posted February 03, 2007 03:02 AM         

Not all Native Americans are considered "tribes" either. Some of them are considered "Nations" due to the sheer number of them.

The history that you studied should have clued you in on how the land was stolen from the Native American people. It should have clued you in on the racist practices of Pres. Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee Trail of Tears where in the dead of winter he ordered them to be removed from their land and herded on foot from Georgia to Oklahoma territory. He hated Native Americans so much that he would not bend to the protests by others such as Davy Crockett that the Cherokees were peaceful farmers who got along with the white settlers and lived as the settlers lived. The Cherokees lived in houses, not teepees. They were farmers and they dressed in the clothes of the white settlers. They started their own schools and had their own alphabet. They were not ignorant savages. A vast number of Cherokees died on that forced move in the dead of winter. My great grandmother was a small child and one of the survivors of the Cherokee Trail of Tears.

Your history studies should have also clued you in on the genocide the government under Andrew Jackson practiced on the Native American people by giving them blankets that had been diliberately infected with small pox.

Yes, what we now call the United States of America was founded by our white colonial forefathers. But before they officially founded this country they stole the land of the Native Americans who had lived here since BC. And as they wanted to expand further and further west they stole more and more land from Native Americans.

It's not that I hold a grudge for what transpired in history. We have a great nation now and a constitution like no other other country on earth.

However, the leaders of our country are not always right and not always "nice guys" as Pres. Andrew Jackson and his treatment of the Native Americans proves to us. And those that truly do love their country and what it truly stands for, the constitution it was founded on, speak out against injustice and what they feel is not in keeping with democracy. We speak out against what we feel those we elected are doing that is not in keeping with what this country was founded and intended to be. It is done out of love for our country, not hate. It is done because we want to keep our democracy intact and the consititution gives the people the authority to do so as this is a nation, "of the people, by the people and for the people." If our forefathers hadn't descented we would still be under British rule.

Born Under Discouri, while you may consider yourself one of the "intelligent elite" from things I have read that you have said to DayDreamer and SG and what you stated here regarding the Native American peoples, to me you are just another run of the mill racist who thinks (or wants others to think) she knows more than she actually does.

Now go do what you do best BUD, and stick up another picture of yourself in a few hundred more threads at LL. See if you can impress that way because your knowledge of Native American history is just not cutting it.

quote:

---

And by you people do you mean...the intelligent elite or was that a silly attempt at a racial/religious/ethnic shot?

---

posted February 03, 2007 09:12 AM         

quote:

---

You insinuated that this land belonged to no one until the white man discovered it and claimed it for himself.

---

posted February 03, 2007 11:25 AM         

quote:

---

Especially since you can't even distinguish Eric the Red from Leif Erikson.

---

LOL funny. The other day in GU she said she had the right to say she is of PURE American blood because the vikings were here first from Scandinavia and that the Scandinavians are related to Ukranians like she is.

Yet she couldn't even name Leif Erikson.

Th Native Americans were here first...........period. You cannot claim to be someone who discovered land when other people were here first.

They not ask you to come and take over their land so you might want to quit with the settle and colonized crap.

I find it funny when a minority puts down another minority.

posted February 03, 2007 01:26 PM         

First, while some tribes referred to themselves as a "Nation", others did not. Neither did those who did, include the other tribes in that designation or include them under any heading which could be interpreted as "Our Nation". While there may have been a loose confederation, even cooperation at times between "some" tribes against common enemies, other tribes, they also made war on each other at times. Pid would be one whose judgment on this I would trust.

But this brings up a larger question. The question of ownership by prior occupation of a land. So, how far back would you like to go into the historical record of what is now the United States?

Who was on this land before the Native American tribes showed up...and perhaps drove them off, killed them or absorbed them?

A few years ago, a 9,000 year old skeleton of a Caucasian...some would say Caucasoid...was discovered in the Pacific Northwest. Anthropologists named him Kennewick Man. These ancient remains do NOT match the profiles of Native American tribes.

So, how far back do you want to go to establish ownership of a land or territory?

