For The Indigenous, Separate But Equal Schools A Better Alternative

1. 70

   wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

   
   Last Monday in Seminole Texas , a Navajo Kindergartener was told to cut his hair, and sent home on his first day of school. This is only one example of how racist Americans continue in their quest to destroy the cultural identity of the  Indigenous people. For the Indigenous, assimilation into the American mainstream is no different than assisted suicide, except  it is magnified. To willingly embrace American culture is self inflicted genocide.
   
   It should be clear to all by now that Indigenous children in the integrated public school system, just as African children, will forever be taught from a Euro-centric perspective. For decades we have heard America referred to as a great "melting pot", but here in America, we are only allowed to melt in one direction. Here in America, the "white direction"  is considered to be the only "right direction". For example, in a true multi-cultural society, Indigenous children would not be expected to learn History  from the viewpoint of their oppressors, nor would they be expected to dress, and act like Europeans.
   
   Some have said that the Indigenous population is growing  in America, especially when we understand that many who are referred to as Hispanic, or Latino, are actually people of Indigenous heritage whose ancestors were raped by Spaniards, instead of  the French or the English. But the numbers will mean nothing if their cultural identities have been erased, and replaced with the image of a second class European.
   
   We often hear of groups and organizations that are trying to save endangered species, but the Indigenous are also an endangered species; a breed of human that will soon become extinct. Because just like sex, cultural identity has more to do with ones mental state than the physical. If integration was administered properly, from a multi-cultural perspective, it could be a good thing. But it is not, never has been, and never will be. Ironically, the bigoted segregationist's of the 50's and 60's had it right all along, albeit  for all the wrong reasons. Integration, and assimilation, are the final stage of a program of genocide that began in 1492, and the public school system is an insidious part of that program.
   
   Indigenous people need to get their head out of the sand and look around. For hundreds of years the Irish fought for their Independence from the tyranny of the crown, but although some Irish Americans supported their brethren across the water, a great majority of Irish Americans looked the other way, and distanced themselves from the injustice. If they would turn their back on their own brothers, what does the Indigenous man or woman think that the Irish Americans are going to do for them?  And are the Irish any different  than any other European American? The fact is, there  is  no one coming on a white horse to save us. We must give honor to our ancestors, and save ourselves. And we must never forget that they did not fight and die, so that we might become "Native Americans".

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      what do you think of the word,
      nativism:
      1 the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants:
      2 a return to or emphasis on traditional or local customs, in opposition to outside influences.
      
      That is a beautiful portrait /photo by the way. Sioux?

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      wrenchbiscuit, I think that assimilation within the broader American society was the goal and for the African-American half a century ago that was the case  The Court once ruled correctly that "separate was inherently unequal'. Society that took the trouble to make the distinction certainly did not intend equality of both groups. Of course, if assimilation is not the goal, then the concept is less than desirable. For Indigenous people, the situation may well be quite different.
      
      The bigoted segregationist of the last century never had it right. Your exclusion insured your perpetual poverty, no voice in the society in which you had to live and physical attack. We are under no illusion, we have to work, pay taxes, etc to survive, to acquire the resources to do that means that a certain amount of assimilation is necessary. It can be done  without your succumbing to denying yourself and your heritage. In America we do not have the resources to create our empire and I don't see any annexation of land to our group coming anytime soon.   As a black man, that is my point of view, having to deal with reality on the ground. As always
      
      Thanks for a most interested topic

      replyreport
   3. 95

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Wait.  You want "separate but equal" schools that have different requirements, teach different subjects and different "truth" in the same subject?  Sounds VERY unequal to me, and a great way to leave some students in the cold.  Sounds very much like an illegal method as well, giving rise to instant racism and condemning one race to eternal ignorance while others advance.
      
      Can't say I would agree with your concept, although requiring someone to cut their hair, unless it presents a physical danger somehow (I can't imagine how) is out of line.  Acceptable clothing, however, has long been a reasonable rule at every school up to and including required uniforms.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         wilderrness,
         
         LoL! Hear ye! Hear Ye! Since children aren't being taught the truth about American History in public schools, and since they aren't being schooled in Native culture, I can only assume that your statement, " ... condemning one race to eternal ignorance while others advance," is referring to the Indigenous children.
         
         This is an amazing statement that you have just delivered. In other words, Indigenous children will suffer as a result of learning the truth, instead of a lie. In other words, the European is superior, and the teaching of Native customs, culture, and beliefs can only stunt the intellectual growth of Indigenous children. I don't recall implying that mathematics, science, social studies etc., should not be taught in a separate but equal  Indigenous school system. What did you suppose the phrase "separate but equal" meant? Contrary to what many racists believe, the European did not invent science, or mathematics, nor do they hold a monopoly on the best way to teach children. Furthermore, there are many qualified teachers who can teach native studies, as well as conventional programs. Are you also suggesting that Indigenous children learn better around white children?
         
         As far as the "truth" is concerned, there is only one. The history that has primarily been taught in the public school system over the last 100 years is essentially a lie through ommission. The attack on MAS by the bigots of Arizona clearly illustrates the revisionist nature of the status quo, as it exists throughout the United States. And who is being "left out in the cold" if the Indigenous turn their back on a public school system that has rendered them invisible and obsolete?
         
         But the good news is, you do not have to agree. Just like the Jews have said, "We will never forget". To many, I am just a singer, and a writer of songs, but most importantly, I am the unsightly, and obtrusive  weed that has grown up in an English Garden. My roots are deep within this land. I am the one who came uninvited to the party; the one who will never leave. Osiyo!

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Still sounds like a bad case of racism to me - I never indicated which one might be superior and which might fall behind.  You are the one making the claim that only the Indian race know the truth of our history and that the white race always lies about it.
            
            But if the various Indian tribes wish to run their own schools, they are free to do so.  Of course if they want federal monies to do that they will have to conform to the study programs set up by those giving the money which will truly make a separate but equal schooling opportunity for the kids. 
            
            You don't want "equal" schooling - you want to promote your own concept of history, culture, and presumably belief systems which do not belong in schools anyway.  You want a racist country, where Indians are different than everyone else, thinking that is a superior way.  It's not, and our 200 years of history plainly show what happens when races are treated differently.  It is not something to be condoned and promoted; instead it is something to be discarded as harmful to everyone involved.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               wilderness,
               
               And so the master thief said, "Now that I've stolen everything from you, let's all be friends and play by the rules".
               
               Howard Zinn was a white man. He also knew the truth about American history. So much so, he is famous for writing books about it. Many "white" people know the truth. John Brown knew the truth and died for it. Thoreau knew the truth and wrote a famous essay, pleading for the life of John Brown. Thoreau was also a white European.I challenge anyone to re-read my posts on this thread, and show me where I said "only Indians know the truth". ‎LOL! Furthermore the word "Indian: is a racial epithet that I might use for the purpose of illustration, but never in the course of general conversation. I would never present myself in such a pedestrian fashion. It appears that you have a great talent for fiction. I look forward to reading your finished works. Please wilderness, show me where I said it.
               
               You are not the first person to accuse an anti-racist, social activist, of being racist themselves! It's a tired tact that I am surprised you pulled out of the hat. I am in the process of publishing an essay that deals with the sexual abuse of women in the United States. The fact that I am a man, doesn't blind me to the fact that rape is an ugly, and vicious crime. Your logic suggests that anyone who disagrees with evil is either a racist himself, or a man-hater. I assure you, being a man myself, I do not hate myself. I did not hate my father,and there are many men whom I admire. The difference is ,the men I admire are not rapists, my father was not a rapist, and neither am I. There are many white Euro-Americans who agree with my assertions, and they are well aware of the evil legacy of America.
               
               My natural mother was Dutch.But I am not offended when someone speaks of the evil of apartheid in South Africa, or how the Dutch participated in the West African slave trade. Why should the truth offend me? I didn't do it, and Vincent Van Gogh didn't do it either. Intelligent people spend their days creating works of art to glorify God. An act of artistic creation is a form of flattery, because it is man's feeble attempt to emulate the Creator. We do not spend our days figuring out ways to subjugate others, and bend them to our will. Such putrid desires only arise in the minds of simians posing as intellectuals.
               
               Usually,If someone gets defensive, it's because they are self-conscious, and feel that you are talking about them; that you have forced them to look at themselves, and they don't like what you have made them see. My concept of history is a history that has been agreed upon by scholars on both sides of the fence. For instance,read the image I uploaded with this reply. These are the words of Christopher Columbus from his own journal. I have no need to create a fiction when the facts alone are enough to support my argument.
               
               Many people who celebrate Columbus Day are not aware that he uttered such evil words, nor are they aware of the many atrocities, and the genocide he committed against the Taino people. That is because these are the things that are purposely left out. Sure, an individual can look up the information themselves. But the man behind the curtain knows that most people will turn to American Idol, or America's Funniest Videos instead.Teaching the truth in the classroom legitimizes historical information in the minds of young children. When things are purposely left out, a child who naturally accepts his, or her teachers, and consequently the system, as authority figures,assumes that whatever was left out is not important.
               
               Once again, as to be expected, you have attempted to refute my argument through character assassination. Those of like mind will applaud your effort. Anyone else will clearly understand that winning this war may not be so difficult after all.
               

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry if you are offended by the term "Indian".  It was not intended as a slur of any kind, which I'm sure you are aware, and in my experience such innocent terms only bring out the wrath in those overly concerned with race.  I fear I'm not very PC when it comes to the constantly changing demands of people demanding that others follow their wishes in language; I still use "black" and not "African-American".  I still use "white" (just as you do) and not "Of European descent", and I still use "Indian" to refer to the various tribes that were the then-current occupants of the Americas when the Europeans discovered the land.  It is, after all, the English term used when the first Europeans landed and thought they were in India and not a "racial epithet" to any reasonable person any more than "black" is.
                  
                  As far as the history of the Indian/European contacts and conflicts, most of us know the basic facts.  Not the made up "facts" like Columbus murdered tens of thousands of Indians.  They died as a result of Europeans living among them, yes, but very few were intentionally killed by the diseases the foreigners unwittingly brought with them (which by definition takes it out of the murder category).  Lots of misinformation and outright lies on both sides, then, and it behooves all of us to stop the insinuations, innuendos and simply present factual information.
                  
                  And yes, when one speaks constantly of the evils of the "white man" it becomes a racist rant without much worth.  The only "war" going on is to make all men (generic for human) as equal as their physical makeup will allow and THAT means that the whole idea of race goes out the window.  Red, yellow, brown, white or black - all are the same under the skin, believe it or not. 
                  
                  The evils of Columbus: sure, and G. Washington kept slaves, as did many of our founding forefathers.  They were a product of their times and great men considering the society they were raised and lived in.  Just as some of the actions of the Indians of long ago are now considered barbaric and unacceptable; society grows and matures, and what was once normal and accepted might not be now.

                  replyreport
            2. 70

               wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I have been very busy, and so I have been late in responding to some outrageous comments. Once again, you continue to spin the meaning of my words. Never have I stated that "only the Indian knows the truth of our history" Many of the atrocities committed by the European against the Indigenous have been well documented by Europeans , or Euro-Americans themselves. I have provided the following link as proof of this. In his account , Bartolome de las Casas, a 16th-century Spanish historian, social reformer and Dominican friar, chronicled the first decades of colonization of the West Indies, and focused particularly on the atrocities committed by the colonizers against the indigenous peoples. He is just one of many educated Europeans of conscience that have revealed the truth of America. But I would challenge anyone to find a 5th grader,or high school student, in any public school in the United States, who has read about this great humanitarian and historian in their revisionist history books.
               
