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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Movements, sure, but the majority of people in those nations are not moving out.

[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:

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.

And BIPOC excludes Asian-Americans - a fascinating new construct against racism and oppression that by its definition is used to exclude

?????

Since when does it exclude Asian Americans?

BIPOC means Black, indigenous and people of color. The poster thinks it means Black and indigenous people of color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, we don't need to do that.

[Anonymous]

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

Most people now celebrate Indigenous day

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/why-some-celebrate-indigenous-peoples-day-not-columbus-day

[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.

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."

I am getting really tired of this misinformation being spread, both repeatedly on this thread and every time people talk about indigenous Americans. No, they were not all fighting and taking over each other's territories all the time. There were maybe 50 million people across both continents, which cover 17 million square miles. Tribes were not huge and lived in villages that were loosely congregated by language and culture across larger areas, similar to how Alaska natives live today. When Europeans arrived, they were able to establish boundaries between tribes pretty easily and drew maps using rivers, mountains, etc. There may be have been occasional clashes over hunting territories, problems following ecological stressors, and a small number of tribes with an aggressive culture, but overall there is not much evidence that there was overlap or conflict among different groups, who were more focused on day-to-day issues than "territory."

The fighting and political conflicts among tribes that most people know about happened after contact when fur trapping became extremely lucrative and territorial rights and boundaries became important to tribes. Also, as Europeans pushed westward and consumed natural resources, tribes that previously had not had to deal with scarcity suddenly had to develop mechanisms to protect themselves and were encouraged by the US Government to fight with each other. These were not traditional patterns.

It is ignorant to post these kinds of responses "they fought each other and took their lands many times over" without knowing the history, and I suspect it is done with racist intent.

[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:

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.

And BIPOC excludes Asian-Americans - a fascinating new construct against racism and oppression that by its definition is used to exclude

?????

Since when does it exclude Asian Americans?

BIPOC means Black, indigenous and people of color. The poster thinks it means Black and indigenous people of color.

Many indigenous peoples in the so-called USA may appear “white,” but they are in fact indigenous and the rightful heirs to this land. Thus, the importance of adding the “I.”

[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.

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."

I am getting really tired of this misinformation being spread, both repeatedly on this thread and every time people talk about indigenous Americans. No, they were not all fighting and taking over each other's territories all the time. There were maybe 50 million people across both continents, which cover 17 million square miles. Tribes were not huge and lived in villages that were loosely congregated by language and culture across larger areas, similar to how Alaska natives live today. When Europeans arrived, they were able to establish boundaries between tribes pretty easily and drew maps using rivers, mountains, etc. There may be have been occasional clashes over hunting territories, problems following ecological stressors, and a small number of tribes with an aggressive culture, but overall there is not much evidence that there was overlap or conflict among different groups, who were more focused on day-to-day issues than "territory."

The fighting and political conflicts among tribes that most people know about happened after contact when fur trapping became extremely lucrative and territorial rights and boundaries became important to tribes. Also, as Europeans pushed westward and consumed natural resources, tribes that previously had not had to deal with scarcity suddenly had to develop mechanisms to protect themselves and were encouraged by the US Government to fight with each other. These were not traditional patterns.

It is ignorant to post these kinds of responses "they fought each other and took their lands many times over" without knowing the history, and I suspect it is done with racist intent.

Tell me all about how the pre contact Aztecs were not warlike.

Total nonsense. Humans are humans. Humans make war.

[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.

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."

I am getting really tired of this misinformation being spread, both repeatedly on this thread and every time people talk about indigenous Americans. No, they were not all fighting and taking over each other's territories all the time. There were maybe 50 million people across both continents, which cover 17 million square miles. Tribes were not huge and lived in villages that were loosely congregated by language and culture across larger areas, similar to how Alaska natives live today. When Europeans arrived, they were able to establish boundaries between tribes pretty easily and drew maps using rivers, mountains, etc. There may be have been occasional clashes over hunting territories, problems following ecological stressors, and a small number of tribes with an aggressive culture, but overall there is not much evidence that there was overlap or conflict among different groups, who were more focused on day-to-day issues than "territory."

The fighting and political conflicts among tribes that most people know about happened after contact when fur trapping became extremely lucrative and territorial rights and boundaries became important to tribes. Also, as Europeans pushed westward and consumed natural resources, tribes that previously had not had to deal with scarcity suddenly had to develop mechanisms to protect themselves and were encouraged by the US Government to fight with each other. These were not traditional patterns.