Another reference has come up to Palestinians ....in an attempt to suggest those now on the West Bank, Gaza, etc., are descendants of a people who lived in what was known as Palestine. But only a few are. Most are Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians et al.

So, how far back do you want to go in this instance? If you go back far enough, you'll find the ancient Nation of Israel on the land which was much larger then than the current State of Israel is today.

But, you could go back even further and you'd find the Philistines. Would you be in favor of turning the area formerly known as Palestine over to the descendants of the Philistines?

Alas, the Philistines disappeared into the fog of time as a separate people.

Of course, that doesn't mean those descendants are unrecognizable today. They are characterized as smug, ignorant, indifferent and/or antagonistic to society's cultural values.

Somewhere along the line, they must have intermixed with the Cretins who have been characterized as a stupid, obtuse and mentally defective people.

Those descendants are easily recognizable today as the far left lunatic fringe.

posted February 03, 2007 01:51 PM         

quote:

---

But, you could go back even further and you'd find the Philistines. Would you be in favor of turning the area formerly known as Palestine over to the descendants of the Philistines?

---

posted February 03, 2007 09:24 PM         

Correction I stated that the tribes believed that the land does not belong to any one person and its impossible to OWN the land because they considered it a living entity. It was a being which you cannot own, you can co-exist with it and use its gifts but you cannot OWN it. And lets not go around saying white man not white man. Say it as it is British...so yes the British settlers were able to buy the land so cheaply (and the Dutch settlers in case of Manhattan) because the native Americans THOUGH they were selling the rights to use it, rather than OWN it.

quote:

---

Some of them are considered "Nations" due to the sheer number of them.

---

It doesnt matter what they are considered...what matters is what they consider THEMSELVES. Nation means STATE and very few tribes considered themselves as such. Which is what I said before.

quote:

---

The history that you studied should have clued you in on how the land was stolen from the Native American people. It should have clued you in on the racist practices of Pres. Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee Trail of Tears where in the dead of winter he ordered them to be removed from their land and herded on foot from Georgia to Oklahoma territory

---

I didnt deny any of that, and none of that has ANYTHING to do with what I said. I was correcting Sweet Stars in her terminology when she said that the founding fathers werent the first to start a NATION. They actually were. They sure werent the first to be on this land, or claim as theirs but they were the first to have a nation with a government structure, official language, defined borders and all these other things that make up a NATION STATE.

quote:

---

Your history studies should have also clued you in on the genocide the government under Andrew Jackson practiced on the Native American people by giving them blankets that had been diliberately infected with small pox.

---

I am very well aware of all the horrible things the British settlers did to the Native Americans and NO WHERE did i contradict any of it.

quote:

---

Yes, what we now call the United States of America was founded by our white colonial forefathers.

---

LMAOOOO! Thats exactly what i said...in fact that was the ONLY thing I said before you jumped up and started putting words into my mouth.

quote:

---

But before they officially founded this country they stole the land of the Native Americans who had lived here since BC.

---

10,000 years ago to be exact after the last Ice Age when they crossed the land bridge from Asia into Alaska...

quote:

---

Born Under Discouri, while you may consider yourself one of the "intelligent elite" from things I have read that you have said to DayDreamer and SG and what you stated here regarding the Native American peoples, to me you are just another run of the mill racist who thinks (or wants others to think) she knows more than she actually does.

---

ON the contrary the amount of times that you yourself stated here "white man" is more of a proof what a racist you are than anything else. SGA is someone I consider a friend and a worthy adversary and she and I have wonderful discussions. As for you being a racist, well the Germans are white but they werent big on kicking the Native Americans out, the Eastern Europeans are white but they had nothing to do with the New World colonization, so your gross overgeneralization clues us into your own biases and reveals you to be the racist you accuse others of being. Get over yourself.

quote:

---

I meant the conservative Republican right.

---

Further proof your a racist because im the Democrat middle...but okay that doesnt matter to you.

quote:

---

I did disagree with what she said, but I have to say that that was (and probably still is) the European mentality unfortunately.