               Bartolome de las Casas: A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (1542)
               http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperial … casas.html
               
               Then you continue in your rant , "  ... if the various Indian tribes wish to run their own schools, they are free to do so.  Of course if they want federal monies ... they will have to conform to the study programs set up by those giving the money ...
               
               The previous statement clearly reveals a lack of education, and a blind acceptance of institutionalized racism. Anyone who knows American history, understands that anything that is "given" to the Indigenous is simply a portion of the wealth and resources that were stolen in the first place. Please don't try to pretend that you would be grateful, or beholding  to the "benevolent" son of a thief who might show you a kindness, or provide you with a subsidy from the treasure chest of riches that his ancestors stole from your own, and in many cases murdered in order to get it.
               
               Finally, it is funny that you say I want a "racist country". If my desire to prevent the genocide of an entire race of people is racist, then I am guilty as accused. But any reasonable  person knows the difference between someone who is seeking to preserve a culture, and someone else who seeks to destroy it. Apparently you have attempted to blur the distinction; to no avail. It is a popular racist tact to accuse anyone speaking against racism as being racist themselves. Imagine accusing a eunuch who speaks out against the sexual abuse of women as being a rapist himself!
               
               My concept of history is what I have learned from the European, as well as the Indigenous. My concept is also what I understand through my genetic code. Concerning the fact that you do not have the ability to access the latter, it is never surprising that a man will deny what he is incapable of understanding.
               
               Furthermore, the historical record, as well as the current state of affairs in the U.S., confirm that I am already living in a racist country. Consequently, there is not much to "want". America is a racist's dream. What I want is to preserve a race of human beings. This cannot be achieved through a public school system that is designed to promote European culture  while consigning the rich traditions, history, and culture of the Indigenous to a mere footnote. My suggestion of "separate but equal" is simply reactionary, based on the fact that for over 100 years, the public school system has failed the Indigenous, as well as the African. The alternative that I have suggested is based on the choices we have been given by the status quo. The Indigenous can either fall on a sword of white supremacy, and die as a race of people, or we can attempt to leap across this great chasm of  ignorance and denial.

               replyreport
         2. 72

            Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Good evening ,WrenchBiscuit.
            
            Thank you for your lesson about your version of the “truth.” Thanks, too, for your lecture about lies of omission. With your permission, I would like to offer another example of a lie of omission:
            
            It begins with your version of events as written in the OP statement, “ Last Monday in Seminole Texas, a Navajo Kindergartener was told to cut his hair, and sent home on his first day of school. This is only one example of how racist Americans continue in their quest to destroy the cultural identity of the Indigenous people.”
            
            Well, besides ignoring the existence of school guidelines governing dress code and other norms, you conveniently chose to omit the most important portion of the story: “School administrators required that [the child’s mother] April bring documentation from the Navajo Nation proving Malachi’s indigenous parentage. April immediately contacted the Navajo Nation and the document was delivered to school officials. Malachi was enrolled after the school approved of the document’s authenticity.” {1}
            
            Clearly, you did not include the end of the narrative because it would not support your own interpretation of “how racist Americans continue in their quest to destroy the cultural identity of the Indigenous people.” You should be able to admit the school was not bent on destroying the culture of our indigenous people. Malachi Wilson was in fact enrolled in the kindergarten class along with his long hair out a deep and sincere respect for the cultural identity of indigenous people!
            
            If you are in favor of the truth, you must be in favor of the whole truth.
            
            {1} http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c … air-156638

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Thank you, Quill, for that bit of information.  It DOES put a different face on the matter, doesn't it?

               replyreport
            2. 70

               wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Quill,
               The smoking gun that you so proudly hold in your hand is only  a smoking mirage, another beautiful work of fiction. I must admit, you are quite convincing, but I always do my research before making a post. Not only that, I take the time to ponder what comments might be made to refute my arguments. Along with what insults, innuendo, and sarcasm I might encounter along the way. I award you the gold star because you obviously read the article, which is not a common practice  on these forums. Many  of the respondents simply shoot from the hip, using soundbytes fueled with emotion.
               
               You have accused me of leaving out the fine print; "the rest of the story" as Paul Harvey used to say. But it appears you are living in a glass house. You left out the fact that the mother also contacted A.I.M.. After an A.I.M. representative called the superintendent of the school, it is easy to understand that the school saw the writing on the wall, and started to circle the wagons. The issue of the mother being required to provide documentation only further supports my argument. There are many Indigenous children who do not live on a reservation, and who do not have such documentation. What about them?   There are many children of African heritage, or mixed race, who also do not have such documentation. What son of a thief  has the rmoral authority to demand that an Indigenous child show documentation anyway? Furthermore, you can look at a picture of the little boy and see that he is Indigenous. Are these school officials blind, or just plain stupid?
               
               What does a child's haircut have to do with learning; other than learning to conform to foolish ideas and concepts.  I am surprised they don't have a law about which hand to use when you sit on the throne. I suppose that's next.
               
               Many  Americans have accepted government intrusion into their lives at all levels. I do not accept it, nor should anyone else, whether they are Indigenous, European, African, or extraterrestrial. The bigots at this school ruined a little boys first day of school because of  a stupid rule about hair! They didn't have to send him home. They could have simply called the mother and given her a couple of days to provide the necessary documentation. There was no urgency here. No one was at risk. It is not like the little boy had a contagious disease that could have infected the other students. But on second thought, perhaps he did. Perhaps the over zealous school officials were afraid that his long hair might infect the imagination of the other students, and give them the desire to be creative, and express their individuality, rather than conform to a herd of goats.
               
               You also left out the racist traditions of the school. The fact that they have an "Indian" mascot; kinda like the Cleveland Indians baseball club. They also commonly refer to the students as Indians,  Maidens, and Tribes. They have a whole "Indian Theme" going on at the school. Of course many people don't see the harm in such things, just like for many years no one saw the harm in Al Jolson, and the wearing of blackface.
               
               Quill, it seems you left out a lot. I guess it doesn't matter which one is the pot, or the kettle.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Respect is the bottom line. Respect for heritage, cultural differences, inherited gifts, strengths, and talents. Knowledge, wisdom and truths of life passed down...
                  
                  Conforming to a herd of goats is never that beneficial,
                  ...unless you're a goat, of course.
                  
                  
                  (Thanks wB... Now I'M furious with C. Columbus!)

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Katherine,
                     Are you being serious?  Is this the first time you've read anything from the journal of Columbus?.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes. Sometimes becoming enlightened is harsh. I will find it...

                        replyreport
               2. 95

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  "They have a whole "Indian Theme" going on at the school. Of course many people don't see the harm in such things,..."
                  
                  Can you explain the "harm" in paying respect to a people that inhabited the area long ago?  School mascots are chosen out of respect, whether a bulldog, tiger or Indian, after all...

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     wilderness,
                     
                     A fitting name. First of all , we are human beings, not bulldogs or tigers. Your question indicates that you don't have a solid background in American history. Like a majority of Americans,in grammar, and high school, you were most likely taught a Euro-centric version of American history; a version of history which omits a lot of important events that are contrary to the idealistic version of America that the government likes to promote.Furthermore, there have been many injustices committed against whites,especially women, that have been omitted as well.  For instance ,you were probably taught that the Americans were united in their stand against England during the Revolutionary War, but they were not. Many so-called patriots who fought with Washington against the British were forced to either fight for the colonial army or face execution. It was the wealthy landowners like Washington who stood to gain the most through independence from the crown. But this is not the popular story that is usually told.
                     
                     To answer your question: You do not honor someone by torturing and killing them, stealing their land, making them slaves,forcing them to abide by your laws,raping their women and children, and then after all of the evil has been done, and after many descendents of the orignal invaders have grown fat and rich from the stolen resources of a stolen continent, you continue to offend by calling us "Indians", and then fashioning our image into caricatures to be used as mascots; a veiled trophy of conquest that only gives honor to the oppressor. Anyone who cannot understand the evil of America, which stands naked for all to see, has no understanding.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        You might have been taught that all people fought under Washington; the more progressive schools 50 years ago recognized that it was not true.  One name in particular comes to mind (Benedict Arnold) and we all know there were many more not so well placed and that never defected as they never joined Washington in the first place.
                        
                        No, you honor a people by making them a symbol of strength, honesty, integrity, etc.  As in a school mascot that all can look up to and strive to be like.  Of course, if your are LOOKING for offense you can make it up out of nothing at all...
                        
                        "Indian"; the name given to the native peoples of the North American continent by the first Europeans to encounter them.  Although those explorers were vastly mistaken, the name has stuck and STILL refers to the native peoples (and their descendants) that occupied this continent at that time.  A statement of origin and race then, not a slur or derogatory term at all.  Just a factual statement, but of course if you are LOOKING for offense you can make it up out of nothing at all...

                        replyreport
                        1. 70

                           wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           So, in other words:  You have suggested that if an African country invaded the British Isles, raped and pillaged, and stole for 500 years, and forced  a majority of the white people onto reservations, that it would be unreasonable for the Irish, Scots, Welsh,and the English  to take offense at being all lumped together under the term of "Honky"; a name they did not give themselves, but a name given by their African oppressors. Furthermore , you suggest that when the Africans adopt mascots that wear kilts, look like Winston Churchill, or the character on the Lucky Charms box, that it should be construed as a gesture of honor and respect for all people of  "Honky" heritage.
                           
                           It looks rather ridiculous, and offensive from this perspective doesn't it? By the way, the term "honky" is understood by many to be a  variant of "hunky", which was a deviation of Bohunk, a slur for Bohemian-Hungarian immigrants in the early 1900s. Initially, Columbus thought he had arrived in the West Indies, and so referred  to the people he encountered as "Indians". In my fictional scenario, the Africans arrive in Great Britain and initially think that they are in Hungary.
                           
                           In a perfect world,the term "Indian", as applied to the Indigenous people of this continent, would  be harmless. But considering the historical record, it is as disgusting. as any racial epithet  ever invented.

                           replyreport
                           1. 75

                              Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Fine, how about calling them the Original Asian Immigrants:  The Oai People for short. Other suggestions?
                              
                              Now, what is it about the Constitution you/they do not agree with?
                              
                              "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

                              replyreport
                           2. 95

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              If you wish to speak English then use English.  If you wish to speak Navajo (or any other language) you are of course free to do so (although not on the private web site known as HP).  What you are NOT free to do is invent new words or change the meanings of old words; that is up to the society as a whole.  And society as a whole does not find the term "Indian" to be derogatory in the slightest.  Only those looking for a reason to be aggrieved or offended do.
                              
