Author Topic: Native Americans and tribal living around the world  (Read 43840 times)



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19433
    • View Profile
bog people DNA from Florida
« Reply #52 on: December 09, 2019, 08:09:55 AM »
suggest Europeans were here very early on.

Did the "native Americans" run them off the continent?

or kill them with syphilis ?
just contemplating how to turn this back on the libs......

of course they could have been Europeans simply retiring to Florida

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71671
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71671
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71671
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: June 26, 2020, 05:41:01 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71671
    • View Profile
Native American sovereignty is no liberal triumph
« Reply #56 on: July 13, 2020, 08:49:14 AM »
Native American Sovereignty Is No Liberal Triumph
The tribes that will benefit from last week’s Supreme Court ruling are anything but progressive.
By M. Todd Henderson
July 12, 2020 2:27 pm ET

The Supreme Court has handed a big win to the sovereignty of Native American tribes. The Court’s ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma—that Congress did not disestablish Indian reservations when Oklahoma became a state in 1907—means that the eastern half of the state is now “Indian Country” and in large part under the rule of tribes like the Creek and the Cherokee. Liberals cheered. Neal Katyal, who served as solicitor general under President Obama, tweeted: “So good to see Tribes winning at SCOTUS.”

It’s strange for Democrats to cheer for sovereignty of Natives just because they have been mistreated in history and because President Trump and Oklahoma Republicans took the other side. Tribes are hardly bastions of liberal ideas in a host of areas, and they have a complicated history, to say the least.

For one thing, the tribes that will benefit from McGirt fought for the Confederacy and enslaved Africans. The Cherokee owned slaves and denied membership to the descendants of slaves—the so-called Cherokee freedmen—until forced to accept them in 2017, under the order of a federal district court.

Tribes are also backward on values sacred to Democrats. The Creek don’t recognize gay marriage. A statute passed in 2001 provides: “A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another Indian Nation or state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.” Although members of the tribe are U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not apply to them on issues of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation and other traits. That gay Creeks are treated worse than other Oklahomans is a strange thing for Democrats to celebrate.

Zooming in on the facts of the case, other problems emerge. Jimcy McGirt was convicted by an Oklahoma court of raping a child, but the justices held that since the place where he committed the crime was Indian Country, jurisdiction was exclusively federal under the Major Crimes Act of 1885. This result should hardly warrant celebration in liberal quarters.

The Major Crimes Act shifted enforcement of most felonies on some 200 reservations to the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and away from tribal or state police. Not surprisingly, the FBI doesn’t devote the resources to violence in Indian Country that local officials would. According to FBI reports, there were 139 special agents handling Indian cases in 2017, fewer than one per reservation and about one for every 8,000 people on a reservation. This is far fewer than a large city like Chicago, which has one policeman for every 200 people.

The consequence is that the rate of unprosecuted crimes, such as aggravated assault, in Indian Country is roughly twice that of the U.S. as a whole. Rates of violence against Native women are especially troubling in Indian Country. It is likely the Justice Department will prosecute Mr. McGirt, but it is far less clear that the FBI will be as vigorous in investigating Indian-on-Indian crimes in the vast territory of eastern Oklahoma. Much domestic violence will likely go unprosecuted.

There are also legal limits to Indian tribes’ ability to enforce their own laws. The Creek have the authority to prosecute crimes in their territory, but under federal law they are constrained in the punishment they can dole out (generally no more than a few years in prison). The Creek cannot punish non-Indians under Supreme Court precedent, leaving it up to the feds.

Creek jurisdiction over Mr. McGirt, a Seminole Indian, is also constitutionally suspect. In Duro v. Reina (1990), the Supreme Court held that tribes may punish only their own members, meaning the Creek could not charge Mr. McGirt. Congress overruled this decision, passing a statute—the “Duro fix”—that gave tribes criminal jurisdiction over any “Indian.” But this statute treats Mr. McGirt differently from a non-Indian solely because of his ancestry—a dubious proposition under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Time will tell whether this case remakes Indian sovereignty. One thing we can say for sure is that Indian law and history is a vastly complex subject, and that simplistic labels like “good” and “bad” don’t work. The lesson applies more broadly. Maybe we should all resist the temptation to take sides in a partisan tweet.

