or anyone who actually attends, or what they actually do there, or what they get out of it and I do not pretend to understand the appeal.
That said so long as whoever attends IS getting something out of it, I have no real issue
-
Hell yeah, if they get something out of it and nobody else gets hurt, I'm all for it. What I don't like are the guilt trips imposed on third parties.
-
Hell yeah, if they get something out of it and nobody else gets hurt, I'm all for it. What I don't like are the guilt trips imposed on third parties.
Pretty much right there.
As mentioned before, there are some really good activists and Aboriginal leaders who do not get distracted into these things in a big way. There is a big push from some Aboriginal activists for "Reconciliation" but no real definition of what this mean from who and to whom. I do not support this airy fairy kind of thing.
The Aboriginal Leaders that instead get into their community, open up the community to expose and get help for their people and problems in the community and seek to give structured outcomes for the community ARE worth praise and support,
I give up. I don't respect statements that are lies, nor those that are racist. And I will call someone out on it. I don't care if you all have no idea how that was racist. I've tried to explain it, but you're set on believing stating "your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago" blah blah blah is #1 a valid and accurate statement with regards to the OP, and #2 in need of respect despite.
Basically, then, you are not really interested in other people's POVs unless you get to define their intent.
We don't respect lies either and love exposing them. Parts was not lying.
I am opposed to racism. I think it devalues any argument or opinion. Parts is not being racist.
Yes his POV and yours can be accommodated as I have shown in my long post. Respect can be given to both.
You seek to re-define his motives and intents, that is all good but it does get you looking as though you are intolerant and bigoted and not able to critically look at an argument different from your own.
I think both you and Parts are wrong. I think both of you POV are too simplistic and unworkable and unfair. I do respect your POV's though regardless.
-
'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago' Blah blah blah it gets old. Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else
Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?
There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.
Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...
Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible.
see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off. Should I expect morality from this place? Or are ethics out the window?
Is this a place for nazi's or something?
And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off. Should I expect morality from this place? Or are ethics out the window?
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/243/357/f72.jpg)
Dude cmon. This may be a relatively mature zone as compared to other places on the internet, but you must keep in mind that its THE INTERNET.
-
On the question of having guilt imposed on you for what your ancestors did.
I think it sucks, but I think it sucks more to be born into shitty conditions because of what somebody else's ancestors did.
I don't think there's any making up for what happened. Though I like the argument that's been going around recently that every time we (in the USA) complain about Mexican illegal immigrants, it's a case of what goes around comes around, and we were the illegal immigrants once.
I don't think it's necessary to have a shit ton of white guilt in order to treat people decently. Actually I think the white guilt gets in the way of matters, because it makes the subject uncomfortably charged, and creates a bad dynamic where the guilty person expects others to come along and say "it's ok, you're forgiven, I like you anyway" and that puts even more burden on the aboriginal person to take care of somebody else's needs when they probably just want to go about their lives.
-
On the question of having guilt imposed on you for what your ancestors did.
I think it sucks, but I think it sucks more to be born into shitty conditions because of what somebody else's ancestors did.
Or having guilt imposed on you because you happen to be white and so you get your share by proxy, but your family moved to the country a hundred years after the fact.
No, I don't think it's possible to make up for it either.
-
That too. :P
-
Agreed. Abunch of bad shit happened a longtime ago, and people are bitching even tough they are affected in no way whatsoever, separated from the acts by a century or more of time. They could not possibly even understand what their ancestors had to go through, so they are basically being whiny cunts.
White guilt- What a stupid thing. If these fuckers really want something to whine about, they should move to another country, maybe a third world country. Then they could discover what a hard days work or an empty belly REALLY feels like and REALLY have something to bitch about.
I personally have a very serious problem with people who stockpile wealth just for the sake of stockpiling it. Wealth could be stocks, gold, swiss bank accounts, etc. Those people seem to do this to ridiculous points just to see how grotesquely rich they can get. Okay, they are making themselves happy and being free, but their happiness is taking food and clothing from hundreds of thousands of people on a regular basis. Every time they wipe their asses with silk or brag about their damascus watch, some kid dies somewhere of starvation.
Now THAT is a fucking problem. Someone could complain about it because they are black and say that all the people who do that are white males, but what the fuck ever dude. I say they aren't. I say people of all color do this, and guess what? If you disagree with me you are a giant RACIST!
