Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-23-2016, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,169 posts, read 24,330,946 times
Reputation: 15291

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan. View Post
Except the term "Asia" didn't exist 20,000 years ago when they migrated otherwise you would have a point.

Also, I think coming here 20,000 years ago versus 600 years ago for Europeans.....hmmm...just a slight difference
That kind of reasoning comes perilously close to an argument for Neanderthal rule.

 
Old 12-23-2016, 06:26 PM
 
Location: sumter
12,970 posts, read 9,656,695 times
Reputation: 10432
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
This is an argument over nothing.

Just say Native American and be done with it.
I agree. Just keep it simple already and use the term we been using forever seems like. If they are not having a problem with it, and not in streets protesting for change.
 
Old 12-23-2016, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Kūkiʻo, HI & Manhattan Beach, CA
2,624 posts, read 7,260,262 times
Reputation: 2416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post



They would be a native to the country they were born in. There aren't citizens of continents. American is the common term for a U.S. citizen but then you knew that.
Strange. Folks from Asia are called "Asians," folks from Europe are called "Europeans," folks from Africa are called "Africans," and folks from Australia are called "Australians."
 
Old 12-23-2016, 06:52 PM
 
11,337 posts, read 11,041,348 times
Reputation: 14993
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan. View Post
Except the term "Asia" didn't exist 20,000 years ago when they migrated otherwise you would have a point.

Also, I think coming here 20,000 years ago versus 600 years ago for Europeans.....hmmm...just a slight difference

No difference. No property rights. No residency. Squatting and agrarian wandering do not create property rights. Property rights are created by advanced civilizations using explicit philosophies. Therefore, at the time, no rights, no claims, nothing owed. Indians recognized no property rights amongst themselves, regularly murdering each other to take things out of primitive need. Therefore we do not impute advanced future Western moralities just because they want to deliver a case of sour grapes. AND GET PAID FOR IT - THE REAL GOAL. Conquest was consuetudo de rigeur, and Western powers were more advanced, more civilized, more organized, more intelligent, more powerful, and simply took what they wanted. We don't act that way any more, but we did then, and present morality is not trans-chronological.


Judgment for European settlers, but they were nice enough to allow reservations instead of just killing everyone, which would have been the standard approach. It could be argued they should be thanked.
 
Old 12-23-2016, 07:04 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,210 posts, read 107,904,670 times
Reputation: 116153
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman0war View Post
Here's how you can tell.

What language do you speak natively?
Is it English?
Where is English from?

What language do American Indians speak?
(at least before the Europeans exterminated them).
Where is that language from?


Q: Are Amerindian languages related to Mongolian or other Asian languages?
A: No. Many people think American Indians are descended from Mongolian people. This may be true, but if it is, they left Asia more than 20,000 years ago, which is much too long a time period for linguistic preservation to occur. None of the Amerindian languages bear any linguistic resemblance to Asian languages.
Not true in all cases. The Athabaskan languages (in Alaska, NW Canada, and the Southwest (Navajo, Apache) plus a couple of tribes in northern California), are related to the Yeniseian language family of Central Siberia, the only remaining example of which is Ket. There are also some vocabulary similarities between Inuit (Eskimo) and Yukaghir, the easternmost of the Samoyedic/Uralic languages, but linguists haven't investigated to see if there's a legitimate connection there. However, a genetic connection between the Yukaghir and the Inuit shows up in DNA studies.
 
Old 12-23-2016, 07:11 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,210 posts, read 107,904,670 times
Reputation: 116153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Nonsense. The land was there for the taking, and the settlers did not have to obey their home countries who had no jurisdiction over the untamed and unclaimed lands of the Americas. And the Indians destroyed each other and took what they needed from each other using violent force, which was the norm for the time. The Indians were primitive agrarian wanderers for the most part and did not recognize private property amongst themselves, much less outsiders.


So your argument is all wet, revisionist, inaccurate, and invalid.The Indians had no claims then, and today's Indians have no claims now. And that's reality, and that's the way it is, and that's the way it's going to stay.


In the mean time, all reservations should be dissolved, because they marginalize and squander the lives of their residents with vestigial mysticism and irrational attachment to a lifestyle that cannot offer a modern happy life.


We see that in the constant misery and whining and complaining and crime and poverty and intertribal squabbling and unemployment. Reservations are a bad business and a bad lifestyle. Indians should be absorbed into conventional American society, and most of the young and smart ones have done just that on their own.


There is no longer a need for this anachronistic and preposterous concept. It serves no one's better interests.
In the case of Spain and Portugal, the settlers didn't abide by their sponsoring governments' agreement with other nations, but the British, French and Dutch did. This is not an "argument" or theory, this is legal history, as taught in law schools across the country, and in history of Indian affairs courses in colleges. It's historical fact, not a matter of opinion.

Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 12-23-2016 at 07:29 PM..
 
Old 12-23-2016, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Florida
7,777 posts, read 6,387,704 times
Reputation: 15794
My family has been here 382 years, yet there are those who would still consider me to be an immigrant.

When I lived in Arizona I encountered a number of Indians. They all referred to themselves as either Indians or Navajos.
 
Old 12-23-2016, 07:40 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,198,461 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineman View Post
My family has been here 382 years, yet there are those who would still consider me to be an immigrant.

When I lived in Arizona I encountered a number of Indians. They all referred to themselves as either Indians or Navajos.
Since 1684? Really?
 
Old 12-23-2016, 07:47 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,210 posts, read 107,904,670 times
Reputation: 116153
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Since 1684? Really?
New Mexico has quite a few families that have been there since the 1600's; it's certainly possible. They came directly from Spain, so yes, they're immigrant familes; descended from European immigrants.
 
Old 12-23-2016, 07:54 PM
 
62,950 posts, read 29,141,740 times
Reputation: 18580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K View Post
Strange. Folks from Asia are called "Asians," folks from Europe are called "Europeans," Africans from Africa are called "Africans," and folks from Australia are called "Australians."
It's different here. People are referred to by the country they hold citizenship in. No one refers to them by the continent they reside on. I repeat American is the common word for a U.S. citizen only. Mexicans for example would not be referred to as Americans here or abroad.


Germans, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, etc. refer to themselves by their nationalities also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top