 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> They aren't actually part of the *country* they're in, which is why we
> have to have all kinds of treaties & such with them.
Yet California seems to regulate them based on the votes of
Californians. I don't think it's quite so simple, is all.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <481### [at] hotmail com>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
says...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:27:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> >
> > Well, it's shrinking, but I don't know how rapdily, particularly here i
n
> > the intermountain west. But to solve the "problem" of past conquest
> > today isn't an easy one to answer, because you can't make things like
> > they were in the 1400's - and I don't think current tribe members would
> > think that was a solution.
> >
> > I think there's a fine line between acknowledging the past and exploiti
ng
> > the sins of the past. Is it appropriate to continue to pay reparations
> > to the Native Americans today for something that started 700 years ago?
> 700?
> > I honestly can't say I know the answer to that question. My instinct i
s
> > to say "you have the same opportunities today as everyone else here",
> That only applies if they want to live the same rat race as non native
> americans (if that is the negation of native americans).
> If they want to live more or less like they did a millenium ago you
> might argue that the non natives should not make that impossible.
Yeah. Most of them want to live like the ones directly across the street
from where I grew up.. Three things they had in common:
1. They lived off government hand outs.
2. They never maintained anything they got from the government, figuring
if they broke their car, windows, walls, doors, etc., the government
could be called to fix it.
3. They, one year, got all pissed off about something, started working
towards a war path, and only stopped when the local sheriff pointed out
that the neighbors across the street from them where all armed, and they
wouldn't have a tribe left to get pissed off at the government with, if
they decided to cross the street and start hurting people.
There seem to be three types:
1. The ones that "will" live in the rat race, because they know damn
well that sitting on their ass and doing jack shit isn't going to get
them any place.
2. The ones that milk the government and every treaty they can dig up
from some place to screw white people, while not doing jack shit for
themselves, then blame both for why they don't have anything.
3. The ones that really do want to go back to "traditional ways", and
basically refuse most help, won't be part of modern society, and think
that being part of that society will destroy them, somehow "more" than
what the first two groups have done.
Well, OK, there are obviously exceptions within the individual tribes,
but this is generally what you end up seeing. They are destroying
themselves, and we keep kissing their asses, on the stupid presumption
that we "owe" the modern, gutless, ethicless, worthless, descendants
what their ancestors **actually** deserved. Want to help them? Give all
the land, money, etc. to the ones that are not assholes, then let the
rest do something useful with their lives. But then, I may be biased,
given the particular bunch of morons I lived across from.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <481### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
> says...
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:27:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, it's shrinking, but I don't know how rapdily, particularly here in
>>> the intermountain west. But to solve the "problem" of past conquest
>>> today isn't an easy one to answer, because you can't make things like
>>> they were in the 1400's - and I don't think current tribe members would
>>> think that was a solution.
>>>
>>> I think there's a fine line between acknowledging the past and exploiting
>>> the sins of the past. Is it appropriate to continue to pay reparations
>>> to the Native Americans today for something that started 700 years ago?
>> 700?
>>> I honestly can't say I know the answer to that question. My instinct is
>>> to say "you have the same opportunities today as everyone else here",
>> That only applies if they want to live the same rat race as non native
>> americans (if that is the negation of native americans).
>> If they want to live more or less like they did a millenium ago you
>> might argue that the non natives should not make that impossible.
> Yeah. Most of them want to live like the ones directly across the street
> from where I grew up.. Three things they had in common:
>
> 1. They lived off government hand outs.
> 2. They never maintained anything they got from the government, figuring
> if they broke their car, windows, walls, doors, etc., the government
> could be called to fix it.
> 3. They, one year, got all pissed off about something, started working
> towards a war path, and only stopped when the local sheriff pointed out
> that the neighbors across the street from them where all armed, and they
> wouldn't have a tribe left to get pissed off at the government with, if
> they decided to cross the street and start hurting people.
>
> There seem to be three types:
>
> 1. The ones that "will" live in the rat race, because they know damn
> well that sitting on their ass and doing jack shit isn't going to get
> them any place.
