Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rapanui (Easter Island) Under Fire By Chilean Troops

page: 2
58
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I do wonder though if this move by the locals is just to get the cash for themselves and the same will happen. Some leader will come out on top and in the end be just as bad as the chileans.

Also makes me think if they would want the island with no tourism, no cash coming in. I know its cynical thinking that way but part of me thinks this is being motivated only by money.




posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


That's because the MSM doesn't report on anything of actual substance, maybe the Kardasians will be on at 10 tonight... Telling us all what's REALLY important in America... They never report on other country's wars; must not be profitable enough!



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Nice find, s&f. I wish we could do more to help them achieve their independence.



The United States is master of several of them right now. (illegally). The hypocrisy in America kills me some times.



Great minds thinks alike, just saying.
2nd line of coke.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
What exactly is an indigenous European?

Land has changed hands in Europe so many times in the last three thousand years, the goths, visigoths, angles, saxons, vikings, romans.. et cetera, that I doubt there is any group who can legitimately claim to be "indigenous".

Clearly, the aborigines of Australia, the American "indians" of north and south america and the eskimos, inuit and such tribes, and the Rapanui have a clearer claim to being indigenous than any European.

Alright smart-a**s


You're wrong! Here's why:

The different groups of Europe you refer to were (and are in some cases) different tribes, exactly how there were different Aboriginal, African and American tribes. Would you say the Hopi or the Cherokee aren't indigenous to North America simply because they are two among many tribes with slight variations in culture (and look sometimes)?!

The Vikings and goths were two tribes within the same race. Europe consists of one race, several subraces - just like the other continents. And in fact, Europeans have been present in Europe longer than other recognised indigenous groups such as the Maori of New Zealand.

And thirdly, I wasn't suggesting that one tribe had an overall claim to Europe. I was more broadly referring to the (multiple) indigenous peoples' of Europe. If you want me to be more specific, would you support the rights of the indigenous Frisians of Holland to maintain ownership of their piece of land that they've inhabited for thousands of years? How about the ancient Romans of Italy?

The claims you're making are right out of the Frankfurt School of thought which seeks to disuade Europeans from preserving an ancient identity. I'll leave you a quote which I hope gives you some food for thought, and prompts a change in your rather dangerous mindset:


"It is surely deculturalisation that has opened the way to racist behaviour. And to implement a systematic denial that a particular people even exist is just about the worst form of racism there is."

- John Lovejoy


And before anyone claims I've driven this thread of topic - I disagree. This is about as on-topic as it gets. The plight of the Rapanui is the same plight that many groups the world over face. To support one is to support the other - that is unless you've been 'conditioned' to think that some indigenous groups have the right to survive whilst others do not.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well just to let you know, I lived on Guam for Five years. The local government is absolutely corrupted and the islands economy is supported by the large military build up on island (Along with money that is allocated from congress to them). if the US government were to up and leave and take its bases with it, the locally economy (Which would only be supported by Guams tourism) would crumble away and the people on island would be driven into a more inpoverished state then they are already in. God forbid we do that to them.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
What exactly is an indigenous European?

Land has changed hands in Europe so many times in the last three thousand years, the goths, visigoths, angles, saxons, vikings, romans.. et cetera, that I doubt there is any group who can legitimately claim to be "indigenous".

Clearly, the aborigines of Australia, the American "indians" of north and south america and the eskimos, inuit and such tribes, and the Rapanui have a clearer claim to being indigenous than any European.

Alright smart-a**s


You're wrong! Here's why:

The different groups of Europe you refer to were (and are in some cases) different tribes, exactly how there were different Aboriginal, African and American tribes. Would you say the Hopi or the Cherokee aren't indigenous to North America simply because they are two among many tribes with slight variations in culture (and look sometimes)?!

The Vikings and goths were two tribes within the same race. Europe consists of one race, several subraces - just like the other continents. And in fact, Europeans have been present in Europe longer than other recognised indigenous groups such as the Maori of New Zealand.

And thirdly, I wasn't suggesting that one tribe had an overall claim to Europe. I was more broadly referring to the (multiple) indigenous peoples' of Europe. If you want me to be more specific, would you support the rights of the indigenous Frisians of Holland to maintain ownership of their piece of land that they've inhabited for thousands of years? How about the ancient Romans of Italy?

The claims you're making are right out of the Frankfurt School of thought which seeks to disuade Europeans from preserving an ancient identity. I'll leave you a quote which I hope gives you some food for thought, and prompts a change in your rather dangerous mindset:


"It is surely deculturalisation that has opened the way to racist behaviour. And to implement a systematic denial that a particular people even exist is just about the worst form of racism there is."

- John Lovejoy


And before anyone claims I've driven this thread of topic - I disagree. This is about as on-topic as it gets. The plight of the Rapanui is the same plight that many groups the world over face. To support one is to support the other - that is unless you've been 'conditioned' to think that some indigenous groups have the right to survive whilst others do not.


You still (despite insults substituting for reasoning) have not refuted my statement: define an indigenous Eurpean, please. As far as "dangerous" goes, I suspect there will be references to "Aryans" further along in your arguments, again a falsehood considering how convoluted European history is.


kix

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
If Easter Island gained their independece, they would not support themselves with tourism. They would starve.

Even flying there is difficult sine planes must carry fuel to fly back.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss..



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
heck, I didn't even know people still lived on the island



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
You still (despite insults substituting for reasoning) have not refuted my statement: define an indigenous Eurpean, please. As far as "dangerous" goes, I suspect there will be references to "Aryans" further along in your arguments, again a falsehood considering how convoluted European history is.