How about that feminists? How about that "oppressed" black people? How about that everyone who isn't a white male? CAN YOU DISAGREE? :zoinks:
-
The whole notion of guilt for what past generations did is disturbing to me.
-
Me too. Its jut bullying the way I see it.
-
The whole notion of guilt for what past generations did is disturbing to me.
Yes, it's weird.
-
'National Sorry Day' :laugh:
-
National "give them what they want so they'll quit their bitching already day".
-
Give them an inch and they will take a mile
-
Give them an inch and they will take a mile
Agreed. This goes for any demographic.
-
They know it wont be taken seriously; it's too late; they can't have new york. They'll likely get some settlement, but they're poor so whatever. Go indians.
-
They should just give in to "Lakotah Republic" demands.
There's no reason why native americans are inherently poor, born poor, or cannot be anything but poor or disorganized. They are people, aren't they? South Ossetia, famously declaring violent independence from Georgia had like 100 000 people at the time of war.
They just need to know what they're doing. A country don't have to be rich to be successful. Americans seem very set on their definitions of a country. It don't even need to be democratic or even benevolent. North Korea is a totally legitimate country, it's even a member of the UN.
A "Lakotah Republic" would be like an overgrown Moldova or something. A huge, poor, shithole. Export: dung, Import: corn. But it would be a legitimate and real country, and Americans could visit it for cheap shopping.
-
They know it wont be taken seriously; it's too late; they can't have new york. They'll likely get some settlement, but they're poor so whatever. Go indians.
Which is why the cynic in me thinks they are in it for the money.
-
They know it wont be taken seriously; it's too late; they can't have new york. They'll likely get some settlement, but they're poor so whatever. Go indians.
Which is why the cynic in me thinks they are in it for the money.
You know maybe, BUT, I think that people look at it the wrong way. Let's say they want land and only the land of their forefathers and only for completely altruist/spiritual/cultural reasons. If they can not get that at all for their people, what is the alternative? Some settlement? But then people accuse them of money grubbing and being in it for the cash.
I dunno?
The only way to REALLY know is to give them all the options for them to choose. Maybe they would go one way or another. Maybe land and cash best for their community, maybe cash only, maybe land only? Maybe they would ruin it all anyhow. It is all idle speculation. It is speculation because they are never be going to be given open choice and we can only see what they manage to do with what they get.
That said, I still think they ought not go fighting for this. It should be given freely and in good faith and with agreement from all stakeholders.
-
The indians don't own reservation land.
-
The indians don't own reservation land.
No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe. It was usage and right to occupy that they understood. The difference is semantics but I think that their claims do not neatly fit with non-Native American land use.
It would be easy if the claims and rights did not clash with each other. The fact is they do.
The more you give to Native Americans to more you take from non-Native Americans and the more you give to non-Native Americans the more the Native Americans miss out.
If these specific non-Native Americans stole the land then it would be easily given back and taken back off them. But that is not the case.
non-Native Americans using and in possession of the land are doing so in good faith and have clean hands. (I know SG would like to pretend this is not true).
Innocent parties = those currently with a claim (indigenous and not)
Incompetent = Government and judges in dealing with this issue
Criminal and morally bereft = The non-Native Americans who broke the treaty and stole land. (now long dead)
SG would call what I said a lie, more than likely and say it would look like this.
Innocent parties = those currently with a claim who are Native Americans
Criminal and morally bereft = The non-Native Americans who broke the treaty and stole land. (now long dead), Government and judges in dealing with this issue, Greedy citizens (because they elect in the government) ..........and perhaps Nazis.
We all have our own opinions as to where we place people but I can not help but think that the above looks to my eye, a little racist, bigoted and unreasonable. That is just me. Until he clears up this and backs what he says logically and not to reiterate bigoted claims and intolerant claims whilst arguing hypocritically against intolerance, bigotry and unreasoning, I can only imagine that this is what he thinks.
-
The indians don't own reservation land.
No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe.
Not true. Some tribes were nomadic, but the Coastal Salish people were not and they did indeed have the concept of property(including land).
-
The indians don't own reservation land.
No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe.
Not true. Some tribes were nomadic, but the Coastal Salish people were not and they did indeed have the concept of property(including land).
There were originally hundreds of tribes in the US alone so it stands to reason that they weren't all the same.