>
> 2. The ones that milk the government and every treaty they can dig up
> from some place to screw white people, while not doing jack shit for
> themselves, then blame both for why they don't have anything.
>
> 3. The ones that really do want to go back to "traditional ways", and
> basically refuse most help, won't be part of modern society, and think
> that being part of that society will destroy them, somehow "more" than
> what the first two groups have done.
>
> Well, OK, there are obviously exceptions within the individual tribes,
> but this is generally what you end up seeing. They are destroying
> themselves, and we keep kissing their asses, on the stupid presumption
> that we "owe" the modern, gutless, ethicless, worthless, descendants
> what their ancestors **actually** deserved. Want to help them? Give all
> the land, money, etc. to the ones that are not assholes, then let the
> rest do something useful with their lives. But then, I may be biased,
> given the particular bunch of morons I lived across from.
>
Yes, you are. More in tone than in observation. One other way to look at
it is that there is a confusion of inheritance of culture and
inheritance of genes. While it is worthwhile to preserve the culture,
not everybody that has the genes is part of that culture. Especially the
ones that have nearly no culture at all, and that preserve what is left
in ethanol.
Your three types are worldwide. There are several tribes trying to live
a traditional way of life in this modern madness and there are those
that do nothing and blame everything on others. My sister was a few
years ago in Cameroon and she was supposed (and subtly forced) to pay
for the food of everybody she met because she was from Europe and, well,
you know, slavery and such.
One other thing: the three types are actually at least six, because it
is all about a clash of two cultures and you forgot to take the culture
that ends on top into consideration. The remaining ones are: 3b) winning
group basically goes on undisturbed. 1b) Cultures get mixed and 2b)
winning group takes most of the culture over from the defeated (I think
I remember there were case where that happened but can't remember
which). And there is also the situation that no group actually wins totally.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <481### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
says...
> Yes, you are. More in tone than in observation. One other way to look at
> it is that there is a confusion of inheritance of culture and
> inheritance of genes. While it is worthwhile to preserve the culture,
> not everybody that has the genes is part of that culture. Especially the
> ones that have nearly no culture at all, and that preserve what is left
> in ethanol.
Well, we where talking about one specific group of people and if they,
by reason of "blood", not "culture", should get some sort of special
treatments, not something more general, so.. Also, culture changes over
time. You can preserve it by reenacting it, like people do in a "lot" of
cases, while still living in the modern world, or you can stuff your
head in the sand and render yourself extinct, by sticking to stuff that,
maybe, didn't work quite as well as the rose colored glasses look, which
some people get looking at their pasts, implies. Sometimes cultures die
out from competition, not due to overt and intentional destruction from
outside.
> Your three types are worldwide. There are several tribes trying to live
> a traditional way of life in this modern madness and there are those
> that do nothing and blame everything on others. My sister was a few
> years ago in Cameroon and she was supposed (and subtly forced) to pay
> for the food of everybody she met because she was from Europe and, well,
> you know, slavery and such.
The problem imho, is that, rather than figure out what is good from now,
a lot of them simply reject everything from now, for some imaginary
ideal of the past, forgetting all the bad shit that used to happen when
they *did* live in the simple, supposedly non-mad world. I might agree
that the US often fails to look at the consequences of progress, and
gives up on some stuff too easy. We also, sadly, tend to hang on to some
of the stupidest and most useless crap from the past possible, at least
among the conservatives, because admitting its crap would be
**liberal**, so one must instead fight even harder to preserve it, even
when it didn't make sense to 50% of the people when it *was* wide
spread...
> One other thing: the three types are actually at least six, because it
> is all about a clash of two cultures and you forgot to take the culture
> that ends on top into consideration. The remaining ones are: 3b) winning
> group basically goes on undisturbed. 1b) Cultures get mixed and 2b)
> winning group takes most of the culture over from the defeated (I think
> I remember there were case where that happened but can't remember
> which). And there is also the situation that no group actually wins total
ly.
>
True enough. And really, there is no such thing as 3b. Something always
transfers. The most common tactic is to borrow the idea, claim you came
up with it, then vigorously deny it existed "before" you borrowed it.