Mr. Henderson is a law professor at the University of Chicago.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71671
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71671
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71671
    • View Profile
GPF: The Complexity of Naming Things
« Reply #61 on: October 02, 2022, 12:56:49 PM »
September 30, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Dissenting Opinions: The Complexity of Naming Things
George and Cole offer their thoughts on the "Indian" vs. "Native American" debate.
By: George Friedman and Cole Altom

Editor’s note: We at GPF are a group of (more or less) like-minded individuals writing for a common purpose – to make sense of the world. It’s a daunting job that makes it impossible for us to agree on everything, so rather than shrink from the task, we have decided to embrace the impossible by publishing Dissenting Opinions, a column that lays out what we disagree on and why. As always, your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Earlier this week, I wrote a piece that used the term “Indian.” An editor changed the term to “Native American.” I have no quarrel with my editor. An editor’s job is to correct defective terminology, and the use of Native American has become commonplace. Still, the correction caused me to think a bit about naming conventions in geopolitics.

The name “Indian” appears to have derived from a mistake made by Christopher Columbus, who accidentally touched down in the Americas when in fact he was trying to reach the “Indies,” the generalized term in Europe for parts of the easternmost stretches of Asia. Thinking he was where he intended to be, he called the people he encountered “Indians.” The name caught on and entered common usage. Thus, when I use the term “Indian,” people will understand who I’m talking about. In that sense, it is as useful an identifier as any.

For many, the term “Native American” is superior. But at the risk of being semantic, this has rhetorical problems of its own. First, the term “American” was coined by a German cartographer, the first to map out North America. He used the term America to honor who he believed to be the discoverer of America, or at least North America, an Italian named Amerigo Vespucci. To be “Native American,” then, is to be named after an Italian explorer. This hardly sheds the colonial baggage inherent to “Indian.”

The term “native” is also tricky. Native derives from the Latin concept of birth. I was born in Hungary, so I am a native Hungarian. No matter what else I do, that is my native country. Whoever was born in America – including all of the Americas – is Native American. Applying the term Native American to those Columbus referred to as Indian, then, changes the meaning of a word.

I am writing this column in Montreal, where indigenous peoples are often called “First Nations.” This is meant to mean that these nations preceded European settlement. The problem with this is that it is highly unlikely that these were first “nations.” In the course of millennia of history, the first nations were almost certainly destroyed by enemy nations, enslaved or absorbed by newer tribes, just as all nations were. It can be said that they preceded European occupation, but calling them First Nations may not be entirely accurate because, while there might be a nation tracing its history to the crossing from Asia, the term cannot possibly apply to all tribes.

Either way, the Indigenous peoples encountered by Europeans did not see themselves as belonging to a single race or nation. They were Comanche or Sioux, Inca or Aztec, and so on. Each person was a member of a nation, as is true of other continents, and they had names for the nations, a geography, a language and a religion. They knew what they were and what they were not.

The conquest of the Americas by Europeans isn’t especially unique. History from the Bible to Aristotle is filled with mentions of the occupation and annihilation of nations. These cannot be reversed. Today’s inhabitants of the ground formerly occupied by Babylonians are not the same nation.

The history of North America is as covered in war and annihilation as any other continent. Nations have been conquered and obliterated throughout history. European settlers committed these crimes, but so had the nations they discovered and conquered. No one is here without a crime in his history.

The real issue here is to challenge the legitimacy of European conquest by challenging the name European immigrants used. It’s unclear to me whether the challenge was issued by the heirs of Europeans seeking to delegitimize their history or the heirs of the nations that lived here and were conquered. Since any single word is as invalid as any other, it seems to me that the Indians, or Native Americans, or First Nations alone have the right to name themselves something else, and I have an obligation to use that name. I don’t think they would choose to name themselves after an Italian sailor.

George Friedman, founder and CEO

 

The problem with naming conventions – a problem to which George correctly alludes in his essay – is that they are less about names themselves and more about the circumstances under which the names were derived. The debate about what to call the North American peoples who were all but wiped out by European colonizers is really a debate about the act of conquest and how we reckon with the past. On that we agree.

