Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330766 > unrolled thread

More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 16:03 -0800
    Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 17:36 -0800
      Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 19:25 -0800
    Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 19:24 -0700
      Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 19:23 -0800
      Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-04 17:09 -0700
        Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-05 13:02 -0700
          Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:32 -0700
            Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:53 -0700
    Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 02:33 +0000
      Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 03:10 +0000
        Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-11-04 06:49 -0800
          These nice native Americans started the blood bath, first John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:08 -0800
            Re: These nice native Americans started the blood bath, first Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:34 -0800
              I always knew that Steve Carroll was tard.  Thanks for proving it, once again. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 13:12 -0800
            Re: These nice native Americans started the blood bath, first -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-11-04 14:52 -0800
              Re: These nice native Americans started the blood bath, first John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 16:15 -0800
                Re: These nice native Americans started the blood bath, first Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 17:26 -0800
                  Re: These nice native Americans started the blood bath, first DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-05 09:32 -0500
            the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 02:21 -0800
              Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-05 11:39 +0100
                Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-11-05 07:18 -0800
                  Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 07:47 -0800
                    Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-05 17:49 +0100
                      Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 08:57 -0800
                      Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:23 +0000
                Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:16 +0000
                  Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-11-05 14:53 -0800
          Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 17:55 +0000
            Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 18:23 +0000
              Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 19:00 +0000
                Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 19:28 +0000
                  Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:19 +0000
                    Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:34 +0000
                      Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:53 +0000
                        Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 22:08 +0000
                  Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 13:13 -0800
                    Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 16:18 -0500
                Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:06 -0800
            Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-11-04 14:30 -0800
              Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 22:47 +0000
            Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-04 17:12 -0700
              Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 20:38 -0500
                Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 21:26 -0500
      Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 21:25 -0800
    Re: More than 350 languages spoken in U.S.; 54 percent of Los Angeles shuns English at home JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:21 -0600

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#331034 — Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing.

John Gohde wrote:

< snip idiocy > 

> In short, the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being
> butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. Spain has
> nothing to feel guilty about.

So the around 12.000 people murdered by the spanish inquisition alone at 
that time is naturally a totally different thing. 
The Aztecs murdered for religious reasons. The spanish inquisition murdered 
for religious reasons

Oh, wait...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331065 — Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing.

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 5:39:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> John Gohde wrote:
> 
> < snip idiocy > 
> 
> > In short, the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being
> > butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. Spain has
> > nothing to feel guilty about.
> 
> So the around 12.000 people murdered by the spanish inquisition alone at 
> that time is naturally a totally different thing. 
> The Aztecs murdered for religious reasons. The spanish inquisition murdered 
> for religious reasons
> 
> Oh, wait...

And there was also cannibalism in Europe besides the widespread 
reports from 1315-1317 (besides the fable of "Hansel and Gretel"), 
specifically during the Crusades and the Siege of Ma'arra, where
Christians ate Pagans:

 "...they boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots, impaled children 
 on spits and devoured them grilled."
  - chronicler Radulph of Caen

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra#Cannibalism>


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331068 — Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing.

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 10:18:52 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 5:39:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> > John Gohde wrote:
> > 
> > < snip idiocy > 
> > 
> > > In short, the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being
> > > butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. Spain has
> > > nothing to feel guilty about.
> > 
> > So the around 12.000 people murdered by the spanish inquisition alone at 
> > that time is naturally a totally different thing. 
> > The Aztecs murdered for religious reasons. The spanish inquisition murdered 
> > for religious reasons
> > 
> > Oh, wait...
> 
> And there was also cannibalism in Europe besides the widespread 
> reports from 1315-1317 (besides the fable of "Hansel and Gretel"), 
> specifically during the Crusades and the Siege of Ma'arra, where
> Christians ate Pagans:
> 
>  "...they boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots, impaled children 
>  on spits and devoured them grilled."
>   - chronicler Radulph of Caen
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra#Cannibalism>


Yummy!

The Spanish simply rubbed out the Aztecs before the Aztecs ate them.

That is called justifiable homicide.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331074 — Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing.

