Native American Confronts Protesters on Illegal Immigration

reply to post by SeesFar


It had been a waste of my time too, and judging by your response and determination to twist the truths where it matters and offer selective amnesia where parts contridict with you BS, you just plain refused to admit to reality witht that twisted mind of yours.

Fortunately, not all ATS readers are like you who prefers to live in the past with delusions of granduer, and I don't mean just the ones whom are members or your supporters of anti-americanism.

AT the end of the day, were you right or was I right? It don't matter to me as much as it matters to your pride and hatred filled ego that can easily be pricked. What matters are the readers out there whom will search out further if they are concerned with the issues and realities of the past, and not be fed by red indian white washing BS such as yours.

reply to post by SeesFar

It is NOT. It is OFFENSIVE.

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,

According to your logic everytime a Redskins fan says "Go Redskins" its the same as calling a black dude a ni**er

reply to post by Juggernog


Not quite. It would be the same if they had a basketball team called the 'n-word's, and people were cheering let's go 'n-word's. The fact that a sports team was named an insulting adjective, does not suddenly make the adjective not insulting anymore.

In hockey there is something similar, the vancouver canucks. A lot of canadian people will take it as insulting if an american were to call them as a canuck. Yet, they have no problem cheering for a team named the canucks.

reply to post by TKDRL

Not quite. It would be the same if they had a basketball team called the 'n-word's, and people were cheering let's go 'n-word's.

No, he said himself that calling indians "Reds" was the same as calling a black man a ni**ger or an Italian a "wop" etc..

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
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.

There are more skeletons. Many more. Kennewick Man is the name given to ONE of the skeletons discovered. It isn't the name of an entire ethnic group, its a name given to one individual- the one with the Native American arrow head stuck in his hip.

Again people, please do some research on your own and draw some intelligent conclusions. It's posts like the one I just replied to that make me want to pull out my hair- full of assumptions, misinformation and illogical; however, somehow people refuse to let go of their long held beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.

If any of the present day descendants of the red indian tribes whom finds that my use of the term ' Red Indian' to refer to the aborigines of the american landmass prior to the arrival of the spanish and english settlers as 'offensive', I sincerely apologize.

I meant those present days descendants no harm, for to me, ALL are americans, regardless if white, black, yellow, red, tanned, etc, whom had contributed to the success and progress of the 'work in progress' american dream under a benevolent noble sacred Constitution written in blood and sacrifices by founding fathers which led to not only USA's survival, but the world as well.

I only used that term 'red indians', to specifically draw attention to the aborigines. The term 'indian' actually belongs to the vast and great empires of the indian civilisation that spanned 5000 years of history, and accounted with many such progresses into our world through their migrations into asia and even australia.

They were made up of northern aryan white skinned ethnic groups and the southern dark curly hair types, and have no wish to confuse the readers of ATS, an international site on whom I am referring to.

Thus the term 'red indians' to specifically meant for the american landmass aborigines, whom rightfully should not lay claim to the ethnicity of 'indian' whom belonged to a very significant human civilisation that the 'red indian' warring and genocidal tribes were not.

The term 'indian' for the american landmass aborigines came from the first few spanish explorers who use to hide and justify the huge cost of their expedition to fool investors into believing that they had reach the fabled lands of India, which stucked for centuries till today, even in innocent children's nursery ryhmes and tales around the world.

ATS is a site to deny ignorances, not to perpetuate falsehoods and delusions of granduer. Let a spade be called a spade if it is not offensive. Calling blacks as n*.......is most certainly offensive as it connotes bitter memories of enslavement that is now long over.

There are far more derogative terms for the american landmass aborigines than mere red indians. End the fake 'sensitivity' BS, for only truths and realities can get us anywhere. It is not the term that matters on this thread, BUT the amnesia of WHO and WHAT the red indians actually were, and had been laid to rest by both sides 2 centuries ago, never to be revived except by the insane and the selfish.

reply to post by Juggernog


It is......
I was saying there is a difference between calling someone a red, and cheering for a team called the reds.