In fact, many of George’s premises are self-evidently true. Yes, many of the nations populating North America fought each other well before the Europeans showed up. Yes, conquest and cultural annihilation were commonplace at a certain point in world history. Yes, it can be folly to judge the behavior of 500 years ago by the standards of today. Yes, it’s impossible to change the actions of the past. And yes, people generally understand whom you are referring to when you say “Indian” or “Native American” or “First Nation” or “Indigenous peoples.” That’s not the issue.

The issue is that all of these self-evidently true things are utterly irrelevant. Not one of them is exculpatory. When you clear the smoke and break the mirrors, what remains is the absolutely unassailable fact that genocide is bad, no matter when it happened, no matter who it happened to. It’s irresponsible and immoral to shrug off Caesar’s Gallic genocide as “shit happens,” just as it’s irresponsible and immoral to relegate Hitler’s genocide as “conquest is the way of the world, what of it?” George doesn’t say as much outright, of course, but his line of reasoning is, to me, uncomfortably close to those who would.

The result of this line of argumentation, deliberately or unconsciously, is to absolve modern Americans of past wrongdoings. Or, in George’s words, to “challenge the legitimacy of European conquest by challenging the name European immigrants used.” My response is: Yea, so what? It is absolutely fair to challenge the legitimacy of things. People of all political and cultural persuasions do it all the time. Why is this different? Why is this problematic? Why twist yourself into knots conjuring reasons to say it’s not OK? And who are we to say it’s OK or not OK in the first place?

To his credit, George even goes out of his way to say, “Since any single word is as invalid as any other, it seems to me that the Indians, or Native Americans, or First Nations alone have the right to name themselves something else, and I have an obligation to use that name.” But in arguing that all those names share the same utility as merely an identifying marker, that conquest is just the way things were done back then, and that all nations are inherently belligerent, he is unwittingly participating in one side of the debate while purporting not to.

To be clear, I don’t think we all have to spend the rest of eternity flagellating ourselves for the sins of the past. I just think we need to reckon with them, and if nothing else acknowledge them. It is literally the least we can do. To do otherwise is to rewrite history, which is bad. In the meantime, let’s stop adjudicating the accuracy of names. It’s not our place to do so.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19433
    • View Profile
Re: Native Americans and tribal living around the world
« Reply #62 on: October 02, 2022, 02:57:52 PM »
really humorous article

OTOH we can just identify as "they / them" or "us/we"
and get rid of all the other names



 :-P

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: GPF: The Complexity of Naming Things
« Reply #63 on: October 02, 2022, 09:09:00 PM »
Endless virtue signaling meaning nothing except "Look at me, I'm an enlightened high caste white".

Anyone who has actually spent time in and around Indian Reservations would know that that Indians, aside from their specific Tribal affiliations refer to themselves as Indians. It's not offensive, it's not a slur.

Anyone who insists on anything other than "Indian" is either a buffoonish white or an Indian playing the "Let's exploit white guilt game".

If someone actually care about helping Indians, forget about the PC groveling and do something tangible for actual human beings on the poorest reservations, such as Pine Ridge.



September 30, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Dissenting Opinions: The Complexity of Naming Things
George and Cole offer their thoughts on the "Indian" vs. "Native American" debate.
By: George Friedman and Cole Altom

Editor’s note: We at GPF are a group of (more or less) like-minded individuals writing for a common purpose – to make sense of the world. It’s a daunting job that makes it impossible for us to agree on everything, so rather than shrink from the task, we have decided to embrace the impossible by publishing Dissenting Opinions, a column that lays out what we disagree on and why. As always, your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Earlier this week, I wrote a piece that used the term “Indian.” An editor changed the term to “Native American.” I have no quarrel with my editor. An editor’s job is to correct defective terminology, and the use of Native American has become commonplace. Still, the correction caused me to think a bit about naming conventions in geopolitics.

The name “Indian” appears to have derived from a mistake made by Christopher Columbus, who accidentally touched down in the Americas when in fact he was trying to reach the “Indies,” the generalized term in Europe for parts of the easternmost stretches of Asia. Thinking he was where he intended to be, he called the people he encountered “Indians.” The name caught on and entered common usage. Thus, when I use the term “Indian,” people will understand who I’m talking about. In that sense, it is as useful an identifier as any.

For many, the term “Native American” is superior. But at the risk of being semantic, this has rhetorical problems of its own. First, the term “American” was coined by a German cartographer, the first to map out North America. He used the term America to honor who he believed to be the discoverer of America, or at least North America, an Italian named Amerigo Vespucci. To be “Native American,” then, is to be named after an Italian explorer. This hardly sheds the colonial baggage inherent to “Indian.”

