This is MY America!

[Flint]

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

[jinx]

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

[bluecuracao]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by jinx

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?

Originally Posted by Flint

Yes, that's what Native American means.

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.

[monster]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by jinx

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 right.

Originally Posted by jinx

...now you're saying that people from africa, spain, netherlands etc... who got got here prior to the brits are all NA's.

No, I'm not.

Originally Posted by jinx

Then why do you say this;

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:

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

Originally Posted by jinx

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?

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:

Originally Posted by Flint

...you can't understand where you are, or where you are going, without first understanding where you came from...

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[Flint]

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

[lumberjim]

universally false meaning, that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes it does.

I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.

I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins . . . As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity . . . We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians, and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose. Russell Means

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?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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?

Originally Posted by Flint

...you can't understand where you are, or where you are going, without first understanding where you came from...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

Sort of like African-American?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

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

I don't see your name in that rhetorical question.

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.

I agree.

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?

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.