John Gohde wrote:

> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 10:18:52 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 5:39:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> > John Gohde wrote:
>> > 
>> > < snip idiocy >
>> > 
>> > > In short, the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being
>> > > butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. Spain
>> > > has nothing to feel guilty about.
>> > 
>> > So the around 12.000 people murdered by the spanish inquisition alone
>> > at that time is naturally a totally different thing.
>> > The Aztecs murdered for religious reasons. The spanish inquisition
>> > murdered for religious reasons
>> > 
>> > Oh, wait...
>> 
>> And there was also cannibalism in Europe besides the widespread
>> reports from 1315-1317 (besides the fable of "Hansel and Gretel"),
>> specifically during the Crusades and the Siege of Ma'arra, where
>> Christians ate Pagans:
>> 
>>  "...they boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots, impaled children
>>  on spits and devoured them grilled."
>>   - chronicler Radulph of Caen
>> 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra#Cannibalism>
> 
> 
> Yummy!
> 
> The Spanish simply rubbed out the Aztecs before the Aztecs ate them.
> 
> That is called justifiable homicide.

No. It is called genocide

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331075 — Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing.

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 11:49:57 AM UTC-5, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> John Gohde wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 10:18:52 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 5:39:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> > John Gohde wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > < snip idiocy >
> >> > 
> >> > > In short, the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being
> >> > > butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. Spain
> >> > > has nothing to feel guilty about.
> >> > 
> >> > So the around 12.000 people murdered by the spanish inquisition alone
> >> > at that time is naturally a totally different thing.
> >> > The Aztecs murdered for religious reasons. The spanish inquisition
> >> > murdered for religious reasons
> >> > 
> >> > Oh, wait...
> >> 
> >> And there was also cannibalism in Europe besides the widespread
> >> reports from 1315-1317 (besides the fable of "Hansel and Gretel"),
> >> specifically during the Crusades and the Siege of Ma'arra, where
> >> Christians ate Pagans:
> >> 
> >>  "...they boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots, impaled children
> >>  on spits and devoured them grilled."
> >>   - chronicler Radulph of Caen
> >> 
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra#Cannibalism>
> > 
> > 
> > Yummy!
> > 
> > The Spanish simply rubbed out the Aztecs before the Aztecs ate them.
> > 
> > That is called justifiable homicide.
> 
> No. It is called genocide


No, it is what happens when you ask them politely to STOP, and they go into their religious spill about how the Aztec gods demand blood and fresh hearts, on a daily basis.  Sound familiar?

The Aztecs must have had a graving for roasted Leg of Spaniard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331153 — Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 17:49:54 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> John Gohde wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 10:18:52 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 5:39:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Köhlmann
>>> wrote:
>>> > John Gohde wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > < snip idiocy >
>>> > 
>>> > > In short, the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being
>>> > > butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing.
>>> > > Spain has nothing to feel guilty about.
>>> > 
>>> > So the around 12.000 people murdered by the spanish inquisition
>>> > alone at that time is naturally a totally different thing.
>>> > The Aztecs murdered for religious reasons. The spanish inquisition
>>> > murdered for religious reasons
>>> > 
>>> > Oh, wait...
>>> 
>>> And there was also cannibalism in Europe besides the widespread
>>> reports from 1315-1317 (besides the fable of "Hansel and Gretel"),
>>> specifically during the Crusades and the Siege of Ma'arra, where
>>> Christians ate Pagans:
>>> 
>>>  "...they boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots, impaled children on
>>>  spits and devoured them grilled."
>>>   - chronicler Radulph of Caen
>>> 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma%27arra#Cannibalism>
>> 
>> 
>> Yummy!
>> 
>> The Spanish simply rubbed out the Aztecs before the Aztecs ate them.
>> 
>> That is called justifiable homicide.
> 
> No. It is called genocide

Again, the Spanish -- originally about 100 Conquistadors against millions 
of Mayans and Aztecs -- were not exactly acting alone. The tribes the 
Mayans and Aztecs had been using for human sacrifice aligned themselves 
with the Spaniards. But let's conveniently forget that, Peter, and 
instead let your virulent anti-Catholic bigotry run wild.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331150 — Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:39:43 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> John Gohde wrote:
> 
> < snip idiocy >
> 
>> In short, the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being
>> butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. Spain has
>> nothing to feel guilty about.
> 
> So the around 12.000 people murdered by the spanish inquisition alone at
> that time is naturally a totally different thing.
> The Aztecs murdered for religious reasons. The spanish inquisition
> murdered for religious reasons
> 
> Oh, wait...

Read a little about the brutality of the Mayans and Aztecs before you 
defend them. They were ISIS on super steroids. So ready to trash the 
Catholic Church that you completely leave your brain behind.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331176 — Re: the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing.

ronb wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> > John Gohde wrote:
> > < snip idiocy >
> > 
> >> In short, the Native Americans, as represented by the Aztec, being
> >> butchered and exterminated by the Spaniards was a good thing. Spain has
> >> nothing to feel guilty about.
> > 
> > So the around 12.000 people murdered by the spanish inquisition alone at
> > that time is naturally a totally different thing.
> >
> > The Aztecs murdered for religious reasons. The spanish inquisition
> > murdered for religious reasons
> > 
> > Oh, wait...
> 
> Read a little about the brutality of the Mayans and Aztecs before you 
> defend them. They were ISIS on super steroids.

