Native American Exile: Illegal Immigration Laws toward Mexico harm American Indians

[Gxg (G²)]

I never understood why instead of simply reservations, the indians weren't given their own state to govern. That would make them both part of the US and better able to keep much of their identity and traditions alive. It wouldn't have given them their land back (unless their tribe was lucky enough to have lived in that particular state), but it would have given them some degree of autonomy while still assimilating them into the United States.

Very astute point and something I've thought on as well. What I can understand on the issue was that the reservation allowed for Native Americans to have less power in actually impacting policy - as opposed to the way that statehood can shift things greatly.

The push for statehood for Native Americans has occurred before and there were several reasons for it not doing well. One can examine that in what occurred in Oklahoma, for example, as seen here:

The first formal step toward statehood was the passage of the Oklahoma Organic Act in 1890. Under this act, a territorial government was established and all of the Indian reservations in what had been Indian Territory were annexed into the new Oklahoma Territory.

As the Oklahoma Territory moved toward statehood in the late nineteenth century, the Territorial Legislature passed laws which began to superimpose some jurisdiction over the Indian nations within the Territory. In 1899, the Territorial Legislature prohibited the practices of Indian medicine men. Those who practiced the incantations and healing ceremonies of the medicine men were subjected to not only fines, but also imprisonment. In addition, Indians were required to be married under American law rather than Indian custom. In a move against the Native American church, the Legislature also made peyote illegal.

In 1901, all members of the Five Civilized Tribes-Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole-were granted citizenship by an act of Congress. This meant that every Indian adult male was a registered voter. This was an attempt to increase the number of voters in the territory so that it could gain statehood.

Not all Indians were happy about the push toward statehood and some Indian leaders, such as Creek chief Pleasant Porter began to advocate the idea of a separate statehood for the Indians. Porter felt that this was the only way in which Indians could truly have a voice in their own affairs. In 1902, Chief Porter called a meeting of the Five Civilized Tribes to discuss alternatives to statehood. However, only representatives from the Creek and Seminole tribes attended. Porter then called for a second meeting, which also failed.

​

For other examples of where statehood failed for Native Americans:

• Alaska Natives Before Statehood . Building the Alaska Highway . WGBH American Experience | PBS

• The State of What?? U.S. States that Never Made the Cut | In Custodia Legis: Law Librarians of Congress

• Native American Resistance and Statehood | History of Kentucky, USA

And if wanting to have more examples, one should consider the proposed state of SEQUOYAH and the history on that when it came to "Separate Statehood" advocates:

• CHICKASAW.TV | The Proposed State of Sequoyah

Other people to consider who have done an excellent job covering the issue are Judith Royster, a Professor of Law and Co-Director of Native America Law Center at the University of Tulsa and who describes how, although Oklahoma became a state in 1907, the Native American nations in the state still possessed a rightful claim to sovereignty (more in WATERFUTURE.TV | Judith Royster: Statehood and Sovereign Tribal Governments).


But as it concerns Oklahoma's history, one of the best places to go is 12 Proposed U.S. States That Didn't Make the Cut | Mental Floss. As said there, for an excerpt:

Based out of Indian Territory (present day eastern Oklahoma), a tract of land where Native Americans had been relocated by the U.S. Government, the state design would have counties for all of the major tribes and allow their system of tribal government to continue unabated.

When presented with their constitution and plans for statehood, Congress was hesitant due to a desire to keep the number of states between the eastern and western U.S. balanced. In the end, President Teddy Roosevelt decided that Sequoyah should be merged with the existing Oklahoma statehood proposal, creating the state as we know it today.

​

​

​

 

[nightflight]

Very astute point and something I've thought on as well. What I can understand on the issue was that the reservation allowed for Native Americans to have less power in actually impacting policy - as opposed to the way that statehood can shift things greatly.

The push for statehood for Native Americans has occurred before and there were several reasons for it not doing well.

All for statehood and sovereignty here. But then, you would have an immediate rival known as the United States.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Good advice from what you shared here

As an aside, there is a big need to be involved in the democratic process and realizing that part of the issue (as it concerns Tribal Sovereignty being violated consistently) is that there are multiple resources within Indian Country that often get overlooked due to their strategic importance. Judith V. Royster noted it well in her review entitled Oil and Water in the Indian Country

Not many keep in mind (as it concerns the Hopi on the U.S-Mexico border) the ways that land confiscation is intimately tied to their water rights being taken away - with militarization of the border being a smoke-screen to prevent others from seeing what happens with resource privatization....if keeping in mind U.S-Mexico Transboundary Water Management. As another wisely noted:

This culture has forced us into an economy of dependence and servitude based on the destruction of the planet. To live a normal life is to participate in a system of overlapping dominance—men over women, white over brown, rich over poor, industry over nature, civilized over indigenous—that together comprise the system of power called civilization. To maintain this way of life resources must be imported from beyond the borders of our cities, maintaining an illusion of an infinite cornucopia of resources. But the limits of the biosphere are growing ever more evident. Wind turbines tower over the former homes of desert creatures. Fracking chemicals and mining radiation are in our drinking water. Water tables are dropping in desert cities, while rivers disappear and home foreclosures enrich globalized banks.Any effort toward durable cultures must recognize that industrial civilization renders any community unsafe, and embrace the need to oppose systems of theft and dominance. Transition towns are worthy steps toward the goal of a lasting relationship with place, but more is needed. We must learn to live with the land, to get what we need to survive without destroying it. To re-enter this sacred relationship, we must defend the land and renewed communities, our own and others both.

Developing relationships and standing in solidarity with grassroots indigenous communities throughout the region

Much of the destruction of native habitats is also destructive to indigenous peoples, as with the proposed Las Vegas pipeline, the Arizona senate’s Water Settlement bill SB 2109,[12] and the US/Mexico border fence in Arizona bisecting Tohono O’odham land.[13] A complete list of violations against the indigenous would be impossibly long here, but a number of others include the Grand Canyon Escalade tourist development, which would impact the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers in northern Arizona, a site sacred to the Zuni, Navajo, and Hopi tribes.[14] Solar farms and wind turbines in the southern California desert are also harming lands important to desert peoples like the Chemehuevi. Coal ash pollution is responsible for illness and death among the Moapa Band of Paiutes in southern Nevada. Indigenous rights are a priority of the DGR Southwest Coalition. ​

With others at the U.S.-Mexico Border like the Tohono O'odham, they have spoken on the issue with their experiences in water rights as well. Unfortunately, Indigenous people’s access to clean and plentiful water has been threatened since settlers arrived, even after they were given priority water rights by the federal government....for not only did Southern Arizona settlers divert water away from sources Tohono O’odham and other indigenous people relied upon, and contributed to erosion of their lands, but indigenous people have been swindled for their priority water rights over the the last several decades. ....and Arizona has not done much coverage on the matter.

