Tagged: languages & natives
January 14, 2016 at 3:45 pm #46661
I usually enjoy political cartoons but that one goes too far in my opinion. Surely they could have up with another way to make their point.January 17, 2016 at 4:27 pm #46693
Hello 74: As far as languages go that are spoken and used for civil discourse and money making, Espanol/Spanish was used in the development of church society and academic studies nearly 100 years BEFORE the English built schools or home schooled or had churches on these American shores. Look up St. Augustine Florida’s history or Santa Fe, New Mexico’s history. Please keep in mind these were the relatives of the men who fought the Islamic influence inside Spain and ended their rule in 1492. A couple decades later these men were bringing Catholic faith to the Americas ( including New Mexico, and Florida). Besides, knowing more than one language is just good for business, how many Spanish-surnamed men have served in the US military? Check it out. Worry if the automated recording says, Press One for Farsi, or Arabic.January 17, 2016 at 4:38 pm #46694
Mountain Biker: the whole CINCO de Mayo May 5th let’s get drunk “celebration” is a Tex-Mex thing that has been made national by large beer companies, the man who was the leading general against the French occupation of northern Mexico was born in Texas. The whole point you made about assimilation is true and becoming more of a reality with each passing day.January 17, 2016 at 9:42 pm #46697
You miss my point. The US is being forced to change according to the wishes of small minorities through the courts. Any traditional values are being disregarded. When the immigration law was changed in the 90’s to allow citizenship without speaking English the plug was pulled on assimilation. What we have now is shared common values.
When cultures don’t share basic traits and values you end up with clashes like we see in the middle east. Our current government is not going to protect the values of the current population base.January 17, 2016 at 10:53 pm #46698
I think perhaps a common (meaning universal, as in it exists in all these situations world wide) problem is being showcased in Oregon right now, and nobody’s paying attention. Yet it’s the fundamental issue that seems to be in play whether it’s the European immigrant problem, the US immigrant problem, the Australian immigrant problem (Dorette.Forrester mentioned it over in the South Africa thread with respect to the attitudes in Australia toward “foreigners), or wherever. It’s called respect for human beings that don’t look, sound, or act like us.
The Paiute Tribe originally had the land now “occupied” by the Bundy sons and their merry band, which “legally” belongs to the federal government, but which only technically means it belongs to “We the People.” Part of the occupied building houses thousands of artifacts dating back as much as several thousand years, along with maps of the area that document locations of thousands more. The woman responsible for their oversight, herself a Native American, expressed serious concern about the fate of those objects, the maps documenting the additional ones out on the land, as well as the land itself (some of which is considered sacred to Indians). The younger Bundy’s response was (roughly, since I no longer have the quote), “Well, we don’t mean any harm to the artifacts, and we’d return them to the Paiutes if they want them, but that dispute was settled long ago, and this is US (meaning white America) land, and the feds have taken it from ‘We the People.’ ” Interestingly, at least one tribal representative declined to accept the artifacts directly from the Bundy son, because of his disgust with toward the occupying group that cares nothing about those who were forcibly removed from their own land originally, or for the rich history still physically present on the land. Apparently he also knows that this same group (meaning Bundy’s) also rode ATVs all over a protected area over in Utah, where many petroglyphs and other items of priceless cultural and historical value exist – in defiance of signs erected by FedGov that ATV use was prohibited.
When people don’t show (let along feel) any respect for the values and cultures of some other group that “ain’t like us,” distrust and resentment builds. And that works both ways – both by the immigrants as well as by those receiving them, whether forcibly or voluntarily. One can try showing such respect, but if it isn’t reciprocated, conflict breaks out. And if there is a winner it is by force, and by the destruction (or the driving out) of the other party. Then the resulting acreage either resumes its former look and feel, or it assumes the new look and feel of the conquering invaders. It’s all about respect for other human beings. One does not have to “become” the other culture or disappear. But if they don’t have sufficient overlap that’s shared and valued, conflict will always remain (until it’s “settled” – and that ain’t pretty).
