Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Native American Confronts Protesters on Illegal Immigration

page: 16
52
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11235813213455
Grandpappy used to have a saying....

If they wanted to keep it then they should have fought harder.

Grandpappy had some top-notch logic, didn't he? I suppose if his neighbors' house had been broken into he would have said something similar?

"Your wife got raped while you were at work? Well she should have fought harder."




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cynic
This is why kiddies, Natives should refrain from imbibing fruit of the barley plant.

Implying you know for a fact that he had been consuming alcohol.
Implying it wasn't our ancestors' fault in the first place for introducing them to alcohol.

Nice straw man fallacy by the way. You don't even acknowledge his argument and just label him as a drunk based on his ethnicity. I hope you fall asleep while smoking and catch on fire.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


Where in there did I say any thing about it being OK? You need to read it again.On second thought,don't bother.You seem to have made up your mind about me already.That is your choice.And I will stand by my statement.If you think the facts are wrong then so be it.I may not be a great scholar,but I can read,and I have read plenty about history.I never said that all peoples who have been invaded by foregners were wiped out.I even made an effort not to be insensitive,yet you seem to have taken offense anyway.Goes to show you can't please everybody.Have a nice day.Moving on now.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Thank you for that one. your response was to anothers response to my posting.I was a bit taken back by HelenConways attitude toward me.So much so that I got flustered and was unable to come up with a suitable reply.You stated exactly what I wanted to say but was too flustered to come up with the words.Guess I am getting thinskinned in my old age.lol once upon a time I could have torn her a new one,verbally of course.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by Taissa
 


Is there a universal rule somewhere that if you are the first somewhere it belongs to you?

No, but that doesn't give anybody else the right to kill, rape and steal from them either.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mardukiscoming
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Thank you for that one. your response was to anothers response to my posting.I was a bit taken back by HelenConways attitude toward me.So much so that I got flustered and was unable to come up with a suitable reply.You stated exactly what I wanted to say but was too flustered to come up with the words.Guess I am getting thinskinned in my old age.lol once upon a time I could have torn her a new one,verbally of course.


Sorry Mardu - I did not mean to upset you I apologise,
It was not personal. Please do not take what I said personally.
I jaut saw red when you said they it was ok because they were left breathing... but I see now that you did not mean it quite like this.
edit on 7-2-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Stories all over North and South American of white skinned people, that the "natives" found and wiped out, and they want to whine that someone did it to them later? Well, boo hoo. Welcome to history on Earth.


Boo Hoo ??? well I do not know that what you are saying is true, if it is two wrongs do not make a right do they.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan
Grandpappy had some top-notch logic, didn't he? I suppose if his neighbors' house had been broken into he would have said something similar?

"Your wife got raped while you were at work? Well she should have fought harder."


I find your post offensive - an obvious rude attempt to hurt by using vulger negative connotations as a reply to fellow member just to prove your limited rational thought process and lack of intelligence.

Since you saw fit to do hurt to another, do allow me to use the following example of the kind of emotional pain you freely inflicted upon others, to be inflicted back on you now, at least with more gentleness and refinement than you had shown to your fellow member.

If you have been sexually violated, regardless if you are a man or a woman, you ARE supposed to fight back in self defense. In the least, if you failed, at least you knew you tried but was overcomed by a stronger opponent, and many would understand and sympathize with your plight, and help you regain your confidence, and more critically, to report to the police to ensure the culprit is caught and sentenced for justice to be done and help prevent the same to other innocents.

Going back on thread, the red indians DID fight back, rather hard and equally as viciously and barbarically where no quarter was given and no brutality too low for them, but due to their lack of progress and evolution with their own unsustainable way of life, they lost, just as many other tribes that existed back then were wiped out or assimilated by the other stronger tribes.

Back then, there was NO UN to cry to for help or justice, for both the red indians and the english settlers before they founded their own nation.

Such was the way the world was run back then. Today, we have communities, police, armies and espacially UN security council to unite other nations to turn to for help and justice.

Thus it is easy today and with our knowledge for you to cry foul on what happened to the red indians 200 years ago. The red indians and the american settlers had already made their peace with each other and each had contributed to the progress of the nation to even the stars, together with other tribes and immigrated peoples of Earth - europeans, blacks, chinese, spanish, etc

There is no need to re-open past wounds that had already been healed with compensation, peace and honor sealed and agreed by all back then, for generations to progress and evolve.

Even descendants of the red indians today prefers to live in the progressive society that america is now, rather than the unsustainable regressive barbaric way of life in the past, whereby many of them would not have existed in this present if the warring tribes had their way and other evolved peoples had not come to the american landmass to SHARE the land.

