It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why hasn't the US made a formal apology to the Native Americans?

page: 23
69
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


What do you mean "not a Nation in the meaning of the word"?


That's so overwhelmingly arrogant it takes my breath away.

By whose definition?

Yours, and yours alone?

That sounds pretty self-serving to me.

I could just as casually say you aren't really a human in the meaning of the word, with just as much validity and truth, and use that as an excuse to nullify your rights.

Any people who self-identify as a nation, with a seperate distinct culture, a different tech base, a different language and belief system that has been passed down for generations on the same land base is a nation, even if the form of it is unrecognizable or inconvenient to you.

Wow....the mind boggles.

Who, pray tell, was here before us?

Last I checked there was a continent wide unbroken chain of Native cultures going back past the beginnings of the Egyptians.
edit on 1-3-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
the government will never apologize for the obvious genocide against native peoples in america, hawaii, and elsewhere, because if they did it would be admitting the obvious...that our leaders [and their culture] are scumbags. being a scumbag is hard. its so hard that unlike a warrior, a scumbag cannot admit when they are wrong, as doing so would not lead to growth, but only to admitting that they are a lowlife piece of human filth and that will never change. how could it without a cultural path that has heart? yes, western culture's gift to the native people has been nothing but murder and betrayal. in the end, an ugly culture prospered where Nature and civilizations of real humans should be living . the result of this cancerous society's prosperity is charlie sheen, afghanistan, justin bieber, the cia, whoopie goldberg, banksters, and shallow brainwashing for its poor shadow cow-people. its so fugly why even bothering to mention the total destruction of nature and all Her diversity. ..and the scumbags who sold their soul to the lies of this ugly cultural system??? pity them. they were brainwashed from birth, and have acquiesced to being shadows of soulful beings. may tyrants rot and new birth Grow in Harmony with All things. all mah relations.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by WalterRatlos
 


I mean no disrespect when I use the term Indian. I would call you Native Americans, but, as the term America wasn't around when you were it wouldn't make any sense. As for First Nations, well it has been proven that you weren't the First here and neither were you a Nation in the meaning of the word. If the term Indian offends anyone, I am sorry. Please tell me what to call you as a people. I realize there are quite a few different Indian tribes...so if you tell me which tribe you belong to I will refer to it by name. If I have to name a few tribes together and lump them into one group I will refer to you as Indians...even though I know that name to be incorrect as well....stupid Columbus.

You can call me Vlachos (Βλάχος)
, because that's what our tribe calls our people. We migrated all over the Balkans from a Region in present day Hungary and mainly Romania during the Turkish occupation (Ottoman Empire), which lasted in some parts from Fall of Constantinople to the Balkan War 1912/13 when Epirus (Ήπειρος) the region I live in was liberated and all of Northern Greece, too. And our dialect is a Roman dialect, oral tradition only, so we might be descendants of ancient Romans or mercenaries fighting in the Roman Army.

You can call Native Americans first by their proper names, so instead of Sioux and Dakota it's rather Lakota (mainly and a few Nakota). The word Indians does not offend me; it's just silly, because it's based on silly idea Columbus had in his head. Indians always have and still live today in India. Ok, how about we call them People of the Turtle Island?
Also, notice the plural form in First Nations, because that's what they were - at least in my humble opinion. Always ask people to tell you what they prefer themselves to be called and try to get it right, pronunciation and all. You can call Cheyenne Shyelas if my memory is not failing me. Do a search on any tribe and research it.

It's the same with Greece and Greek; that's not what we call ourselves; never have and never will, because ours is a civilization that started out about 5000 years ago and we always called and still call ourselves Ellines (pronounced Eleenes, the ee is a long one as in feel, Ancient Greek: Έλλην Modern Greek: Έλληνας) and our country Ellas (Ελλάς) or in modern days but not in official use Ellada (Ελλάδα). Greeks and Greece that's what the Turks used to call us and it's like Sioux not a nice word. Usually, they would spit on the ground when speaking those words to European scholars eager to learn of ancient and recent (18-19th century) culture in Greece, oops in Ellas.
Better get used to it.

edit on 1/3/2011 by WalterRatlos because: Spelling, grammar and syntax and minor additions.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheForgottenOnes
 

I could also make a case for the jews and africans



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
By the way, does anyone understand why there aren't violent uprisings in the US by any of the tribes?

