Prez wrote on Oct 15, 2024, 21:05:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 15, 2024, 13:06:

Prez wrote on Oct 15, 2024, 07:01:
It's kind of shocking that people think that intelligent people believe that the Native Americans were the first human inhabitants in America for 5 billion years of planetary history and that they just popped into existence.

Huh? I don't think anyone is saying that.

TBH, I don't really care if someone wants to make an obtuse, "well nobody is indigenous"... it's when that's being used as the reason that those "indigenous people", or whatever you want to call them, shouldn't have "extra" rights.

The original contention (initially stated politely by BoP and rudely as possible by Cutter) was that no one is Indigenous, wasn't it? I'm not imagining that, am I? I don't care about arguing over who deserves what rights. There's a Constitution for that. If they were making that statement to support their stance on Indigenous Peoples rights, then I apologize for being obtuse.

At any rate WL is better at keeping me following my own rules than I am. Should not have gotten roped into that one.

I meant the "that people think that" part... nobody here is accusing anyone of thinking that people just popped into existence.
At least I don't think so.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 15, 2024, 13:06:

Prez wrote on Oct 15, 2024, 07:01:
It's kind of shocking that people think that intelligent people believe that the Native Americans were the first human inhabitants in America for 5 billion years of planetary history and that they just popped into existence.

Huh? I don't think anyone is saying that.

TBH, I don't really care if someone wants to make an obtuse, "well nobody is indigenous"... it's when that's being used as the reason that those "indigenous people", or whatever you want to call them, shouldn't have "extra" rights.

The original contention (initially stated politely by BoP and rudely as possible by Cutter) was that no one is Indigenous, wasn't it? I'm not imagining that, am I? I don't care about arguing over who deserves what rights. There's a Constitution for that. If they were making that statement to support their stance on Indigenous Peoples rights, then I apologize for being obtuse.

At any rate WL is better at keeping me following my own rules than I am. Should not have gotten roped into that one.

Prez,
please preserve yourself and don't fret about politics (activities aimed at improving someone's status or increasing power) if you don't enjoy reading, just jump ship to another thread when it rears, man.

Sepharo, as always, appreciating your views.

I think the creative gymnastics at work to defend one's keep from the hordes are so interesting, informative, and specially, formative.

Prez wrote on Oct 15, 2024, 07:01:
It's kind of shocking that people think that intelligent people believe that the Native Americans were the first human inhabitants in America for 5 billion years of planetary history and that they just popped into existence.

Huh? I don't think anyone is saying that.

TBH, I don't really care if someone wants to make an obtuse, "well nobody is indigenous"... it's when that's being used as the reason that those "indigenous people", or whatever you want to call them, shouldn't have "extra" rights.

MrCharm42 wrote on Oct 15, 2024, 07:06:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:40:

The history is already there, you can't reset history.
Would you argue for the unilateral dissolving of the sovereign tribes?

I don't see any logical connection between what I wrote and your question. The Native American tribes that I am familiar with could easily be defined as a freely associating group of people with certain property rights (since AFAIK, most don't require a genetic component or a fixed, documented family tree to be accepted into the tribe).

I do not support forced dissolution of freely associating groups, and the Constitution explicitly bars that anyway.

All tribe membership does is provide a certain political status within legal frameworks; it does not make someone morally superior to anyone else. If you want to argue that the US Govt should live up to specific treaties they signed, that's a legal argument. You seem to be mixing in a moral argument with a legal one, and don't seem to be able to separate them.

This question was in relation to the existing "extra" rights of the indigenous people of the Americas.
Should they not have those extra rights? The ones that are granted because of their recognized tribal sovereignty?
You said you can't "fix" history... well, the tribes have been considered sovereign in some capacity for 300+ years. Should that be fixed?

as an aside, while the United States considers their native American tribes sovereign (it's complicated), Canada does not consider their First Nation tribes sovereign.

This discussion went down the wrong path from the start. The scientific or factual matters are irrelevant to the holiday since it's a made up political/social thing which means it can be based on what ever it feels like at the moment. You could make an argument that it should be based upon facts but what's the point? Imagine we knew the exact date of when the meteor that led to the downfall of the dinosaurs happened. Pretty important for all humans obviously but is it culturally important today?

The whole point of the holiday change is to take a celebration, or at least observance, of an event that once was seen as a good thing but now is seen as questionable and turn it in to something positive by current societal desires. In the state of Virginia, up until 2020, they still observed a holiday that celebrated Confederate generals Lee–Jackson Day. As society had changed, this did as well. The holiday disappearing didn't change the historical facts of what they did or how people thought of them, but we decided as a society to change the way we recognize them by not celebrating them in this way anymore.