So, this is someone against unwanted immigrants calling out a bunch of other people who are also against unwanted immigration. He's preaching to the choir.
But wait, they're hypocrites because they aren't genetically indigenous to their own country.
'Guilty by proxy.' An absurd fantasy.

lets just love each other

remember we are ALL family,

the Human race...

reply to post by mtromer13

Their lands were stolen after the enaction of NAFTA...

Would you mind explaining this statement to me please?

The North American Free Trade Agreement (called NAFTA) is an agreement signed on January 1, 1994 between the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

www.rdrop.com...

So would you mind telling me what land was stolen after 1994?

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.

You are welcome!

Originally posted by HelenConway

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.

The point is, this sort of thing is common throughout history, all over the world, and no one group should be whining and expecting special treatment because their ancestors were on the receiving end. People move to new places, and people are conquered. Right or wrong, it happens. The other point here is the dishonesty. The legends are real. Look up the Cherokee stories of the pale-skinned "moon-eyed" people, that they state they fought and defeated, when coming into the Southeast. The skulls are real, too. The old idea of the first people on this continent (North and South) being all from the Far East, and of Mongoloid descent (racial group, not political), simply isn't true. The skulls prove it, and the way these "Native American" groups fight to conceal that is beyond ridiculous. It isn't fair to history, and it's not honest. Some of these finds seem to indicate there were people here from all over the globe, which would mean no single group gets to claim they are the "natives". I would love to see more honest research in this area, so we could learn more about the realities of ancient times.

To be clear, no, I don't think wiping out a people simply because you want their space is right. That also isn't exactly what happened here. Some were killed unfairly. Some were killed in wars, that they started. Some killed any and all settlers, for no reason other than not wanting to share the space, or because they were different, or they simply felt like it (who knows?). It's a complicated history, and wrongs were committed on both sides. I am sure some of my ancestors were involved, on both sides. We are pretty sure one relative (great, great grandmother) was Creek, and they were far from friendly! I have some from both sides of the Civil War, too. My past is involved here, and I want TRUTH, not PC misinterpretations, not cover-ups (from either side), not broken treaties, not massacres excused (from either side). Just truth. They were all people, and they all made mistakes. The solution is to learn from those, not pretend half didn't happen. Plus, in this case (the protester), there wasn't some big country here, that the Europeans took over. There were tons of scattered and warring tribes, that didn't even all get along with one another, and that renders his argument invalid. Besides, if he really thought that way, he should understand that allowing illegals in now won't end well, right?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
To be clear, no, I don't think wiping out a people simply because you want their space is right. That also isn't exactly what happened here. Some were killed unfairly. Some were killed in wars, that they started. Some killed any and all settlers, for no reason other than not wanting to share the space, or because they were different, or they simply felt like it (who knows?). It's a complicated history, and wrongs were committed on both sides.

No it is not complicated.

And YES, that is EXACTLY what happened here.

Over and over and over again in history, powerful civilizations find a less-powerful civilization, they occupy the territory and slaughter the inhabitants until the culture submits and allows itself to be absorbed into the occupying civilization.

The occupiers then sanitize the history because they know it is brutal and evil, and we do not want others to see what brutal people we are.

This is the pattern throughout ALL human history, it is very obvious and something we can see very easily when when we're considering someone ELSE's crimes/wrongdoings.

But we suddenly become blind when it refers to US and OUR civilization, and we use absolutely ridiculous justifications like those in the above quote such as "it's a complicated history and wrongs were committed on both sides."

That is utter nonsense.

Using that logic, if China suddenly expanded its territory into the US, and this new China happened to encroach upon YOUR land, and you took out your guns to defend your property, and perhaps even shot people, then I suppose we can argue that since you shot people "it's a complicated history and wrongs were committed on both sides"

The fact is that whites were the *invaders* in the history of the US, there is no getting around that, they were squarely in the wrong.

The history wasn't thanksgiving dinners and puppies and friendship and OOPS we happened to give you blankets with disease that somehow killed all of you - if another country told that story you would KNOW it was a BS whitewash, but because it's the good ol US of A we all swallow it.