The Catholic church is an expert on that, given that, if what many
scholars now consider to be true is, nothing from the NT itself to their
rituals, holidays, saints, or **anything** is original. Its all been
borrowed from whom ever was the biggest threat to them at the time. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <481### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
> says...
>> Yes, you are. More in tone than in observation. One other way to look at
>> it is that there is a confusion of inheritance of culture and
>> inheritance of genes. While it is worthwhile to preserve the culture,
>> not everybody that has the genes is part of that culture. Especially the
>> ones that have nearly no culture at all, and that preserve what is left
>> in ethanol.
> Well, we were talking about one specific group of people and if they,
> by reason of "blood", not "culture", should get some sort of special
> treatments, not something more general, so.. Also, culture changes over
> time. You can preserve it by reenacting it, like people do in a "lot" of
> cases, while still living in the modern world, or you can stuff your
> head in the sand and render yourself extinct, by sticking to stuff that,
> maybe, didn't work quite as well as the rose colored glasses look, which
> some people get looking at their pasts, implies.
There is more to culture than artifacts and habits. It often goes with a
set of ideas that go much further than that. E.g the fact that americans
as a group have difficulty planning ahead for more than 5 years and that
europeans are often unable to not take 20 years ahead into consideration
is culture. Thinking of time as progress or as a cyclic thing is
cultural. Specific types of jokes are cultural. In fact much of what
people think of as religion is cultural. E.g. much of what we consider
as offensive in the way some Muslim men treat women is purely cultural.
It has nothing to do with Islam as a religion, no matter what the local
imam (or your average islamophobe ) is saying. He is simply passing on
his local culture (or that of his ancestors) to the people listening.
The same goes for conservative Christians and in a sense for the
Catholic church as well. Why am I writing this?... Ah, because I had the
impression that you may not differentiate between culture with folklore
in the way that I think you should (indeed, I am Dutch ;) ).
> Sometimes cultures die
> out from competition, not due to overt and intentional destruction from
> outside.
>
>> Your three types are worldwide. There are several tribes trying to live
>> a traditional way of life in this modern madness and there are those
>> that do nothing and blame everything on others. My sister was a few
>> years ago in Cameroon and she was supposed (and subtly forced) to pay
>> for the food of everybody she met because she was from Europe and, well,
>> you know, slavery and such.
> The problem imho, is that, rather than figure out what is good from now,
> a lot of them simply reject everything from now, for some imaginary
> ideal of the past, forgetting all the bad shit that used to happen when
> they *did* live in the simple, supposedly non-mad world. I might agree
> that the US often fails to look at the consequences of progress, and
> gives up on some stuff too easy. We also, sadly, tend to hang on to some
> of the stupidest and most useless crap from the past possible, at least
> among the conservatives, because admitting its crap would be
> **liberal**, so one must instead fight even harder to preserve it, even
> when it didn't make sense to 50% of the people when it *was* wide
> spread...
as a non-native american (and non-non-native american) I think I refrain
from commenting.
>
>> One other thing: the three types are actually at least six, because it
>> is all about a clash of two cultures and you forgot to take the culture
>> that ends on top into consideration. The remaining ones are: 3b) winning
>> group basically goes on undisturbed. 1b) Cultures get mixed and 2b)
>> winning group takes most of the culture over from the defeated (I think
>> I remember there were case where that happened but can't remember
>> which). And there is also the situation that no group actually wins totally.
>>
> True enough. And really, there is no such thing as 3b. Something always
> transfers.
I think there is little of native american in the US culture as a whole,
nor is there much aboriginal culture in Australia (not counting
'artistic' artifacts). In contrast there appears to be Maori in
mainstream New Zealand culture.
> The most common tactic is to borrow the idea, claim you came
> up with it, then vigorously deny it existed "before" you borrowed it.
> The Catholic church is an expert on that, given that, if what many
> scholars now consider to be true is, nothing from the NT itself to their
> rituals, holidays, saints, or **anything** is original. Its all been
> borrowed from whom ever was the biggest threat to them at the time. lol
I think it is hard to tell and I would not say it so boldly. Anyway even
the things adopted from other groups were often also adopted by that
group before. And...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <481### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
says...