                              As far as what people in the past, with no connection to me outside of a possible and tenuous genealogy did or didn't do - I am not responsible for that and it is a futile effort to try and make me responsible.  You can try the racist angle and say that because they were white and I am white then I am responsible and must pay the price but I refuse to either accept the responsibility OR pay the price.  Instead I will hold out a hand in friendship and give you the same honor and accordance's I will give anyone of any race.  I will not put you or your race above or below mine or any others, but alongside.  Should you refuse that it is your choice but I will still not accept responsibility for the actions of someone long dead simply because they were at least partially of my race.  I do believe I have both Indian and black, along with some Hispanic in my family.  And truth be known probably some Asian and whatever else is considered to be a race on this ball of dirt.  We all came out of Africa at one point, after all and to demonize one simply because of their race is silly, futile and ultimately a great evil.

                              replyreport
                              1. 70

                                 wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 wilderness,
                                 I made a specific point with a very clear analogy. Yet, you did not address my post. You only delivered a rant that had little to do with my comment. Since you have evaded my argument, I can only conclude by your emotional response that you were whelmed by it. Would you like to try again?

                                 replyreport
               3. 72

                  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Good evening, wrenchBiscuit. I hope you have enjoyed the holiday weekend. I feel a bit sad to see the summer end. It is my favorite season.
                  
                  Regarding the OP statement starting this thread, facts are facts. They stand on their own merits. They do not rely on persuasion or embellishment.
                  
                  There is no “smoking gun.” There is simply evidence of a failed attempt to misrepresent the events that took place in Seminole, Texas. You are right to point out an obvious work of fiction but the fiction turns out to be of your own making. In no way does your verbose reply refute the facts or justify your false claim.
                  
                  The facts confirm that the OP statement was a bungled attempt to distort an event. Further, the facts prove that the OP statement was intended to promote a lie of omission as an “example of how racist Americans continue in their quest to destroy the cultural identity of the Indigenous people.”
                  
                  Who is responsible?
                  
                  Well, it turns out, as the author you intentionally omitted crucial details thus transforming your false claim of racial injustice into a deliberate lie of omission. It is your lie. You own it.
                  
                  Were you aware you were leaving out important details?
                  
                  In your own words, “I always do my research before making a post. Not only that, I take the time to ponder what comments might be made to refute my arguments. Along with what insults, innuendo, and sarcasm I might encounter along the way. I award you the gold star because you obviously read the article, which is not a common practice on these forums. Many of the respondents simply shoot from the hip, using soundbytes fueled with emotion.” Clearly, you were aware of the importance of the details you chose to leave out. In addition, you seem comfortable admitting that you did not expect your sham would be discovered!
                  
                  Am I responsible for details you did not reveal?
                  
                  No. It was your obligation, not mine, to provide the pertinent details in the OP statement you wrote. In a lame but popular tactic, you try to shift blame to me:
                  
                  “You left out the fact that the mother also contacted A.I.M.. After an A.I.M. representative called the superintendent of the school, it is easy to understand that the school saw the writing on the wall.” I am not at all impressed by this awkward gesture. You can not shift your responsibility to me just to excuse your own flawed behavior.
                  
                  How convenient for you to suggest that I omitted factual details from your OP statement! My post proved that you intentionally ignored pertinent circumstances and those are the only facts that matter. It takes a frail ego to blame another for your failure to reveal all of the pertinent details involved in this story. It was also a slick maneuver to not include a link to the original story!
                  
                  You purposely withheld information, wB. That is a fact! Then in your last post to me, you fabricate even more assumptions about conversations between the school and the A.I.M.. Although you actually know nothing about those conversations, you presume to be privy to imaginary “writings” on a wall that only you can read.
                  
                  The facts remain no matter how hard you try to twist them.
                  
                  Fact: Administrators of the Seminole Independent School District did not try “to destroy the cultural identity of the Indigenous people”
                  
                  Fact: Your claim is false yet you seem to be struggling to accept full responsibility.
                  
                  Fact: Ms. April Wilson requested that her son be allowed to keep his long hair because of his indigenous heritage.
                  
                  Fact: Navajo Nation authorities provided the necessary documentation.
                  
                  Fact: The mother’s request was granted and Malachi Wilson was admitted to the school with his long hair intact.
                  
                  What an outstanding example of democracy! What a sterling example of a school celebrating diversity!
                  
                  In a final gasp to preserve credibility, you end with, “Quill, it seems you left out a lot. I guess it doesn't matter which one is the pot, or the kettle.” Wrong again, my friend. I left out nothing. In this particular dialog, you turned yourself into both the pot and the kettle! You get to keep all the credit for lying by omission.
                  
                  Golly! There has not been a lot of warm weather here on the East Coast, wB. I am really hoping for a little Indian Summer in the coming weeks.   
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Quill,
                     The racists have been coming up with all kinds of legal and reasonable excuses to block voter registration of minorities for over 100 years. I am not surprised by the excuses offered here. I referred to an article that anyone , just as yourself, could read for themselves. I hid nothing. It wasn't necessary to reveal every detail in my argument. I assumed I was dealing with adults, not children who needed everything spelled out for them.  If anyone requires such detail, I suggest that they put me on the payroll!

                     replyreport
                  2. 75

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     You mean a little Oai People's summer.

                     replyreport
                  3. 70

                     wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Quill,
                     The behavior of a rattlesnake may vary from one individual to the next, but  fundamentally, they are all the same. It is the same when we consider manifestations of institutionalized racism . The school officials who sent the boy home knew that he was Navajo, but purposely made him jump through hoops. Furthermore, as I stated earlier, they could have just as easily let the boy enjoy his first day of school, and simply notify  his mother that she must, at her  convenience, provide the necessary documents needed to satisfy school policy. Had they treated the child and mother with respect, there would have never been a news story. This is the pertinent aspect of the story, not the details you have suggested.
                     
                     How do I  know school officials  knew the child  was Navajo? Because I know racists, and how they operate. Just as the blind have a tendency to sharpen their other senses in order to compensate, so too, some of us who have grown up as a minority in  the U.S., have developed a talent for recognizing the machinations of the racist mind.

                     replyreport
   4. 63

      maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Welcome to America, the land of the free. Expropriations, massacres... If holocaust had to be the one and be represented by an ethnicity, the Native Indians should be the ones.
      Racism is latent in the U.S. society.
      We easily forget that our ancestors were the dregs of European societies, that they all came (at least the first waves) from a colonialist background. It says it all. In spite of the good will of few presidents to make it a decent society and a "democracy", they miserably failed. We enslaved African Americans, we enslaved Native Indians (time to time we give them crumbs to the damages caused by our white gene, the casinos for instance but most of the time, they live in ghettos where alcoholism, poverty, diabetes are endemic. They don't own their land, they can't exploit their natural resources, if they own their land the inheritance is so fractioned that it is better to say that they don't own it and so, and so, and so...
      Miss Kathryn L Hill, if you really believe in those advantages acquired through the US citizenship then we don't live in the same country.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I did say never mind… I was having fun listing the ideals this country used to aim for. I realize they are long gone…
         Repeating:
         Never mind... We used to have freedom, self-governance and equality under the law…but now we have over-regulation of business, over-regulation of landowners and over-burdensome legislation... in other words, we now have Big government / Small people.

         replyreport
         1. 63

            maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Have we ever or was it only the deceptions of a "western" democracy?

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               The framers created a form of government which had, in the words of James Madison, "no model on the face of the earth." The government's job is to protect the rights of the people… If men were angels, no government would be necessary, but we are not.
                
               What is the purpose of a nation. What is the purpose of its existence?
               
               Consider: The indigenous people did not create a unified nation of all the existing tribes and were unable to protect its entire territory against European colonists in search of a better way of life.
               
               What would need to happen today is this:  First, the tribes would have to unify. Then, they would have to choose a leader to help protect the rights of the Oai People as a nation of free people, under the tyranny of no one and independent of any other rulers. They could adopt a constitution like ours, gain in power and numbers, and then do the same to us as we did to them: Little by little... do unspeakable things and take back the land... shoot, steal, rape, pillage and slaughter.
               
               Now, once The United Tribes of America reclaimed dominance over the land, they would be called upon by other nations. However, if they appeared weak, other nations would begin to devise ways to help themselves. Could the United Tribes of Americca defend a country of this size?
               
               No. So, they might as well join us and develop a presence and a voice to influence the American people in a good direction as far as getting back to a more natural way to survive… say hunting, fishing and gathering in harmony with nature… while learning the ways of a free market system. They could help us to protect and preserve what has been established already.
               
               Uh oh, now Maxoxam41, is laughing hysterically.

               replyreport
2. 70

   wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

   KLH,
   The image is Cheyenne. Nativism?  Nativism is a deceptive term used by racists to demean the sovereignty of Indigenous people. It is a sheep in wolves clothing,that presents itself as being sympathetic to the Indigenous cause, but it is only a convenient  tool that paves the way for accusations of xenophobia. A Euro-American who fought against the tyranny of the crown during the Revolutionary War is seen as a patriot. An Indigenous person who stands against the tyranny of America is seen as xenophobic, by way of nativism.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "xenophobic: intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries."
      Nativism was just a word I found in the dictionary.  I did not know it was used by racists.
      Do you want the Indigenous people to unite and take back the land that was taken from them?
      ...to resist the tyranny of American domination over them?
      To undo what was done so long ago?
      despite the numbers of non Indgenous people who are living here, thriving, happy and willing to work with Indigenous people ?
      As far as I know, they hated the white man and the white man's ways, which is why they are living tribally on reservations.
      Would the Navahos who are quite wealthy and successful, want to join forces with other Indian groups?
      As far as I know the Indian tribes were always at odds with one another fighting for territory and dominance.
      
      You really have to be kidding!

      replyreport
3. 75

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   You wrote:
   "but here in America, we are only allowed to melt in one direction. Here in America, the "white direction"  is considered to be the only "right direction". For example, in a true multi-cultural society, Indigenous children would not be expected to learn History  from the viewpoint of their oppressors, nor would they be expected to dress, and act like Europeans."
   
   Could you elaborate on this theme?
   For instance,
   1. What is the "white direction" and how is it detrimental?
   2 .What is your vision of a "multicultural society?"
   3. Who is teaching the children history "from the viewpoint of their oppressors," or expecting them to "dress, and act like Europeans?"
   (I thought they were on reservations or living in a separated way from American society.)
   
   
   Pardon My Ignorance.

   replyreport
4. 70

   wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

   Kathryn Hill,
   At this point on the timeline,taking back the land is not realistic, and would involve a renewal of a bloody conflict, because what the greedy have taken by force, can only be reclaimed in the same manner. Land reclamation should be seen as a long term goal. The most important thing for the Indigenous to do at this time is to free their minds from mental slavery; to disengage from a Euro-centric world view; to stop being "Native Americans", which is nothing more than a degrading racial epithet.
   
   Freeing the collective Indigenous mind is a difficult, but achievable goal that can be attained through the right kind of education. That kind of education is not to be found in the public school system. For instance, Jan Brewer, and the racist's of Arizona recently sought to keep the Indigenous, the so-called Mexican American children of Tuscon, from learning American history as it really was/is. This was one of the most obvious purposes of the bill, HB2281.
   