---

Dulce, I really like you as a person but that was a horrible thing to say. First of all "European mentality" is a quite racist thing to say...second of all I fail to see how you can agree with what Mirandee said and disagree with what I said when it was quite the same thing. I would also like to see EXACTLY what you disagree with...people seem to have a habbit of putting words into other people's mouth. If you dont get something ASK.

quote:

---

Yet she couldn't even name Leif Erikson.

---

quote:

---

The other day in GU she said she had the right to say she is of PURE American blood because the vikings were here first from Scandinavia and that the Scandinavians are related to Ukranians like she is.

---

LMAOOOO further proof this chick is a complete ignorant fool. Please quote where I said that im PURE American blood? I said I am an American citizen never claimed to be pure American blood. LOL

quote:

---

First, while some tribes referred to themselves as a "Nation", others did not

---

DEAR JWHOP!!! THANK YOU! THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE ABILITY TO READ AND COMPREHEND SIMPLE ENGLISH which so many seem to not be able to do.

posted February 03, 2007 09:28 PM         

quote:

---

So, how far back would you like to go into the historical record of what is now the United States?

---

I would say starting the signing of Declaration of Independance, despite the Civil War. Once the other nations start to see it as a country that is when it is one. You cannot exist in a vacum and need recognition of at least another nation to be considered a nation yourself. Or have the weapons to enforce recognition.

quote:

---

was discovered in the Pacific Northwest. Anthropologists named him Kennewick Man.

---

Interesting, thanks for the info.

posted February 04, 2007 09:21 AM         

quote:

---

Dulce, I really like you as a person but that was a horrible thing to say. First of all "European mentality" is a quite racist thing to say...second of all I fail to see how you can agree with what Mirandee said and disagree with what I said when it was quite the same thing. I would also like to see EXACTLY what you disagree with...people seem to have a habbit of putting words into other people's mouth. If you dont get something ASK.

---

Alright, alright, alright....my bad. I figured you trying to look at it objectively (and not being racist at all, I'm a 7th house sun, I do the same things sometimes). My way of seeing it was that you said the first to discover the land were Europeans (or the Vikings). (Am I correct?) That is what I disagree with.

posted February 04, 2007 11:03 AM         

I don't believe you do this with any malicious intent but it is clearly there and such a sweeping generalisation that it is tantamount to what you are so keen to label others...racist.

You lablled me once and refused to discuss this reasonably and I feel it is balance that is bringing others to question whether you yourself are in a way projecting this kind of narrow-minded point of view.

I never received an apology for that even though revealing my true ancestry has somewhat shaken your assertion that I must have white supremacist views lol

It would be nice if we could resolve this amicably but I just don't see a real effort to understand viewpoints other than your own.

I have read what others have written here, including yourself, and respected it enough to listen and consider. I'm sure much of what you say has truth in it.

But so does what others have to say.

posted February 04, 2007 11:35 AM         

I never called you a racist, I said your statements sounded so....I was wishing you would take them back. And yes, I apologize for saying that too...sorry.

And as for having a grudge against whites...that is absurd. I have grandparents on both my maternal and paternal side who happen to be mixed with Portuguese blood....do I hate them? Hell, it would be like hating myself.

posted February 04, 2007 11:40 AM         

My choice of words in that thread was particularly bad, though my intent was the opposite. I'll apologise again for that.

I DO understand some of your greivances and opinions as well.

Believe me we in Britain are actually quite embarrased about what we have done before on so many occasions. Abuse of power on the grandest scale.

In fact, Britain is quite divided at the moment internally and from this confusion has come much social unrest and a lack of clear identity for many.

This is quite dangerous, like a speeding up process of the melting pot theory.

Probably karma on a national scale really.

posted February 04, 2007 01:26 PM         

I think it still is some people's perception but not by a mile everyones. Im Ukranian and Ukraine never really colonized anything and was pretty much a colony of Russia in a way, though some dont feel that way. The resentment is key to last year's small revolution. It was a peaceful revolution but one nevertheless.