I read a definition many years ago of the difference between passive, aggressive, and assertive. Aggressive = “I count, you don’t.” Passive = “You count, I don’t.” And assertive = “I count, and I count you.” Two aggressives = conflict. An aggressive and a passive = domination (which can build resentment and lead to the former). Only when two (or more) positions of mutual respect co-exist does it work (not the same as mere ‘tolerance’). In past decades, it used to exist in the United States and Canada as a melting pot (if one disregards the entire denial of Indian cultures as even relevant – but no one except Indians wants to even acknowledge that, let alone seriously discuss it). What went around almost everywhere (US, South Africa, Europe, Australia, etc.) is coming back around, and it ain’t pretty. Add to that the “we want it ALL, and we’ll TAKE it!” attitude of so many Muslims, and it’s even worse. But then Europeans are probably seen much the same way by Indians and Aborigines.January 18, 2016 at 8:05 pm #46701
The only pertinent ramification coming from American Indian vs European contact is the disparity one should expect. Indigenous populations were employing stone age technology in conflict with industrial technology. If we are invaded by space aliens I’d expect the same out come. Bye bye earthing.January 18, 2016 at 8:41 pm #46702
Indigenous populations were employing stone age technology in conflict with industrial technology. If we are invaded by space aliens I’d expect the same out come. Bye bye earthing.
So that just makes it OK? The point had nothing to do with “might makes right,” it had to do with mutual respect – a concept little considered through history.
And given the primary focus of this Forum (what to do to survive when the SHTF), I find it more than a bit interesting that all the industrial age technology in the world won’t help most of the “Europeans.” I suspect some of the Indian grandfathers could teach circles around SERE School instructors. Technology isn’t everything. I’d be happy to have a good bit of the knowledge and skills possessed by at least the elders (too many of the younger generation are sadly abandoning much of the traditions, and thereby losing the knowledge and skills). And the Indians (some tribes more than others at least) actually had a successfully working concept of government before the Europeans ever got here.
As for how this applies to the thread topic, I have often imagined just what this country (the US) might be like had that mutual respect been there on both sides. There was room enough for all, had they chosen to use it wisely and well. And both sides could have learned so much from the other to their mutual benefit. The lessons are still there to be learned, but sadly won’t be. I stand on my original point.January 18, 2016 at 9:09 pm #46705
You’re joking right? Applying today’s standards to actions taken by other populations in history. How far are you going back? Be sure to tell the Aztecs they were naughty for conducting human sacrifices, I’m certain they’ll be impressed.January 18, 2016 at 9:32 pm #46707
Yeah , Modern Italians have no reason to apologize for things the Romans did .January 19, 2016 at 12:05 am #46712
You’re joking right? Applying today’s standards to actions taken by other populations in history.
Oh, give me a break! Joking? Who is it that’s joking here? You and Tolik are getting way out in absurd territory talking about Aztecs, space aliens, and early Romans, and somehow trying to pin that line of logic on me. You changed the focus of the discussion from what I stated in the first paragraph of my previous post, and backed up a few hundred (or even a couple thousand) years to compare the original colonists to the Indians, bringing in the Aztecs, and Tolik adding in the early Romans. Talk about absurd! That wasn’t my point at all, though I at least had the courtesy to address yours.
That Oregon land was Paiute land originally, even declared so by Teddy Roosevelt in 1904, as near as I can remember without bothering to look it up again. It was just taken back away from them within the lifetimes of people still living today, as just another in a string of such reversals of government policy, without regard to any basic respect for the “other side” as human beings. “Might makes right.”
My issue stems from the younger Bundy’s current, 2016 attitude, as stated in what I first wrote. I don’t care a bit about the theoretical situation you posed about space aliens showing up and viewing us as inferior, so they get to just take over (which seemed to be your justification for what was done to the people that occupied this land long before Europeans got here).
