Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 16 Oct 2006 14:17 Post subject: Re: The Amish compared with protected racial identity groups
G-Man wrote:
triguy wrote:
... [W]hy should the Cherokee have any less validity in their claim to nationhood than Scotland or Wales? Moreover, why is a Sioux identity any less valid than a white American identity?
The same could be said about the American south and the Celtic Americans who are still attracted to the idea of secession, or Mexican Americans/Mexicans/Hispanics who wish to do the same in the American southwest.
No. Because the Confederation was the invention of European settlers. In the same way, Mexico is an invention of Europeans, not Native Americans (the Aztects only dominated Tenochtitlan and its closest neighbour in a radius of 50 miles!). Moreover, Spanish is an European language!
Natives Americans were in the Americas since 12.000 years ago, at least. They are the Natives of the land, and that marks the differency.
Posted: Tue 17 Oct 2006 03:21 Post subject: Re: The Amish compared with protected racial identity groups
oevega wrote:
Natives Americans were in the Americas since 12.000 years ago, at least. They are the Natives of the land, and that marks the differency.
Above, Mr. Oevega posted a U.N. draft resolution proposing a laundry-list of special indigenous rights. In this same spirit Oevega has often implied that there are special rights for indigenous peoples' merely "being there first."
Can Mr. Oevega kindly explain what is the "differncy" of 12,000-year native Americans -- North American Indians? What part of the notion of constitutional bill-of-rights citizenship or human rights guarantees should be read differently for them? Why?
Stipulating that Indians have, or should have, equal property ownership rights as anyone else (i.e., valid land title under current law), what does it matter that "blood" racial ancestors of Indians living today were Native Americans 12,000 or more years ago? The strong cultural value behind protecting ancient Indian rock art (petroglyphs, pictographs, etc.) for instance, relates to Indians living today how?
Indian language, religion, ethnic customs of various sorts, too, may merit preservation by someone willing to continue them -- someone willing to bear the burden of living a traditional lifestyle, as the Amish do entirely unaided. But how are U.S. taxpayers today obligated to pay for ethnic delights which will be enjoyed by Indians alone? On what theory do U.S. citizens owe an Indian nickel to Native Americans merely for their having some ancestors who were here 12,000 years ago? Given that this contest obviously tests only the age (for classification) of ancestral "roots," how is this issue not a government-run racial contest between the defined color-line "races"?
George
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 168 } Location: Mid-Atlantic States; USA
Posted: Tue 17 Oct 2006 14:16 Post subject: Re: The Amish compared with protected racial identity groups
winwinkel wrote:
Indian language, religion, ethnic customs of various sorts, too, may merit preservation by someone willing to continue them -- someone willing to bear the burden of living a traditional lifestyle, as the Amish do entirely unaided. But how are U.S. taxpayers today obligated to pay for ethnic delights which will be enjoyed by Indians alone? On what theory do U.S. citizens owe an Indian nickel to Native Americans merely for their having some ancestors who were here 12,000 years ago? Given that this contest obviously tests only the age (for classification) of ancestral "roots," how is this issue not a government-run racial contest between the defined color-line "races"?
George
Mr. George Winkel, Sir, I'm honored to have an opportunity to speak
with you; having read your writings over the years.
It's just treaty obligations, Sir, that's all that it is. We as a nation (the
USA), signed treaties with multitudes of Native American Indian tribes.
As in chess, often when you defeat a nation in battle you allow them to
have something; some dignity. In chess the king is allowed to live.
We also make treaties so that the hostilities will end once and for all,
and we won't have to be forever watching our backs.
So we signed treaties with many tribes, and now we are obligated as a
nation to keep those treaties. George, I agree that it often looks as
though we're giving welfare or other types of special favors to enrolled
Native American Indians; but in actuality we're only paying treaty
agreements; supposedly for as long as the grass is green, and the sky is blue.
Mr. Winkel, I would think that as a nation, our word must be good,
because other nations are watching, and our integrety must be safe-
guarded. So in my humble opinon, Sir, that's all it is; treaty obligations,
that we as an honorable nation must strive to keep for as long as the
treaties stated we will. Of course, this old guy could be wrong.
And yes, the Amish seem to be wonderful people, noble and to be
commended. I feel the Native American Indian issue however, as pointed
out by others in this thread, is different; and must be honored by us.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