-
The indians don't own reservation land.
No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe.
Not true. Some tribes were nomadic, but the Coastal Salish people were not and they did indeed have the concept of property(including land).
There were originally hundreds of tribes in the US alone so it stands to reason that they weren't all the same.
It does not (automatically) stand to reason from that statement that there were tribes which had the concept of land ownership, though. But it happens to be correct.
-
The indians don't own reservation land.
No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe.
Not true. Some tribes were nomadic, but the Coastal Salish people were not and they did indeed have the concept of property(including land).
There were originally hundreds of tribes in the US alone so it stands to reason that they weren't all the same.
It does not (automatically) stand to reason from that statement that there were tribes which had the concept of land ownership, though. But it happens to be correct.
I believed that was true but actually added intentional "I believe" as a disclaimer to the statement to affirm that I was merely an understanding. I further went on to say that for the purposes of remedy the difference of understanding or appreciation was semantics. The Salish people were not in any way contextualised in this treaty nor its remedies, that was being discussed though, was it?
Won't hive you a hard time, my wimpy manchild friend, because you tried talking about something other than your favourite four themes.
-
Don't leave, n00b.
-
Don't leave, n00b.
I don't want Sg1008 to leave either. Seems like he has. It was Rissy all over again. Did not have to be of course. Oh well.
-
The indians don't own reservation land.
No they don't. The concept of land ownership was not really a concept they were familiar with I believe.
Not true. Some tribes were nomadic, but the Coastal Salish people were not and they did indeed have the concept of property(including land).
There were originally hundreds of tribes in the US alone so it stands to reason that they weren't all the same.
It does not (automatically) stand to reason from that statement that there were tribes which had the concept of land ownership, though. But it happens to be correct.
No, it does not, but then it's not what I wrote. I simply think that it is reasonable to assume that different tribes might have very different ideas about such things.
-
Don't leave, n00b.
I don't want Sg1008 to leave either. Seems like he has. It was Rissy all over again. Did not have to be of course. Oh well.
It's a shame. He seems like a nice enough person.
-
From what I can see, he was unable to separate fact debate from fiction debate. It seemed he was getting pissed about how morals and logic seemed to be unimportant here.
Itt: a bit sensitive. But yeah I think he's a real good dude. Hope he learns the ropes and comes back.
-
Agreed. Abunch of bad shit happened a longtime ago, and people are bitching even tough they are affected in no way whatsoever, separated from the acts by a century or more of time. They could not possibly even understand what their ancestors had to go through, so they are basically being whiny cunts.
White guilt- What a stupid thing. If these fuckers really want something to whine about, they should move to another country, maybe a third world country. Then they could discover what a hard days work or an empty belly REALLY feels like and REALLY have something to bitch about.
I personally have a very serious problem with people who stockpile wealth just for the sake of stockpiling it. Wealth could be stocks, gold, swiss bank accounts, etc. Those people seem to do this to ridiculous points just to see how grotesquely rich they can get. Okay, they are making themselves happy and being free, but their happiness is taking food and clothing from hundreds of thousands of people on a regular basis. Every time they wipe their asses with silk or brag about their damascus watch, some kid dies somewhere of starvation.
Now THAT is a fucking problem. Someone could complain about it because they are black and say that all the people who do that are white males, but what the fuck ever dude. I say they aren't. I say people of all color do this, and guess what? If you disagree with me you are a giant RACIST!
How about that feminists? How about that "oppressed" black people? How about that everyone who isn't a white male? CAN YOU DISAGREE? :zoinks:
Ah, late to the table, but I will put my two in anyway.
Actually, I do disagree to some extent.
White males on average, are able to take advantage of a system that by default gives privilege to people who are white. It is easier to accumulate wealth if your family has had it or has connections to it. If you're talking about simple hoarding, yes, everyone does it, for example, my mother, who is easily worth a couple million but lived in poverty as a child. Until she was 12, she worked in a factory to support her family after her father died. She hoards everything, including money. Is she wealthy? No. White? Only sort of - part white, part native american and about .25 african american. The important thing is that she looks black. She's run into barriers.
Bottom line is that it still is easier for white people to accumulate wealth in the united states.
HOWEVER.