Some singles after watching the movie AVATAR or had romantic delusions of the barbaric way of life, will hunger for such lifestyles and probably could sustain themselves. But singles do not contribute to the responsible procreation of the next human generations. Only families could, and NO family would opt for the red indian lifestyle after seeing and living what the modern world can provide in terms of health, education, security, technology and economics.

Similarly, the reason why illegal immigration occurs, is because they had fled from the failed states that offers them nothing of such. America will always share, but it must be done the legal way so that all may live the american dream - peace, shared prosperity, equality, justice, responsible freedom and progess in the american way, and NOT the failed culture and heritage way they had fled from.
edit on 7-2-2013 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


Already forgotten.Sometimes things don't come out the way they are intended.Don't sweat it.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
He's right but more than likely his Native Americans did the same thing. It's a continuous cycle and I'm sure one day it'll happen again.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Everyone needs to get along and there should be equality for all. The wrong-doing's of our ancestors must not be swept under the carpet, but instead learned from. Either that or everyone needs to go back to their native countries and have no further contact with any other race or country


But I can certainly understand why the man made his point to the protesters! Good for him!



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
so is he angry at illegals?
[SNIP]So he is an AMERICAN Native angry at Mexican NATIVES.....????]


NO ........the Native American is upset that White Americans are Protesting Illegal Immigration - He is trying to point out the irony and hypocrisy in their position, I believe.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway

That is right their DNA has been traced to a place of origin in Siberia.

That does not negate the fact that they were the settled population when the English arrived and the later Europeans, who destroyed their way of life. For good.


That is very true. However, that also does not negate the fact that archaeology shows that there was a settled population in the America's prior to the arrival of "Native Americans." In fact, archaeology also indicates that this ancient population fought with the Native Americans. I'm assuming they lost, because they aren't around anymore. Look up Kennewick Man. He is one of the ancient natives and he has a Native American arrow head embedded in his thigh, which indicates they were fighting.

Poor Kennewick Man and his people's way of life was destroyed too. For good.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by liverlad
 





That man is correct in everything he said.


Saying it over and over isn't going to make it so. What was so illegal about those people protesting?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


The agenda of illegal invasion from Mexico comes from Reconquista de Aztlan, they believe that the Southwest (not just Texas) was the land of their ancestors so it rightfully belongs to them. I mean if I were to suddenly go to Bavaria and say hey my great great grandfather was a wealthy landowner in the region of Koeneman therefore I have a right to your land....can you imagine the laughter....

Even historical events do not count to the people who promote this. It was their ancestors land, and they do not accept that they picked a fight with the US and lost and that the US govt even paid them for the land. What if I came to you and said, well this lot was my dad's and he didn't really want to leave, but you made him sell it to you and now I want it back because it wasn't a legitimate deal. This is basically what the Reconquistas are saying. Now they are taking it back through immigration and invasion by occupation. They are doing this not just in the land, but in the schools and in the govt offices and jobs.

Our leaders are allowing them. They figure if they can get away with it, why not. And then the bleeding hearts go ahead and give them other free stuff.

What the liberals do then, is they say well most of our ancestors came here illegally, that is uninvited, and had children, so when the illegals come here from everywhere else, then they must have as much right to the land as we do.
The liberals basically don't recognize that now we have certain borders and laws. They think that they should be able to run over those laws just like they suggest the Constitution is a "living document" and therefore should be subject to their unlawful ideas.
Now quite a lot of people came legally through Ellis Island in the 1800's, or through the offices of the INS. But to the liberal mind this is no different than coming over the border illegally.
There are those who sport for the abolition of private property. These are the Statists and the Marxist/Socialists/Communists. Since they believe all the land belongs collectively to the Proletariat workers, no oneo should have private property. So it's nothing to them for someone to sneak over the border and go onto a private ranch and steal food from the fridge, rape the inahabitants and then go squat somewhere.
Strangely enough, some of the loudest mouths promoting this are the wealthiest. Take Nancy Pelosi for example. She doesn't care if illegals come and steal food and commit crimes and take the available jobs. Because she is wealthy and it will never affect her. She also happens to be a member of DSA.
Then there's Agenda 21. Again Pelosi is DSA and a Nanny Stater Progressive and so she is on board with the govt taking private land from the rightful owners, the citizens, through eminent domain or conservation easements. Because all land and resources are up for grabs for the govt, except hers, of course.
Agenda 21 is really an arm of communism. It's proponents seek to abolish private property and force everyone into cramped apartment living in big cities. It is true, it is in statments made by it's proponents.