It is not a complicated history, it's the same as everywhere else in the world. And the whites were totally in the wrong, unless of course you subscribe to the idea that the powerful should be free to do whatever they like, kill and rape and pillage whomever they like.

Maybe the Native Americans killed earlier inhabitants of North America in an even more distant past. That is totally possible, I wouldn't be surprised - Native Americans aren't some super-race that does no wrong, they are humans just like everyone else.

What is ridiculous about that "argument" is that it is somehow used as a justification for another civilization's murderous actions, which is just absurd.

I'm not "hatin' on America", I just happen to like facts and dislike hypocrisy. People must apply the same strict rules and moral standards to themselves that they apply to everyone else.

The European invaders f*cked up Native Americans even worse than the Jews in the holocaust. Jewish people at least still have their culture, it is just as strong and vibrant as it ever was. I lived in NYC at one time, there is an absolutely gigantic Jewish culture there.

However, Native American culture is DEAD and GONE, it has been absolutely stomped out. It is tragic and disgusting, and not because Native Americans are some magical special people but because what Europeans did was wrong to do to ANYONE. It is even more disgusting because everyone in the world agrees that what the Nazis did was horrible - and yet at the same time no one really thinks what happened on this continent was really a big deal. Hardly worth mentioning, just get over it already, right?

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
To be clear, no, I don't think wiping out a people simply because you want their space is right. That also isn't exactly what happened here. Some were killed unfairly. Some were killed in wars, that they started. Some killed any and all settlers, for no reason other than not wanting to share the space, or because they were different, or they simply felt like it (who knows?). It's a complicated history, and wrongs were committed on both sides.

No it is not complicated.

And YES, that is EXACTLY what happened here.

Over and over and over again in history, powerful civilizations find a less-powerful civilization, they occupy the territory and slaughter the inhabitants until the culture submits and allows itself to be absorbed into the occupying civilization.

The occupiers then sanitize the history because they know it is brutal and evil, and we do not want others to see what brutal people we are.

This is the pattern throughout ALL human history, it is very obvious and something we can see very easily when when we're considering someone ELSE's crimes/wrongdoings.

But we suddenly become blind when it refers to US and OUR civilization, and we use absolutely ridiculous justifications like those in the above quote such as "it's a complicated history and wrongs were committed on both sides."

That is utter nonsense.

No, that is FACT. It is a fact that some tribes were very violent, and killed even peaceful settlers. It is a fact that some were killed, that were peaceful. You accuse people of rewriting history, but that's what you are doing.

Originally posted by BrandonD
Using that logic, if China suddenly expanded its territory into the US, and this new China happened to encroach upon YOUR land, and you took out your guns to defend your property, and perhaps even shot people, then I suppose we can argue that since you shot people "it's a complicated history and wrongs were committed on both sides"

Nonsense. The United States is a country. Scattered tribes, that warred with one another, were not a country. If some Chinese people move in next door, can you go shoot them? No, that would be WRONG. That happened with some settlers, though, that were slaughtered by Indians. Stop pretending that there was no reason for people to be worried.

Originally posted by BrandonD
The fact is that whites were the *invaders* in the history of the US, there is no getting around that, they were squarely in the wrong.

Ah, there is the bias. They were "white", so they MUST be wrong. Gotcha.

Originally posted by BrandonD
The history wasn't thanksgiving dinners and puppies and friendship and OOPS we happened to give you blankets with disease that somehow killed all of you - if another country told that story you would KNOW it was a BS whitewash, but because it's the good ol US of A we all swallow it.

Unrelated events. Invalid argument. Logic fallacy. Try again.

Originally posted by BrandonD
It is not a complicated history, it's the same as everywhere else in the world. And the whites were totally in the wrong, unless of course you subscribe to the idea that the powerful should be free to do whatever they like, kill and rape and pillage whomever they like.

Your bias is showing again.

Originally posted by BrandonD
Maybe the Native Americans killed earlier inhabitants of North America in an even more distant past. That is totally possible, I wouldn't be surprised - Native Americans aren't some super-race that does no wrong, they are humans just like everyone else.[/quote]

Everyone, you mean, besides those "powerful, evil" whites, right?

