Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[stabbymcstabstab]

Yeah it funny about how a little thing like genocide could leave it's survivors and their descendants a little bitter, especially among the western tribes who still have members who grew up in proper tribes and where dragged away from their families to boarding schools.

[smjjames]

Spoiler: heh (click to show/hide)

edit: oops wrong megathread Isreal is part of Eurovision Song Contest so it's okay.

What is that a map of? I get that it's an imaginary map though.

[mainiac]

There are still many natives alive who lived through it. It was still going on in the 1900's in a less direct way through 'residential schools'.

Forced assimilation, while very bad for obvious reasons, isn't genocide though, is it?

[USEC_OFFICER]

Forced assimilation, while very bad for obvious reasons, isn't genocide though, is it?

Eh... I believe it depends on your definition of genocide. But yeah, we weren't going out and butchering Native Americans left and right. So while the residential schools/everything else were better than a traditional genocide, they were still pretty reprehensible and terrible. Definitely not something to be proud of or sweep under the rug.

What is that a map of? I get that it's an imaginary map though.

Looks like an Archipelago of Palestine in the Orient/Eastern Asia or something like that. I think it's safe to assume it's poking fun at Israeli somehow.

[stabbymcstabstab]

There are still many natives alive who lived through it. It was still going on in the 1900's in a less direct way through 'residential schools'.

Forced assimilation, while very bad for obvious reasons, isn't genocide though, is it?

See the fact the early children were occasionally the last survivors of their tribe it's not much better at all.

[Willfor]

Yeah. Residential schools stick in my craw, because it's basically the same thing the English did to the Gaelic Scots. Stick them in an Anglo school and whip them to being "civilized" (read: English/British) :/ Disappointing how they dealt out what their ancestors themselves had done to them. (since so many Canadians are Scottish and all)

And what Frumple said. It's respect. Saying "My family lived here for generations, I'm as native as they come!" may be technically correct (The best KIND of correct, I hear!) but it's also technically correct in the same was as the "#NotAllMen" thing was. Yes, it's technically correct, but it's missing the bloody point by a mile.

I'm pretty sure we're supposed to be switching over to "First Nations" as the terminology though as it is far less loaded with the associations of viewing non-developed cultures as primitive when we're referring to aboriginal peoples, and those contexts that "native" can summon up in discussions. At least, that's what I remember the reasoning to be. I may be way off base with this, but this is the last thing I remember hearing on the issue.

[mainiac]

]
See the fact the early children were occasionally the last survivors of their tribe it's not much better at all.

Surely it must be considerably better in the views of the survivors?

[Lagslayer]

]
See the fact the early children were occasionally the last survivors of their tribe it's not much better at all.

Surely it must be considerably better in the views of the survivors?

Don't mistake me for picking any side in particular, but would you rather..

A. Die with your head held high?
B. Be forced to support those that destroyed your very way of life?

[Descan]

What is that a map of? I get that it's an imaginary map though.

Looks like an Archipelago of Palestine in the Orient/Eastern Asia or something like that. I think it's safe to assume it's poking fun at Israeli somehow.

It's a map of the West Bank, with the islands as the Palestinian controlled areas (either partially or fully) and the fully Israeli and Israeli-occupied areas are the waters.

[mainiac]

A. Die with your head held high?
B. Be forced to support those that destroyed your very way of life?

Rather loaded question, that.

[palsch]

Think the states do it as something like at-minimum 1/16th native american to count? So at least one full blooded great-grandparent, something like that. There's a way of checking, in any case. Technically qualify for the various benefits in place for someone of native american descent, m'self. Some variation of Creek, iirc.

Also IIRC, but I believe it's membership of a registered tribe. Different tribes have different requirements. There was a recent Supreme Court case that involved a member of the Nation of Cherokee who was (also IIRC) 1/64th Cherokee by blood but recognised as a member by the tribe. They only require that you can prove ancestry to a member of the tribe recorded at a certain point in their past.

I also believe that I may well qualify under that requirement (my own Cherokee ancestor was only about four generations back... although the line back to John Adams is arguably easier to prove through certified records), although I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable claiming membership even if I could prove it. For me there is a cultural aspect that is a moral requirement and which I don't meet.

Obviously which tribes are registered is a somewhat political matter, and government/tribe relations also vary.

[Helgoland]

Descan: The First Nations came to the land at some point too, and it's highly probable that they dispaced other people in moving there - contrary to widespread assumption, stuff did happen in America before white people started writing it down.
How many generations do you need to be native? Does a member of the First Nations have any more right to the land than a guy whose ancestors came over when French absolutism was still a thing?

[Owlbread]

Descan: The First Nations came to the land at some point too, and it's highly probable that they dispaced other people in moving there - contrary to widespread assumption, stuff did happen in America before white people started writing it down.
How many generations do you need to be native? Does a member of the First Nations have any more right to the land than a guy whose ancestors came over when French absolutism was still a thing?

It's not about having the right to the land, it's about the tribe being legally recognised as being native to that land. Your arguments can be used to defend all sorts of Imperialism.

[Helgoland]

Like what? Please, tell me - I thought it would be right down your 'civic nationalism' alley.

[LordSlowpoke]

wow, imperialism with a big i

can it be used to defend small i imperialism though

like corporations in south america or something

you're not german what are you up to even

but no if you're saying native you're either going full tilt with archeological research and finding out who actually was the first one on that land or you don't do it at all there is no midway point

first nations is totally fine a concept for me though