This is MY America!
 

Who can truly say this?

The original Americans were obviously Native Americans. Next, the Spanish arrived with African slaves. The slaves revolted and the Spanish left. The Africans stayed, making them the first non-native Americans. Next, the Spanish came back to stay, making them the second non-native Americans. Spanish and Native peoples mixed, making Hispanic peoples the third non-native Americans. Next, the Dutch made settlements here, as the fourth non-native Americans. Many years later, the British came and established settlements, as the fifth non-native Americans.

If you want to get technical, the Native-Americans (and to a lesser degree: Africans, Spanish, Hispanic, Dutch) should be the ones asking whether British descendants should be allowed to stay and work here. It's especially ridiculous to people living in Texas, which is technically a part of Mexico.

History is written by the victors; and revisionist history by the victors descendants. Eurocentricism is so pervasive, it's transparent.

i don't
no it's not

just abt every country on the planet has it's boundaries decided thru conflict

first thing that I want to say is that I AM NOT here to sell anyone anything. I think that it is quite RUDE that my previous membership was cancelled for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It just said, "sell it somewhere else." Another user asked me if I joined the cellar to get more traffic into my Haiti group, I said, "No, but if people want to join that is ok also." Maybe I don't fit into the "click" that they want in here.

:rant:

I was the one who asked you that last week, but never saw your response anywhere. There was none in the thread where I asked that question.

Your post today about the Yoko One CD looked a lot to me like SPAM, so I don't blame the moderators for banning you.

Welcome to the Cellar. What are your interests, besides promoting tourism to Haiti and also promoting CDs?

I designed this thread as a shit-magnet, but I didn't know the Thread Drift would set in so quick!

The irony is: Haiti. The native people of Haiti were the first people to be enslaved and wiped out by . . . who else? Our hero: Christopher Columbus! He was so effective at sucking the life and wealth out of this "new land" that his methods became the industry standard. The same methods that were later to be admired and emulated by . . . guess who? Hitler! There, I've done it! I've invoked Hitler!

Soon this thread will collapse upon itself and drag us all into a hellish netherworld...

i dont know what this previous drama is about, but regarding your post:

The Vikings were here well before anyone, they planted the grapes at Marthas Vineyard. :vikingsmi:

The Vikings didn't settle permanently here.

They lacked the pandemic biological advantage of more disease-ridden Europeans, as the Vikings came through the decontamination zone of frigid lands where nasty microbes cannot survive outside the human body. Incidentally, the same reason the Natives had no resistance to Europeans sicknesses, they had come through the decontamination zone of the Bering Strait, and peopled a continent with no resistance to common bugs.

Flint, there are some historians who contend the Vikings left more here than a few outbuildings. Farley Mowat, love him or hate him, in The Farfarers sets up a convincing argument that Viking blood lines are spread all over the North Atlantic along with Albans, Celts and Picts. Some Paleo-Inuit sites have skulls that are more Euro than Inuit.

It's an interesting topic. Essentially I agree with your point about history being rewritten by the victors, probably many times over.

I don't think any of us can claim a birthright of this land. The Seminoles in my state are rather like the Zulu in that they did not exist before, what, 1800 or later. Some will tell you that Seminoles are Creek descendants with black runaway slaves and white deserters mixed in. I don't think it matters much anymore. It might have been a point of distinction at one time, but they are what they are now, not 150 years ago.

Two of my grandparents were the Canadian born children of Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famines. I may have an interest in the history and the culture, but it's not personal at this remove. If Mowat and others are right, I must have Alban, Norse, and Pict mixed in with the Celt. And descended from a sea faring country that was visited by other cultures, I probably could claim some Moorish blood as well.

lizzymahoney is my nom, not my heraldic shield.

Looking at it that way, I should have said the Vikings were first genetically assimilated, followed by the Africans slaves of the Spanish and shortly thereafter by the Spanish themselves. The French got in there somewhere, as well. But it was the Spanish who managed to implant their culture more effectively; the French (and presumably the Vikings as well) sort of melted into the Native pot. Along the way, there were plenty of isolated tri-racial communities (and not-so-isolated as you mentioned), and the very idea of a "frontier line" ignores the cultural engagement zone. Also, the reason British didn't get in the mix more often was that the colonies enacted harsh draconian policies to prevent their own people from defecting.

Blah blah blah we all get the point. The persecution of "aliens" we're undertaking now is tragically ironic. Hispanic people pre-date us on this continent by hundreds of years, and carry in them the blood of the original Americans. It won't change a thing, but that's the facts.

Say it ain't so Flint, say it ain't so.

So what? Lineage is not the point. Who cares who anyone's ancestors are?
ILLEGAL aliens are the point and making them abide by the rules is hardly persecution.