   Kathryn, some of the questions you ask only further prove my assertions. You have suggested that "... they hated the white man and the white man's ways, which is why they are living tribally on reservations". You actually have it backwards. The white man hated the Indigenous and our ways, and coveted our land and resources so much that they forced the people onto reservations at gunpoint! Many "scholars" might now chime in that the Indigenous took the land from someone else, or stole it from each other, prior to, and even after the European Invasion. For anyone who subscribes to such nonsense, I suggest that you drive through Beverley Hills, find a mansion that you like, and then force the occupants to leave. Now, when you go before the judge, just explain that the original occupants didn't really "own" the house, since it can ultimately be traced back to an act of theft. Of course you will be thrown under the jailhouse! This illustrates the double standard of the evil American "justice system". The individual is held accountable for land and property theft, but the United States has invented the concept of "Manifest Destiny" to insulate the government from any punitive action.
   
   The real or imagined wealth of the Navajo, relative to any other Indigenous group or nation, has no bearing on the fact that an act of genocide has nearly completed it's final phase. The fact that many Indigenous are "Shiny Happy People", making money,driving expensive automobiles, and wearing the latest fashion, will not mitigate the cultural disaster that is now drawing to it's fateful conclusion. The Indigenous are not much different than any other group in America. Many are selfish, and lack vision. They find that looking at the big picture is tiresome, and might interfere with their material pursuits, and weekend leisure activities.
   
   Yes, a number of Indigenous nations have been at odds with each other in the past, but this is no different than what we see playing out in the former Soviet block today. The European conflicts of the last 500 years also indicate that the Europeans aren't necessarily one big happy family. But your statement, " ... the Indian tribes were always at odds with one another fighting for territory and dominance." is often used to diminish the responsibility of the Colonialists, and portray our ancestors as the architects of their own demise. It is not much different than placing the onus on the woman who is gang raped while walking alone at night. But this goes directly to the purpose of this post, and much of my writing. As a race of people, we, the Indigenous, cannot afford to be divided anymore, for it can only  mean our utter extinction. No I am not kidding, and I would hesitate to put a smiley face on any post concerning the Jewish Holocaust, the Zionist occupation of Palestine, or Jim Crow. The smiley face says," Why should you care that America cut off your arms and your legs, castrated you, raped your grandmothers, and softened your features? You have credit cards, an account at Bank of America,indoor plumbing, and season tickets for the Atlanta Braves, and the Cleveland Indians.

   replyreport
5. 70

   wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

   Credence2,
   I agree that, especially for the Freemen, assimilation was the goal. However, the Freemen didn't have much of a choice. During the antebellum the African was forced to smile, to be the good servant, and to sing and dance for the miscreant slave masters. During and after Reconstruction,the African in America had no choice but to pledge allegience to the flag, and to sing God Bless America.
   
   After several generations, going back to Africa was no better option than moving to Siberia! Here is how it shakes down for the African in America today: "Play our game and accept your status as a second class citizen; become a white man with black skin, and you will be rewarded with happiness and material gain". You will notice that many wealthy celebrities of African heritage do not spend a lot of time promoting African language, or culture. Neither are many outspoken on Civil Rights issues. Of course there are token gestures from time to time, but the majority are careful not to alienate their fan base, which in many cases is largely white Euro-American. Anything they do to significantly help the African cause in America must necessarily be done on the down low.
   
   The ruling of the court on segregation was deceptive, and it fooled a lot of well meaning people. Integration was simply a means of encouraging members of two distinct slave classes ( the "colored" and the working class whites) to work together for the benefit of the ruling elite. It was understood by those pulling the strings that African children would suffer as a result of integration, but this only added a further advantage to the concept. A well educated African population was of no use to the status quo.
   
   Rather than integration, what would have helped the African, and the so-called colored people in America more, would have been well funded seperate but equal schools; schools where African children were able to focus on their studies, instead of having to deal with racist issues that damaged their self-esteem, and affected their motivation.  The success of Booker T. Washington, and the Tuskegee Institute at the turn of the 20th century, is a testament to the fact that African students can excell in a segregated environment that is properly administered,maintained,and funded.
   
   Today, although it has since been integrated,Tuskegee is ranked the 5th "Best Regional College in the South" according to the 2013 U.S. News and World Reports Rankings. But the status quo could not risk that the success of Tuskegee should become viral, and spread throughout the United States. This is one reason why the ruling elite championed integration; marketing and promoting integration as the answer to southern bigotry. Tuskegee was allowed to remain as a token to bolster an illuion of self-determination. In spite of integration, many Indigenous and African are caught in a cycle of perpetual poverty; a cycle that is primarily the symptom of capitalist class division, which is compounded by institutionalized racism.
   
   And what voice does even the poor and working class whites have in their own government? In national elections, they are only able to choose between candidates that are handpicked by someone else. They are forced to support a two party system that only serves the ruling elite. They are not given the option of a selective tax, but are forced to pay taxes that are often used to subsidize acts of violent aggression, such as the continued U.S. support for the killing of Palestinian children. If we do not support this killing, and refuse to pay tribute, we will be arrested and thrown into prison. Our voice is meaningless within this system.
   
   I am confident that we do have the resources to free ourselves from this oppressive system. We only lack the means to channel those resources. It is like having a gold mine beneath your feet, but no way to mine the gold. A proper education that develops who we are, the Indigenous and the African, as opposed to the faceless, and synthesized Frakenstein creations of "black man","red man", "African American", and "Native American", is the first step in a right direction. We may have to presently live and work within this evil system, but through the process of rediscovering our true identity, we can develop the means to truly be free. It is time for us, as a collective, to accept that from the perspective of the Indigenous and the African, integration is a failure, and through integration,and assimilation, the image of God is slowly being erased.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      wrenchBiscuit, thanks for your reply
      
      In the modern world, we are all forced in one way or another to be deferential to those that have our economic means of survival in their hands. It may well not involve chains and shackles, but you are restrained all the same. If you are not free economically, you are not really free. It is all about the haves verses the have nots, the race thing being just a chapter of a larger novel. The true villain otherwise has no regards for race, culture or ethnicity beyond being it being an effective diversion to others.
      
      We call ourselves African American as a source or origin and of pride, but culturally, we have been away from the mother land for up to 4 centuries. Can we really identify ourselves as African outside the physically similarity of a dark complexion? The African students I met on college campuses certainly made the distinction between American blacks and themselves quite evident. The difference is now that everybody except the most wealthy and powerful have to 'play the game'. Is it so great to be integrated into that? I doubt it. But today, the exploitation is not solely focused on me. You are right about there being sellouts, the lure of material comfort and security is great. Who is going to resist this in favor of the alternative. Is it the red pill or blue pill? (The Matrix)
      
      The ruling elite cares no more about white over black, those not part of the 1 percent are expendable, period. We live in American culture as a minority, separate and equal would have been acceptable, but in America that concept would be like having sunshine and no light. Mr. Washington had to go hat in hand to get the concessions he needed to keep Tuskegee open, compromising with 'the man' in the 'separate fingers,  hand of progress speeches'. The powers that be were not really going to grant the equality supposedly guaranteed by law and hoped that Mr. Washington, unknowingly,  would placate his people into accepting more delay and misdirection. 
      
      The capitalist monstrosity  is an amoral beast that devourers all without distinction. The system is self-perpetuating, short of revolution, how does any of this change? The system could not allow you to pay taxes for only what you want to fund. Most of us would find a way to minimize or not pay taxes at all.
      
      We may find that the oppressed can easily take on the traits of the oppressors, I am hard pressed to find many 'model' societies on the globe. This history of the world is a mosaic of rising and falling empires. Since, time changes space, what will happen in a half a century or so into the future, when demographics of America and the world will experience a sea change? Would people of color be expected to create a more humane world? History seems to say otherwise. Everybody always said that if certain people or groups were in control things would be better, but since the time of the Pharaohs, we continue to hunt and be hunted and unfortunately it is a human condition that I don't see any solution to in the near future.
      
      Best regards.....

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Part of the answer, seems to me, is to eliminate ALL forms of racism.  The derogatory forms AND the false pride in having ancestors from a particular land area more recently that the rest of the world. 
         
         Of course, I take no pride in the fact that I have less melanin (or a different color base) than someone else but I also recognize that having more melanin is a major source of pride to some.  I don't understand it, but I do know it is there.  I suggest that eliminating that silly feeling that skin color makes one better should be eliminated completely, both the bad and the good.  As long as one side of the equation exists, so will the other.  If one thinks their skin color makes them better, others will think it makes them inferior.  And Vice Versa, if that makes any sense.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Here you have attempted to inject a new distraction into the dialogue. The Irish celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Many take pride in their Irish heritage, history, and customs. What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with any group or nationality celebrating their past , and honoring their ancestors. But that is not what this discussion is about.
            
            This discussion is about one group in this country who seeks to maintain a monopoly on culture, through historical revisionism, and other means. You attempt to equate a demand for justice,  sovereignty, and respect, with false pride. My fathers people have inhabited this continent for thousands of years, but I would not treat a Russian who just arrived here last week in the disrespectful, and hateful  manner that the Americans have treated the Indigenous people for the last 500 years. Why? Because I am better than that , and far above it.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               "Many take pride in their Irish heritage, history, and customs. What is wrong with that?"
               
               Outside of claiming superiority (what else does pride do?), what is GOOD with that?  What is wrong is obvious as it promotes racism and all its evils, but what is good with it?  It behooves us to examine and keep some of our past, but to glorify it, to use it to make us better than our neighbor because OUR ancestor lived here or there, was a different color than the neighbor's ancestors?  No - let's leave that crap behind us like civilized people should.  Those things have nothing to do with our own value either to ourselves or to society.
               
               If you wish to maintain the culture of people hundreds of years ago, you are free to do that.  Just don't ask all of things things that a more advanced society produces to go with that life as it will surely destroy it.  Don't ask for hot and cold running water or sewer systems.  Don't ask for electricity or roads and don't require someone else to provide the computer you use because you can't make it yourself or provide medical care because no one in the group understands modern medicine.
               
               Not long ago there was an article in my local paper about a mountain man near us that lived that way, with the exception that he DID work and produce enough to buy a limited amount of modern equipment.  Like guns and traps to hunt with, some clothing and a few steel implements.  But if you wish to stay far away from the rest of society you needn't do even that.  I just don't think you will find many fellow Indians (or any other race) with the same desire to go back in time.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  It is clear that you do not read a post before you reply. Please show me anywhere in this thread where I have suggested that anyone should return to living as people lived hundreds of years ago. You spin what someone has said and then you respond to your own spin. Why would you think that no one would notice? Your statements also reveal that you seem to think that without the European, or the American, there would be no such thing as electric lights, plumbing, or computers. Apparently you feel that the Indigenous, African, Asian. or Arab, just isn't intelligent enough to create and maintain a civilization.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Indian culture does not include modern conveniences, unless you have changed it in your own mind to something it never was.  Thus I assume you wish to return to the old ways - am I wrong?  Do you want the hunter gatherer type of life, a modest agriculture done by human hands or do you want civilization and all that comes with it?
                     