• The U.S.-Mexican Border Environment: Binational Water Management Planning

• Paths of Life: American Indians of the Southwest and Northern Mexico

• Mines, Water, Roads, Borders | Earth First! Newswire

More can be seen, for example, with O’odham Activist Ofelia Rivas speaking on Immigration, Imperialism and Cultural Genocide concerning the effects of a
proposed wall on the US / Mexico border (more in In Hostile Terrain Human Rights Violations In Immigration Enforcement In the US Southwest):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=112&v=U-0cD5TkO14

We also have it where O'odham Sacred Site of Quitovac has come under under threat from US Gold Mining Company Silver Scott - but not much coverage on the issue occurred...even though the O'odham have continued to resist aggressively as they've done for ages

And others have pointed out the same when it comes to how often Tribal Sovereignty is overlooked (be it with immigration on Tribal Reservations on the U.S. Borders or land acquisition/stewardship and other things) because there are things such as water/crucial resources which investors want to have without anyone realizing that those resources are the main issue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoVWL3yJwYo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWyknb4LsHM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCcAGTPv54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-gGa-ln6WQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WgrLnkEADw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qZQRHv5Agk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ6b7jqnr24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYqKVA3LY50

And unfortunately, in other places, the land is being used as a toxic-waste area due to how they can keep others in the dark with the toxic discrimination that can occur with the loopholes they made available...as seen with the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming ( home to over 8,000 Native Americans and now the tribe is sharing the land with nearly a dozen oil and gas fields).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Just saw this video from Idle No More Washington.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksESR2BVlqY

Sad hearing what the woman was noting in that video with regards to the environment being damaged in such a way that Native Americans have paid a severe price to their way of life in their own territory...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

All for statehood and sovereignty here. But then, you would have an immediate rival known as the United States.

You will always have a rival dynamic with Native American Nations - as that was one of the reasons they were pushed out consistently during the Indian Wars since the mindset was that you cannot have a nation within a nation (like a circle within a circle where the people in the larger circle have to navigate around those in the inner circle who do not owe allegiance to those in the larger one). The reservation dynamic was a threat to many settlers in U.S. history since there were many times that reservations were found to possess resources that colonial settlers found desirable - and yet they knew they couldn't honor their word of staying off reservations after they had pushed Native Americans into them since they constantly found reasons to go into Native American territory/make new reservations. For those Native Americans who fought back, it caused a lot of problems when it came to realizing that the U.S...

 

[Sistrin]

This is near pointless, as experience has proven all I will get in reply is a long series of condescending ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments. But still.

If one will share a falsehood, one can do better than you have done by actually giving evidence rather than arguing with a assumption you've yet to show with all things disagreeing with you being "Liberal"...

It really wouldn't be that hard, Gxg, to address what was actually said as opposed to taking every comment out of context in order to substantiate your...point. In addition the phrase "all things disagreeing with you being liberal" is a grammatical nightmare, not to mention another strawman.

Liberalism is. It constitutes a philosophy well established and practiced by its adherents. I suppose I could post a eight or ten youtube videos discussing liberalism but no one would watch them, nor would posting them actually constitute making a point. In promoting liberalism its adherents employ a number of tried and tested tactics. Primary among these is defamation of the opposing side.

The charge that when Conservatives or Republicans yearn for the "good old days" they are longing for the days of slavery and segregation is a tactic of prevarication continually employed by liberals during discussions of race relations. TFY employed that tactic and I pointed it out. Your posting of another dozen youtube videos won't change that fact.

Context is no more "all over the place" than your logic is centered properly in place since you've argued at several points with ideas that you alone are pushed but no one was saying. Nothing new there...

Really...

Back in post number 99 I discussed reparations. You scoffed, of course, but then later this story was referenced:

Navajo Win $554,000,000 From The US Government

This story was posted, it appears, as an example of some great victory. But in reality it exposes the true nature of the cause and serves to prove my earlier point. Quote from the article:

The settlement originates from a 2006 court case, which sought $900 million in damages for the mismanagement of Navajo lands in the sense that they were not managed for maximum profit. When I first read this headline, I expected that the problem was the lack of respect for the ecological well being of the lands the United States governments was in charge of managing (which amounts to over 14 million acres).

Instead of dealing with ecological mismanagement, the actual issue was the government acted the part of a corporate lackey: awarding land-use contracts as political favors, and “didn’t do a good job in getting a fair market value” and then failed to properly invest any profits, according to Navajo lawyer Andrew Sandler.

The issue to the Navajo wasn't the well being of the land, it was the well being of their bank accounts. Sure, they may use some of the money for public works, but a certain percentage of Navajo will get rich from the exchange.

I asked you this question once before and you ignored it, so I ask again in context of this event. Where do you think that $544,000,000 came from?

...it is a moot point ranting over what TFY noted.

It was a response I made to TFY, not you.

Going on a rant about "Liberals say this!!!" is foolish...

Liberals make comments. Attempting to label response to those comments as nothing more than rant is foolish.

By your logic, it seems apparent you're more than fine with the stereotypes of Native Americans...

Another strawman. You have no proof of this. However speaking of stereotypes, you have crafted a thread full of them:

Comparing Columbus to Bin Laden only serves to promote a stereotype of early European settlers. Columbus was an explorer, not a religious zealot attempting to impose his beliefs by force of terrorism. Columbus did not sail to the new world in order to exterminate the non-believers. He did not set sail to purposefully engage in biological warfare against an indigenous people by introducing a new disease he knew before hand might be fatal. The comparison to Hitler is just as inane.

Images such as this:

...are meant to promote an agenda. In this case the open borders agenda and the notion that illegals aliens who violated US law to enter the country really aren't illegal.

Images such as this:

...are meant to promote the canard blacks in America were never really freed and Native Americans are not receiving $554,000,000 reparation settlements courtesy of the US taxpayer. And as if the United States is the only country to ever engage in slavery.

Why don't you find a few youtube videos discussing how African blacks were sold into slavery by other African blacks. Or perhaps discussing how Native American tribes engaged in the act of enslaving members of other Native American tribes.

Indian Slavery and Slaves

Beginning with the Tlingit, slavery as an institution existed among all the northwest coast Indians as far as California. It practically ceased with south Oregon, although the Hupa, of Athapascan stock, and the Nozi (Yanan), both of northern California, practiced it to some extent, according to Powers. Among the former, a bastard became the slave for life of one of the male relatives of the mother and was compelled to perform menial service; nor could he or she marry a free person. Such slaves seem to have been entitled to purchase freedom, provided they could accumulate sufficient wealth. Both the Klamath and the Modoc seem to have had slavery in some form.

The northwest region, embracing the islands and coast occupied by the Tlingit and Haida, and the Chimmesyan, Chinookan, Wakashan, and Salishan tribes, formed the stronghold of the institution. As we pass to the eastward the practice of slavery becomes modified, and finally its place is taken by a very different custom. Among the tribes mentioned, slavery seems to have existed long enough to have secured a prominent place in mythology and to have materially modified the habits and institutions of the people

Source: Indian Slavery and Slaves

http://africandiasporastudent.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/blackslavesindianmasters.jpg

The above source cites how the Cherokee tribe held as many as 4,000 black slaves by 1860. 4,000 black slaves.