WaltSee wrote on Oct 15, 2024, 08:53:
I've always wondered why people tie themselves into knots over historical facts that can never be changed--and it doesn't matter what you call a holiday, frankly. Columbus and the Spain that sired him are long dead, the Indian tribes in North America in 1776 and earlier, are also all deceased. Their descendants are not themselves "indigenous peoples". The slaves are all dead, as are the slave owners, as are the (D) politicians in the South who fought to keep their slaves until a (R) President in the North decided to free them. Yes, all long dead, including Lincoln. In fact, the entire world we see today was the result of wars and imperial designs by pretty much everyone in history, going all the way back to the Vikings, or the Egyptian Pharaohs. The point, I guess, is that no matter what you call a holiday, it doesn't change the fact that America was named after Amerigo Vespucci or that Columbus inadvertently discovered the "new world." If people want to add "Indigenous People's day" as a new Holiday, I have no problem with that. But this trend of trying to rewrite history because some half-wit politician claims to hate the very country she's asking to vote for her is really, really stupid. IMO, of course...;)

Hey Walt, was wanting to preserve slavery a conservative or progressive value?

I've always wondered why people tie themselves into knots over historical facts that can never be changed--and it doesn't matter what you call a holiday, frankly. Columbus and the Spain that sired him are long dead, the Indian tribes in North America in 1776 and earlier, are also all deceased. Their descendants are not themselves "indigenous peoples". The slaves are all dead, as are the slave owners, as are the (D) politicians in the South who fought to keep their slaves until a (R) President in the North decided to free them. Yes, all long dead, including Lincoln. In fact, the entire world we see today was the result of wars and imperial designs by pretty much everyone in history, going all the way back to the Vikings, or the Egyptian Pharaohs. The point, I guess, is that no matter what you call a holiday, it doesn't change the fact that America was named after Amerigo Vespucci or that Columbus inadvertently discovered the "new world." If people want to add "Indigenous People's day" as a new Holiday, I have no problem with that. But this trend of trying to rewrite history because some half-wit politician claims to hate the very country she's asking to vote for her is really, really stupid. IMO, of course...;)

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:40:

The history is already there, you can't reset history.
Would you argue for the unilateral dissolving of the sovereign tribes?

I don't see any logical connection between what I wrote and your question. The Native American tribes that I am familiar with could easily be defined as a freely associating group of people with certain property rights (since AFAIK, most don't require a genetic component or a fixed, documented family tree to be accepted into the tribe).

I do not support forced dissolution of freely associating groups, and the Constitution explicitly bars that anyway.

All tribe membership does is provide a certain political status within legal frameworks; it does not make someone morally superior to anyone else. If you want to argue that the US Govt should live up to specific treaties they signed, that's a legal argument. You seem to be mixing in a moral argument with a legal one, and don't seem to be able to separate them.

It's kind of shocking that people think that intelligent people believe that the Native Americans were the first human inhabitants in America for 5 billion years of planetary history and that they just popped into existence. And that relates *somehow* to "having an ideology" or is a belief that "makes us feel better". I actually couldn't care less - my point was to try to explain why normal people aren't literalists who don't run around saying "Wait, you feel lonely? Well TECHNICALLY you can never be alone, as there are microscopic microbes, living organisms, that live in your eyebrows. Shows what you know - SCIENCE!." I wonder if it gives you a feeling of superiority to think that you are so much smarter than everyone else? Anyway, happy condescension. I'll just be a normie here, drooling on myself as I try to learn how to use a fork without poking myself in the eye.

This comment was edited on Oct 15, 2024, 07:12.

I've read just about every single anthropology (and genetic analysis) article on human history and I'd say BoP is right on the money. Well-argued with verifiable facts. It is your choice to ignore the facts to make yourself feel better about your current beliefs/ideology. Plenty of people have done that and the results as documented by historians are for everyone to see --- unless of course you hide them.

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 23:50:
I never thought that this was a discussion about indigenous rights.

My replies to BoP are about that...

He said this:

It's also why I am not popular with people who want to push for the rights of "indigenous" people because the data I can bring to the table shows that they are not, and never have been, indigenous.

I said this:

And saying that you use these semantic arguments to push back against pushes for indigenous rights... it almost seems worse than Cutter's nonsense.

I never thought that this was a discussion about indigenous rights. Blue posted that an alternate name for "Columbus Day" is "Indigenous Peoples Day". As in taking a day to honor the people who were indigenous when North America was settled in the modern age. As an Italian there are Italians pride celebrations in the North East. February is black history month. My sister is honored on different LGBTQ days. I didn't think that recognizing someone for their culture's unique struggles and accomplishments was political. Is literally everything an argument now? I kind of hate everything about this existence. I'm ready to get off this ride now.

WannaLogAlready wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 23:14:
Oh, forget it.

I liked your post.
Not the angle I'm coming from, despite claims otherwise, but still totally relevant.

Oh, forget it.

This comment was edited on Oct 14, 2024, 23:30.

I'll drill in on this specific block since it's full of stuff I'm not arguing but it seems that you think I am...

"Indigenous rights" is in quotes because it's a concept based around a division by phenotype instead of a concept based around a species.