It is unfortunate that so many believe that they are really doing it for the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment or they would stop the Chinese from having smokestacks.
Basically, no one really wants to play by the rules.
Oh yes, there is a segment of UN Agenda 21 which promotes indigenous peoples and the return of their lands to them. This type of thing will be done through UN mandate. It is easy to see how indigenous people could get caught up in that dragnet, for they believe then that an Intl body will force the evil white man to give back the land he stole. This is how they are getting these people on board with their program. It is a ploy. Social Justice is part of the Marxist Communist Socialist agenda. It's jut Marxism under a different name.

Still if Russell Means did not fall for that trap....he clearly is an independent thinker. Kudos to him for seeing through the lies.
news.investors.com...
edit on 7-2-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 





if it is two wrongs do not make a right do they.


Right, so why apply that to today's immigration problems? Also, it is a fact that native Americans took white settlers scalps and burned their homesteads. Not saying they all did, but enough did that it caused the formation of a cavalry to protect settlers.


In 1832, Congress formed the United States Mounted Ranger Battalion to protect settlers along the east bank of the Mississippi River and to keep the Santa Fe trail open. The battalion comprised volunteers organized into six companies of 100 men.


en.wikipedia.org...

Liberals should read real history sometime and not the Progressive revisionist history tailored to dovetail with their redisttributionist social justice agenda.
edit on 7-2-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-2-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
It's likely a waste of my time, but your level of ignorance cannot be tolerated. While I hold no great hope that you'll learn from this, perhaps others will.


Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

I find your post offensive - an obvious rude attempt to hurt by using vulger negative connotations as a reply to fellow member just to prove your limited rational thought process and lack of intelligence.

Going back on thread, the red indians.....


YOU find HIS/HER post offensive and "an obvious rude attempt to hurt?!" Despite your self-given misnomer, you've obviously sought no truth about the degree of offensiveness you put forth every time you use the phrase "red indians." Are you so uninformed as to be unaware that use of that phrase or any variant thereof is virtually the same as calling a person of African descent the "n" word, calling an Italian a "wop" or someone of Asian descent a "chink?" You're using an ethnic slur as though it were common, acceptable language. It is NOT. It is OFFENSIVE. It is acceptable to refer to us as Native Americans, First People, First Nations or Indians, but NEVER as "red" anything. Nor have you sought truth of any real history.


Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
...but due to their lack of progress and evolution with their own unsustainable way of life, they lost, just as many other tribes that existed back then were wiped out or assimilated by the other stronger tribes.


Unsustainable? We've been here more than 30,000 years. It was OUR discoveries and technology that transformed the diet of Europe and Asia - not the reverse. We were doing brain surgery before Christ was born. Who do you think developed potatoes, corn, beans, pumpkins, peanuts, tomatoes, peppers, nuts, squash, melons, and sunflower seeds? Please read EVERYTHING on that link and educate yourself a little.


Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Thus it is easy today and with our knowledge for you to cry foul on what happened to the red indians 200 years ago. The red indians and the american settlers had already made their peace with each other and each had contributed to the progress of the nation.....


Did you miss the post on this thread that told of people who are NOW in their 50s having been taken from their homes and forced into boarding schools? That's not "200 years" ago. "Peace" between Indians and settlers came when Indians were forced off of their own lands and forfeited everything to the settlers. Yes, there were some settlers who respected our ways and were not considered wasicu, but "peace" was bought at our inconvenience - not the settlers.


Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
There is no need to re-open past wounds that had already been healed with compensation, peace and honor sealed and agreed by all back then, for generations to progress and evolve.


"Healed with compensation, peace and honor sealed?" You ASSUMED the wounds to be healed. HOW do you arrive at that? The U.S. government never dealt with the Native Peoples in any way that can be remotely considered peaceable or honorable. EVERY Treaty has been broken and CONTINUES to be broken. EVERY Treaty. Compensation? Would you care to tell us about that? Here's a good rundown of "peace" for you - forget the name of the site; the article is well sourced.


Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Even descendants of the red indians today prefers to live in the progressive society that america is now, rather than the unsustainable regressive barbaric way of life in the past, whereby many of them would not have existed in this present if the warring tribes had their way and other evolved peoples had not come to the american landmass to SHARE the land.


So you've polled a majority of Native Americans and can speak to their preferences? Again, we were the virtual authors of sustainability. Indians did not kill animals for sport, did not pick every edible vegetation in a patch, considered ourselves caretakers of the Earth, and practiced cleanliness - why do you think we had no disease prior to the arrival of Europeans? It is overcrowding and filth that breeds disease, you know. Our ancestors had neither.

Other "evolved" peoples? Just how evolved were people who threw their own filth out their windows and into the streets below and who didn't bathe more frequently than once a year? Or you mean "evolved" like burning others at the stake if someone's milk went sour when they walked by? Or "evolved" like the men described in the 3rd full paragraph here?