History is what it is. It is the dependence on revisionist history to promote an agenda I am arguing against here.

 

[Sistrin]

In addition, this image:

...does not bring the issue home. It promotes a stereotype, the very transgression you wish to rail against.

Seeing that you already brought up slavery/segregation as well as talking about "evil white people" several times whenever people speak on immigration reform...

Look at the very images you post:

Are you actually going to try and foist the claim these images do not present a stereotypical view of evil white people attempting to suppress minorities? What am I saying, of course you will.

As usual, an assertion made isn't the same as actually making an argument. Unless you can show logically ANYWHERE that someone making a general statement is making an ABSOLUTE statement, you are again arguing past what TYF already said and responding based on what you want to hear rather than what was said.

This is why attempting to discuss any topic with you is so frustrating. You either have no idea of what an absolute statement looks like or what the term absolute means, or you just ignore such troublesome facts in order to support another in a long line of strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. His wording was clear and I addressed it accurately.

No need for the equivocation when caught on the matter, Sistrin - as you already showed unwillingness to actually deal with your own words...

This could not be farther from the truth. As is your next comment:

...as has been said repeatedly whenever you claimed it was justified because Native Americans were already fighting in the U.S.

So you can't post where I ever said genocide of Native Americans was justified. Instead, all you can do is what you continually do, set up a strawman and proceed to attack it. I stated Native Americans engaged in warfare with each other because they did.

Can you deny that historic fact? No? I also stated conflict between Native American tribes and white settlers was not entirely the fault of white settlers, another historic fact you have already admitted was true.

Again, It was already noted where you justified what Great Britain did in eradicating Native Americans/taking land wrongfully when claiming "Well, tribes were already fighting one another and the British practiced no other policy other than what the tribes already had," as noted

here and here...

Thank you for proving another of my points. You can't even quote me accurately.

This is what you say I said:

"Well, tribes were already fighting one another and the British practiced no other policy other than what the tribes already had,"

Here is what I actually said, from the first link:

"This is nothing but an internet meme, one which represents revisionist history. Great Britain practiced colonization. The original settlers did not come here in violation of sovereign law, and even when you claim they did, if true they practiced no policy other than the same one the various American tribes had been practicing against each other for generations."

And the second:

"When you consider all of the history of Native Americans it is undeniable tribes fought each other for land."

You are already not taken seriously for the re-making of the history of interaction with Native Americans - but it is problematic claiming they deserved to be wiped out and that the British were justified.

A claim I never made. Therefore I ask again you act honestly here and retract your comment.

It's unfortunate if you cannot even keep up with your own words..

It is unfortunate you have to build your arguments and counter-arguments on distortions and prevarications.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This is near pointless , as experience has proven all I will get in reply is a long series of condescending ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments. But still.

Most of what you said already is pointless (as it is more of the same with red herring )as your entire response was already long series of the same charge you attempted to make (as has occurred before with others calling you out for the same silliness).

It really wouldn't be that hard, Gxg, to address what was actually said as opposed to taking every comment out of context in order to substantiate your...point.

As said earlier, Sistrin, one can either quit ranting with arguments via appeal to emotion and actually make a real Conservative argument since you've already gone against multiple people who do so - or quit expecting people to take you seriously when all you did was wrangle without substance. Bravado in talking about one's potential in addressing issues is not the same as addressing them.

"all things disagreeing with you being liberal" is a grammatical nightmare, not to mention another strawman.

You again did a bad attempt at red herring since you already made several grammatical errors and it has little to do with the OP topic. We can see that from the last comment alone that your grammar is not flawless when you said "..Liberalism is." That is an incomplete sentence. If I wanted to be focused on all the aspects of your grammar being off (whether here or elsewhere), it would not be a problem to address it since you've tried the same antics of switching to focusing on the spelling/grammar of posters you disagree with even when your own grammar was off (as seen in #217 and #52 and #112). Nonetheless, to do so would focusing on ad-hominem comments as you show a tendency for and that's a distraction.

Liberalism is. It constitutes a philosophy well established and practiced by its adherents. I suppose I could post a eight or ten youtube videos discussing liberalism but no one would watch them, nor would posting them actually constitute making a point. In promoting liberalism its adherents employ a number of tried and tested tactics.

Making claims about liberalism is not the same as showing what it actually is - just as saying "Conservatism is always about harming people" doesn't give any real evidence of what harm one is talking about or evidence to substantiate their case. Talking on whether one could post some videos doesn't matter (especially when one already shows tendency to not even address video on any format while still trying to critique). It wouldn't matter if you feel you could post a couple of videos assuming no one would watch them (since there's zero evidence of that speculation - and trying to make a side comment on videos not making a point doesn't show where a video has not made a point). Nothing you have said even deals with Liberalism and actually goes against it at several points - just as multiple things you've said already go directly counter to multiple conservatives (especially on the issue of Open Borders which you already avoided when it comes to others such as Milton Friedman, Regan and others as said in #201.). So again, you need to actually share a CONSERVATIVE perspective rather than just ranting on all the ways you feel Liberalism is evil or does negative things - as that's no different than someone trying to make an argument by appealing to emotions of "Of course they're wrong!! They also defame!!" and yet giving ZERO evidence of that case. We already know what Conservatives are:

More from M. Lofgren (The American Conservative):

This raises disturbing questions for those who call themselves conservatives. Almost all conservatives who care to vote congregate in the Republican Party. But Republican ideology celebrates outsourcing, globalization, and takeovers as the glorious fruits of capitalism’s “creative destruction.” As a former Republican congressional staff member, I saw for myself how GOP proponents of globalized vulture capitalism, such as Grover Norquist, Dick Armey, Phil Gramm, and Lawrence Kudlow, extolled the offshoring and financialization process as an unalloyed benefit. They were quick to denounce as socialism any attempt to mitigate its impact on society. Yet their ideology is nothing more than an upside-down utopianism, an absolutist twin of Marxism. If millions of people’s interests get damaged in the process of implementing their ideology, it is a necessary outcome of scientific laws of economics that must never be tampered with, just as Lenin believed that his version of materialist laws were final and inexorable.

If a morally acceptable American conservatism is ever to extricate itself from a pseudo-scientific inverted Marxist economic theory, it must grasp that order, tradition, and stability are not coterminous with an uncritical worship of the Almighty Dollar, nor with obeisance to the demands of the wealthy. Conservatives need to think about the world they want: do they really desire a social Darwinist dystopia?

Revolt of the Rich | The American Conservative

“So much of what passes for conservatism today is just pure partisan opposition,” Mr. Bartlett says. “It’s not conservative at all.”…

there are movements which battle with each other within the camp over which strain of "conservative" is truly the conservative model - more discussed in Does CPAC show some of the big fractures in the Conservative Movement? - No More Lost

​

[CENTER

​

[/CENTER]

So far, your ideology is akin to what other conservatives have labeled as radical extremes in the name of the Conservative camp (which actually goes directly in line with the caricature others try to throw up with Liberalism and still fail in understanding Classical Liberalism as true Conservatives understand).