                     Whether the Indian race (or any other) was intelligent enough to create those modern things we all seem to want, the fact remains that they did not.  They never developed past the stone age, with the exception of working small bits of almost pure copper into jewelry and other knick knacks.  Again, is that what you want or do you want the things civilization brings, both the nice ones and the ones that forever change a culture?

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        LoL! In the 15th and 16th centuries, the European did not have modern conveniences either. Are you suggesting that although the European advanced technologically throughout the centuries, the Indigenous have remained in the past?
                        
                        Many of the Indigenous nations of the 15th century were comparable, or even more advanced technologically, and socially, than their European counterparts. You do not know these things because you have not studied native culture, and have subscribed to a racist white supremacist revisionist history.  If you want to know the truth it's all on the internet, and in the public libraries. Read and learn.

                        replyreport
                        1. 70

                           wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Here is just some of the information that is available that contradicts the Colonialist American lies that the Indigenous were "savages" and a primitive race prior to the European invasion. Further proof that indigenous children are better off without a public school system based on fear, and lies; a system administered by racist fools who concern themselves more with superficial dress codes than higher learning.
                           
                           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7baWok … e=youtu.be

                           replyreport
                        2. 95

                           wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Sure they were.  All the tribes knew how to smelt iron and made extensive use of iron implements.  They all had gunpowder, too, and ocean crossing vessels didn't they?  And the few tribes left alone in South America have atomic power by now, I suppose?
                           
                           And I did read.  I found that the only metal used was the rare nearly pure copper found.  They were limited to stone for tools such as arrowheads, knives and mortars.  They didn't have the wheel and even simple animal husbandry (use of animals for more than food) was unknown.  Absolutely more technologically advanced, were they?  Admirable, noble and a fine people, yes, but far behind in the field of technology.
                           
                           Don't pick the social and building skills of the Aztecs and Incas as indicative of what the Europeans found in North America.  It wasn't there.  You're living in a dream world, WB, a world that never existed.

                           replyreport
         2. 79

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Hi, Wilderness, sorry that I have been away for a while.
            
            By all means it is best to eliminate all racism, but I think that we all have a tendency to tribalize and make distinctions among ourselves relative to others, and that is too bad. The Anglo Saxon culture has acquired so much control based on guns, germs and steel. (PBS Series) that attempts to explain why whites have gain so much of the upper hand over other groups. But like the rise and fall over most empires, how long will this continue? Outside of the west, the world is becoming younger and darker skinned. I do not see melanin or the lack thereof as something to hold over others.
            
            Because the Anglo-Saxon has assumed so much power and domination over even cultural norms, worldwide, there is naturally, resentment. The messages of inherent inferiority of non-white groups are found widely throughout the globe, a lot of it, black and brown self-loathing in Central America, where I recently visited. The message are embedded everywhere.  Where does all this come from?  I don't blame anyone, as it is natural for those that have the power to want to keep it, but it is also natural for me to attempt to wrest this away. You will still find that most everywhere you look 'whiteness' is a advantage to be coveted.
            
            But, as I say with changing demographic realities, the future may well produce a new standard where the advantages that white societies had with technology in the past....

            replyreport
            1. 70

               wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Credence2,
               You have made many good points. The comment you responded to is a familiar tact used by members of the white  majority, as well as  un- enlightened minorities.  Indigenous and African individuals, or groups, who promote their culture from a defensive posture, are commonly accused of a "reverse-racism", which is an absurd notion, since it is impossible for a white American to understand racism from the perspective of either aforementioned group. Furthermore,many of us who decry the atrocities of the past are accused of living in the past. A popular phrase by racists is "Get over it". But we can see that white America has yet to get over the past as well.
               
               For instance, The ignorant masses do not take into account that Mount Rushmore is an abomination that sits in the Black Hills. It mocks the Sioux Nation, and all Indigenous and African people, with the faces of slave owners, rapists, and murderers. The U.S. currency that we are forced to carry in our pockets is equally repulsive, in the same manner. Columbus Day and Thanksgiving glorify genocide and slavery. The prelude to many sporting events; events that often include a majority of African athletes, begin with an anthem that glorifies a past where their ancestors were forced to face the indignities, and the horrors of slavery. But worst of all, African and Indigenous children are forced to learn a Euro-centric version of history in the public school system.  The Euro- American system seeks to destroy the identity of the Indigenous, and the African by promoting their "melting pot" mentality. But the trick is, they have no intention of melting with us. We are the ones who are expected to "melt"; to live and think like white men with dark skins. To worship their ancestors as our own heroes, when in fact they were our oppressors. We are participating in  a program of genocide that began in 1492.
               
               Let the European be the European, let the African be the African, and I will also be who I am. This is a dangerous, and revolutionary notion. America is afraid of our cultural identity.,Our cultural identity is an invincible weapon. Once a majority of African and Indigenous reclaim their cultural identity, America will become a small colonialist country located in the western hemisphere; about the size of Honduras, and God Bless America will still be a popular song. I will see that day, either in this lifetime, or the next.

               replyreport
6. 75

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   We are beginning a journey toward greater enlightenment.
   May the force be with you.

   replyreport
7. 75

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   "In spite of integration, many Indigenous and African (people) are caught in a cycle of perpetual poverty; a cycle that is primarily the symptom of capitalist class division, which is compounded by institutionalized racism."
   Question:
     How does capitalism contribute to class division and institutionalized racism?
   
   Some people get wealthy. Oh well.
   
   The movie Maid In Manhattan just aired.
   So a senator fell in love with a Hotel maid. Would that ever happen in the land of capitalism? Of course! Why not? We know that a Hotel maid is just a person who has a job. She goes home, takes off her uniform, takes a shower and slips into something comfortable… Presto no longer a hotel maid!  The senator marries her… Presto!  Now she is a senator's wife!
   No?

   replyreport
8. 75

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   wrenchBiscuit wrote:
        "Rather than integration, what would have helped the African, and the so-called colored people in America more, would have been well funded seperate but equal schools; schools where African children were able to focus on their studies, instead of having to deal with racist issues that damaged their self-esteem, and affected their motivation.  The success of Booker T. Washington, and the Tuskegee Institute at the turn of the 20th century, is a testament to the fact that African students can excell in a segregated environment that is properly administered,maintained,and funded.
        Today, although it has since been integrated,Tuskegee is ranked the 5th "Best Regional College in the South" according to the 2013 U.S. News and World Reports Rankings. But the status quo could not risk that the success of Tuskegee should become viral, and spread throughout the United States. This is one reason why the ruling elite championed integration; marketing and promoting integration as the answer to southern bigotry."
   
   ...and then finished with:
   
        "A proper education that develops who we are, the Indigenous and the African, as opposed to the faceless, and synthesized Frakenstein creations of "black man","red man", "African American", and "Native American", is the first step in a right direction.
   
   We may have to presently live and work within this evil system, but through the process of rediscovering our true identity, we can develop the means to truly be free.
   
   It is time for us, as a collective, to accept that from the perspective of the Indigenous and the African, integration is a failure, and through integration,and assimilation, the image of God is slowly being erased."
   
   
   In my mind, this perspective finally answers the question of problem/solution we have recently been trying to identify regarding the roots of racism!
   
   Very brave of you wrenchBiscuit!
   
   Also, I agree, the quote by Columbus is heart wrenching and abominable, no matter what the mores of the times were. Inexcusable if you ask me, which no one did.
   
   In the light of your point of view, wB, the story you started with is still significant in that the school officials were making a big deal about his hair (whether or not they knew he was an indigenous person.)
   In any event they were forcing a child to conform according to their mandates without any sensitivity what so ever… surely he looked like a Navajo child!
   (PS I do not know any schools in LA where hair length for boys is an issue.)

   replyreport
9. 75

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   Awareness is behind respect.
   being aware…
   simple awareness.
   
   It is so easy to overlook, ignore and fail to notice the deeper aspects of life.
   This is what bullies do. They fall in consciousness due to disconnection of  their minds and emotions to
   their hearts.
   They act in habitual ignorance of others. They know only their own selfish desires and, apparently, receive no consequences for fulfilling them.
   
   It is not capitalism that is bad, it is selfishness and greed.
   AND NO CHECKS on them.
   
   Here is a check for you... conscience! And when that fails, enforcing the laws of justice. And when that fails…
   a doomed society… not due to capitalism, due to the fallibility of mankind.
   
   Freedom requires boundaries !!!
   
   Happiness requires common sense and common courtesy…known as kindness.
   Is it so hard to be kind to others?
   
   OK I'll get down off the soap box now.

   replyreport
10. 75

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    "Anyone who cannot understand the evil of America, which stands naked for all to see, has no understanding."
    
    No, we don't. We were brainwashed. We were brainwashed by your oppressors and our liberators.
    
    May the fittest survive.
    
    What do you think of Manifest Destiny?

    replyreport
    1. 70

       wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       You speak of "our liberators", but who has liberated you? And from what? It wasn't until the ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920 that all women in the United States were guaranteed the right to vote. The difference between 1776 and 1920 is 144 years.
       
       During that time,a white woman had little recourse under the law. A black or Indigenous woman had zero recourse. It wasn't until the late 1960's that pressure from women's rights organizations began to make it easier for women to come forward and report rape, sexual abuse, and domestic violence. The difference between 1776 and 1970 is nearly 200 years! The numbers don't lie Kathryn. The numbers tell us that your liberators, your founding fathers, had very little concern for women's rights. We cannot fall back on the tired rhetoric that they were "men of their time". In sharp contrast, many Indigenous nations during the same era were  matriarchal societies, and women enjoyed far greater freedom, and respect than their European counterparts.
       
       Manifest Destiny is a convenient fiction that is still used by the U.S. government to justify the theft of an entire continent. The Creator ordained that a man would have free will. It was never ordained that one man has the moral authority to subjugate and steal from another. Through Manifest Destiny, evil colonialist government's have attempted to pervert the will of God.
       
       Yes only the strong survive. And we, the Indigenous, the mixed race, and the African have proven that we can survive the biological weapon of smallpox, slavery, disenfranchisement, and dispossession. The Indigenous did not get into boats and travel to Europe to plunder and steal. We have taken nothing from the European. The French still speak French, and the Spaniards still speak Spanish. There will soon come a time when we will reclaim our languages, and our culture, and in that time, and in that day, the European, and all of those who follow after them, will come by us, and respect our ways, our language and our culture, and if they do not, they will either perish, or be driven back to Europa. Osiyo!

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Yet, before you is the Constitution…so close… why not embrace it ???? In fact our government, in many ways, was patterned on Indian forms of government. You may hate Americans, but what if God himself ordained our government and our freedom.
          So close.. yet so far… Its not like water, water everywhere, but none to drink…
          No, its freedom, freedom everywhere, but I refuse to exit my own confinement. Step into the nation...
          ... set a good example to us… how to be happy with little, appreciating Great Spirit's gifts, cooperating with the land and the sea with thankfulness for the spirit guides all around us. We are here for a short while. Teach us what you know about simplicity, working with nature, and respecting life. (Again.)
          Forgive us and thrive. Join us and thrive. Join us and save us!
          I guess that is A LOT to ask.
          