Bundy could care less about anybody other than himself. He’s self-serving, whether he’s claiming the land he’s occupying ought to be taken back by “We the People” (which in his case = white folks), or whether it’s riding ATVs across protected lands just because he could get away with it. There’s a complete disregard of any show of respect for people that “ain’t like us,” in that equation. But I’m staying away from the original “who was here first” issue, and only dealing with 20th and 21st century America, starting around the time that the US government just kicked the Paiutes off their legally designated land. From shortly before that time and for many years after, we also had many European immigrants coming to America who simply wanted a chance at a better life, and respected the land they were coming into. They followed the rules, got jobs, integrated into the culture as best they could, but in many cases also chose to keep a close tie with their own roots – and generally that was respected by those already here because it wasn’t meant to set them apart or as a point of conflict. Anybody can march in a St. Patrick’s Day parade, as a simple example (and they do). There was mutual respect for the beliefs, cultures, practices on each “side,” such that for the most part, the concept of “sides” never had to become a significant issue. Sure there were some adjustments, but whether it was the Europeans, or later so-called Hispanic immigrants (Cuba, Mexico, Central America, etc.), for the most part they learned the prevailing language, worked hard, integrated, and sought citizenship. And they were respected for it.
Instead, too many of the Muslim immigrants (here or Europe) are coming in with their practices, and demanding that we modify our society to permit theirs to exist even where it is in open conflict with the prevailing society. And too many Americans, born here, simply don’t want any “outsiders” regardless (unless they already speak great English, and look and act like us). It’s about respect and intentional mutual coexistence, not space aliens or ancient history. I could easily have made the same remark about whether you were joking with your silly space alien and stone age vs. industrial age technology response, but chose to just let it go. Obviously, you didn’t “get” what you read in the first place.January 19, 2016 at 12:34 am #46715
I get it just fine. I just not inclined to agree with your whole line of reasoning. Particularly as it applies to movement of populations. Right or wrong ( all in the eyes of the beholder) the culture with the power wins over the little guy.January 19, 2016 at 2:05 am #46718
I did say, “The lessons are still there to be learned, but sadly won’t be.” I’m not naive or stupid – I recognize the reality. I just refuse to agree with it. The reality also is that the Constitution is being rolled over, too, and by forces apparently more powerful than our side or we’d be winning. So we just give up and accept it and quit bellyaching, I suppose.January 19, 2016 at 3:27 am #46726
Here’s what I suspect would happen with Muslims becoming a majority group in any ONE state, they would enact laws that would certainly impact the indigenous practices that nearly all American Indians have held on to for many many generations or have attempted to revive in the past century. American Indians were NOT citizens until the 1920’s and it was only under Nixon, that we natives were allowed “Freedom of Religion Act.” Muslims would NOT like what they hear or think they hear in ceremonies that involved peyote, so they would NOT be welcomed. On that alone, I don’t want them to become a majority. But they might due to all the population controls so many follow and they don’t!January 19, 2016 at 5:55 am #46729
Excellent points, Corvus – and almost nobody is pointing those kinds of issues out – particularly as they apply to American Indians. And the same also holds true for most of the rest of “traditional” (i.e. “modern”) US society as well, to a lesser degree. Ben Carson has it entirely correct on that issue, and he’s been bashed for it. He said that unless a Muslim is willing to renounce Sharia law, and is entirely supportive of the individual liberties protected by Constitution as THE supreme law of the land, they are not fit to hold office. Poor libs almost had a cow on that one! LOL! Anybody that thinks they can successfully co-exist in large numbers, doesn’t know what’s happening in high Muslim concentration areas in the US. It’s downright frightening.January 19, 2016 at 10:25 am #46731
John Adams “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
We strayed off this line long ago and now every effort is being made to ensure that people with no moral integrity are in charge of our government and it’s agencies.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.