I'm so tired of that lame arguement about heritage and this and that. Look at now. Look at the present. Who cares where we originated. This is where we are now. Our kids have to deal with this illegals and their disease and their scrounging, and their sucking our nation dry of money. Don't you care about you and your family now? If you want to live like a person in a third-world nation, go to one and quit biching about things that happened long before anyone you know or care about was alive. NOW is what matters.

It would be simple to cast aside the past, wherever it makes us feel uncomfortable; but you can't understand where you are, or where you are going, without first understanding where you came from. It's something that is worth thinking about.

As long as you don't ask me or my family to ever pay reparations, or apologize for slavery, or blame me for the plight of every historically oppressed person in the US, I'm cool with it.

I'm not asking you to do anything, apologize for anything, or feel guilty about anything that had fuck all to do with you personally. I don't even have any suggestions as to what conclusions you should draw from any of this. All I'm saying is: you gotta start from a place of honesty, in order to move forward with integrity. That's all. White-washing the past with a contrived American "creation myth" about the noble Pilgrims doesn't help anybody.

Which native americans are you talking about?

Noble Pilgrims? Of course. Noble and pious, they were. They were also the most intolerant and oppressive bunch to ever arrive on these shores.
The dude that first settled Boston then welcomed the second set of Pilgrims, had to leave town within a year of their arrival.
Everyone knows bad boys wear black.

...guys so uptight even the British didn't want them.....

:thankyou:

I agree with this but we have to work to stop all the institutionalized racism and white supremacy in the US today. It won’t completely go away until our society is totally racially integrated but we can still fix a lot of it now.

The 10 to 20 million people living in an advanced, complex North American society before the "settlers" arrived to "tame the wilderness" ...

And we can start by teaching our high-school history students the truth about how this country started, instead of a romanticized myth that places an emphasis on European superiority. We have educated our society with "history" that isn't based on facts; it has been based on what makes us feel more comfortable about how we got here.

How do you think the myth of European superiority to "savage" indigenous people is connected to: How can students educated with innacurate history textbooks grow into adults capable of making informed decisions about the nature of their society?

Personally, I think white supremacy today has massive similarities to the Stanford Prison Experiment.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was where a random group of college students were either given a duty of prison guard or prisoner for a psychology experiment. After a while, these kids started actually acting upon their assigned positions, sometimes very violently. The prison guards were very dominant and abusive while the prisoners were very submissive and rebellious.

When white kids of today learn about history and "great" people, all they see are whites. So they start subconsciously assuming that whites are better than all the other races. When they are given this assumption, they will start to subconsciously acting upon it.

:notworthy:

Amazing that you brought that up. Over the weekend I read "High School Confidential" by Jeremy Iverson. The author posed as a high school student, and referred to the Stanford experiment (Iverson also graduated from Stanford) to point to this very phenomenon.

I saw a very disturbing movie based on this scenario... I cannot remember, at the moment, what it was called.

And conversely, how do you think non-white students feel about what they "learn" in "history" class?

I will put it on my list, thanks. I am assuming that you liked it?

If you can think of the name could you please give me it?

Yes, they get the opposite (prisoner) personality. That could be one of the reasons why it is hard for many to breach the "glass ceiling" and why so many are in jail (submissive and rebellious).

Got it: Das Experiment ... "based on the infamous "Stanford Prison Experiment" conducted in 1971"

Thanks a lot.

I did like it. I found on the net that the "actual" high school he went to was all up in arms, crying "foul." I didn't look at it as a scientific model of a social experiment. Of course any HS wouldn't like the drinking and drug use exposed, though we all know it is what it is (and in most ways is no different than it was for us "old skoolers." He admits that some activity was a conglomeration of people. It's not like Mr X said everything he said Mr X said, rather Mr X may have played a part with contributions from Ms Y and Mr T. :rolleyes:

In fact, the reaction I read from the administrators of the school just lent more credence to Mr Iverson's story, imo.

I would be interested in your take, pierce, from a more recently graduated from HS perspective!

Das Experiment is going on my movies I want to see list.

Yes, I will definitely read it this summer. Thank you a lot, it sounds very interesting.

But they weren't the first, so why do they have any more right to claim this land than the european settlers? Your argument is not about who was first, just who was here before the british???

None of that has any bearing on our current law enforcement problem.
Pilgrims were naughty, some of my ancestors owned slaves, some were slaves, some killed natives, some were natives bad things happened a long time ago... am I supposed to feel bad about it? Why?
I don't own anyone anything for the past, no one does.

The Native Americans weren't here first??? Be it 12K, 19K, or as much as 40+K years ago; via land voyage across the Bering Strait, or skipping along the extreme Northern coastline in small boat voyages, people got here somehow. They were here, and well-established in a complex, advanced culture of 10s of millions (as opposed to a nomadic scattering of primitive savages) when the Europeans began to arrive circa 1500.

It's not "my argument" - it's what happened. I mention the British specifically because they mark the beginning of the "creation myth" of America.