Hopefully, this can change for yourself in time.

The charge that when Conservatives or Republicans yearn for the "good old days" they are longing for the days of slavery and segregation is a tactic of prevarication continually employed by liberals during discussions of race relations. TFY employed that tactic and I pointed it out. Your posting of another dozen youtube videos won't change that fact.

As said before, you have yet to give ANY evidence that TFY said at any point he was speaking on Conservatives or Republicans (as there have been Democrats/Liberals saying the same and it's begging the question assuming a conclusion without showing it). Making an accusation is not the same as actually proving one to be true - and accusing without verification is willful falsehood. Ranting past that with arguments that no one was saying will never change where you cannot verify what you claim - and no amount of harping on videos (a red herring which doesn't deal with anything) is going to address that. It's already bad enough since you have shown you cannot even address topic in a video and assume that not checking it out is the same as actually having awareness. Moving on..

I discussed reparations. You scoffed, of course, but then later this story was referenced:

Navajo Win $554,000,000 From The US Government

This story was posted, it appears, as an example of some great victory. But in reality it exposes the true nature of the cause and serves to prove my earlier point. Quote from the article:

The settlement originates from a 2006 court case, which sought $900 million in damages for the mismanagement of Navajo lands in the sense that they were not managed for maximum profit. When I first read this headline, I expected that the problem was the lack of respect for the ecological well being of the lands the United States governments was in charge of managing (which amounts to over 14 million acres).

Instead of dealing with ecological mismanagement, the actual issue was the government acted the part of a corporate lackey: awarding land-use contracts as political favors, and “didn’t do a good job in getting a fair market value” and then failed to properly invest any profits, according to Navajo lawyer Andrew Sandler.

The issue to the Navajo wasn't the well being of the land, it was the well being of their bank accounts. Sure, they may use some of the money for public works, but a certain percentage of Navajo will get rich from the exchange.

I asked you this question once before and you ignored it, so I ask again in context of this event. Where do you think that $544,000,000 came from?

Once again, you have been caught in another falsehood. For as said earlier on that very article when it was brought up:

​

Navajo Win $554,000,000 From The US Government

Interesting to see the developments and thanks for letting me know on the issue. I didn't know that this happened that recently or within the last year - but the settlement was truly extensive. How they use the funding to rebuild things should be interesting...although as I have said earlier, reparations will never be enough to deal with anything and I am glad for other Native Americans noting reparations are not the way to go if truly wanting to address the issue comprehensively.

That was also noted directly to you before when it came to the issue of reparations, as noted in #185, alongside addressing the silliness of asking questions on "Where do you think the money comes from?" when we already have tax dollars funding things you advocate for (like Border Militarization) which are a waste of funds - and multiple other things you advocate for which other tax payers are dealing with. Native Americans have funding given to them based on the treaties established by the U.S. government/law and in line with the U.S. Constitution that the Founders made - so asking "Where does the money come from?" is as irrelevant as asking "Where does the money come from?" for public works (i.e. roads, national parks, etc.) which we pay for. It has already been pointed out how the majority of others in Native American culture have been focused on the ecological issues of giving stewardship of the land to Native Americans when it comes to their own territories being violated - as noted in #328 , #363, #241 and several other places. The Navajo leaders already noted where they financial results were far from adequate in dealing with the extensive damage done to the environment by the companies that were harming the land and trying to settle issues in court where others would not know. As said in the actual article (original):

In 2006, the tribe filed a lawsuit that claimed that the government had failed to invest tribal resources in a way that would maximize profits. The mismanagement dated back to 1946, according to the suit, which sought $900 million in damages.

“When the government negotiated the contracts, they didn’t do a good job in getting a fair market value,” said Andrew Sandler, a lawyer who represents the Navajo Nation. “The government didn’t do a good job in monitoring the extraction to make sure the proper royalties were paid, and the government didn’t do a good job in investing the money.”

The money will be transferred to the tribe within two months, Mr. Sandler said. “Virtually every resource that’s in that part of the country was part of the case,” he said....The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian tribe in the country, with more than 300,000 members spread over 27,000 square miles in New Mexico, Arizona and Utah.

The agreement is part of the Obama administration’s effort to resolve breach-of-trust claims by Indian tribes.
​

Resources can be promised and yet never delivered because there was no proper oversight. The government did that with the Navajo when finances were promised to make up for the damage done to the land/infrastructure, but the government did not come through. Trying to claim "The issue to the Navajo wasn't the well being of the land, it was the well being of their bank accounts" because other Navajo lawyers get paid is like saying doctors helping out people for surgery are "selfish" because they are paid well to help others have maximum health. People already biased against Native Americans tend to look for any reason to see them in the negative - and they also condemn any aid given to Native Americans in the name of "We already gave aid, they just want money!!"...One shows they don't care for Native Americans by dedicating more time to of harping on reparations rather than addressing their history/ways to help them in favor.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

T
It was a response I made to TFY, not you.

Inconsistent argumentation has again happened on your part. The original context of the discussion was this:

I know NDNs who honor america and NDNs, who like me, despise america and its ideals. As I said, it depends on the NDN you speak to.

I don't think anyone studying the history of the U.S. fully will ever walk away without having something they didn't despise on it or wish was different.

Yes, especially since this country was founded and built upon racism (white supremacy, white privilege), slavery, and genocide. America has been racist since its inception. It certainly was not founded on liberty and justice for all. And as far as I am concerned, it is not worthy of me honoring or pledging my allegiance to.

It's like when I hear people yearning for the "good ol' days".

What days were those? The 50s when segregation ensured blacks and First Nations never had a chance to compete, or to share in any of the generated wealth? Or the 1800s back when slavery was legal?

The "good ol' days" were terrible for a significant percentage of Americans, and I for one would never want to revisit them.

I think it is interesting whenever people do speak on "good ol' days" and the reality of the matter is that the days were never really that good. If speaking on how many from Native American or Black culture were held back, people ignoring history tend to resort to tokens they bring up (i.e. "What about MLK or Rosa Parks or Sojourner Truth or Jackie Robinson and others? They did well!!!" while ignoring the numerous others who did not and the systemic problems that ALL of those people pointed to when showing how much was lacking). And if issues are persisting today due to issues never being addressed, the fact of the matter is that people try to disconnect events while ignoring how interconnected they are...

No one was talking to you whatsoever - but you jumped into the conversation and commented on his comment to Red Fox (in #307 ) and then insisted on answering what I had said to TYL in #322 .

Thus, you can save the antics of backtracking since it is moot claiming "I was talking to TYL, not you" when you came speaking on a comment I had made to him.

Liberals make comments. Attempting to label response to those comments as nothing more than rant is foolish.