It's because we know from repeated bitter experience that the Americans will exterminate every last one of the offending tribe, sparing none, without a moment's hesitation or regret if ever one offered a genuine threat. Reading some of the comments in this thread does nothing to ease that fear...I suspect there would be more than a smattering of applause at the action.

We value our families too much to court such annihilation in open conflict.

So we fight with words, courts, and opinions.

That is the source of the hopelessness/hopefulness contradiction mentioned some pages back.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by superman2012
 


What do you mean "not a Nation in the meaning of the word"?


That's so overwhelmingly arrogant it takes my breath away.

By whose definition?

Yours, and yours alone?

That sounds pretty self-serving to me.

I could just as casually say you aren't really a human in the meaning of the word, with just as much validity and truth, and use that as an excuse to nullify your rights.

Any people who self-identify as a nation, with a seperate distinct culture, a different tech base, a different language and belief system that has been passed down for generations on the same land base is a nation, even if the form of it is unrecognizable or inconvenient to you.

Wow....the mind boggles.

Who, pray tell, was here before us?

Last I checked there was a continent wide unbroken chain of Native cultures going back past the beginnings of the Egyptians.
edit on 1-3-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)


Here we go again....

Nation has different meanings in different contexts. In worldwide diplomacy, nation can mean country or sovereign state.[1] The United Nations, for instance, speaks of how it was founded after the Second World War with "51 countries" and currently has "192 member states".[2] Nation may more broadly refer to a community of people who share a common territory and government—but who are not necessarily a sovereign state; and who often share a common language, race, descent, and/or history, such as the "Kurdish nation".[1] The word nation can more specifically refer to a tribe of North American Indians, such as the Cherokee Nation.[1]

Hence First Nation is not a specific tribe. No offense meant, just stating a fact. If you know of any other meanings of the word nation, please don't hesitate to let me know.

"Any people who self-identify as a nation, with a seperate distinct culture, a different tech base, a different language and belief system that has been passed down for generations on the same land base is a nation, even if the form of it is unrecognizable or inconvenient to you."



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
By the way, does anyone understand why there aren't violent uprisings in the US by any of the tribes?

It's because we know from repeated bitter experience that the Americans will exterminate every last one of the offending tribe, sparing none, without a moment's hesitation or regret if ever one offered a genuine threat. Reading some of the comments in this thread does nothing to ease that fear...I suspect there would be more than a smattering of applause at the action.

We value our families too much to court such annihilation in open conflict.

So we fight with words, courts, and opinions.

That is the source of the hopelessness/hopefulness contradiction mentioned some pages back.


There is always hope my friend. The secret lies in all Man working together to obtain that freedom. A house divided will not stand, and neither will this one.

What would the Apache do if they were given all that they wanted, their land, their resources, and their ways?

They would eventually need something from the rest of the world. It would be at that point that they would be enslaved again by the Empire. A line of credit would be issued to them, and their destruction and assimilation complete. You would not make it alone.

You need to teach your ways, and tell your story to the people. Let them know what ture freedom tastes like. They have long ago lost the flavor.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


You do know we are talking about a bunch of seperate Indian Nations, right?

Not some continental pan-Indian confederation?

Each of the tribes is a seperate Nation with their own language, customs, culture, and landbase. It doesn't matter to them how you legally define it. They were nations before the arrival of the whites and are now recognized as sovereign nations by both Canadian and US governments. So to say we haren't nations, in whatever the meaning of the word, is simply wrong.

We are genuine nations in every sense of the word. When I speak of freedom I speak not only of the freedom of my particular nation but all of them.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by superman2012
 


You do know we are talking about a bunch of seperate Indian Nations, right?

Not some continental pan-Indian confederation?

Each of the tribes is a seperate Nation with their own language, customs, culture, and landbase. It doesn't matter to them how you legally define it. They were nations before the arrival of the whites and are now recognized as sovereign nations by both Canadian and US governments. So to say we haren't nations, in whatever the meaning of the word, is simply wrong.

We are genuine nations in every sense of the word. When I speak of freedom I speak not only of the freedom of my particular nation but all of them.



That is my point...if you talk about First NationS than you must include Africa, India, Asia as that is where all nations came from. You were not the First Nation nor are you First Nations...if you want to call yourself a nation, it should be United North American Immigrant Nation...but seeing as how North America wasn't around when the Indians were here...I don't know what to call you...that's why I use the old Indian. Not as a term of disrespect but only because there is no other name. I can't even say Apache Nation, because according to you that doesn't fit your description.