Phenotype? What? I'm arguing about "indigenous" ... the prior peoples.
wiktionary: "Born or originating in, native to a land or region, especially before an intrusion."
wikipedia: "In the Americas, Indigenous peoples comprise the continent's pre-Columbian inhabitants prior to European settlement in the 15th century"

And, yet again, you sidestepped answering whether the same emotional content be injected as "context" when we are discussing literally every other group in human history that were slaughtered, raped, endured genocide, and were forceably removed from wherever they were settled. What the Romans did to the Gauls makes what the early US government did look like a pleasant Sunday afternoon stroll.

I'm NOT making an emotional argument and not about this stuff... I'm discussing "indigenous rights" something you brought up in your first post and said you were against because of a semantic argument about "indigenous".

Because if you answer "no", then your position is hypocritical. If your answer is "yes", then what happened in the US in the 1800s doesn't matter because it's just yet another small example of all the horrible shit humanity does it itself.

Oh boy, why wouldn't I want to answer a question that you've constructed and revealed to be one where it's "heads I win, tails you lose".
I'm talking about the "indigenous". Why not use Palestinians as your example? Or the aborigine of Australia? Both are great examples for your "well technically they're not 'indigenous'" and my "indigenous rights".

You ignore that history because it doesn't fit the agenda you are now clearly trying to push. Either humanity is often violently horrible to itself regardless of time and location and that's just a fact or you really don't give a shit about anyone else in history because you're not emotionally invested in them. If you weren't emotionally invested in this one group, you wouldn't keep ignoring every other group to constantly just focus on them.

Emotionally invested in one group? It ain't one group and it ain't an emotional argument.
BUT we are talking about the indigenous people of the Americas. That's been the topic from the start for me at least.

edit: I think you're used to arguing about this with others who go the whole " rape and murder" route. I have not done that here and don't intend to. You're right humans are awful. I'm talking about "indigenous rights".

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:20:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:18:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:17:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:15:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:14:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:41:
You were definitely the one who brought up indigenous rights. I get that you want to talk about universal human rights... but that doesn't change you were the one that brought up indigenous rights.

Yet again, no, I did not.

Yes, you did...
and in your very first post:

It's also why I am not popular with people who want to push for the rights of "indigenous" people because the data I can bring to the table shows that they are not, and never have been, indigenous.

Way to yet again ignore everything else you don't want to answer.

I am asking this sincerely: were you never taught what quotes were for when referencing a concept or topic?

You already know the answer to your unnecessary litmus test.

It's not unnecessary. Either you do or you don't.

I am really giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't being intellectually dishonest even though you've given every indicator that you are.

So...

It's also why I am not popular with people who want to push for the rights of "indigenous" people because the data I can bring to the table shows that they are not, and never have been, indigenous.

What did you mean by that?
How can indigenous rights be separated from "local politics" if the entire concept is predicated on special rights being granted to indigenous by the non-indigenous government?
That's what you have a problem with right? Indigenous rights... "some are more equal than others" etc.?

What do you propose should be done regarding the existing situation of indigenous rights?

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:18:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:17:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:15:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:14:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:41:
You were definitely the one who brought up indigenous rights. I get that you want to talk about universal human rights... but that doesn't change you were the one that brought up indigenous rights.

Yet again, no, I did not.

Yes, you did...
and in your very first post:

It's also why I am not popular with people who want to push for the rights of "indigenous" people because the data I can bring to the table shows that they are not, and never have been, indigenous.

Way to yet again ignore everything else you don't want to answer.

I am asking this sincerely: were you never taught what quotes were for when referencing a concept or topic?

You already know the answer to your unnecessary litmus test.

It's not unnecessary. Either you do or you don't.

I am really giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't being intellectually dishonest even though you've given every indicator that you are.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:17:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:15:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:14:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:41:
You were definitely the one who brought up indigenous rights. I get that you want to talk about universal human rights... but that doesn't change you were the one that brought up indigenous rights.

Yet again, no, I did not.

Yes, you did...
and in your very first post:

It's also why I am not popular with people who want to push for the rights of "indigenous" people because the data I can bring to the table shows that they are not, and never have been, indigenous.

Way to yet again ignore everything else you don't want to answer.

I am asking this sincerely: were you never taught what quotes were for when referencing a concept or topic?

You already know the answer to your unnecessary litmus test.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:15:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:14:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:41:
You were definitely the one who brought up indigenous rights. I get that you want to talk about universal human rights... but that doesn't change you were the one that brought up indigenous rights.

Yet again, no, I did not.

Yes, you did...
and in your very first post:

It's also why I am not popular with people who want to push for the rights of "indigenous" people because the data I can bring to the table shows that they are not, and never have been, indigenous.

Way to yet again ignore everything else you don't want to answer.

I am asking this sincerely: were you never taught what quotes were for when referencing a concept or topic?

Also, way to pick one sentence out of a whole paragraph. Now who's ignoring context?