          ( Demand for yourselves what the US Constitution promises to provide.)
          
            What was good about your way of life before we ruined everything? Can't the good aspects be restored and taught to us?
          Maybe we are ready to listen…   
          Not yet?
          Never?
          ?
          That is a sad thought.

          replyreport
11. 75

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    "Contrary to popular opinion, reservations are not lands given to
    (the Oai People) by the United States government. Quite the opposite is true; land was given to the U.S. by the tribes through treaties. What are now reservations is the land retained by the tribes after the treaty-based land cessions not to mention other mechanisms by which the U.S. seized (the Oai People's) lands without consent. (The Oai People's) reservations are created in one of three ways: By treaty, by executive order of the President, or by an act of Congress."
    
    "Reservations are centers of cultural preservation and revitalization. Even though the process of colonization has resulted in much loss of culture, much is still retained as (the Oai People) have adapted to modern life. Reservations are places where traditional languages are still spoken, where traditional arts and crafts are still created, where ancient dances and ceremonies are still performed, and where origin stories are still told. They are in a sense the heart of America - a connection to a time and place that reminds us how young America really is."
    http://nativeamericanhistory.about.com/ … ations.htm
    (I hope you don't mind my editing, in parenthesis.)
    
    Another interesting article:
    http://nativeamericanhistory.about.com/ … vation.htm

    replyreport
12. 75

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    If the Oai people had been able to unify themselves into one nation they could have fought off the colonists no problem.
    
    If the Oai People were still existing as un-unified / separate tribes on this continent today, the Chinese probably would have invaded and established a communistic nation here by now. They might have called it New China. Just be glad some wise caring men from Scotland and England came to bring laws and justice and protection from the tyranny of truly oppressive tyrants.
    
    Hopefully we won't all be forced to bow to Allah sometime in the future.
    
    I recommend reading The Federalists Papers. Our founding fathers were not bad guys. They laid down a perfectly adequate foundation for liberty and good government, (Small government / Big people.)
    
    The Oai People are welcome to become citizens as anyone else is. Its not such a bad deal.
    
    Advantages of becoming an American Citizen:
    
    Free public education.
    Opportunity for fair wages.
    Nation of laws that protect everyone.
    Equality under the law.
    Protection from foreign invasion.
    A strong nation of citizens possessing moral values.
    A nation of Technological advancements.
    Free Market system.
    Freedom of religion.
    Freedom of speech.
    Freedom of commerce.
    Freedom to protect yourself.
    
    Well, I guess the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves, today.
    
    Never mind, Oai People:  You better stay stay put; wB may be right, at the rate were going…In the direction we're heading. We used to have freedom, self-governance and equality under the law…but now we have over-regulation of business, over-regulation of landowners and over-burdensome legislation... in other words, we now have Big government / Small people.
    
    Never mind.
    
    Question for wB:
    What can the Oai People teach us?
    (If they wanted to???)

    replyreport
    1. 70

       wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Kathryn,
       The European invasion is responsible for the genocide of over 100 million human beings.It is an arrogant, racist notion, to assume that if the European hadn't invaded this continent, someone else, like the Chinese, would have. Such speculation cannot be proven one way, or another. But the historical record is clear on what did actually happen. You are saying, in other words, that a program of rape, murder, and theft, that leads to an illusion of democracy, the acquisition of material things, and a relative higher standard of living, is better than another program that "may have" involved rape, murder, and theft,and which "might have", led to Communism, which would have restricted the potential for personal material gain. It is no wonder that I have come to the realization that I am more human than human!
       
       The "12 Advantages of Being an American", that you have listed have little to do with reality. Perhaps 1% of Americans may enjoy these advantages, but for the rest, this will always be the "American Dream", and nothing more.
       
       You say the founding fathers were "not bad guys". Really? Many of them were slave owners, and the ones who weren't didn't stand against it. Do you know what a slave owner is? A slave owner is a kidnapper,a rapist, and a criminal. Not only by today's standards, but since the beginning of time. And this can easily be proven by answering the following question's: As a woman, during what century, and in what nation would you have been comfortable being a slave. Not a slave for a few weeks, months, or years,but a slave for your entire lifetime! During what historical era would you have easily accepted a life sentence of forced servitude; not because you did any thing wrong, but only because you were a woman; at the wrong place, at the wrong time; on the losing team. In what century would you have been comfortable watching your sons and daughters being sold on the auction block to pedophiles?
       
       Slave women did not just pick cotton, make beds, and cook. They also served as sex slaves. Their responsibilities included servicing their masters , as well as their master's friends and acquaintances, and since slaves had no legal rights, the miscreants raped the slave women with impunity. It also wasn't uncommon for a rape to escalate into a gang rape. To suggest that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both slave owners, were above raping their slaves, is simply ludicrous. That's like suggesting a heroin dealer is above selling crack cocaine! Anyone who would consign an innocent human being to a lifetime of servitude, is capable of anything, and is of the lowest common denominator. The fact that such vermin are still honored in the United States expresses more than a word can reveal.
       
       Of course they took advantage of the slave women, and when the slave master was away on business, those left in charge also took their turn in the saddle. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson was not only a rapist, but it is a documented fact that Thomas Jefferson was a pedophile,and an adulterer, who impregnated a 14 year slave girl named Sally Hemings; more than once! And you think these were nice guys? The abundance of so-called "colored people" in the United States, is a testament to the fact that African slaves were routinely raped by white Europeans. Money doesn't grow on trees, and neither do "colored people."
       
       What can I teach white America, the Uncle Tom, and the vendido? Absolutely nothing! There are many, of all races, who understand the truth I speak. But there are many more who do not. For them, there is no hope. They are like the heroin addict. They only live for materialism, and they can see nothing else. For them, there is no better life than to be a consumer; to drive a shiny car, and to be a slave to a dollar bill. The only knowledge they know is what they read in a book; a book written by another little man posing as an intellectual. They have forgotten how to speak to God, or to the spirit people. They do not even believe in God. It is no secret that America will destroy itself. It is very strange that you would ask how I would help a cancer to flourish.

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          9/3/14
          "Dear wrenchBiscuit,
                 I have to disagree with your statement that the founding fathers were bad guys. Just because someone was a slave owner does not mean that they are bad. Our founding fathers risked their lives to give us freedom. Be grateful. Without them we wouldn't have this free country called the United States of America. Have you ever studied "We the People" in school? Slavery was mostly in the southern states. The whole north of America fought against it. More Americans were killed in the cilvil war than in the Vietnam war. I agree with Kathryn that the Native Americans can become citizens if they really wanted to.. and after all, we are a melting pot of all nationalities and races and religions."
          
          Signed,
          Kathryn's 12 year old neighbor who is visiting.
          
          wB:  What do you say to the youth of America who must live in this country and make it work?
          What if we listened to you? What do you have to offer as an indigenous person with tribal roots for us and the future generations of this nation???
          Kathryn

          replyreport
          1. 70

             wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             You didn't answer my question. You only respond with a diversion. Please answer my question. Of course, you cannot, because such a question forces you to admit the evil and criminal nature of many of those who are referred to as "founding fathers".

             replyreport
             1. 75

                Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                You surely see their intent for the people of a new nation.
                (Q. Would you have a better appreciation for our form of government and its potential for good, if the indigenous people hadn't existed here at all… let's say it was a barren no man's land...and if slavery had never existed.)
                
                Throughout the history of this globe, conquest has been the nature of mankind. Men strive to exercise human / inhuman power, godly / ungodly power. History is full of conquests; of civilizations won and lost through war and brutality, through vast armies and willing warriors. Through the efforts of Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, various ambitious kings and queens and countless others, empires have been built and lost. Victimizing, enslaving and slaughtering has occurred thorough-out all the dark ages of human history.
                
                The tribes warred with each other, especially the Apaches. Again, I say they did not unify as a nation. They had plenty of time to do so. They did not have the technology or the vision.
                Yes, there was much horrible injustice committed by those who invaded and in California the Indian population was almost wiped entirely out. By 1860 there were only 35,000 indigenous people left here.
                
                Nevertheless, we need to work from this day forward.
                
                We cannot dwell on the past. Our US Constitution is needed to protect us all. It is the best hope we have. Things are going so wrong in this nation now, due to those who do not value/understand it's founding principles.
                
                If you want to help the indigenous people, encourage them to become citizens and vote for politicians who understand the purpose of our government which is of, for and by the people.
                
                We need intelligent people who comprehend who the good guys in politics are. You will recognize them because the are the ones who are still trying to bring the dream of liberty and justice for all into reality.
                Heaven on earth. We are still working toward it.
                The Constitution has given us a good start in this direction.
                
                The abuses of too much freedom is what is tearing us down. The indigenous people can remind us of the natural ways of survival. We must value what is real and that is how the indigenous people, those who who still work with their hands, mind, and heart, become significant to modern so called "civilized" people. They have a lot to offer us on a truly practical level. They knew ways of living with nature rather than destroying it. They lived with little hunger or starvation through living as caretakers of nature.
                Surely, we can help them too.
                TWISI
                I know you are laughing hysterically.

                replyreport
       2. 63

          maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Read in a book or seen on TV? The latter is more appropriate.

          replyreport
          1. 70

             wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             You're right, many people are too lazy to read.

             replyreport
             1. 75

                Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Did indigenous people write/read?... besides petroglyphs.

                replyreport
       3. 72

          Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Hello again, wB. I hope this finds you doing well.
          
          Speaking for myself, the aboriginal inhabitants of this hemisphere were brutally mistreated over the last 500 years. Words will never mitigate the cruel and inhuman treatment your ancestors endured. The "Trail of Tears," for example, would never have happened if President Andrew Jackson had complied with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worchester v. Georgia, 1832. {1} He did not but it is unreasonable and illogical for anyone to blame all Americans living at that time for President Jackson’s decision!
          
          Your repeated claims about the genocide of 100 million people are inaccurate and pure fabrications. If you have a source, it should be revisited and closely examined. Furthermore, this error has been pointed out to you before and each time you print this lie you conveniently omit a source. It seems omitting crucial details is a persistent characteristic of many of your posts. Since you will not acknowledge the truth, I will restate the facts for those in the forum that you are trying to mislead.
          
          Contrary to your statement, there is no consensus among historians about the size of the original population of the Western Hemisphere in the year 1492, how much it declined over 400 years or the exact causes for that decline. Pre-Columbian data are not available because the indigenous peoples of North America did not evolve written languages until long after the influx of Europeans. {2}
          
          The often quoted estimate of 100 million corresponds with a number found in American Holocaust by David E. Stannard. It is important to clarify, and you never do, that this estimate includes all deaths across the entire hemisphere over many centuries. If one needs to cite a single estimate of total mortality, however, this particular imprecise and unreliable number is as least a place to start.
          
          Never the less, Stannard’s estimate of 100 million includes all deaths among all native inhabitants in the hemisphere and it does not differentiate between democide, death by massacre and death by disease. The author makes it clear, if one is to embrace his single estimate of 100 million, several crucial qualifiers are necessary.
          
