Jump to content

They are NOT Native Americans. They are INDIANS


reason10

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Did they? What are you basing that on? Surely not the fact that that's the way it had been done since the beginning of time.

I'm basing it on the fact that Europeans started colonizing the planet at the same time they were laying down the earliest  foundations for the system of laws that govern us today.  These include rights for both nations and human beings.

They may not have imagined or intended that these rights should extend to anyone outside of Europe but the fact they did is now apparent all around us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I'm basing it on the fact that Europeans started colonizing the planet at the same time they were laying down the earliest  .  These include rights for both nations and human beings.

They may not have imagined or intended that these rights should extend to anyone outside of Europe but the fact they did is now apparent all around us.

I think I'd understand you argument better if you told  us what specific "foundations for the system of laws that govern us today" you're talking about from the 15th century that should have prevented Europeans exclusively from conquering and colonizing weaker nations? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I think I'd understand you argument better if you told  us what specific "foundations for the system of laws that govern us today" you're talking about from the 15th century that should have prevented Europeans exclusively from conquering and colonizing weaker nations? 

Why, I'm pretty sure I've tried flying the already 1500 year old do unto others yadda yadda morality supposedly guiding our development into a civilized people past you but I suspect you'd just sneer at that even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term Indies and Indians originally came from the region surrounding the Indus river and was expanded to describe all of South East  Asia and some of Oceana. It had nothing to do with North American "Indians".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_influence_on_Southeast_Asia

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thing about "Do unto others"...turns out pretty much all religions have some version of that.

The exception might be Islam. They have something but it goes more like "Do unto other Muslims as you would have them do unto you. Anybody else...don't worry about it. Enjoy their grief and horror."

Also Judaism, Christianity and even Islam are Asian.

Still, nothing about that one would make Europeans as opposed to all others evil hypocrites for conquer and rule. Pretty much happening all around the world in the 16th century to everybody and anybody who had the bad luck to be weaker.

If you want to feel superior for dissing your own well...I never understood that one but feel free to be honest about what you're really saying first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

The term Indies and Indians originally came from the region surrounding the Indus river and was expanded to describe all of South East  Asia and some of Oceana. It had nothing to do with North American "Indians".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_influence_on_Southeast_Asia

Yeah already said that. In better detail though. Thanks for the wiki quote. Sounds like they got one right. More or less.

As I also pointed out though the 'People of God' explanation in the OP has also been around for awhile.

And people who use the Indian referred to India one sometimes forget that started post Columbus. That might matter.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

Still, nothing about that one would make Europeans as opposed to all others evil hypocrites for conquer and rule. Pretty much happening all around the world in the 16th century to everybody and anybody who had the bad luck to be weaker.

Something else that was happening as I said, was the development of principles and laws based on rights both individual and national.  That's what set us in opposition to the more brutal norms of ancient history. In the case of British Columbia the earliest governors England sent here were given clear instructions to seek legally binding treaties with indigenous people that amongst other things extinguished their sovereignty and title to the land.  They did not succeed and soldiered on anyway in near defiance of the evolution of laws that would one day bind them even more tightly to their stated principles.

I suppose some might argue that hoisting ourselves on a legal petard of our own making makes us weaker. Good luck with that BTW.  A lot of negotiated water has passed under our keel and the way forward is not backwards.  As I said modern treaties are just about the biggest economic drivers in my region. 

Quote

If you want to feel superior for dissing your own well...I never understood that one but feel free to be honest about what you're really saying first.

Wherever the superiority of the principle of doing unto others came from it had been well enough established 500 hundred years ago for European colonizers to know better than they did to behave the way they did.  I feel much better about being on the more appropriate side of history now than 30 - 50 years ago which is to say before I imagined and discovered such a better place existed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

The term Indies and Indians originally came from the region surrounding the Indus river and was expanded to describe all of South East  Asia and some of Oceana. It had nothing to do with North American "Indians".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_influence_on_Southeast_Asia

So you're saying that Columbus trying to reach South East Asia, and believing he had, is a myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

They were here first, hence the more appropriate use of the term First Nations.

The Nations in Europe knew full well it was wrong and illegal to just waltz into other people's lands without some sort of by-your-leave process.

Many First Nations never ceded their sovereignty, especially in British Columbia and where today's modern treaties cause most conservatives heads that are unfamiliar with them to explode in profound disbelief.  I suspect many early colonists would be spinning in their graves.

You  may be referring to Canadian conservatives. United States mainstream conservatives might not even be the same species. We come in all colors, sexes and national origins. The only thing that we have in common is we are more intelligent than liberals. Then again, farm animals are more intelligent than liberals.

For some reason, liberals want to hold history to the standards of today.

The Nations in Europe knew full well it was wrong and illegal to just waltz into other people's lands without some sort of by-your-leave process.

Do you REALLY want that statement to be connected to your name? Nations in Europe? The Roman Empire was ended by Norse barbarian tribes. England is defined as Anglo Saxon, as in two barbarian tribes the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes. Their entire function in history was attacking and taking over other people's lands with zero emphasis on the by-your-leave process. (Nobody waltzed into a land until Johann Strauss began composing Waltzes.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Read a book.  People from South Asia and East Asia were often called Indians back then.