Originally posted by BrandonD
The European invaders f*cked up Native Americans even worse than the Jews in the holocaust. Jewish people at least still have their culture, it is just as strong and vibrant as it ever was. I lived in NYC at one time, there is an absolutely gigantic Jewish culture there.

However, Native American culture is DEAD and GONE, it has been absolutely stomped out....*snip*

Oh, what a crock! I have experienced several Indian cultural events, at different locations, throughout my life. I have known Indians (Amerinds) that I called good friends, that were very proud of their culture. Strong, vibrant, colorful, alive. Honesty matters.

what can/should we do now?


you know, forgive...learn and evolve..


the truth is this guy was calling these protesters out for being hypocritical, lol, great to see sometimes


so now what, we just need to do a better job and taking care of each other, sharing land, sharing in general..

help our native american brothers and sisters, communicate with them from the top down..


talk to them where should we go from here?...

you know..

anyways, i love you all

we are all learning

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

The point is, this sort of thing is common throughout history, all over the world, and no one group should be whining and expecting special treatment because their ancestors were on the receiving end. People move to new places, and people are conquered. Right or wrong, it happens. The other point here is the dishonesty.

Where else, please? Links would be both courteous and appreciated. Where else, and when, in all the recorded history of the world were the original inhabitants of a land murdered by the millions and those who were left then rounded up and put on Reservations considered to be the worst land that country had to offer? Where else did this happen that the original People were considered not to be human?

The point of the man in the OP vid was the irony.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
The legends are real. Look up the Cherokee stories of the pale-skinned "moon-eyed" people, that they state they fought and defeated, when coming into the Southeast. The skulls are real, too.

You are correct. It is, indeed, a legend. A legend of a little people who were blinded by sunlight or the full moon, so they only came out of their mud and log houses to hunt and fish at night. But you're saying they were real and there are skeletal remains. Where is your proof that the Moon Eyed Ones were real and that there are skeletal remains? A link? Anything? This and any/every other source I find indicates it is nothing but a legend, no proof, no bones, no nothing.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
The old idea of the first people on this continent (North and South) being all from the Far East, and of Mongoloid descent (racial group, not political), simply isn't true. The skulls prove it, and the way these "Native American" groups fight to conceal that is beyond ridiculous. It isn't fair to history, and it's not honest. Some of these finds seem to indicate there were people here from all over the globe, which would mean no single group gets to claim they are the "natives". I would love to see more honest research in this area, so we could learn more about the realities of ancient times.

What skulls? Links, please? Proves what? That people visited and died here? How about we were here more than 30,000 years ago? Read this, this and this. How about as long as 50,000 years ago? Here, here and here. So just how long did we need to be here before we could be considered "native?" A generation is widely accepted as being 25 years. 50,000 years would be 2,000 generations. It is said there were about 42 generations between Abraham and Christ. Use that for comparison.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
To be clear, no, I don't think wiping out a people simply because you want their space is right. That also isn't exactly what happened here. Some were killed unfairly. Some were killed in wars, that they started. Some killed any and all settlers, for no reason other than not wanting to share the space, or because they were different, or they simply felt like it (who knows?).

Oh, but it IS exactly what happened here. Wars our ancestors started? Our ancestors didn't start any wars with the European invaders - they just fought to keep what was ours; fought back to keep from being wiped out. You'd not do the same? For "not wanting to share the space?" Do you realize there are MILLIONS of people on this earth right NOW who'd think you had excess space to share even if you were living in an efficiency apartment? So, you're willing to 'share' with them, yes? No questions, no defense of what is yours, right? You'd just open your doors and let them 'share' even though you never invited them? They will be 'different,' you realize. You might whine.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
It's a complicated history,and wrongs were committed on both sides.

Do you know how that statement reads? It reads as though you are drawing a parallel of one of the worst atrocities committed in history to a pathetic and over-used "break up" excuse. The history is NOT complicated at all. The Europeans did what they did; it cannot be denied. We do not deny that our ancestors fought. We are PROUD that they fought ~ fought until nearly none were left.

