Rue Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 Iroquoian languages are verb-based while ours is noun-based. Their verbs are modified by adding prefixes and suffices to modify "who" is doing "what" action." It is a very crucial point you make. How we speak literally structures how we think. Wittgenstein the German philosopher spent most of his life on this point. Gene Roddenberry the former police officer turned sci fi producer who wrote all the Stak Trek stuff was fascinated by this point and often wrote scripts playing out his fascination with it and how it causes conflict. It is of course a source for much of the misunderstandings but it shouldn't be. However while I do notice aboriginal peoples seem to have learned the English, French, Portugese and Spanish languages and evidenced advanced negotiating skills in these languages, the reverse doesn't seem to have happened suggesting to me there might be some cause and effect between people with superiority complexes and their reluctance to learn different languages/cultures. Please feel free to use the Yiddish word "putz" to describe such people. Has a nice sound to it doesn't it? Quote
kengs333 Posted October 2, 2007 Report Posted October 2, 2007 Please feel free to use the Yiddish word "putz" to describe such people. Has a nice sound to it doesn't it? Why would anyone want to resort to such a thing? Quote
Borg Posted October 3, 2007 Report Posted October 3, 2007 Borg, I think you're misinterpreting what Keng is saying. His point was that the Indians have a double standard: If a treaty is to their benefit, they consider it etched in stone, and if a treaty turns out not to have been to their benefit, they man the barracades at the "injustice" of it all. He's saying the Indians have a double standard, and he's absolutely right. When I re-read I see your point - I was wrong - apologies. Borg Quote
jennie Posted October 3, 2007 Report Posted October 3, 2007 QUOTE(ScottSA @ Oct 2 2007, 04:50 AM) * Borg, I think you're misinterpreting what Keng is saying. His point was that the Indians have a double standard: If a treaty is to their benefit, they consider it etched in stone, and if a treaty turns out not to have been to their benefit, they man the barracades at the "injustice" of it all. He's saying the Indians have a double standard, and he's absolutely right. When I re-read I see your point - I was wrong - apologies.Borg Of course it is conjecture: I have never seen a scholarly nor even just a journalistic or quasi-journalistic presentation of even quasi-evidence of such hypotheses. But please enlighten me with any such information if I am wrong. Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
noahbody Posted October 3, 2007 Report Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(ScottSA @ Oct 2 2007, 04:50 AM) *Borg, I think you're misinterpreting what Keng is saying. His point was that the Indians have a double standard: If a treaty is to their benefit, they consider it etched in stone, and if a treaty turns out not to have been to their benefit, they man the barracades at the "injustice" of it all. He's saying the Indians have a double standard, and he's absolutely right. Of course it is conjecture: I have never seen a scholarly nor even just a journalistic or quasi-journalistic presentation of even quasi-evidence of such hypotheses. But please enlighten me with any such information if I am wrong. "Haudenosaunee law provides that meetings shall not take place after sundown, to make sure that decisions are made with a clear mind and not rushed. We all know how important it is to “sleep on” major decisions. MNN has learned that one clan mother was pressured into signing the documents that set up HDI at 3 am. Nothing signed at this hour is valid." K. Horn That took about 10 seconds. Edited October 3, 2007 by noahbody Quote
jennie Posted October 3, 2007 Report Posted October 3, 2007 That took about 10 seconds. ok ... point made ... though it is not a treaty ... not an obligation to another nation ... but their own law ... the Great Law. Kahentinetha has a right to make her points like we all do, and from her position in the Mohawk Nation. It's really an internal matter, to me: Will the Confederacy address the questions? I would assume so ... I don't know the protocols though. Will the Confederacy clarify its position to 'us' the Canadian public? I doubt it. It's their law, their business. There are different viewpoints in every community. Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Recommended Posts
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.