Can you be a native of America/United States of America if you are not Native American?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t people native to the place where they were born?

Not necessarily.

Most in the U.S. are occupiers.

Maybe in the early days? Not anymore. Indigenous tribes deserve more (better treatment, reparations for broken treaties, etc) but the rest of America isn’t going anywhere. America is complicated. Your statement is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t people native to the place where they were born?

Not necessarily.

Most in the U.S. are occupiers.

+1

Idiot maga logic at work.

You’re not “native” just because you were born here. There is no such thing as being a native just because you were born here.

So native Washingtonian is not a thing?! I think there is a large group of Black people criticizing gentrification but they’re occupiers too? Of course there are native people beyond Native Americans. Also they prefer their tribal names, not to be grouped into a monolith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t people native to the place where they were born?

Not necessarily.

Most in the U.S. are occupiers.

+1

Idiot maga logic at work.

You’re not “native” just because you were born here. There is no such thing as being a native just because you were born here.

Did you not read the definition of the word “native” on page 2 of this thread? You are a native of the place where you were born.

It is fascinating that some people don’t understand this fundamental fact.

The LWNJ must have their own super duper updated dictionary of ridiculousness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of indigenous tribes were occupiers as well. We often neglect the wars and battles that took place across the continent before white colonizers arrived.

Ridiculous.

The occupiers are all the white invaders/ colonists who came later.

The so-called “usa” belongs exclusively to Native Americans.

What are latino immigrants on our southern border considered? If we keep them out aren’t we just repelling colonial invaders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t people native to the place where they were born?

Not necessarily.

Most in the U.S. are occupiers.

+1

Idiot maga logic at work.

You’re not “native” just because you were born here. There is no such thing as being a native just because you were born here.

Did you not read the definition of the word “native” on page 2 of this thread? You are a native of the place where you were born.

It is fascinating that some people don’t understand this fundamental fact.

The LWNJ must have their own super duper updated dictionary of ridiculousness.

Nah, the reject the very idea of a "dictionary."

It's all nonsense, unfiltered.

The only Native Americans are dead dinosaurs.

[Anonymous]

I didn't read this entire post (and probably don't want to) but DH's ancestry is native to his land but they aren't considered native Americans by census definition. He is Hispanic. His family has been in the US for as long back as anyone can find. They never lived in Mexican and instead lived in a part of Texas before it was Texas. Eventually the borders got drawn but they never lived in the part of TX that was considered Mexico. They are not considered to be part of any tribe in the US and have no tribal culture/shared hx.

His aunt did a DNA tests and its said something like 97% American Indian an then the rest Spanish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only natives to this country are the indigenous peoples. Which makes white supremacy in this country all the more laughable.

Nah. The indigenous people all came from somewhere else, mostly from Asia. And those people originally came from somewhere else too.

By your definition, no one is native once you get away from the people living in southern Africa.

Oh please.

PP is correct though. If you don't accept the dictionary definition of "native" meaning the place where you were born, then you have to ask, how far back do you go in your genealogy to get to your 'native' land? And who gets to decide?

My ancestors came from places that are now politically three different countries on two different continents, and if you research the surnames, they were occupiers of that land anyway, and came from somewhere else, and that somewhere else was only settled in historically available times, so clearly they were somewhere else before that ... where do I stop to state my native country and will it be the current political state occupying that land or whatever it was known as the farthest back we can trace? And which family line am I supposed to use to find my native land, since they all lead to different places (though ultimately south Africa according to anthropologists).

So you see why the actual definition of one's native land is where an individual personally was born.

But by this, wouldn’t African-American assemble into simply being American? Same with Asian-American, etc.. at what point in time would that happen.

They are all American. The adjectives describe different flavors, not different countries.

In comparison to how this is defined in other Nations, it poses a problem unique to America. As a person of example, Jamaican or Japanese heritage can become Australian without being titled Jamaican-Australian or Japanese-Australian, how does America correct this over time? Or does it never change as America is not old enough to accept all as American.

"America" does not call people hyphenated names. These groups called themselves these names and most people follow along because they think it is polite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only natives to this country are the indigenous peoples. Which makes white supremacy in this country all the more laughable.

Nah. The indigenous people all came from somewhere else, mostly from Asia. And those people originally came from somewhere else too.

By your definition, no one is native once you get away from the people living in southern Africa.

Oh please.

PP is correct though. If you don't accept the dictionary definition of "native" meaning the place where you were born, then you have to ask, how far back do you go in your genealogy to get to your 'native' land? And who gets to decide?

My ancestors came from places that are now politically three different countries on two different continents, and if you research the surnames, they were occupiers of that land anyway, and came from somewhere else, and that somewhere else was only settled in historically available times, so clearly they were somewhere else before that ... where do I stop to state my native country and will it be the current political state occupying that land or whatever it was known as the farthest back we can trace? And which family line am I supposed to use to find my native land, since they all lead to different places (though ultimately south Africa according to anthropologists).