I know what you mean, my friend is half Indian half Portuguese and we have these discussions quite often.

posted February 04, 2007 02:08 PM         

About the empires...yes I believe the Romans and the Ottomans were probably the most advanced. The Romans gave their citizens running water and yes, they built the roads. The Ottomans I believe so also, and this was because the Muslim World at the time, with help from the Jews, was soooo much more advanced than the rest of Europe (mostly because these religions actually encouraged the study of science, where as you had the Catholic church and the Pope who forbade those type of things).

The others...hmmm. I know the British didn't give any natives citizenship, but many of their missionaries actually cared enough to give the natives education and that's why I don't hold any hard feelings for the missionaries. Same thing with the Portuguese missionaries...along with the French Canadians and Irish ones too.

Now, the Portuguese actually gave EVERYONE in their colonies citizenship (that includes Angola, Sao Tome, and Cape Verde too). So Those in my country born before '78 have dual citizenship...that includes my mother, her siblings, and father and his siblings, my grandparents, etc. Actually, you'll notice that you only find mestico (mixed) populations in the former Portuguese and French colonies...because they were smart enough to know that they needed their population to grow and they permitted the men to take African wives in the beginning. The British weren't really into mixing with the natives...it was more of a distant relationship (Master-child type thing. Although was that way for all the colonials...its more distant with the British).

(And this goes to Swerve too)

Now, the thing I never liked about the European colonialism was the infrastructure....the Natives were at the bottom of it. We seriously benefited much more from the Middle East and most of Asia before them (We've always had a great commercial relationship). Again tooting the Missionaries, the infrastructure was a little bit better. Its complicated for me to explain how it worked, but in nutshell it payed for the books and education of the Natives.(It involved the people growing food for the Mission and what have you)

posted February 04, 2007 02:18 PM         

Swerve,I'm glad we cleared things up!

quote:

---

In fact, Britain is quite divided at the moment internally and from this confusion has come much social unrest and a lack of clear identity for many

---

Are they too divided over the war in Iraq? I know you guys haven't pulled out.

posted February 04, 2007 04:10 PM         

Yea the Portuguese did have some control in India. I shall ask my friend.

posted February 05, 2007 02:15 PM         

Blair has been labelled "Bush's poodle" and the name has stuck. He is currently under pressure to step down, but I'm realy not sure about Gordon Brown as PM at all. He seems to be too keen to be seen as "good cop" to Blair's "bad cop".

The point I was making was more to do with the culture clashes and confusion here as many older colonies have taken advantage of our gates being open.

How can we refuse when we subjugated so many for so long? This is one reason extremism is so rife here underneath the social veil.

British culture from the old days, to the 60's and what not is fading away under the pressure of it all and being watered down.

Nothing new is replacing it, so many are confused about where they are coming from of all colours and creeds.

Will be a problem for us I'm sure as a people have to be united to function properly in dangerous times such as these.

I wouldn't call it a crisis yet but I think things will get worse before they get better.

posted February 05, 2007 04:35 PM         

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QvNuJYniFU

posted February 05, 2007 06:22 PM         

Yes, I was always aware the Britain is another melting pot (I know people from Zambia who used to live there...they loved it).

The one thing that I do applaud Britain for (along with Portugal) is its tolerance for other races comming in (And this is compared to say Spain, Italy, or Germany). That's why I'm surpised that you say its divided. I guess both countries having the colonies in the first place has had a factor in it.

posted February 06, 2007 03:12 AM         

In fact, many coming here are Europeans who WEREN'T part of the colonies either.

The division comes from so many from so many cultures trying to assimilate at the same time.

Black, Asian (Indian, Pakistani, etc) and others who are now as British as anyone else have the same problem, so it isn't a clash of colours that's for sure.

But a clear culture that binds everyone is hard to see. It will settle down in time I'm sure. I'm also proud of the tolerance but that word doesn't sum it up for me, because surely all people SHOULD be naturally tolerated right?

I think we have learned to appreciate other cultures because of our past.

Of course there is a growing ignorance amongst the younger generation as was displayed so obvioussy with the Big Brother thing, where an Indian actress spoke better English, carried herself with more dignity and was amazed at what British youth has become.