It is ignorant to post these kinds of responses "they fought each other and took their lands many times over" without knowing the history, and I suspect it is done with racist intent.

You do realize "the Americas" is a much larger and more varied place than just the US. But thanks for reinforcing the noble savage trope.

[Anonymous]

“Archaeological evidence confirms the prominent role of warfare in indigenous societies well before the arrival of permanent European settlers. As early as the year 1000, for example, Huron, Neutral, Petun and Iroquois villages were increasingly fortified by a timber palisade that could be nearly 10 metres in height, sometimes villages built a second or even third ring to protect them against attacks by enemy nations. Craig Keener has described how these structures became larger and more elaborate through to the 1500s, with logs as large as 24 inches in diameter being used to construct the multi-layered defences, an enormous investment in communal labour that the villagers would not have made had it not been deemed necessary. Sieges and assaults on such fortified villages therefore must have occurred before Europeans arrived, and were certainly evident in the 17th and 18th Centuries. War also fuelled the development of highly complex political systems among these Iroquoian nations. The great confederacies, such as the Iroquois Confederation of Five Nations and the Huron Confederacy, probably created in the late 16th Century, grew out of their members’ desire to stem the fratricidal wars that had been ravaging their societies for hundreds of years. They were organized around the Confederacy Council, which ruled on inter-tribal disputes in order to settle differences without bloodshed. The Councils also discussed matters of foreign policy, such as the organization of military expeditions and the creation of alliances.”

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/military-history/history-heritage/popular-books/aboriginal-people-canadian-military/warfare-pre-columbian-north-america.html

[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:

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.

And BIPOC excludes Asian-Americans - a fascinating new construct against racism and oppression that by its definition is used to exclude

?????

Since when does it exclude Asian Americans?

BIPOC means Black, indigenous and people of color. The poster thinks it means Black and indigenous people of color.

Many indigenous peoples in the so-called USA may appear “white,” but they are in fact indigenous and the rightful heirs to this land. Thus, the importance of adding the “I.”

Where should an American mutt like me go to find my “rightful” land?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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."

I am getting really tired of this misinformation being spread, both repeatedly on this thread and every time people talk about indigenous Americans. No, they were not all fighting and taking over each other's territories all the time. There were maybe 50 million people across both continents, which cover 17 million square miles. Tribes were not huge and lived in villages that were loosely congregated by language and culture across larger areas, similar to how Alaska natives live today. When Europeans arrived, they were able to establish boundaries between tribes pretty easily and drew maps using rivers, mountains, etc. There may be have been occasional clashes over hunting territories, problems following ecological stressors, and a small number of tribes with an aggressive culture, but overall there is not much evidence that there was overlap or conflict among different groups, who were more focused on day-to-day issues than "territory."

The fighting and political conflicts among tribes that most people know about happened after contact when fur trapping became extremely lucrative and territorial rights and boundaries became important to tribes. Also, as Europeans pushed westward and consumed natural resources, tribes that previously had not had to deal with scarcity suddenly had to develop mechanisms to protect themselves and were encouraged by the US Government to fight with each other. These were not traditional patterns.

It is ignorant to post these kinds of responses "they fought each other and took their lands many times over" without knowing the history, and I suspect it is done with racist intent.

Tell me all about how the pre contact Aztecs were not warlike.

Total nonsense. Humans are humans. Humans make war.

Like most Native Americans, the Aztecs were cannibals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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."

I am getting really tired of this misinformation being spread, both repeatedly on this thread and every time people talk about indigenous Americans. No, they were not all fighting and taking over each other's territories all the time. There were maybe 50 million people across both continents, which cover 17 million square miles. Tribes were not huge and lived in villages that were loosely congregated by language and culture across larger areas, similar to how Alaska natives live today. When Europeans arrived, they were able to establish boundaries between tribes pretty easily and drew maps using rivers, mountains, etc. There may be have been occasional clashes over hunting territories, problems following ecological stressors, and a small number of tribes with an aggressive culture, but overall there is not much evidence that there was overlap or conflict among different groups, who were more focused on day-to-day issues than "territory."

The fighting and political conflicts among tribes that most people know about happened after contact when fur trapping became extremely lucrative and territorial rights and boundaries became important to tribes. Also, as Europeans pushed westward and consumed natural resources, tribes that previously had not had to deal with scarcity suddenly had to develop mechanisms to protect themselves and were encouraged by the US Government to fight with each other. These were not traditional patterns.