So you see why the actual definition of one's native land is where an individual personally was born.

But by this, wouldn’t African-American assemble into simply being American? Same with Asian-American, etc.. at what point in time would that happen.

They are all American. The adjectives describe different flavors, not different countries.

In comparison to how this is defined in other Nations, it poses a problem unique to America. As a person of example, Jamaican or Japanese heritage can become Australian without being titled Jamaican-Australian or Japanese-Australian, how does America correct this over time? Or does it never change as America is not old enough to accept all as American.

It just corrects the longer you have generations born in the US. Irish and Italians went through this not so long ago. Now people rarely self identify as both. Once your grandparents or great-grandparents were born in the US, and have no ties back to their home country, you just say American. There's no set timeframe, it just happens.

It only happens over time organically for white people. Which is ok. I'm good with African American or Black.

Not true. I have a black friend who just says she's American. Or a black American. She feels no claim to Africa, maybe because she has friends who have recently immigrated? I'm not sure, but she's vocal about just being American.

Not every Black person is an African American. American Americans are a specific cultural group/sub sect united by slavery and shared genetic history due to such. For example, Rihanna and Nicki Minaj are Black Americans but not African American.

But,

- every Black person experiences racism and oppression on a daily basis in the United States, along with other BIPOC peoples.

Can you tell us specifically about the racism and oppression that you experienced yesterday? It would really help some of us to understand better the things that need to change. Just asserting this, but never identifying specifics really lowers your credibility. And if you are a white PP, get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of indigenous tribes were occupiers as well. We often neglect the wars and battles that took place across the continent before white colonizers arrived.

Ridiculous.

The occupiers are all the white invaders/ colonists who came later.

The so-called “usa” belongs exclusively to Native Americans.

Grow up, this is not how the world works or has ever worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t people native to the place where they were born?

Not necessarily.

Most in the U.S. are occupiers.

ALL are occupiers.

Those "Native Americans" came from Asia.

Not only that, but they didn't even come all at once. There were waves of them migrating across the land bridges over the centuries and even over millennia in some cases. So even among the indigenous people in the Americas, you still had established people and newcomers. And yes, they fought each other and took their lands many times over. These are humans after all, and not some "noble savages."

[Anonymous]

Are canadians canadian if they're not eskimos?

Are New Zealanders Kiwis if they're not maori?

Are Aussies Aussies if they're not aboriginal?

Are Israelis Israeli if they're not palestinian?

Are Pakistanis Pakistani if they're not indian?



Why do Americans give so much crap about these issues when no one else does? Newsflash: people get conquered and lose lands. Winners get to write history and shape culture. The lands in the US are worthless without development, which all of the 'occupiers' did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are canadians canadian if they're not eskimos?

Are New Zealanders Kiwis if they're not maori?

Are Aussies Aussies if they're not aboriginal?

Are Israelis Israeli if they're not palestinian?

Are Pakistanis Pakistani if they're not indian?



Why do Americans give so much crap about these issues when no one else does? Newsflash: people get conquered and lose lands. Winners get to write history and shape culture. The lands in the US are worthless without development, which all of the 'occupiers' did.

I think LWNJs will eventually ban genetic research as well as biologists and the entire field of anthropology since their religious dogma sometimes exceeds that of the religious right. Modern humans actually come from a shockingly small number of ancient male lines but many plentiful female genes. Were 99% of ancient men 4'11 unemployed layabouts completely repellant to cave women? No, land has been violently taken from others so far back in time that you can't really establish who owned land long enough for it to be considered stolen or if it had already been stolen. Most of the mixture of genes back then was the result of the "spoils of war" leaving no modern human race, ethnicity, or nationality free of accusations they are the beneficiaries of stolen land or sexual subjugation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are canadians canadian if they're not eskimos?

Are New Zealanders Kiwis if they're not maori?

Are Aussies Aussies if they're not aboriginal?

Are Israelis Israeli if they're not palestinian?

Are Pakistanis Pakistani if they're not indian?



Why do Americans give so much crap about these issues when no one else does? Newsflash: people get conquered and lose lands. Winners get to write history and shape culture. The lands in the US are worthless without development, which all of the 'occupiers' did.

Equity / LandBack movements are huge in Australia, New Zealand, and even Canada.

We need to catch up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it so embarrassing that Columbus Day is still celebrated. It should banned entirely.

Do you know the history of Columbus Day and why it was celebrated to begin with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of indigenous tribes were occupiers as well. We often neglect the wars and battles that took place across the continent before white colonizers arrived.

Ridiculous.

The occupiers are all the white invaders/ colonists who came later.

The so-called “usa” belongs exclusively to Native Americans.

What are latino immigrants on our southern border considered? If we keep them out aren’t we just repelling colonial invaders?

Nope. Colonial invaders make a new nation with very little legal basis to claim the land. Latino immigrants are just that: immigrants.