The term “native” is also tricky. Native derives from the Latin concept of birth. I was born in Hungary, so I am a native Hungarian. No matter what else I do, that is my native country. Whoever was born in America – including all of the Americas – is Native American. Applying the term Native American to those Columbus referred to as Indian, then, changes the meaning of a word.

I am writing this column in Montreal, where indigenous peoples are often called “First Nations.” This is meant to mean that these nations preceded European settlement. The problem with this is that it is highly unlikely that these were first “nations.” In the course of millennia of history, the first nations were almost certainly destroyed by enemy nations, enslaved or absorbed by newer tribes, just as all nations were. It can be said that they preceded European occupation, but calling them First Nations may not be entirely accurate because, while there might be a nation tracing its history to the crossing from Asia, the term cannot possibly apply to all tribes.

Either way, the Indigenous peoples encountered by Europeans did not see themselves as belonging to a single race or nation. They were Comanche or Sioux, Inca or Aztec, and so on. Each person was a member of a nation, as is true of other continents, and they had names for the nations, a geography, a language and a religion. They knew what they were and what they were not.

The conquest of the Americas by Europeans isn’t especially unique. History from the Bible to Aristotle is filled with mentions of the occupation and annihilation of nations. These cannot be reversed. Today’s inhabitants of the ground formerly occupied by Babylonians are not the same nation.

The history of North America is as covered in war and annihilation as any other continent. Nations have been conquered and obliterated throughout history. European settlers committed these crimes, but so had the nations they discovered and conquered. No one is here without a crime in his history.

The real issue here is to challenge the legitimacy of European conquest by challenging the name European immigrants used. It’s unclear to me whether the challenge was issued by the heirs of Europeans seeking to delegitimize their history or the heirs of the nations that lived here and were conquered. Since any single word is as invalid as any other, it seems to me that the Indians, or Native Americans, or First Nations alone have the right to name themselves something else, and I have an obligation to use that name. I don’t think they would choose to name themselves after an Italian sailor.

George Friedman, founder and CEO

 

The problem with naming conventions – a problem to which George correctly alludes in his essay – is that they are less about names themselves and more about the circumstances under which the names were derived. The debate about what to call the North American peoples who were all but wiped out by European colonizers is really a debate about the act of conquest and how we reckon with the past. On that we agree.

In fact, many of George’s premises are self-evidently true. Yes, many of the nations populating North America fought each other well before the Europeans showed up. Yes, conquest and cultural annihilation were commonplace at a certain point in world history. Yes, it can be folly to judge the behavior of 500 years ago by the standards of today. Yes, it’s impossible to change the actions of the past. And yes, people generally understand whom you are referring to when you say “Indian” or “Native American” or “First Nation” or “Indigenous peoples.” That’s not the issue.

The issue is that all of these self-evidently true things are utterly irrelevant. Not one of them is exculpatory. When you clear the smoke and break the mirrors, what remains is the absolutely unassailable fact that genocide is bad, no matter when it happened, no matter who it happened to. It’s irresponsible and immoral to shrug off Caesar’s Gallic genocide as “shit happens,” just as it’s irresponsible and immoral to relegate Hitler’s genocide as “conquest is the way of the world, what of it?” George doesn’t say as much outright, of course, but his line of reasoning is, to me, uncomfortably close to those who would.

The result of this line of argumentation, deliberately or unconsciously, is to absolve modern Americans of past wrongdoings. Or, in George’s words, to “challenge the legitimacy of European conquest by challenging the name European immigrants used.” My response is: Yea, so what? It is absolutely fair to challenge the legitimacy of things. People of all political and cultural persuasions do it all the time. Why is this different? Why is this problematic? Why twist yourself into knots conjuring reasons to say it’s not OK? And who are we to say it’s OK or not OK in the first place?

To his credit, George even goes out of his way to say, “Since any single word is as invalid as any other, it seems to me that the Indians, or Native Americans, or First Nations alone have the right to name themselves something else, and I have an obligation to use that name.” But in arguing that all those names share the same utility as merely an identifying marker, that conquest is just the way things were done back then, and that all nations are inherently belligerent, he is unwittingly participating in one side of the debate while purporting not to.