It is ignorant to post these kinds of responses "they fought each other and took their lands many times over" without knowing the history, and I suspect it is done with racist intent.

Tell me all about how the pre contact Aztecs were not warlike.

Total nonsense. Humans are humans. Humans make war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Archaeological evidence confirms the prominent role of warfare in indigenous societies well before the arrival of permanent European settlers. As early as the year 1000, for example, Huron, Neutral, Petun and Iroquois villages were increasingly fortified by a timber palisade that could be nearly 10 metres in height, sometimes villages built a second or even third ring to protect them against attacks by enemy nations. Craig Keener has described how these structures became larger and more elaborate through to the 1500s, with logs as large as 24 inches in diameter being used to construct the multi-layered defences, an enormous investment in communal labour that the villagers would not have made had it not been deemed necessary. Sieges and assaults on such fortified villages therefore must have occurred before Europeans arrived, and were certainly evident in the 17th and 18th Centuries. War also fuelled the development of highly complex political systems among these Iroquoian nations. The great confederacies, such as the Iroquois Confederation of Five Nations and the Huron Confederacy, probably created in the late 16th Century, grew out of their members’ desire to stem the fratricidal wars that had been ravaging their societies for hundreds of years. They were organized around the Confederacy Council, which ruled on inter-tribal disputes in order to settle differences without bloodshed. The Councils also discussed matters of foreign policy, such as the organization of military expeditions and the creation of alliances.”

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/military-history/history-heritage/popular-books/aboriginal-people-canadian-military/warfare-pre-columbian-north-america.html

Oh thanks for finding an article on JSTOR and quoting it on DCUM. The fact that the first people to live on this continent, whose descendents formed societies and lived here for 15,000 years, fought with each other in places isn't a counter argument to the point that North American and South America were colonized by Europeans who arrived, claimed the land as their own because they were Christian and they people living here were not, and subsequently used military and legal power to take advantage of the diminished population and forcibly take over their land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Archaeological evidence confirms the prominent role of warfare in indigenous societies well before the arrival of permanent European settlers. As early as the year 1000, for example, Huron, Neutral, Petun and Iroquois villages were increasingly fortified by a timber palisade that could be nearly 10 metres in height, sometimes villages built a second or even third ring to protect them against attacks by enemy nations. Craig Keener has described how these structures became larger and more elaborate through to the 1500s, with logs as large as 24 inches in diameter being used to construct the multi-layered defences, an enormous investment in communal labour that the villagers would not have made had it not been deemed necessary. Sieges and assaults on such fortified villages therefore must have occurred before Europeans arrived, and were certainly evident in the 17th and 18th Centuries. War also fuelled the development of highly complex political systems among these Iroquoian nations. The great confederacies, such as the Iroquois Confederation of Five Nations and the Huron Confederacy, probably created in the late 16th Century, grew out of their members’ desire to stem the fratricidal wars that had been ravaging their societies for hundreds of years. They were organized around the Confederacy Council, which ruled on inter-tribal disputes in order to settle differences without bloodshed. The Councils also discussed matters of foreign policy, such as the organization of military expeditions and the creation of alliances.”

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/military-history/history-heritage/popular-books/aboriginal-people-canadian-military/warfare-pre-columbian-north-america.html

Oh thanks for finding an article on JSTOR and quoting it on DCUM. The fact that the first people to live on this continent, whose descendents formed societies and lived here for 15,000 years, fought with each other in places isn't a counter argument to the point that North American and South America were colonized by Europeans who arrived, claimed the land as their own because they were Christian and they people living here were not, and subsequently used military and legal power to take advantage of the diminished population and forcibly take over their land.

I never claimed a counterpoint to any of your most recent description. I was responding to your first paragraph of complete nonsense:

“No, they were not all fighting and taking over each other's territories all the time. There were maybe 50 million people across both continents, which cover 17 million square miles. Tribes were not huge and lived in villages that were loosely congregated by language and culture across larger areas, similar to how Alaska natives live today. When Europeans arrived, they were able to establish boundaries between tribes pretty easily and drew maps using rivers, mountains, etc. There may be have been occasional clashes over hunting territories, problems following ecological stressors, and a small number of tribes with an aggressive culture, but overall there is not much evidence that there was overlap or conflict among different groups, who were more focused on day-to-day issues than "territory."

[Anonymous]

Given the utter destruction (and insurance payouts) in Florida, wouldn’t the present be a golden opportunity to return all that land to its rightful owners?