As said before, it is bad argumentation assuming anything disagreeing with you is Liberal since Conservatives have called out that silliness before. Thus, it is foolish whenever one cannot show consistency in argumentation by either failing to actually show their argument as conservative (if making themselves a contrast to anything they deem liberal) or choosing to throw out the term "liberal" in ranting (i.e. complaining without actual facts or evidence, throwing out any emotional argument as if that makes a point, etc.) anytime they come across something they don't like. One can do better if wanting to be taken seriously - and this has already been noted before, as said here:

it's a simplistic argument trying to sum up everything disagreeing with you as if it's "The Left trying to push agenda." One can save that for another time - in addition to saving the personal commentary for elsewhere - as it doesn't help in any points you've raised nor is it necessary and it really hasn't done anything to support the diatribes you have been making toward people who disagree with you (against the rules since it's again personal commentary). Would advise you to stop doing so.

This is essentially why I don't take him seriously.

He complains about conservatives being broad-brushed as this or that but has no problems broad brushing all liberals as loving Obama.

Simple enough...

Another strawman. You have no proof of this.

Judging by how consistently you've already avoided several things with the OP topic (counter to others) when it comes to speaking on problems impacting Native Americans and instead have argued off topic (against the rules, as usual), speaking on strawman is harmless. It's no different than one making a thread on how to aid Keyans in war-torn areas and then going on a rant with saying "Kenyans aren't perfect, look at all the ones who've done wrong!!!"...and yet consistently avoiding the main topic of discussion (i.e. helping Kenyans in war-torn areas) while saying there's concern.

If there was a real concern for Native Americans per the OP, one would deal with the issue rather than making excuses for avoiding what other Native Americans have said when it comes to community work in Native American communities, protests/political gatherings and speaking on history with what they have gone through as others here have done. However, you've already avoided that and thus show no evidence of concern for Native American struggles. Pretense on the matter is needless since the focus shows what one finds important - and the concern you've shown in not actually dealing with the battles Native Americans deal with is evident.

However speaking of stereotypes, you have crafted a thread full of them

Red herring - but again, you've already shown yourself consistent on that matter which tends to happen whenever people don't want to either help Native Americans or don't like any kind of focus on the issues they have to deal with.

Comparing Columbus to Bin Laden only serves to promote a stereotype of early European settlers. Columbus was an explorer, not a religious zealot attempting to impose his beliefs by force of terrorism. Columbus did not sail to the new world in order to exterminate the non-believers. He did not set sail to purposefully engage in biological warfare against an indigenous people by introducing a new disease he knew before hand might be fatal. The comparison to Hitler is just as inane.

This is another red herring, as it minimizes the actions of Columbus in what he did while trying to give lip service to having concern for American Indians. One either justifies what he did and can say it outright - or they denounce what he did and call it for what it was when it comes to genocide, exploitation of the population and several other things that are without basis. It's also another false argument trying to say "Well Bin Laden and him aren't the same because they had differences!!" - as every terrorist leader differs from another in the things they do.

Hitler killed less people than Columbus, yet both did so in the name of nationalism and felt justified - and it would be dishonest trying to claim they're not the same..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abHHvHSN5_U

Someone murders with a gun while another commits murder with a knife - but it is a silly argument trying to say one can't call both murderers because the methodology was different and they lived in different timelines. That would be like saying those who killed in Jim Crow in the name of Christ were not terrorists like those in South Africa who killed the natives (in the belief they were Cannanites while the Dutch Reformed were "God's Chosen Israel") simply because they were different in their methods. Murder is murder - and you've already shown a willingness to defend it unfortunately. Columbus did what he did saying it was God's Will to enslave the Natives of the Caribbean in the name of Queen of Spain - so trying to claim he wasn't a religious zealot is intellectually dishonest. The same goes for trying to speak on Columbus NOT coming over to commit genocide or slavery - when he already did JUST that when he arrived by eradicating the Taino Native Americans....and wrote to King Fernidad on the people there that “there is not in the world a better nation...they must be made to work . . . and adopt our ways.”

It's insulting to the Taino to even try claiming "Columbus didn't intend to harm them" when he was active in eradicating them after his arrival...as he already said of them directly in the following:

“They will give all that they do possess for anything that is given to them, exchanging things even for bits of broken crockery....They were very well-built, with very handsome bodies and very good faces….They do not carry arms or know them….They should be good servants...I , our Lord being pleased, will take hence, at the time of my departure, six natives for your Highnesses..”


"YOUR HIGHNESSES, as Catholic Christians and Princes who love the holy Christian faith, and the propagation of it, and who are enemies to the sect of Mahoma [Islam] and to all idolatries and heresies, resolved to send me, Cristóbal Colon, to the said parts of India to see the said princes ... with a view that they might be converted to our holy faith … Thus, after having turned out all the Jews from all your kingdoms and lordships ... your Highnesses gave orders to me that with a sufficient fleet I should go to the said parts of India .... I shall forget sleep, and shall work at the business of navigation, so that the service is performed." ​

We also have it where one incident, reported by Michele de Cueno, a Spaniard in Columbus’ traveling party, involved them coming upon Taino men in a canoe and attacking them. They thought they had killed one of the men and threw him into the water. ..but upon seeing him begin to swim, they caught him and cut off his head with an axe...and there is no avoiding how one of his favorite ways to send a “message” to the other Taino was to take one of the men, cut his hands off, and tie them around the man’s neck.

• The life of Christopher Columbus, Volume 2 By Francesco Tarducci

• Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years By Bill Bigelow, Bob Peterson

Thus, if wanting to justify it, one will do as you have done and minimize it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmqmdunscMM&list=PLKmQROhbQrV3hSKlGGOCxOt3TLnXJnGjT&index=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5EYcDAp4KM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lDLBxlk3_Y

Red Fox pointed this out earlier (as seen in #110 and #105 )when it came to the things he did and others pointed out the same - and if one wishes to defend his enslavement and genocide (including dismembering of the Natives) for the sake of argument, that's your choice. Nonetheless, one cannot do so while trying to maintain the appearance of concern for Native Americans.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Unless can show where the Pilgrims ever immigrated legally into the Americas (despite laws already set up by the Native Americans which were not respected), one misses the context of the picture..

Images such as this:

...are meant to promote an agenda. In this case the open borders agenda and the notion that illegals aliens who violated US law to enter the country really aren't illegal.