India didn't exist in 1492 when Columbus made that voyage. It was known as Hindustan. Columbus met the Caribbean natives and named them In Dios, a poor Spanish attempt to call them Children of God. From In Dios came INDIANS. 

From a poor Spanish attempt to call these people Children Of God, we have today the BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.

If you read anything that doesn't permit coloring, just refer to it as your first book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 8:08 AM, Rebound said:

Most English words have a root in some other language. Today, America is an English word. 
 

Your argument is completely pointless. 

The subject of the thread is correct, accurate and backed up by reliable source. The fact that your pea brain doesn't like the facts does not negate the facts. And the fact that you can't seem to debate without changing the subject pretty much puts you below Florida third graders in the brain department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

And there was No America when the English first came.  So, their descendants should be called English still, by your logic.  

The English came. The Spanish came. The French came. Are you REALLY so stupid as to not know the difference between this

f9ff699de96684902709c3ca56712833--division-north-america.jpg

and this?

united-states-map-labeled-with-capitals-and-travel-information-free-printable-labeled-map-of-the-united-states.jpg

Edited by reason10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why, I'm pretty sure I've tried flying the already 1500 year old do unto others yadda yadda morality supposedly guiding our development into a civilized people past you but I suspect you'd just sneer at that even more.

Don’t be ridiculous!

Christian morals only matter when it applies to other people’s behavior.  Try this: It is better to put people in chains and beat them with whips to raise cotton for me, because I am making them Christian. It’s for their own good!  
 

I get rich from it because Jesus is thanking me for forcing these people to be Christian. 

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, reason10 said:

The Nations in Europe knew full well it was wrong and illegal to just waltz into other people's lands without some sort of by-your-leave process.

Do you REALLY want that statement to be connected to your name? Nations in Europe?

Better that then this I figure

47 minutes ago, Rebound said:

It is better to put people in chains and beat them with whips to raise cotton for me, because I am making them Christian. It’s for their own good!  
 

I get rich from it because Jesus is thanking me for forcing these people to be Christian. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Better that then this I figure

 

Here's a way you can derive some comfort in all this. Recognize that YOU PERSONALLY never owned a slave and never invaded a country to take it over. You never resided in a country whose government did such a thing (unless you live in Africa or China today) so your tax dollars were not used in such a fashion.

What happened centuries ago is dead and gone. The victims are dead. The people who preyed on those victims are dead. You don't owe them even the time of day. Right now, they are worm food. And you have your own life to live.

You will be judged on your actions. And you should tell those who would blame you for stuff happening centuries ago, to go For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge themselves.

(Yes, that's the acronym from whence that popular noun and verb comes from.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, reason10 said:

What happened centuries ago is dead and gone. The victims are dead.

No, many are still very much alive and many more still carry the memories of their parents and grandparents abuse. I have living friends my age who were raped in a residential school that wasn't closed until 1973.  I've repeated this several times now but you people insist on saying no it was all hundreds of years ago.  This is called denial. When the denial is repeated in the face of evidence to the contrary over and over again it starts sounding desperate. What are you so afraid of anyway? 

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Victims+face+their+abuser+(Arthur+Henry+Plint)+at+Alberni+trial.-a030284228  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the problem with the idea the west represents the inherent possessors of some special evil because they failed to live up to the goals of their religion. It implies only a European is guilty of this sort of hypocrisy and you are some special sort of Westerner for noticing. But they're not and you're not. Do you really want a fist pump because some unknown relative of yours was raped in the past? Let's have them all around then. Who can't go into their past to find one of those?

You want us to be impressed when you dis Europeans for connecting to an Asian religion that might speak against colonization with a few tweaks to its code. Very well, communists are all the time railing against colonizers. Yet they want to colonize Taiwan. Russia is trying to colonize Ukraine again as we speak. Why are you expecting some sort of badge of superior morality for noticing how 7 hundred years ago largely Christian nations were colonizers as every nation or ideology of greater strength to another was. In fact the only difference between them and these Europeans you want to point down at is many of them are still doing it. Or trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, many are still very much alive and many more still carry the memories of their parents and grandparents abuse. I have living friends my age who were raped in a residential school that wasn't closed until 1973.  I've repeated this several times now but you people insist on saying no it was all hundreds of years ago.  This is called denial. When the denial is repeated in the face of evidence to the contrary over and over again it starts sounding desperate. What are you so afraid of anyway? 

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Victims+face+their+abuser+(Arthur+Henry+Plint)+at+Alberni+trial.-a030284228  

I"m not familiar with Canadian centuries old conditions. I think in terms of American issues.

In America, the slave trade was a few hundred years ago. The Trail of Tears a few hundred years ago. Wounded knee, 150 years ago. Today, Indians flourish with their casinos and other holdings.

https://www.guestreservations.com/hard-rock-tampa/booking?msclkid=e5c3f949ae0b1199564e9ac229a40d54

Do they have poor sections? Same as everyone else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,430
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    MaryAshleyy
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • ThoughtsOnThoughts earned a badge
      First Post
    • Mako earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Manymoons11 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mako went up a rank
      Rookie
    • kashanali897 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...