There was little political unity among the Apachean groups. The groups spoke seven different languages. The current division of Apachean groups includes the Navajo, Western Apache, Chiricahua, Mescalero, Jicarilla, Lipan, and Plains Apache (formerly Kiowa-Apache).

So in order to be considered a nation, in your terms, I would have to further sub-divide the Apache people into, what, the 7 major Apachean groups, but should I include the minor groups as well? See how it can get confusing?

Indian Nations is another one I could get behind...in fact, the term you brought up is the term I will use.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


What have Asia and Africa to do with anything at all?

I think you're confusing dialects with languages, all the tribes spoke dialects of Apachean, a subgroup pf Athapascan that includes Navaho (cousins of ours).

Just because a nation organizes itself differently than the european models doesn't invalidate its nationhood. We were a nation strong enough to fight a 300 year war for survival against the Spanish, the Mexicans, and the Americans, so I'd say we were a nation, no matter what you think.

Actually there are thirteen different tribes of the Apache, five each in Arizona and New Mexico, and three in Oklahoma.

And yes, we are a contentious bunch...comes from no Apache acknowledging a superior. But that also means we're not easy for others to control.

In any case true freedom for the tribes would mean a seperate Navaho Nation, Sioux, Cheyenne, Apache, Crow, Shoshone, and so on, each a seperate nation, most probably joined in a loose Pan-Indian confederation. When last I attended an inter-tribal gathering to discuss ways forward, that appeared to be the consensus of the tribes.

Each of the tribes is different from the others...after all, the North American continent is huge, home to many different peoples with many different cultures, each deserving to follow their own paths into the future.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


I agree............Maybe this will refresh anyone's memory of the systematic destruction,that went on,and how diverse these people were.





posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Apologize for what? Most of the Indians were killed by smallpox, influenza, & bubonic plague and not in warfare. What major battle can you cite where 100,000 Indians fought the Europeans? There were none even remotely that big. In some of the biggest battles the US Army sent 3,000 troops to fight 1,000 Indians. They were much much smaller battles and the Indians lost. If the Indians would have had the capability, they would have wiped out the white man and had no issue with it at all. In fact, the early colonies at Roanoke were wiped out by Indians. So, I don't really see the difference. The "we were here first" argument doesn't old up. Didn't Indians kill other Indians? Didn't they kill people while they lived in Asia before they even came to North America? Of course they did. We are all here now, so lets move along. Everyone on the planet has had distant relatives killed, butchered, raped, held as slaves, beheaded, tortured and slaughtered beyond recognition. Unfortunately, that is what humans do.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
By the way, does anyone understand why there aren't violent uprisings in the US by any of the tribes?

Well, there was the bloody occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973. Don't know why nothing happened ever since.


Originally posted by apacheman
It's because we know from repeated bitter experience that the Americans will exterminate every last one of the offending tribe, sparing none, without a moment's hesitation or regret if ever one offered a genuine threat. Reading some of the comments in this thread does nothing to ease that fear...I suspect there would be more than a smattering of applause at the action.

No, I don't think that would work in today's world. The occupation of Wounded Knee had victims, yes, but the US authorities did not even try to exterminate all of the occupants.

Originally posted by apacheman
We value our families too much to court such annihilation in open conflict.
en.wikipedia.org...
So we fight with words, courts, and opinions.

That is the source of the hopelessness/hopefulness contradiction mentioned some pages back.

Well, an uprising or a struggle for more rights does not have to be violent to be successful, as Mahatma Gandhi has shown us in India. Apart from that, a rather cynical member might say that there are no uprisings now because the First Nations are busy getting filthy rich in the casinos they now are allowed to run on reservations. Marx would say that simply the condition for such uprising are not ripe yet presently. Finally, may be there is no reason for an armed and violent uprising anymore?


edit on 2/3/2011 by WalterRatlos because: Spelling, grammar and syntax

edit on 2/3/2011 by WalterRatlos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


You entirely missed my point. Given the absence of technology...the Native American will return to the old way of doing with little. Even in a changing and post-apocalypse world.

ME? I expect to be dead by then. I wont have to adapt.....but the Indian...will. And Succeed.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by WalterRatlos
By the way, does anyone understand why there aren't violent uprisings in the US by any of the tribes?


That was a very violent and frightening time. I was a girl when this happened and I remember what it was like. I've often said on this board that if people had to live through that, they would think twice before wishing for revolution. Most people who wish for this sort of thing, have absolutely no idea what that entails.