No insults my friend - 'smart-a**s' was intended to be a jovial reference, not a genuine insult.

As explained in my post, I agree that it's useless talking about an 'indigenous European' (though all of the tribes of Europe stem from the same caucasian race - the only race which is indigenous to Europe). However, I'd be happy to define an indigenous 'Briton', 'Frenchman' or 'Finn' if you'd like. Do you disagree that such things exist? I don't believe that you're THAT racist.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Something very similar to this happened to hawaii. Only it wasn't the oppressors that made war, rather the oppressors enemies... I hear the hawaiians are still very confused about why they're under american sovreignty.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hoaxer
. I hear the hawaiians are still very confused about why they're under american sovreignty.
Because their position is too strategic to give up?



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by solids0be
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well just to let you know, I lived on Guam for Five years. The local government is absolutely corrupted and the islands economy is supported by the large military build up on island (Along with money that is allocated from congress to them). if the US government were to up and leave and take its bases with it, the locally economy (Which would only be supported by Guams tourism) would crumble away and the people on island would be driven into a more inpoverished state then they are already in. God forbid we do that to them.


The horrible state of "corruption" was made possible by the infusion of US/military spending no? If that money disappeard the locals would most likely revert to some sort of mutual benefit type society, because they would have no other choice, once left to their own means. It would probably be a much more interesting place for tourists to visit. Just MHO.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by hoaxer
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Something very similar to this happened to hawaii. Only it wasn't the oppressors that made war, rather the oppressors enemies... I hear the hawaiians are still very confused about why they're under american sovreignty.


Ironically, the US forced the former European empires to give up their colonies after World War II under the guise of America being against colonization. They blackmailed European nations by threatening to stop providing Marshall help (read: creating dollar hegemony). At the same time, corporate America moved in to these former colonies and America remained its (newly) acquire colonies.


Originally posted by solids0be
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well just to let you know, I lived on Guam for Five years. The local government is absolutely corrupted and the islands economy is supported by the large military build up on island (Along with money that is allocated from congress to them). if the US government were to up and leave and take its bases with it, the locally economy (Which would only be supported by Guams tourism) would crumble away and the people on island would be driven into a more inpoverished state then they are already in. God forbid we do that to them.


Who says they are happier now than before? Because you guys provide materialistic crap? I'm sure there are plenty of native peoples who prefer their traditional way of living, the people of Guam didn't really have a choice, now did they? (applies for numerous other islands)
edit on 5-12-2010 by Mdv2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


What next? An invasion of the Aleutian Island Chain? Bombardment of a smaller Hawaiin Island?

Yes, disarmament does sound rather ridiculous at this stage of the game.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Reading this story makes me so angry. So the Rapa Nui people are squatting in government buildings built on THEIR land????? Geez. And even with police and baton and buckshot, the people refuse to back down. THIS is the kind of thing America should stand behind, not changing another country's system of government.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Im absolutly outraged at this!! they have no right to do this sort of thing. Im reminded of that song by twisted sister i think it's called were not gonna take it. As the above poster said, this is EXACTLY what we should be standing by, but of course they will overlook it.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 


Actually the bulk of the European populations originated from the area currently known as Syria, but don't let that worry you.

Of course the Easter Islanders are not indigenous either, but then just how far back do you take this?

reply to post by Cythraul
 



I'd be happy to define an indigenous 'Briton', 'Frenchman' or 'Finn' if you'd like.


Now that would be an interesting trick! Please do. Obviously my in depth studies of population demographics are in need of a facelift. Please include the DNA tracking for all of these as well.
edit on 5/12/2010 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
You still (despite insults substituting for reasoning) have not refuted my statement: define an indigenous Eurpean, please. As far as "dangerous" goes, I suspect there will be references to "Aryans" further along in your arguments, again a falsehood considering how convoluted European history is.

No insults my friend - 'smart-a**s' was intended to be a jovial reference, not a genuine insult.

As explained in my post, I agree that it's useless talking about an 'indigenous European' (though all of the tribes of Europe stem from the same caucasian race - the only race which is indigenous to Europe).


False, in fact. Europe, like any other place in the world, has seen successive migrations, from Africa, the Middle East, and Northern Asia. The "caucasians" themselves are such invaders. You'd have to be incredibly selective on the dates and definitions you set here.


However, I'd be happy to define an indigenous 'Briton', 'Frenchman' or 'Finn' if you'd like. Do you disagree that such things exist? I don't believe that you're THAT racist.


And I'd be happy to poke large, bleeding holes in your definition. Quick, who are the indigenous Finns; Finns, Karelians, or Sami? If it's the Finns, do the Swedish-speakers not qualify? If it's the Karelians, is it northern or southern? And the Sami? Northern, Skolt, or Inari?

And compared to Britons or the French, the Finns are easy. An indigenous briton? Only the Welsh, Cornish, Manx,and Bretons need apply there; the English are immigrants from mainland Europe, and the Scots are Irish immigrants - and there are gigantic differences between the Brythonic Celts (such as the Welsh) and the Gaelic Celts (such as the Irish). If you want to talk about indigenous rights in the British Isles, well, you're going to have to accept that most people living there don't qualify.

Simply put, if you want to start divvying up Europe according to some indigenous thing, you're going to have to do a LOT of crunching. And the end result is pretty certainly not going to look like you think it should look.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Actually, the Rapa nui are indigenous; they were the first people to come to that particular parcel of land. They are not ecologically native but in terms of anthropology rather than ecological science, yeah, they're indigenous.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
It looks like the Nato has a nice bloody/juicy gank and grab attempt to handle, eh?






top topics



 
58
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join