          One estimate puts the number of humans ritually sacrificed at 25 million in one century. “Borah, possibly the leading authority on the demography of Mexico at the time of the conquest, has also revised the estimated number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the fifteenth century to 250,000 per year" {3}
          
          Others estimate 2 to 5 millions per century. {4}
          
          Regardless, no one is sure which estimates are correct but, in any case, they represent a large chunk of the 100 million and all historians agree that Europeans where not involved.
          
          To further weaken the validity of this number, Stannard also includes in his calculations 86,000 deaths among the Powhatans of Virginia that occurred long before the English even settled in Jamestown in 1607.
          
          Despite repeated boasts about intellectual prowess, you continue to misuse this number. {5} Your posts ignore the fact that dedicated researchers can not determine how many deaths of Amerindians across the centuries resulted from indictable killings, violence and oppression and how many were from indirect, accidental deaths such as famine and disease. The brutality associated with the development of North America is well known but no one can insist, as you do, “ The European invasion is responsible for the genocide of over 100 million human beings.” This claim amounts to pure odorous buffalo chips! No data of any kind exist to support this statement.
          
          Since you continue to repeat this claim, wB, the obligation rests with you to justify your statement with reliable data if you can. Also, show us facts that reveal the number of normal, natural deaths as well. Bear in mind, the significance of Stannard’s estimate, or any other estimate you care to produce, is invalid in your endless, and useless, indictment of early European settlers unless you include categories that can be clearly identified and counted. Your 100 million number standing alone is absolutely and factually meaningless.
          
          I respect the right to vent your opinions and I accept your caustic rhetoric as expressions of a deep-seated condemnation in need of an outlet. I can not, however, remain silent when your posts abuse the truth.
          
          {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jac … an_removal
          {2} http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top … -and-texts
          {3} http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/azt … rifice.htm
          {4} William Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico (1843)
          {5} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2537856

          replyreport
13. 75

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    wB: People read and write here, so why the negative comment?
    In fact, I have been reading a fascinating book about what the early California Oai People experienced. Want to hear some historical facts?
    - well, ready or not here goes:
    
    According to Jerry Stanley in the book, Digger:
    1. The Oai People (my term) arrived from South East Asia about 14,000 years ago. These hunters followed herds of animals northward as glaciers melted and grasslands appeared. They hunted woolly mammoth twice the size of elephants and huge bison. In 12,000 BCE they followed the herds across the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska. The land bridge existed for 500 years before the ocean closed it.
    
    2. The new continent was a paradise of plants, flowers, birds and wildlife and the population of the Oai People grew quickly. They became the Cheyenne, Cherokee, Apache, Navajo, Sioux, etc.
    
    3. The Oai people began entering California in 7000 BCE.  In the beginning, they hunted and did not gather, store or prepare food. They foraged. In so doing they wiped out thirty one species of animals including the mastodon, the mammoth and the giant sloth. They had to find ways to live with nature instead of destroy it. They eventually learned to share with one another and allow nature to replenish itself. And they thanked the Great Spirit for the return of the salmon, for the killing of a deer, for crops of sacred acorns, etc.
    
    3. In California, the farming tribes were warlike. (Non-farming tribes  were not.) They had to protect their lands and gain new land. To do so they attacked other farming tribes, scalped their warriors and enslaved their women and children. They believed that war contributed in a spiritual way to their own tribe.
    
    4. Among the California Oai People, wars were mostly fought over accusations of the use of witchcraft. As in every society, there were those who stole, cheated and murdered. Whoever stole from someone else would be banned from the tribe or triblet. In mythology, a figure named Coyote taught that mistakes are made by not following nature's design.
    
    ETC.

    replyreport
    1. 95

       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       On a recent trip to Utah we learned about the Anasazi, who came into the area and displaced the previous peoples.  They were joined by the Fremont, who co-existed peacefully alongside them.
       
       In about 1200 AD the Shoshone entered the area from the west, and in the 16th century the Navajo came into play as well.  The peaceful Anasazi and Fremont peoples disappeared about the same time.
       
       Not, I fear, what the OP wishes to hear or discuss any more than your own post is, but history is what it is.  The original settlers of the Western Hemisphere have long since been driven out (and or killed off) and replaced by a variety of other tribes, the latest being the European settlers (or perhaps the millions of illegals entering the country now).

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          History does tend to repeat itself, especially when its lessons are not learned.

          replyreport
          1. 95

             wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Yes it does, and even now in various parts of the world people are STILL trying to take the land that others live on.  I wonder if we, as a species, will EVER learn differently - ever learn to let others alone, to let them live on their land as they choose to.  Truthfully, I have doubts.

             replyreport
             1. 75

                Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                People are always looking for better, seeing problems and solving them.
                
                Here in America we solved our problems by taking freedom in the form of independence. The Indians, however, had learned to coexist and help each other survive in triblets and tribes.
                This is where we are suffering. Individuals and families are too isolated. We work too hard and have too little because we are not prone to share and unify with even our family members, let alone our neighbors or the needy.
                And because of our technological advancements, we are out of touch with nature. For instance, we drive our cars instead of ride horses and watch sunsets from the windows of our houses. We eat processed modified food instead of natural fruits and vegetables. We swim in chlorinated pools and absorb cancer causing chlorine. Our lakes, rivers and streams are dammed up or polluted. Frogs and fish are deformed and our cows are absorbing chemical weed killer-runoff through their hooves. We drink their milk and wonder why we have autism and so many other heath problems.
                
                We need to listen to those we pushed aside only three hundred years ago. They existed here for how many centuries? We are about to kill ourselves and them in this short time! They are grumbling. I do not blame them or wrenchBiscuit for discontent and  deep resentment.
                
                However, I blame us, the American people… not the founding fathers who attempted to facilitate what we wanted: freedom of religion and liberty to live according to self-interest. Now, that we have the freedom we demanded, we have misused it. We are not happy and we need to humble up and learn from those who knew a thing or two about surviving long term.
                TWISI.

                replyreport
                1. 95

                   wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   All true, but...
                   
                   If there were as many horses as cars, we'd need several times the land area of the country just for horses.  If we didn't eat what we do, and try to go "natural", most of us would starve; we can't produce that much food "naturally".  If we swam in dirty pools, disease would take many of us.  Without dams we'd need many more air polluting coal burning power plants.  If we didn't kill the farm weeds we'd soon starve.
                   
                   Going back to the simple, natural, Indian way of life would produce a mountain of bodies.  Would you choose to be one of them or would you drive a car to work and the grocery store, eat food made with weed and insect killers and tractors?  Would you choose to do without electricity or double the pollution you breathe?  What would you give up to go back?  Your life?

                   replyreport
                   1. 75

                      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      Oh, no... I am saying we need to modify our lives, to become more aware of natural ways to live. We need to walk outside and enjoy the sunsets, sleep outside more often, eat natural foods and try to maintain what nature provides without adulterating it. I want us to be more conscious of each other, have respect for one another and be willing to help one another. We need more appreciation for all life. I think the Indian-ways can teach us much. We do not need pharmaceuticals... we need the peace that living naturally and thankfully brings... with less stress and more determination to enjoy life.
                      Do Americans enjoy life?
                      Are they truly thriving?
                      Can we keep going the way we are going, polluting and genetically modifying? Yes?
                      
                      The mistake is in not seeing that we can all benefit each other.  We can learn from others and teach others.
                      TWISI

                      replyreport
                      1. 95

                         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                         You're repeating yourself.  "Eat natural foods", but if we all did so most of us would starve.  Nearly every single food we put into our mouths has been genetically modified, whether in a lab or over decades of forced evolution.  Nearly all of it is grown with pesticides and weed killer and if you take that away most of us will starve.
                         
                         Same with pharma products; a great number of our population needs those just to survive or have any quality of life at all.  Not, I grant you, a great many many more TAKE them than NEED them, but many do need them.  Explain to a diabetic, for instance, that living thankfully is more important that his insulin.  You propose to simply kill off all those that cannot maintain life without drugs and I cannot go along with that.
                         
                         Lastly, mankinds greatest strength is that more than any other animal man modifies his environment to fit his needs.  Evolution over millions of years has given man that ability and you propose to ignore it, to throw it away, and still somehow survive in nature.  In a nature that will do it's very best to kill the species off if it won't use the tools nature has given it.

                         replyreport
                         1. 70

                            wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                            Evolution has given man the ability to think and to reason, and through free will turn away from evil. The present course of America, and all of humanity can only lead to utter destruction. The pollution of the mind, the body, and the environment cannot be remedied if a majority continue to glorify, and perpetuate a system of evil. And what is evil? That which diminishes  quality of life, and threatens to not only exterminate the Indigenous race, but all of mankind. Technology, and the weaponry it has afforded, has far exceeded the moral and ethical evolution of mankind. As such, embracing the values, and the ways of the past is not a denial of the future, or a turning away from progress. But it can only be seen for what it is:An act of preservation.

                            replyreport
                            1. 95

                               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                               You're saying that going back to all "natural" foods, doing without petroleum and the energy it produces, doing away with pharmaceuticals keeping millions alive, leaving the wheel out of our civilization and carrying everything on our back is "preservation"? 
                               
                               "Preservation" would seem to be the reason used for the use of the A bomb in Japan - we'll "preserve" OUR people and OUR way of life at the cost of the Japanese people.  And we'll "preserve" YOUR desired way of life by killing off billions of people that cannot be fed in that scenario. 
                               
                               Does it ever occur to you that you have neither the ethical nor legal right to make that kind of call?

                               replyreport
                               1. 70

                                  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                  Obviously, it has not occurred to you what has occurred to myself, and any other reasonable person reviewing this thread: I did not express any of the things that you have mentioned.   You cannot challenge my original arguments , and so you resort to creating a fiction. There are those on this thread who, although I strongly disagree with their sentiments, do not resort to such childish maneuvers. In your futile effort to discredit my argument, and cast a shadow upon my own character, you have only brought your own credibility into question. As such, you have presented us with a microcosm of the inherent self-destructive nature  that will ultimately lead America to ruin. Ironically, it is only those like myself, men and women of all races who understand these changes that must be made, who can save you and your kind from yourselves. But it is my belief that many of you would rather die than accept the fact that for 500 years, America has been wrong. Rather than being a beacon of light,freedom, and hope, America is more akin to a black hole.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 95

                                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                     OK

                                     replyreport
                         2. 75

                            Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                            "Feasting on a nutritious diet of meat fish and plants and sharing with one another, the Yurok, Modoc, and other tribes increased their populations for thousands of years. When the Europeans arrived in California, the local population was about 400,000 and it was still on the rise. There were more Indians living in California than in any part of what is now the U.S. With nature as their guide, they made a home for themselves, and when they weren't fishing and gathering they spent most of their time just having fun."  By Jerry Stanley in the book, Digger.
                            Do you think we can last centuries doing what we're doing?
                            Nature takes care of itself.
                            Maybe we are over-populated. Time will tell… nature will win.

                            replyreport
                            1. 95

                               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                               The population of California is now over 38 million, or nearly 100X what was there.  You cannot fish and use simple crop planting, hoping for rain, and sustain that kind of population.  It also nearly doubled in just the last decade, with no reason to think that growth will slow appreciably. 
                               