...continuing

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I am sure some of my ancestors were involved, on both sides. We are pretty sure one relative (great, great grandmother) was Creek, and they were far from friendly! I have some from both sides of the Civil War, too. My past is involved here, and I want TRUTH, not PC misinterpretations, not cover-ups (from either side), not broken treaties, not massacres excused (from either side). Just truth. They were all people, and they all made mistakes. The solution is to learn from those, not pretend half didn't happen.

If you want truth, you must first begin to participate in it. So, you had a mean great, great grandmother, therefore all Creek were mean? Perhaps they did not consider themselves “mean” at all? Says here that the Creek were, in fact, SO friendly and SO assimilated that they had to be gotten rid of because

“they posed a threat in that men moving west from the coast might have a harder time of disposing of the Indians.”

Uh-oh. They got “human.” REALLY hard for settlers to kill other humans. Especially after helping Jackson out like that and all. Why’d they help him? Well, if you dig far enough you’ll find that they were lied to, told they could keep their lands, treated as though they were “human,” etc. Until, of course, they weren’t needed anymore – then they were a threat. Harder to kill humans.

Speaking of Jackson, why don’t you review his Indian Removal Policy.

No “PC misinterpretations,” no “cover ups?” We’ve never covered up anything. We have never denied fighting for what was ours. Many, many of you still very much want to paint a picture in your mind of the sweet settler family ambling about until they found a piece of land that absolutely NOBODY was using. Then they and their 8.4 children built a beautiful, idyllic farm and roses bloomed everywhere they stepped until some warring, barbarian Indians hungry for blood charged out of the forest or over a hill for no reason to ruin it just because they could. That is what you learned in school; it is what Hollywood perpetuates. IT. IS. ALL. LIES.

You and others don’t want to think that you are descended from people who trapped and shot or trapped and burned alive innocent women, children and elders in order to take what was not theirs. But many of you have ancestors who DID do just exactly that and you ARE descended from them. I provided a link on page 16 of this thread to Columbus’ priest vividly describing what the Spaniards did. Did you read it?

YOU would likely not knowingly send a group of people virus infected gifts, but some of you had ancestors who DID. YOU would not gather babies up on your spears, but the European invaders DID. YOU would not burn a longhouse or a church full of people alive, but some of you had ancestors who DID. I understand that those of you who can trace your migration to the Americas back to the 1600s and 1700s don’t WANT to think your ancestors were willing to murder others in order to steal their land. BUT. THEY. DID.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Plus, in this case (the protester), there wasn't some big country here, that the Europeans took over. There were tons of scattered and warring tribes, that didn't even all get along with one another, and that renders his argument invalid. Besides, if he really thought that way, he should understand that allowing illegals in now won't end well, right?

That’s your logic? That it wasn’t “some big country?” That because some Tribes did not get along with other Tribes that it “renders (the) argument invalid?” Using that logic, then the United States is no longer a Country because the Republicans don’t get along with the Democrats who don’t get along with the Republicans who don’t get along with the Libertarians, etc. It’s no longer a Country because certain factions of Whites want to fight with certain factions of Hispanics who want to fight with certain factions of Blacks who want to fight with certain factions of Whites who want to fight with certain factions of Asians, ad infinitum. Do you overlook the irony there, too?

Here is a map. Do you see "tons" or a few hundred? Of those few hundred do you know how many were affiliated? Allied? Confederated? Had mutual trade agreements? You don't know. Which Tribes were related to other Tribes? You don't know.

My intention with all of this is not to be argumentative. It is to challenge you to learn some of the truth that you accuse others of not knowing. YOURS is the position of ignorance and it is not your fault. You know what you were taught. Do you think schools are going to teach children that their ancestors murdered others in cold blood to take this Country for them?

more …

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Besides, if he really thought that way, he should understand that allowing illegals in now won't end well, right?

Again, it is the IRONY of people who are descended from those who stole this land from another group NOW want to prevent the intrusion of and/or forcefully remove yet another group who’d like to come it and “share” it with them. The Europeans just wanted the Indians to “share,” right? That’s all the current illegal aliens want, too ~ they just want YOU to share … but you don’t want to. It was one thing for US to “share” with YOU. Seems it’s an entirely different matter if YOU are now expected to “share” with others. See? Irony.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
No, that is FACT. It is a fact that some tribes were very violent, and killed even peaceful settlers. It is a fact that some were killed, that were peaceful. You accuse people of rewriting history, but that's what you are doing.