Part of basic research in actually seeing where an image came from before talking on it - which you failed to do. The illustration is titled “Promised Land” and it was done by Christoph Niemann, an illustrator, designer and author of Abstract Sunday, a column for the “New York Times Magazine.”...and he noted plainly “Too often in politics, very complex subjects are being turned into sound bites, so it’s easy to take them apart"....as seen in Cover Story: Promised Land." Besides the fact that it is silly avoiding the context of the actual post when the picture itself pointed out the fact that it is hypocritical to celebrate the pilgrims who often violated borders while demonizing others coming over legally and yet labeled "illegal" because others don't want immigration... As said before, you've already gone counter to what Conservatives have pointed out when it comes to the issue of Open Borders (which is NOT for illegal immigration and several, including former conservative presidents, have already spoken on it) - and no amount of wrangling is going to change that fact when it comes to avoiding what has been said on the issue..as said before:

Seems you've avoided what conservatives have actually said on open borders or immigration reform - Cato Institute being one of the most prominent among others...and of course, Bruce Bartlett

• The Conservative Case For Immigration - Forbes

Open Border Conservatives Speak Out ​

• CPAC's Open-Border, Mass-Immigration Panel | Center for Immigration Studies Conservative Political Action Conference

• Immigration reform: Tyranny! | The Economist

If wanting a real understanding of conservatives, there's no avoiding where classical liberals like as Milton Friedman, who are beloved by conservatives, supported undocumented immigration (as it concerns his series on immigration - more in Classically Liberal: What Milton Friedman really said about immigration. )- and the same goes for Ayn Rand, who believed in open borders and was actually an undocumented immigrant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA4XyRcqIpc

For other conservatives on immigration/open borders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HQZaGvfoXo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDK9Ic2qx3I

• Moderate versus radical open borders | Open Borders: The Case

• ILW.COM - immigration news:

• The Conservative Case for Immigration Tariffs
  A Market-Based, Humane Approach to Solving Illegal Immigration - Competitive Enterprise Institute

• Twenty-Five Years After Reagan's 'Amnesty' Bill, Conservatives Should Support Increased Immigration - Competitive Enterprise Institute

• Peter Robinson: Immigration: What Would Reagan Do? - WSJ

• Conservatives and Immigration - The Volokh Conspiracy

• https://andyhallman.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/the-conservative-case-for-liberal-immigration/

And as it concerns what conservatives have already said on the issue:

.I do not mean that everyone on earth should be able to immigrate to the US and gain citizenship and the vote (that’s a separate issue), nor that anyone on earth should be able to immigrate to the US and collect welfare payments (I definitely oppose that), nor even that anyone on earth should be able to immigrate to the US and enjoy equal opportunities with native-born Americans and be subject to the same tax regime. I mean merely that approximately anyone on earth (but perhaps excepting groups with statistical high risk of criminal behavior or political terrorism) should be able to move to the US physically, live in the US indefinitely, and work. The specific version of an open borders policy I advocate would involve migration taxes and compensation of natives, as a kind of insurance against the negative wage shocks that some US natives would probably suffer under open borders.​

​

Trying to wrangle past that doesn't change the fact that you really need to do better listening before speaking - simply avoiding what disagrees with you doesn't establish a case for you.


.

It's one things speaking on conservatives - but another entirely actually dealing with the arguments.

Images such as this:

...are meant to promote the canard blacks in America were never really freed and Native Americans are not receiving $554,000,000 reparation settlements courtesy of the US taxpayer. And as if the United States is the only country to ever engage in slavery.

A pointless argument (as usual) as it mixes categories since noting that the U.S. enslaved both Blacks and Native Americans isn't the same as saying Blacks and Native Americans were freed. The country was founded/built upon the eradication of Native Americans as well built through the enslavement of Blacks. This is basic to history and others such as Fredrick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and multiple other leaders in U.S history have pointed out that simple reality. Revisionist history tends to avoid dealing with that and trying to appeal to ridicule by assuming that mentioning the horrible foundation of the U.S is the same as ignoring advancements for Blacks/Native Americans since then - and the arguments you offer tend to come from non-minorities lacking real awareness of minority culture.

Noting that the U.S. committed genocide against Native Americans doesn't mean payments didn't happen - nor does saying Blacks experienced genocide/enslavement mean that acts to free them didn't occur (from the Emancipation Proclamation to events in the Reconstruction era, the Civil Rights era, etc.) - but your logic says that noting where negative events happened Blacks/Natives automatically means other things haven't occurred. That is again taking an argument past what was said and trying to run with it to mean something else while avoiding dealing with the central issue: That the U.S. enslaved Blacks/Native Americans and did genocide.

People trying to avoid that simple fact tend to wrangle over it...

Why don't you find a few youtube videos discussing how African blacks were sold into slavery by other African blacks. Or perhaps discussing how Native American tribes engaged in the act of enslaving members of other Native American tribes....
History is what it is. It is the dependence on revisionist history to promote an agenda I am arguing against here.
__________________

Seeing that you already have shown a good level of historical ignorance and disconnection on the experiences of Blacks in general, there's no need to do anything. And it was already covered earlier on the history of Blacks and Slavery alongside the intersections with American Indian culture (and it has also been covered elsewhere as well when it came to speaking on the history of Freedmen - such as in #49 and
#178 ). And as said before, if actually dealing with what was said rather than trying to avoid what you don't want to deal with it, people are already aware of where slavery occurred with Native Americans - although it was radically different than the New World slavery brought over by Europeans...

And it was already noted that Indians had slaves when it came to the Cherokee Freedmen - seeing my family background with them (which was also noted earlier):

There were some Cherokees who fully adapted the practices of White Europeans when it came to slavery - and those individuals were often called out due to how much they were able to adapt to white culture (if mixed), with examples being people like James Vann and the House on Diamond Hill since he was a White Cherokee with a plantation - and there was need for things such as Cherokee Emancipation Proclamation (1863) (more noted here). Other historians whom I already brought up which are highly prestigious in the field (such as William Katz of the book "Black Indians") have noted the issue of slavery and where there was racism. Anyone knowing the history of Blacks with Native Americans keeps up with the issue - and again, Katz pointed out the issue repeatedly.

Nonetheless, as a whole, slavery was vastly different for the Cherokees and harping on the Cherokee tribe holding slaves is moot (and Ignoratio elenchi/irrelevant conclusion) seeing that slavery among the Cherokees was nowhere close to being the same as done by Europeans (which is what you attempted to convey with the false equivalency argumentation) - but trying to speak on the issue as if other blacks are unaware of it is problematic on several levels when one ignores that even descendants of those Cherokee slaves have also noted that European slavery was VASTLY worse in scope/treatment. The same also goes for African slavery when it came to Blacks engaged in it in a manner different from Europeans.

Thus, I'd suggest you not try speaking down to others when you're neither Black or involved in the culture - for it comes very much as stereotypical non-whites trying to act as if they are the most informed about another culture and there's no need mocking Blacks on their culture. And as said before, it'd behoove you to learn to listen BEFORE you speak since you've tried to revision several events in history and already have proven you are more than fine with dependence on revisionist history when it comes to denying historical wrongs.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

...does not bring the issue home. It promotes a stereotype, the very transgression you wish to rail against.