We don't want violence, we don't want war, but I guarantee that we would fight again if we had to.

edit on 2-3-2011 by Thunder heart woman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


At one time, long ago my tribe was a Matriarchal society. The women were revered as the strong ones, who were not just seen as the life givers, but seen as intelligent and capable of making good decisions and the men listened. Yes, the women had their place ... giving birth, tending the lodge, the family, the food storage, clothing, and yes, the hunting along side the men.

But then came the white men and saw this way of living and were put off by women and their power within the tribe. They told men they had to not only stop living in their lodges and hunt for the food, but were told they had to be the patriarch and basically the one to control the woman. As time went on this came to be, and with colonization of my tribe, men were forced to ignore their instincts and try to live and think like a white man.

I believe that colonization has ruined generations of Native men along with the introduction of alcohol and firearms. The alcohol was enough to destroy and this legacy has continued on generation after generation. Most people live by how they were taught and raised. It's a sickness. My husband and I do not drink.. I digress.

I see that Russell Means wants to bring back Matriarchy and that might be a good thing, but right now, we need our men to be empowered. They have to get back to what their instincts say, not what colonization has taught.

My great grandmother once told me.. a long time ago if a man abused his wife, that wife was taken away from him and he was beaten down by his tribe until he learned to treat his woman right. Sometimes, a man was killed if he beat his woman.

This is how Natives used to treat their women, long ago and I do blame the white colonization that was forced on Native men for generations of not being in touch with what is right.

This is turning around though. It is changing. So many men are standing up for what is right and raising up their families the right way and getting back into traditions. But there's still so many still lost. This is why it's important that we are left to do what we need to do for the future of our people.

Also need to get read of the BQ system. It's a huge massive failure. That's another rant tho.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
delete -- double post
edit on 2-3-2011 by Thunder heart woman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Drezden
 


I might be wrong but apology could be legally appear as confession of guilt which could lead into demand for reparations.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


"f you think a Great Spirit will help you and return all of the items that were taken from your ANCESTORS... then you are as deluded as the catholics."

I see you miss the point. The great Spirit will return NOTHING...NOTHING...taken from my "ancestors". You perhaps are the deluded one in not realizing we trust the Great Spirit will TAKE all the items AWAY from all those in possession of the ones lost.

Thats is quite different.Still, I see your confusion. Noted...thanks



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
reply to post by apacheman
 


At one time, long ago my tribe was a Matriarchal society. The women were revered as the strong ones, who were not just seen as the life givers, but seen as intelligent and capable of making good decisions and the men listened. Yes, the women had their place ... giving birth, tending the lodge, the family, the food storage, clothing, and yes, the hunting along side the men.

But then came the white men and saw this way of living and were put off by women and their power within the tribe. They told men they had to not only stop living in their lodges and hunt for the food, but were told they had to be the patriarch and basically the one to control the woman. As time went on this came to be, and with colonization of my tribe, men were forced to ignore their instincts and try to live and think like a white man.

I believe that colonization has ruined generations of Native men along with the introduction of alcohol and firearms. The alcohol was enough to destroy and this legacy has continued on generation after generation. Most people live by how they were taught and raised. It's a sickness. My husband and I do not drink.. I digress.

I see that Russell Means wants to bring back Matriarchy and that might be a good thing, but right now, we need our men to be empowered. They have to get back to what their instincts say, not what colonization has taught.

My great grandmother once told me.. a long time ago if a man abused his wife, that wife was taken away from him and he was beaten down by his tribe until he learned to treat his woman right. Sometimes, a man was killed if he beat his woman.

This is how Natives used to treat their women, long ago and I do blame the white colonization that was forced on Native men for generations of not being in touch with what is right.

This is turning around though. It is changing. So many men are standing up for what is right and raising up their families the right way and getting back into traditions. But there's still so many still lost. This is why it's important that we are left to do what we need to do for the future of our people.

Also need to get read of the BQ system. It's a huge massive failure. That's another rant tho.


Fine, I can give you that "white man", changed your ancestors views...but my point is that everyone has a choice. They chose to be like that. I have no problems with your people getting back to their own beliefs, customs, values.

As far as alcohol is concerned, there is evidence that that food or beverages made from fermenting corn were consumed by native inhabitants centuries before archeologists previously thought. Which means that maybe Europeans introduced a better way or easier way of making it. Plus you introduced us to tobacco...what do you say we call it even?

If a "man" beats his wife, he does deserve to get beaten by his family, neighbours, friends. I am glad that things are turning around for your people...maybe I won't get blamed as much now.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join