~continued in next post



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
~continuing:

We’re still on “evolved” peoples, correct? Let’s see what one of Columbus’ priests (Bartolome de las Casas) had to say about the Indians' character versus Columbus’ and the Spaniards’ treatment of them here. Start where you see the large print stating “Bartolome De Las Casas - The Devastation of the Indies: A Brief Account (1542) and be sure you read down to at least this part:

... And the Christians, with their horses and swords and pikes began to carry out massacres and strange cruelties against them. They attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged nor pregnant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing them and dismembering them but cutting them to pieces as if dealing with sheep in the slaughter house. They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword, could split a man in two or could cut off his head or spill out his entrails with a single stroke of the pike. They took infants from their mothers' breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers, roaring with laughter and saying as the babies fell into the water, "Boil there, you offspring of the devil!" Other infants they put to the sword along with their mothers and anyone else who happened to be nearby. They made some low wide gallows on which the hanged victim's feet almost touched the ground, stringing up their victims in lots of thirteen, in memory of Our Redeemer and His twelve Apostles, then set burning wood at their feet and thus burned them alive. To others they attached straw or wrapped their whole bodies in straw and set them afire. With still others, all those they wanted to capture alive, they cut off their hands and hung them round the victim's neck, saying, "Go now, carry the message," meaning, Take the news to the Indians who have fled to the mountain.


Maybe you meant THOSE “evolved” people?


Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
...and NO family would opt for the red indian lifestyle after seeing and living what the modern world can provide in terms of health, education, security, technology and economics.


You speak for all people? You absolutely, unequivocally know that NO family would opt for a lifestyle that involved no money, a community that took care of its poor, a society that placed a high standard on virtue, where children were loved, cared for, taught and mentored by everyone in the group, where the elderly were revered, where justice was meted out, yet no laws or law enforcement was required?


Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
America will always share, but it must be done the legal way so that all may live the american dream - peace, shared prosperity, equality, justice, responsible freedom and progess in the american way, and NOT the failed culture and heritage way they had fled…”


Share, indeed. Look how the Eastern Cherokee “shared” – they were dragged from their homes and put into pens to await removal (the ‘Trail Where They Cried’). These were not people wearing buckskins; these were women in calico dresses, men in trousers, people who had homesteads, orchards, schools, printing presses and a newspaper; people who had adapted as much as possible to European ways in an effort to keep peace and keep their land. They were pulled out of their homes while people of European descent literally waited in wagons to move INTO those fully furnished homes, take over the livestock in the barns, the orchards and the crops in the fields. You mean “sharing” like that?

Or what of Chief Bowles and the Texas Cherokee?

The battle began on July 15. On July 16 Chief Bowles signaled retreat, few were left to flee. Chief Bowles was shot in the leg and his horse was wounded. The Chief climbed down from his horse and started to walk from the battle field. He was shot in the back. The 83 year old chief sat down, crossing his arms and legs facing the company of militia. The captain of the militia walked to where the Chief sat, placed a pistol to his head and killed him. Cavalry members took strips of skin from his arms as souvenirs. His body was left where it lay. No burial ever took place.

This battle marked the single largest massacre in East Texas with 800
men, women, and children of the associated tribes killed.


Again, these were people who had adapted as much as possible to European or “white” ways. They had been on that land, by Treaty, for over 20 years. Those who did this to them were who you refer to as “evolved.” That was in 1839. Not quite that 200 years ago you seem stuck on.

What about Wounded Knee? 123 years ago. Sand Creek Massacre? 149 years ago. Have you read the truth of them? Look it up.

The POINT of the man in the OP video was IRONY ~ something that has escaped many of you as surely as has truth.
edit on 7-2-2013 by SeesFar because: one link didn't work



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrome413

Originally posted by HelenConway

That is right their DNA has been traced to a place of origin in Siberia.

That does not negate the fact that they were the settled population when the English arrived and the later Europeans, who destroyed their way of life. For good.


That is very true. However, that also does not negate the fact that archaeology shows that there was a settled population in the America's prior to the arrival of "Native Americans." In fact, archaeology also indicates that this ancient population fought with the Native Americans. I'm assuming they lost, because they aren't around anymore. Look up Kennewick Man. He is one of the ancient natives and he has a Native American arrow head embedded in his thigh, which indicates they were fighting.

Poor Kennewick Man and his people's way of life was destroyed too. For good.


Now that sounds like the seeds for an interesting thread !



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Kennewick Man...how do people get an entire race out of one skeleton. When there are more skeletons then you can make the claim for a race prior to the Native Americans.

Until then the Native Americans were the original inhabitants and still had their land stolen and their people slaughtered.





new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join