                               No, KH, we cannot return to the food production methods of old (or even return to the diet then) and keep our people fed and alive.  To think otherwise is insanity, to say nothing of the peoples of other countries that we now feed as well.
                               
                               Yes, time will tell if we're overpopulated, and yes nature always wins there.  It is already winning in large portions of Africa where a much smaller population density has been starving and dying for decades.

                               replyreport
                               1. 75

                                  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                  Well, you live pretty naturally, I imagine, wilderness. You know what I am saying more than you let on, is my guess.
                                  
                                  Check: We have guys shooting people in schools and movie theaters and airports for no reason, except that they go bonkers due to legal and prescribed drugs of some sort. Why don' t we get to know what drugs they were on?
                                  
                                  Why do they keep details like that hidden from us?
                                  
                                  Because "they" don't want the people to stop doing the drugs and going to the psych doctors who need to perpetuate the drug culture to make a living. Gross.
                                  
                                  Did the Indians do drugs? No. Only for religious reasons.
                                  Why are drugs such a problem in America????
                                  WHY?
                                  Why did our beloved comedian kill himself?
                                  Pharmaceutical drugs prescribed to him after his last surgery!
                                  Maybe they should have let him die a natural death / forgo the surgery.
                                  Indians knew how to die in peace and dignity when time was up.
                                  They knew there was more to life than being here.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 95

                                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                     I do not disagree that Americans have a major problem with prescription drugs, and legal non-prescription as well.  At the same time both you and I know that millions of diabetics will surely die without their insulin.  Millions more will leave us (one way or another) without anti-depressants.  I take blood pressure and cholesterol drugs and while I believe I could do without them now I don't know that for a fact.  My sister gets shots in her knee to allow her to function, and my mother gets shots in her eye (!) to help her near-blindness.  Like it or not (and I don't), drugs are helping a great many of us whatever other damage they do.
                                     
                                     But that isn't the primary point.  Food, energy and transportation is.  Should our food or energy production suddenly fail or take a leap downwards, should our transportation system suddenly screech to a halt, this country is about 3 days from a massive, barbaric riot that will leave millions dead.  So when the OP (or you) subscribe to the notion that we can suddenly go back 300 years or so technology wise - well, it is primarily a request for Thanatos and little more.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 75

                                        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                        Not saying that at all!  wB might be…. I am not. I am saying we need to equalize. Help the Oia People on reservations and in our society into civilization.
                                        Help us get back to nature and less dependent on artificialities.
                                        Diabetes has been cured by Dr. Furhman with natural diets. All health problems are due to one thing: clogged up intestines and colon. Eat naturally, avoid all processed foods…white flour, white sugar... for a free flowing system… clear up the plumbing. Exercise, heart pumping, blood flowing. No sitting around on computers and watching TV… etc.

                                        report
                                        1. 95

                                           wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                           Don't be silly.  Clearing out the intestines will not re-start a dying or malfunctioning pancreas, thyroid or other organ/gland.  It will not restore an incorrect chemical balance in the brain and it will not cure cataracts or other eye diseases.  It will not cure diabetes and it will not stop bipolar.  Cleaning the intestines will do very little except kill/eliminate the bacteria living there that we depend on for our life and the best diet in the world will not cure all diseases or problems.

                                           report
                                     2. 75

                                        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                        No, wilderness. You take things to the extreme and too literally sometimes…
                                        Read Dr. Furhman's books (current) about preventing all those diseases so prevalent in civilized society. 
                                        ...also Dr. Bernard Jensen. (70's)
                                        
                                        Also the Oai people had many remedies:
                                        Jerry Stanley wrote:
                                        "The Indians didn't wear much clothing because it wasn't needed. They lived in temporary villages, which enabled them to move and keep their diet healthy. if disease hit a triblet and no cure could be found, they burned their village, moved to another site, and started again. Their shamans or doctors used elk clover to seal sores, buckhorn cholla to soothe burns and milfoil for stomachaches, colds and sore eyes. One fourth of all the medicines developed in the United states come from hundreds of plants Native Americans used. "  Pg. 23, Diggers.
                                        I'm not saying we should live exactly like the Oia People. It's just interesting.

                                        report
14. 75

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    June 3, 1889
    General Charles Foster, Chairman, Sioux Commission, Rosebud Agency, addressing the Indian Council:
    
    "You well understand the present condition of the Indian, compared with the past. Your ability to secure a living as your fathers did, is past forever. We need not talk about how this change came about, it can not be changed. A much more kindly feeling, thank God, prevails with the present 65,000,000 of American people toward our Indian brother than ever existed before. We want nothing but your good.
    The Great Father and all his people believe that your best interests will lead you, as far as you can, to adopt the habits of our civilization and to become each and every one of you American citizens and have your share in the common glory of this country."
    
    "His path to the white man's standards which he must now attain is beset with tremendous difficulties. We ought to appreciate them." Eugene Buechel S.J.
    
    "The Indian is expected to grasp in a couple of generations what the white man learned only after centuries." Eugene Buechel S.J.
    
    Education is the key in helping the descendants of the original Asian Immigrants and the descendants of Africa brought over as slaves. What is the spirit behind education: helping others toward life itself.
    
    We need the willingness to help ourselves and each other toward life...
    not death…
    in all ways,
    today.
    TWISI

    replyreport
15. 75

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    Approved June 2, 1924:
    
    "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non-citizen Indians born within the traditonal limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: PROVIDED, That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property."

    replyreport
16. 75

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    "It is quite natural, too, that the white man's way of life had no appeal for the (Oai People.) It takes more than a couple of generations to absorb a new philosophy, a new economy. It would have been easier for the (Oai People) if the white man had not taken the good land and left (them) with only the dusty acres from which no man could earn a living. Living on a lower standard than he did when the forests and plains were rich in game, the red man became a victim of many diseases."
    
    Eugene Beuchel, S.J.  from the book, Crying for a Vision, A Rosebud Sioux Trilogy 1886-1976.

    replyreport
17. 70

    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

    Wilderness,
    Sorry, OK won't save you. Some things were just not meant to be.

    replyreport
18. 75

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    um… This is horrible, wrenchBiscuit… I am reading horrible things now. I read about the wonderful life of the Oai People before the Spanish and the Franciscans arrived. Now I am reading about what happened afterwards. Way worse than I knew... and beyond heartbreaking. The reason for the abuse is that the Indians were uncivilized.   That is the reason:  "uncivilized"…

    replyreport
    1. 70

       wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Kathryn,
       Yes, it is ironic what the so-called civilized people did to the so-called savages. What has happened here on this continent is a perfect example of why we should remember the past and teach the true history of the world to future generations. As you and others have pointed out, people have been committing atrocities against each other, all over the world for thousands of years. Unfortunately, many people point this out for the wrong reason. Rather than using this fact as an excuse for evil, it better serves to point out the folly of not learning from our mistakes. After thousands of years, if the European would have truly learned the lessons of war, they would not have exported war to the New World. If the Indigenous had been united prior to the European Invasion,the European would not have been able to gain a foothold. In both cases, each race of people had time to recognize the importance of peace, and unification. However, both did not, and so came the calamity known as America. As a society, we continue to perpetuate evil and destruction by glorifying the evil of the past.

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          The evil consists in destroying the joy of life of others. It is hard to believe that Father Junipero Serra really thought he was doing good to the Indians. Even a path of good intentions is evil when the nature of human beings is not understood or respected. The indigenous people needed love and respect then as they do now. Same for the descendants of those who were forced to come to America in terrible conditions on slave ships.  Those people were torn from their way of life. Profound arrogance, terrible ignorance and in the end, intentional evil created hell on earth for them. A hell which should be acknowledged and never inflicted again. We should learn from these lessons and never repeat them, and yes, wB we need to stop glorifying and perpetuating the evil and destruction of the past. (!)
          
          And yet the radical religionists on the other side of the globe are still doing it to this day...and it could come back to us. We may reap the Karma. So, we must resist them, fight them, stay in a position of command and acknowledge our right to life as we wish to live it.
          
          Which is why we must stay unified and cooperative with one another. I believe we, as American citizens, black, white, red and all others, can maintain the greatness of our own heritages while respecting the heritages of others. We can bend, modify and adapt according to nature and in so doing benefit each other.
          
          It is a lot to ask, but it can be done starting with every child. As Dr. Maria Montessori recommends: Respect nature within the child, (which is building the man/woman) in order to allow the goodness within him/her to manifest. (Strangely enough, this thread has lead me back to the wisdom of  Montessori.)
          
          - we are all part of nature and we should not work against it, but with it.

          replyreport
19. 75

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    "But after a week or a month in the mission the California Indians, especially the men, refused to work. The problem was the idea of work which was not part of their culture. Nature told the California Indians what they should do each day, if anything; when there was nothing to do they... slept or just relaxed. There was no such thing as work for the sake of work." Jerry Stanley, Digger pg. 41
    
    "The California Indians were taught that God was actually three people, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; that God had a son named Jesus, who came to earth and that all people were made in God's image. But to them, the Great Spirit was present in all living things, the salmon, the oak tree, the deer, the earth, itself. To the Franciscans this view was a great sin, the sin of false worship. All 81,000 Indians who lived in the missions and were baptized into the Catholic faith were told they were created in God's image, but that God would punish them for being who they were. To be a California Indian was a sin." pg. 45
    
    "…punishments didn't work. Mission records show that beatings were frequent and that the practice continued during the sixty five period of the missions. Often the same Indian was whipped for the same offense over and over until he died, or just gave up." pg. 42
    
    Should WE believe in these false doctrines?
    
    1. Work is to be done for the sake of work.
    2. Forcing others to believe in religious dogma is the only path to their salvation. 
    3. Punishments are effective and necessary in proper discipline.
    
    Observing the The Oai People with compassion in their natural state tells us: NO!
    
    To inflict these things onto children is, therefore, unnatural / harmful as well.
    WHY?
    Because it disregards and SHUTS DOWN the human will.
    Their interests, their understanding, their feelings, their selves, their inner lives, their JOY OF LIFE!

    replyreport
20. 75

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    Words Worth Repeating, by wrenchBiscuit:
    
    "And what is evil? That which diminishes quality of life, and threatens to not only exterminate the Indigenous race, but all of mankind.
    
    Technology, and the weaponry it has afforded, has far exceeded the moral and ethical evolution of mankind.
    
    As such, embracing the values, and the ways of the past is not a denial of the future, or a turning away from progress. But it can only be seen for what it is:
    
                                       An act of preservation."
    
    Thank You, wB.

    replyreport
21. 75

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    In California, the chiefs of tribes/tribelets were chosen for their skills as providers. They were expected to make sure everyone in their tribes were well fed.
    Jerry Stanley in Digger wrote:
    " He (the chief) had to be honest and not selfish and it helped if he was a good dancer for the ceremonies to give thanks to the Great Spirit. To show respect, members of the tribelet gave him food and blankets, but he gave his wealth back whenever anyone needed anything. He lost his job almost immediately if the oak trees failed to bear fruit or the deer were scarce….The chief of a California tribelet offered advice and if anyone thought it was bad advice, they ignored him."

    replyreport