No, ma’am. History was being re-written while it happened. You’re an ATS member; you’re more than familiar with media manipulation. You think that’s something new?

The newspapers of the day didn’t report the atrocities against the Indians. They reported only atrocities (often exaggerated) perpetrated BY the Indians. They didn’t report that the Indians attacked a Fort because they soldiers had come and killed everyone in the camp while the hunters were out ~ no, they omitted those details. They didn’t publish drawn pictures of soldiers or settlers bashing Indian babies’ brains out or pictures of Indian women’s breasts cut off and turned into bullet pouches. They only told of the ”massacres” committed BY the Indians. If the Whites won, it was reported as a “victory.”

Why? Because it sold newspapers, for one; for another, it manipulated public animosity against a certain group which, in turn, inflamed public support for efforts to extinguish that group. The same thing goes on today.

From here:

Present at the Centennial were two contrasting views of Native Americans. One view was that portrayed by the Indian exhibit, showing the Indians to be tribal and hardly human at all. The other view is that of the Noble Savage, which can be seen in the Indian statue, which represented America at the Centennial. The differences between the two views are many. For example, at the Indian exhibit, a mannequin was displayed with a grizzly bear claw-necklace and a belt full of dangling scalps. Truly a sight engineered to instill fear and loathing in the viewer. Displaying images of savagery became more important then displaying the truth. On the other hand, the view of the Indian as a Noble Savage paints quite a different picture. As seen in the America statue, the Indian is a tall, noble, peaceful figure. It stands eloquently and images of brutality and savagery are absent. General Custer sided with the other view of Indians, describing them not as Noble Savages but as men "whose cruel and ferocious nature far exceeds that of any wild beast of the desert." (Randel 126)

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Nonsense. The United States is a country. Scattered tribes, that warred with one another, were not a country. If some Chinese people move in next door, can you go shoot them? No, that would be WRONG. That happened with some settlers, though, that were slaughtered by Indians. Stop pretending that there was no reason for people to be worried.

This just makes me want to pound my head on my desk.. Why were we not a country then? Was this land mass somehow different? The U.S. is just that – a collection of States that united. The Tribes were the same as I explained previously. Same dirt, lady.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Ah, there is the bias. They were "white", so they MUST be wrong. Gotcha.

If you think that is going to inflict guilt, extinguish culpability, deflect, or anything else, you are mistaken. In fact, that was rather a cheap shot on your part, don’t you think? Let me ask you this: would you make that same statement if you were discussing slavery with a Black person? I think not.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Oh, what a crock! I have experienced several Indian cultural events, at different locations, throughout my life. I have known Indians (Amerinds) that I called good friends, that were very proud of their culture. Strong, vibrant, colorful, alive. Honesty matters.

You might want to ask yourself if they called YOU a good friend. You really believe all of our cultures have survived? No, they have not. A few did, but they are closely guarded and not for outsiders to know. Many were pieced back together using the bits that could be remembered by the few who were left alive in that Tribe. Most of the languages of the names you see on that map are lost.

Maybe this thread is finished, but I'd like to add something, anyway, to prevent any misunderstanding. I do not know any rational minded Native Americans who expect an apology from anyone living today, unless some of the people responsible for the involuntary sterilization of Native women in the '70s are still around ~ if so, they need to apologize and stand trial, imho. Acknowledgement of the act, and apologies, would also be nice from those who were still taking Native kids out of their homes and forcing them into boarding schools back in the '50s and '60s, if any of those responsible are still alive.

Many people act like they think we want an apology from them for the genocide of our ancestors, for the taking of our lands, for the slaughters of our cultures, languages and traditions. Obviously, there is no one left who was responsible for those things to apologize for those things.