To be clear, I don’t think we all have to spend the rest of eternity flagellating ourselves for the sins of the past. I just think we need to reckon with them, and if nothing else acknowledge them. It is literally the least we can do. To do otherwise is to rewrite history, which is bad. In the meantime, let’s stop adjudicating the accuracy of names. It’s not our place to do so.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71671
    • View Profile
"I killed Custer"
« Reply #66 on: March 15, 2023, 02:51:04 PM »

Suggested for you
American Indian Photos
2d
  ·
From the Battle of Little Big Horn

“I had sung the war song, I had smelt power smoke, my heart was bad--I was like one who has no mind. I rushed in and took their flag; my pony fell dead as I took it. I cut the thong that bound me; I jumped up and brained the sword flag man with my war club, and ran back to our line with the flag. I was mad, I got a fresh pony and rushed back shooting, cutting and slashing. This pony was shot and I got another. This time I saw Little Hair (Tom Custer)--I remembered my vow, I was crazy; I feared nothing. I knew nothing would hurt me for I had my white weasel tail on. I didn't know how many I killed trying to get at him. He knew me. I laughed at him and yelled at him. I saw his mouth move but there was so much noise I couldn't hear his voice. He was afraid. When I got near enough I shot him with my revolver. My gun was gone. I didn't know where. I got back on my pony and rode off. I was satisfied and sick of fighting."

Itoηagaju (Rain-in-the-Face) Lakota , 1835-1905

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71671
    • View Profile
Iriquois
« Reply #67 on: May 09, 2023, 05:51:06 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71671
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19433
    • View Profile
Re: Native Americans and tribal living around the world
« Reply #69 on: November 25, 2023, 08:43:40 AM »
I would love to see Prof. Sowell on cable TV more

akin to VDH

they could do a show together


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71671
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19433
    • View Profile
Carlisle Indian Industrial School
« Reply #72 on: May 19, 2024, 10:37:37 AM »
Mentioned in above article made me free associate it with Jim Thorpe:

From Wikipedia:

In 1904, the sixteen-year-old Thorpe returned to his father and decided to attend Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. There his athletic ability was recognized and he was coached by Glenn Scobey "Pop" Warner, one of the most influential coaches of early American football history.[24]

Played against Eisenhower:

Carlisle's 1912 record included a 27–6 victory over the West Point Army team.[12] In that game, Thorpe's 92-yard touchdown was nullified by a teammate's penalty, but on the next play Thorpe rushed for a 97-yard touchdown.[31] future President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who played against him in that game, recalled of Thorpe in a 1961 speech:

Here and there, there are some people who are supremely endowed. My memory goes back to Jim Thorpe. He never practiced in his life, and he could do anything better than any other football player I ever saw.[24]

AND being stabbed in the back by Pop Warner:

Thorpe had never tried to hide his participation in baseball. He'd told Superintendent Friedman before leaving campus in 1909, and had talked about it ever since coming back. 'I never made any secret about it.' Thorpe later said. 'I often told the boys, with the coaches listening, about things that happened while I was at Rocky Mount.' There's simply no way Pop Warner didn't know about Thorpe's summer baseball. After all they'd accomplished together, all they'd been through, this was the moment Thorpe needed Warner the most. This was Warner's chance to stand by Thorpe's side. He didn't do it. To Jim's teammates, this was nothing less than a knife to the back." Gus Welch, one of Thorpe's teammates, said, "Mr. Warner is a good football coach, but a man with no principle."


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Mystery of the Native Kids Not Killed by Catholic Schools
« Reply #74 on: October 01, 2024, 11:50:41 AM »
Over the past several years I've run into several aghast recitations regarding claimed deaths of Native American children at the nefarious hands of Catholic schools. Not seeing any (surprise!) reporting to the contrary, I filed it awas as an awful rumor in need of cooroberation. Haven't seen any, though the rumors persist.

Alas, it seems the initial reports were indeed grossly overblown, to the point they've just sort slid in as revealed truth in some cultural corners. Despite looking for the supposee bodies, none have been forthcoming:

https://www.samizdata.net/2024/09/there-will-be-no-truth-and-reconciliation-if-an-inconvenient-truth-is-made-illegal/