> > The most common tactic is to borrow the idea, claim you came
> > up with it, then vigorously deny it existed "before" you borrowed it.
> > The Catholic church is an expert on that, given that, if what many
> > scholars now consider to be true is, nothing from the NT itself to thei
r
> > rituals, holidays, saints, or **anything** is original. Its all been
> > borrowed from whom ever was the biggest threat to them at the time. lol
>
> I think it is hard to tell and I would not say it so boldly. Anyway even
> the things adopted from other groups were often also adopted by that
> group before. And...
>
True enough. Even the OT god seems to be a mish mash of stuff from
believers in gods like El. There is even the funny little bit suggesting
that everything, or at least you can interpret it as such, was created
by "gods", of which just the one in the OT got all whiny about people
worshiping someone else. Its damned odd wording used, if there was only
one, and it can't be the so called Trinity, since that didn't really
appear until the NT.
But, we can see from proximity and shared culture that, given the facts,
it seems quite likely that a lot of Christianity is borrowed, and even
who it would have logically been borrowed from. In any culture other
than Rome, where gods, and variations of gods, where popping up like
mushrooms, its highly unlikely that the particular mix of myth, events,
etc. would have gotten attributed to a messiah. And.. Then there is the
whole issue with how it could be the "correct" messiah, starting with
the assumption of the OT being the starting point, when the OT predicted
a war lord and kind, not a, "Give the local ruler what he claims is his,
it doesn't matter, as long as you believe in me!", type. Even the
passages about him coming to bring a sword are absurd, given that he
didn't start any wars, fight any battles, etc. It would seem to have
been added to give some metaphorical credence to the idea that he really
was the predicted messiah, for... you know, the same sort of stupid
people that fall for, "There is a gay agenda to make other people
gay!!", BS in this century. Its inconsistent with both the way he is
portrayed as acting, and the historical facts, which suggest at best
that things where already on the road to disaster, and, more to the
point, that the only thing Christianity may have done is provide a
temporary rally point for *some* members, when the whole thing burned
down, for reasons not even connected to the existence of the new
religion.
But, yeah. Saying that "nothing" about it was original might be a bit
overstating things.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:37:33 +0100, <.> did spake, saying:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>
>> In the US, a lot of people complain about illegal immigration (and many
>> about *legal* immigration), forgetting that if you go back at most 3-4
>> generations, we're all pretty much immigrants over here.
>
> Fatal flaw with that argument is that if you go back 3-4 generations,
> *we* don't exist.
Seeing as of the many posts I can't see anyone whose condensed the
argument to my first thought here I go.
There are people today who complain about immigration and want stronger
controls, yet if those controls had been in place 3-4 generations ago then
said people would not be around to complain about immigration and the need
for stronger controls.
Now look at the subject line again. There now leave it at that :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> There are people today who complain about immigration and want stronger
> controls, yet if those controls had been in place 3-4 generations ago then
> said people would not be around to complain about immigration and the need
> for stronger controls.
But the world was not the same 3-4 generations ago. Just because there
was no control back then doesn't automatically mean there shouldn't be now.
It's not necessarily a case of hypocrisy, but a case of reality check.
(No, I'm not saying there should be stronger control. I'm just saying
that the argument is flawed.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 May 2008 16:43:41 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> Now look at the subject line again. There now leave it at that
Nicely done, Phil. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 01 May 2008 17:46:36 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> There are people today who complain about immigration and want stronger
>> controls, yet if those controls had been in place 3-4 generations ago
>> then
>> said people would not be around to complain about immigration and the
>> need
>> for stronger controls.
>
> But the world was not the same 3-4 generations ago. Just because there
> was no control back then doesn't automatically mean there shouldn't be
> now.
> It's not necessarily a case of hypocrisy, but a case of reality check.
>
> (No, I'm not saying there should be stronger control. I'm just saying
> that the argument is flawed.)
and I wasn't debating the argument; wasn't talking about hypocrisy, which
doesn't apply here. I was just stressing the fact it was ironic, that
would be the line you've snipped.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