Who is white these days? These days we go on appearance in the trenches, and that is meaningless. There are people who look white, who aren't, and vice versa. The white looking folks in the trenches still can take advantage of the system, but if they don't have the connections, they aren't going to get into the upper class. It's like that clique at school, remember? People bought their way in and ran away crying when they were told that after spending all that money and doing all those foolish things, that after all they weren't the right kind of person. It was never about being white. Race is a red herring to distract you from the fact that you can't get into the club unless they want you.
Rather than share the wealth with us (which would, by the way, be a violation of the rules of the game), we a pit against each other for what appears to be a diminishing pile of resources. If our caste should be so foolish as to attempt to accumulate wealth as a group, then something as simple as day trading will put the wealth back in the right hands.
There is a very good reason that our government is entertaining the requests of native americans. we suck as a country, and most of the rest of the world either hates or despises us. china owns us because of our own stupidity. we lag behind the rest of the world in technology development, intelligence and even health care - we have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world.
Is there any reason any country shouldn't come in and take us over by force, which essentially we have done all over the world, wherever we needed a military presence? We blew up innocent people in Japan, why shouldn't there be a blowing up in one or two of our major cities? If we overran the land and pushed people out, wouldn't it make sense for them to take back the land the same way?
Yeah, there is a reason. Because, you see, us nice folks in the US, we're really peaceful and sorry for what we did in the past. And just to show you how sorry we are, we will entertain any request from the people we conquered by deceit, trickery and outright massacre. Not only that, we will benevolently manage the land for those people who are unable to do it themselves (because savages are obviously of low intelligence even today). See? We're trying to make it better. We'll listen to them and then decide on a response - in a few decades or so.
Thus 9/11 becomes a horrible tragedy that befell a peaceful nation rather than a simple act of war. Any time someone gets to us we can appeal to the rest of the world on the basis of our being so peaceful and law abiding.
I'm sure that it will fool some of the people all of the time, but the rest of the world, I think, is not so foolish. For what it's worth, I think they should get some land or some compensation. Then at least our claims of benevolence could have a tiny bit of support.
-
Skimmed. I can tell you've made good points. I'll comeback later and give it a careful read to see if I have anything to counter or add. :thumbup:
Good stuff man.
-
Don't leave, n00b.
I don't want Sg1008 to leave either. Seems like he has. It was Rissy all over again. Did not have to be of course. Oh well.
What happened to sg Al? I liked him.
-
Hopefully he'll be back when he realises that we aren't Nazis.
-
That was a great post, wolfish.
-
He does take breaks every now and then
even at AFF
-
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/35479548.jpg)
-
Don't leave, n00b.
I don't want Sg1008 to leave either. Seems like he has. It was Rissy all over again. Did not have to be of course. Oh well.
What happened to sg Al? I liked him.
I blame you. You ran him off with all your damn boobies. :M
-
I think Sg1008 has (I may be completely wrong) misjudged and made some incorrect assumptions about attitudes, beliefs and was rigidity in his "rightness" that when he was in the wrong, he was there all in...to the point of making the same mistakes as those he was accusing others of. Doesn't make him a bad bloke . People are more than one internet debate. Much more
-
It's the nature of this place. Occasional heated debate and trolling.
-
Don't leave, n00b.
I don't want Sg1008 to leave either. Seems like he has. It was Rissy all over again. Did not have to be of course. Oh well.
What happened to sg Al? I liked him.
I blame you. You ran him off with all your damn boobies. :M
I don't have any sea birds.
-
I've blocked signatures because of you. You brute. :M
-
I've blocked signatures because of you. You brute. :M
I'm sorry odeon. :'( I'll change the boobs if you like :orly:
-
I've blocked signatures because of you. You brute. :M
I'm sorry odeon. :'( I'll change the boobs if you like :orly:
:laugh:
Actually I only block them because I don't want prying eyes to see everything.
-
Your boobies warm my heart :P
I didn't leave, just needed a break. I was heading off the deep end. :cbc:
Sorry if I wrongly accused anyone of anything. Moving to the game threads for awhile....
-
I'm glad you're back. :)
-
I'm glad you're back. :)
Me too. :plus:
-
:)
-
Your boobies warm my heart :P
I didn't leave, just needed a break. I was heading off the deep end. :cbc:
Sorry if I wrongly accused anyone of anything. Moving to the game threads for awhile....
I'm glad you understand. ;)