Beyond any doubt, I do not speak for all Natives. I speak for myself and those I know, have known or have had conversations with about this matter. We don't want an apology for that which cannot be undone from people who did not do it. But we would like an acknowledgment of it and for the "history" that is taught in schools to be taught correctly. We would like the truth to be told; and, since we hold out little hope that the truth will ever be told and taught in schools, it would be nice if people would look for it, themselves, rather than believe the lies they were taught and the lies that are still perpetuated by academia, Hollywood and irresponsible authors.

We would like you to know and acknowledge that we were not acknowledged to be human beings until 1879; not considered American citizens in our own Country until 1924; and, not allowed to vote until some 20 years after that. That can be verified here: www.nebraskastudies.org...://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0140.html (sorry; you'll have to copy/paste as the link would not format correctly in the post)

It would be nice if others would understand that just because our history was not written down in books, European-style, it is still accurate history - our methods of preserving history were and are far more grueling than simply writing it down and printing it out.

It would be a good thing for all Americans to know the truth of the Reservations - that people freeze to death in this day and age and that it happens every year; that our teen suicide rate is 9 to 19 times higher than the national average; that our infant mortality rate is nearly double that of the rest of the Country. To know that there is no great "free" life on the Rez; that many, many of them are still so remote that it is 100 miles or more to the nearest city where one might obtain gainful employment. That drug/alcohol use and abuse is rampant.

Conversely, and I know many of you won't understand this but, as harsh as conditions are, without the Rez, we would lose our cultures, traditions and languages completely. It is on the Rez that those who eschew drugs, alcohol, and other outside influences continue the traditions, hold the oral histories and sacred items and keep our cultures alive. They do so at their own expense, choosing poverty and deprivation in order to keep the People alive. They are our modern day heroes.

It would be good for others to understand that the People on the Reservations are still overseen by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is overseen the the Department of the Interior and this site sums it up pretty good:

The United States Department of the Interior is responsible for managing federal lands and territories along with natural resources and energy conservation. Programs relating to Native American populations also fall under the department’s management. Its policies affect mining, energy, wildlife and research, and its broad mission has earned it the tongue-in-cheek title of the “Department of Everything Else.”

So, we're lumped in there with fossil fuels, land management, etc. A little less than human, still.

One of the links I provided had a small excerpt from a speech made by Speckled Snake in 1829. He was eloquent; his entire speech can be read here. From the posts many of you made, nothing has changed. We still hear you say "Get a little further, lest I tread on thee."

Originally posted by SeesFar
Maybe this thread is finished

And if it is, it is finished by one of the most well thought out and eloquently worded explanations of a part of history that I have ever had the honor to read here. What makes it even more valid is that it's written by someone who has reasons to be very upset, yet has the maturity to keep their emotions at bay while letting their intellect show.

I'd give you a thousand stars if I could and you should REALLY be given applause by staff for that contribution. I haven't seen anyone deny ignorance like that around here in a VERY long time

youtu.be...

And if this thread is thoroughly finished and run its course, as the realities of the supposed 'innocent noble red indian' had long been laid to rest, may it never be revived again.

The descendants of american settlers no longer seek for the APOLOGY for the sexual violence and barbaric slaughter of the innocent men, young wives and even children in the hands of the red indians, who had rampaged the landmass not out of kicking them out, for they knew it was no longer possible, but to threaten, bully, terrorize and even just simple pure bloodlust upon these innocent humans.

Nor does the descendants of american settlers seek even acknowledgement of such past misdeeds. The past had long been buried, as whites, reds, blacks, yellows, etc had came together to build a nation, strong for 2 centuries past and had progress and evolve to even the stars.

Only the insane and the deluded few whom refused to let go of the past continues to seek for accountability, when majority of aborigines of the american landmass had already long focussed on the future for themselves and their future generations within present american society, instead of a barbaric and unsustainable way of life of the past.

The focus now on the immigration issue is on how to assimilate the legal immigrants to the american way of life, while not perfect but is only a work in progress that is fully capable of change and evolution, instead of america bowing and bending to the immigrants failed culture, heritage, politics and way of life that they had fled from, so that all may share in america's manifest destiny and american dream - justice, equality, shared prosperity, responsible freedom and progress for all.