As said before, talking without verification means nothing as it's simply harping for its own sake. There's no quote you can show directly where I brought that image up (as that was from Red Fox in #10 ) and thus you need to actually give verification on that trying to place that on others. That being said, as it concerns the first one you commented on with the Native American (which I placed up), nothing you said shows the image in its context to be off when it comes to the point it was illustrating on how inconsistent it is to throw out "illegal" on anyone who is undocumented (as it was never the case that all undocumented are "illegal" since most are going through the process legally) - and how foolish it is for others claim others cannot immigrate to the U.S. in large numbers when their ancestors did the same thing in order for them to be present. This goes back to what was said earlier on the hypocrisy on speaking on immigration when failing to be accurate on how European Settlers immigrated/often violated the borders Native Americans had, even though the Natives were gracious. You rail against things with claiming "stereotype!!" and yet you have not even shown what you feel to be stereotypical as not true....and that will never suffice.

Look at the very images you post:

Are you actually going to try and foist the claim these images do not present a stereotypical view of evil white people attempting to suppress minorities?

Again, posting without verification will never do. I never put up a picture or image on Lady Liberty with her hands held up - as that was Red Fox from #162 ..and to try claiming "Look at the images you post" is both ignorant of the thread content and a falsehood because you failed to actually do accuracy with showing who posted things. Moreover, none of the images ever say all white people are "Evil" (your own reaction/false argument) since they were made BY Anglo-Saxons to begin with. Thus, unless they hate themselves, your rhetoric is inconsistent and really an argument of personal incredulity where you simply can't believe an image to be centered around something you've already determined to not be true (without evidence). Plenty of whites have noted the reality of how Manifest Destiny, Jim Crow and every anti-immigration law was proposed by white Europeans as opposed to minorities impacted by them....

By your logic, others must believe that any discussion (or picture) of the Europeans doing harm (as shown in history) means all European descendants who are white are automatically evil - in the same way that others reacted by claiming Blacks believed are whites were for lynch mobs simply because they noted where living in the South involved blacks repeatedly harmed by white mobs.

Additionally, if one cannot handle the facts when it comes to how it was whites in power who oppressed minorities (even though other whites fought against it), then you are again trying to divert from the issue to make into something that no one was advocating. That's akin to speaking on the KKK (made up of white members) with a cartoon showing them do negative things to minorities - and then claiming "So you're saying all white people are evil!!!! How wrong!!!" when the truth of the matter is that one doesn't want to address history for what it was. Only people who feel minorities were not oppressed by white people in power tend to react whenever seeing any image showing a white person oppressing a minority through cartoon or meme.

This is why attempting to discuss any topic with you is so frustrating. You either have no idea of what an absolute statement looks like or what the term absolute means, or you just ignore such troublesome facts in order to support another in a long line of strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks.

Attempting an abusive fallacy is needless. For it was already noted earlier that no one sought you out for dialogue nor is anyone forcing you here - and choosing an emotional reaction tends to be your choice anytime people don't submit to you in the circular reasoning you engage in with making a statement/assuming the conclusion before verifying it. No one is concerned on whether you're frustrated, as that is another appeal to emotion that is baseless. As said before, either you can show where TYF made any absolute statements - or you are trying to assert things past basics in logic when it comes to conversation. This is something others have noted to you before when it comes to not being able to remain consistent in your application of rhetoric since you only wrangle in emotional reaction without showing your point to be true - and that is pointless.

​

You cannot show where TYF was speaking against conservatives outside of begging the question - there is no explicit words and you made up an argument without showing in his own words what he meant (argument from silence). You cannot even show in an everyday context where someone saying a general statement like "Blacks couldn't really compete in the same way as whites did during Jim Crow" somehow means that there were no Blacks that were successful - and as you failed to even deal with the long-term history of what happened with blacks as a WHOLE not being as successful as whites due to the institutional systems that hindered them, you already show a willingness to avoid what disagrees with you in history because it doesn't line up with the vision Sistrin wants of the past. That shows you're already trying to argue based on what you want to focus on rather than dealing with what's said. That would be a waste of TYF's time as well as others....and other conservatives have pointed out the issue as well, as noted with documentaries such as "Runaway Slave"(from conservatives like Reverend CL Bryant) or others speaking on things such as The History of Black Wall Street or Entrepreneurship and Self-Help among Black Americans: A Reconsideration of Race and Economics by John Sibley Butler and others speaking on the jobs which blacks were limited to as far back as WWI-WWII and before and how that took a long time to change.

This could not be farther from the truth.

Seeing where you already spoke against what was true at multiple points, it is not surprising that one is still unable to see where they do exactly what they focus on others doing. Moving on

So you can't post where I ever said genocide of Native Americans was justified. Instead, all you can do is what you continually do, set up a strawman and proceed to attack it. I stated Native Americans engaged in warfare with each other because they did.

Can you deny that historic fact? No? I also stated conflict between Native American tribes and white settlers was not entirely the fault of white settlers, another historic fact you have already admitted was true.

Speaking on strawmen is not the same as actually showing it to be true - nor does claiming address argument. As said before, when one tries to resort to deflecting from where Europeans did harm to Native Americans/were wrong in how they did things because of where tribal warfare occurred with Native Americans - even though you cannot show whatsoever where anything the Native Americans did was close to what Europeans did with the genocide/pushing others out of land - you engage in the same rhetoric of justification. It's no different than others speaking on the horrors of the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade and then having others who want to avoid it say "Well blacks killed others in Africa too!!!!" .....for that doesn't deal with the genocide focused upon nor does it even show where Blacks were close in doing the same. It's deflection - and really, an attempt at False equivalence .

The policy of Indian Removal was made by White settlers and impacted Native Americans as a whole
(as discussed earlier with violence toward American Indians during the various wars), thus meaning it is a argument not pertaining to the issue since recognizing where policies made by white settlers were the dominant cause of Eradication of Native Americans does mean that Native Americans did not have squabbles among themselves. Additionally, Native Americans fighting in their territory neither justifies what Europeans did (which you have advocated due to the lack of condemnation) and it doesn't change where Native Americans were more “community” oriented and less competitive than European societies. It also doesn't change where European warfare was VASTLY more destructive to the environment since they would burn crops/starve Native American groups and destroyed villages for the sake of terrorizing American Indians while Native Americans NEVER did that when it came to Tribal Warfare. Violence played a role in American Indian life, but violence was not "savage" (as Europeans described) nor was it the central theme in their life (if really understanding Peaceful Versus Warlike Societies in Pre-Columbian America). Seeing otherwise is the stereotypes Europeans brought with them whenever it came to wanting to portray themselves as better

If you cannot answer the simple question of "Do you feel Europeans were right in kicking Native Americans out of their territory through genocide, slavery and forced removals" with a simple "Yes" or "No", then all you're doing is attempts with equivocation. If you feel "Yes", then the bottom line is that focusing on where Native Americans were fighting is irrelevant - for the focus is on acknowledging where Europeans were Wrong IN what they did and illegal in their breaking of treaties/violations. If you feel "No", then it's pointless trying to skip past dealing with why you deflect when others are focusing on the acts of Europeans (as the OP was centered on).