No. I didn't say you should feel bad, or that you owe anybody anything. Read the thread. I'm talking about how historical myths are taught as fact.

Fine. As long as you are not trying to connect it to illegal immigration in any way. I was under the impression you were, perhaps I was mistaken.

That was the shit-magnet aspect of it. Sorry, I've got some hand sanitizer for guests.

So, no matter where they came from or how they got here - they were all Native Americans, right up to and excluding the european settlers?

Yes, that's what Native American means.

I was born here.

So what if he is? It's worth discussion.

Indigenous people have migrated back and forth for millennia, long before and even while Europeans and their descendents came in and started establishing and moving around the borders. That's kind of what's still happening with the migrant workers; but because of the restrictions put in place in the 90s, it became too difficult to go back and forth. So now a lot of them stay, and have become part of the undocumented immigrant population in the U.S.

That's the low end of the estimate; other estimates put the population at more than 100 million, pre-Columbian and pre-disease epidemics.

I would think it was closer to the 100 millions, the Americas weren't empty when we came and there is a lot of land.

Sad that the worst holocaust of all time goes so unnoticed and no one seems to give any second thought...

But at first you said it meant only the people who came across the bering straight - now you're saying that people from africa, spain, netherlands etc... who got got here prior to the brits are all NA's. I guess I just don't understand your line in the sand. What exactly were you taught in school that you're refuting?

No, I'm not saying that. You're confused about what "European" means. Spanish, French, and Dutch people are Europeans. The Africans were slaves of, and thus came with the Europeans. The millions of people who had already had an established civilization here were Native Americans.

Then why do you say this;
Why do you accept that many different peoples came here different ways at different times (yet call them all one thing) but have an issue with the brit colonists?

You're arguing with yourself. I can't help you.

I'm not arguing at all, I'm trying to figure out what the fuck you're on about.

Jinx does have a point there--that quote of yours she noted is confusing, Flint.

That slight of hand...slight of keyboard?.... is part of his charm. Ask him.

no it isn't. native means they were always here. that they evolved here. I THINK jinx's point is that the people that crossed the land bridge, and came into this country did the same thing as the european colonists. they invaded, and took over. because they could. might means right on an historical sense.

(I don't blame him for having an issue with the Brit Colonists, though :D)

Well it was Europeans, primarily Brits, that came here and formed what became the United States. They were what we call the founding fathers. That said, they were able to accomplish that on the sweat and labor of all the other people here at the time. A lot of different people had a hand in building the nation but the credit for the forming of the United States goes to them.

From that point, the history of the United States and the history of North America, run parallel and are complimentary but not the same thing. There was a whole lot of history going on in NA, outside the the US. What they teach in schools is primarily the US history and touch on NA history when the two mesh... or should I say rub..... OK, clash.

Yes, that's right.

No, I'm not.

I am clearly making a distinction between Europeans and Native Americans. It's not confusing, there is not slight of hand. In fact, right above the quoted portion, I listed all Europeans specifically as NON-NATIVE Americans:

I included all Europeans as non-native Americans. I shouldn't have to explain this; this is not really debatable.

Why do I single out the British? Becuase of some special prejudice, some malice on my part against them? Or... could it be... because the British Colonies became the basis for the United States, the country we live in today! Our American "creation myth" begins with the arrival of the British; this isn't something I'm just pulling out of my ass. My whole point was:

I'll admit, there hasn't been much focus to my various ramblings in this thread; but don't tell me I said things I didn't say.

OK, now I got it.
The people that came her from Europe are non-native Americans.
Native Americans are all the people that came here from Asia, Polynesia, and Africa.
Thank you for 'splaining that.

I didn't invent the term Native American. It has a universally accepted meaning.

universally false meaning, that.

Yes it does.
But the fact remains, all those groups came from somewhere else, over thousands of years. Some of them were forced to move because they were pushed out by other groups. Some of the groups disappeared completely. Some coexisted and some fought continually.

The world over, since the beginning of time, all territory was controlled by the group of people that could win and hold that land.

Why is it when the Europeans entered the fray, suddenly it's no longer acceptable to continue the tradition that had held sway in the Americas since the first human set foot here?

I never said that. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

What I think is important is to be honest about our history, not so that we can beat ourselves up about it; but so that we can gain some perspective about the origins of our society, so that we can better understand where we are today.

The common belief, whether stated outright or implied, is that Europeans prevailed because they were "superior" to the "savages" - does it serve us to teach a "history" that perpetuates white superiority? Does that benefit us, today, in a multi-cultural society?

Sort of like African-American? :D

I don't see your name in that rhetorical question.
I agree.Does it serve us to state outright or imply, the Europeans prevailed because they were savages compared to the noble, peace loving, at one with nature, natives?

People being people, the only difference was the Europeans had more reserves and a little better technology.