And your response has been to consistently blame Native Americans rather than actually deal with how European aggression was responsible for the majority of extermination with American Indians. Your own words have again been avoided by yourself:

When you consider all of the history of Native Americans it is undeniable tribes fought each other for land, drove each other from lands, killed each other in brutal and savage manner. The United States is not responsible for all atrocities committed against Native Americans.

As said before, the fact that you cannot simply note that Europeans were responsible for the eradication of Native Americans without attempting to deflect with "Well Natives were fighting too" is self-evident that you don't want to actually deal with what Europeans did...

I ask again you act honestly here and retract your comment.

Again, you were already quoted directly - and ignoring history on the matter when ignoring your words and justifying British Colonialism with arguments that try false comparison with saying "They were right to immigrate over" (including the genocide that followed) by trying to take examples of fighting among Native Americans and then saying it was exactly the same. If you cannot be true with your own words, there's no need to discuss since it is again inconsistent.

It is unfortunate you have to build your arguments and counter-arguments on distortions and prevarications.

Another argument via appeal to emotion - as avoiding the facts does not mean that you're going to be taken seriously if all you can throw out is ad-hominems because your facts cannot be verified.[/QUOTE]

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Speaking on being involved in the democratic process when it comes to Native Americans, I thought this was on point from "Democracy Now" - in regards to James Anaya, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as it concerns he conducted the United Nations' first-ever investigation into the plight of Native Americans living in the United States.

And on the issue of Native Nations and how they dealt with the land losses..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE

There are so many reasons for why Native Americans should be proud of their background.....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Beautiful presentation....

Although the video dealt with the subject of mascots, I did appreciate the majority of it focusing on the ways that Native Americans have existed in the world and have much to be proud for.

The same dynamic with being proud to be Native American can also be seen when it comes to having pride to be Native American anywhere in the Americas rather than just the U.S...which is but one part of the Americas

​

And when it comes to being proud of being a Native American from a South American perspective, we must remember all of the ways in which it was attempted to wipe out Native American legacy....and all the ways people have still resisted:

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Speaking of which...I realize this is an old article, but I wanted to share it anyway.

U.S. patent office cancels Redskins trademark registration, says name is disparaging.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE

Forgot to share earlier this very excellent presentation that went alongside what you noted when it came to avoiding stereotypes of Native Americans and raising awareness by showing what that looks like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMuA9oTgBM

Additionally, I have been glad for things such as the Indigenous New Media Symposium which brings together Native American and First Nation media makers and creative activists to discuss how new media platforms are being used in the indigenous community to educate, organize, entertain, and advocate.

They have had other symposiums dealing with the issue of stereotypes, such as the ones at the Smithsonian when it comes to Native American stereotypes in the world of sports:

Removing stereotypes is an ever-present battle and one that people reveal their concern for when they either take something seriously or act as if it's of no consequence . It's amazing to keep in mind the historical ways that Native Americans viewed themselves...

Nonetheless, it is difficult erasing the ways that Native Americans have become caricatured in the same way Blacks were

​

 

[Vylo]

Thing is about all the illegal immigrant comics in regards to European settlers: They weren't illegal immigrants. They were essentially invaders. And they won. Deal with it. Does it make them good guys, but does make them the winners.

 

[smaneck]

Thing is about all the illegal immigrant comics in regards to European settlers: They weren't illegal immigrants. They were essentially invaders. And they won. Deal with it. Does it make them good guys, but does make them the winners.

So illegal immigrants should just take up arms . . . .

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thing is about all the illegal immigrant comics in regards to European settlers: They weren't illegal immigrants. They were essentially invaders. And they won.

Being invaders (which has already been noted by Native Americans repeatedly alongside others) is worse than being simply "illegal" - as that is more indication of how hypocritical it is for others today to complain on others immigrating to the U.S. for a better life in the name of assuming "They're just illegal/don't belong here!!!" since the previous invasion was already out of bounds.

they won. Deal with it. Does it make them good guys, but does make them the winners.

Things are already dealt with, as that is the reason those immigrating over are STILL here coming back, in the same way Native Americans have noted that dealing with it means actually noting what happened/not caring that others claim "We Won" since gaining something wrongfully doesn't mean people don't address it - nor does it mean that others really "won" anything since people that others wanted to dismiss are still active and there has been consistent instability due to how things were done in the first place (i.e. moving borders over the territories people live in, consistently breaking treaties, trying to eradicate others so as to keep them out of power, attempting to suppress a people and causing problems which lead to more resistance, etc.). The Native Americans and Indigenous peoples in general have had losses but they were far from defeated and that's why a lot of people want them to go away. But Immigration en masse is going to happen and is happening regardless of protest (as it concerns Indigenous Peoples/Native Americans throughout the Americas) and Native Americans are still here - both on their reservations/tribal land, maintaining land stewardship properly/educating on how to treat it properly bit by bit, addressing the common myths/lies in the educational system about them which skew the American narrative of what happened with development of the nation.....and they're still here aiding others dealing with those who try to caricature all immigrants as being "illegal" when they are following legal process...and standing in solidarity with others when it comes to their own tribal sovereignty being enforced/protected and gains continuing while also noting their rightful place in the land they hailed from to begin with...the land they/their ancestors lived in and that others foreign to the land invaded by trying to remove them from their own territory (just as it occurred throughout the Americas when European settlers came in/removed others and then tried to claim only they had "rights" to be dominant there).

This is what's known as Self-Determination as Anti-Extractivism - as Indigenous Resistance is a means of challenging political systems and it tends to upset things. It has happened for some time when it comes to examining Indigenous Responses to a Globalised World

• Global Indigenous Resistance

They're not going anywhere - and folks need to get over it. A lot of folks don't want to deal with it...and it's why they tend to react a lot claiming Indigenous peoples throughout the Americas are "invading" (as they wouldn't have any real fear on things if they truly felt secure in anything they "won" properly) - but they need to get past it/deal with it.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Thing is about all the illegal immigrant comics in regards to European settlers: They weren't illegal immigrants. They were essentially invaders. And they won. Deal with it. Does it make them good guys, but does make them the winners.

They (we) are dealing with it by continuing to fight against that invasion.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

immigrants should just take up arms . . . .

Some actually have, in the event that they did not have their rights enforced

That said, because they know they're not illegal and feel no threat that's big enough to use arms, the other means of social resistance are focused upon. And at the end of the day, people are patient. It's why others take up arms in other ways besides violence and simply educate while patiently addressing issues in the courts as well as through protest (or global rise of contemporary indigenous art) and solidarity with others addressing the mistreatment of immigrants (whether undocumented or documented) and noting their Indigenous heritage.

​

• The New Global Capitalism and the War on Immigrants | Mexika Resistance

• Indigenous Nationhood Movement Has Arrived Online | PopularResistance.Org | Mexika Resistance

• More than a Mascot: Indigenous Resistance at the Border | Orchestrated Pulse

People know when there have been attempts to eradicate them while those doing so try to portray it as if those being victimized are the ones who are doing harm....but they're still here. They are protesting and glad to not simply go with things...