Literature sources such as this?

"Michael Harner...estimates the number of persons sacrificed in central
Mexico in the 15th century as high as 250,000 per year....Victor Davis 
Hanson argues that a claim by Don Carlos Zumárraga of 20,000 per annum 
is "more plausible."[41] Other scholars believe that, since the Aztecs 
often tried to intimidate their enemies, it is more likely that they 
could have inflated the number as a propaganda tool.[42]"

And of course, there might have been better records available to have
ascertained this history...but a representative of the Catholic church,
namely Bishop Zumarraga, deliberately burned all obtainable texts[44]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture#Estimates_of_the_scope_of_the_sacrifices>

For the Mayans, human sacrifice was far less common than what happened 
later with the Azteks <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_in_Maya_culture>
and many were apparently prisoners of war from hostile aggressor neighbors.

For either/both, climate may also have had an influence due to political
structures such as competing city states which would forment war when
harvests failed <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Maya_collapse#Drought_theory>


> So ready to trash the 
> Catholic Church that you completely leave your brain behind.

Sorry Altar Boy:  merely having smaller numbers doesn't mean that
the sin is more readily absolved:  murder of an innocent is considered
wrong regardless of there's one victim or one thousand.  Plus also
note that in the case of the Inquisition, it was tens of thousands,
which is large enough to laugh at excuses such as it was "one" bad
apple, an "isolated incident", etc...it is clear that historically,
the Inquisition was not perpetrated by any proverbial "few". 


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330862

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> owl wrote:
>> > "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Snit wrote:
>> >>>  "John Gohde" <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>>> How about sending all of these people home and out of
>> >>>> the United States for good?
>> >>> 
>> >>> Sounds good. Let's start with the Europeans! Give the land
>> >>> back to the natives and get rid of all the illegal aliens!
>> >> 
>> >> What "natives"?
>> 
>> There are no "Native Americans."
> 
> The conventional definition is that the indigenous population
> when the Continent was discovered by the Europeans.
> 
> However, the more recent pushback against this is that these
> peoples themselves had migrated across the Bering Sea, so they 
> supposedly don't "count".  
> 

Exactly.

> However, the flaw in this logic, stems from how all Europeans
> also were migrants from Africa, so extending this to its rational
> conclusion would mean that everyone in the world would have to
> back to the Rift Valley, leaving 98% of the world unpopulated
> by humans.
> 

How is that a "flaw"?  Being an inconvenient fact does not
make it a flaw.

> In any case, an alternate interpretation of 'native' and one
> which has greater validity is that whoever was already present
> during the US Revolutionary War are whose descendants today
> have the sole right to the land ... and the litmus test here
> is actually quite straightforward:  one requires a descendant
> who has been confirmed as valid by the DAR (Daughters of the
> American Revolution).  
> 
> So unless you can prove your family has been in the USA for at
> least seven (7) generations ... stop being a hypocrite & leave.
> 

Any definition of "Native Americans" as a peoples would allow Neil
Armstrong's descendants to be considered "Lunar Natives" since he "got
there first."  The only definition of "Native American" that makes any
sense is "born in America."  If you were born here, you are a native.
If you weren't, you're not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330868

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 10:55 AM, in article shgue92.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>> owl wrote:
>>>>> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>  "John Gohde" <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> How about sending all of these people home and out of
>>>>>>>> the United States for good?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sounds good. Let's start with the Europeans! Give the land
>>>>>>> back to the natives and get rid of all the illegal aliens!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What "natives"?
>>>> 
>>>> There are no "Native Americans."
>>> 
>>> The conventional definition is that the indigenous population
>>> when the Continent was discovered by the Europeans.
>>> 
>>> However, the more recent pushback against this is that these
>>> peoples themselves had migrated across the Bering Sea, so they
>>> supposedly don't "count".
>>> 
>> 
>> Exactly.
>> 
>>> However, the flaw in this logic, stems from how all Europeans
>>> also were migrants from Africa, so extending this to its rational
>>> conclusion would mean that everyone in the world would have to
>>> back to the Rift Valley, leaving 98% of the world unpopulated
>>> by humans.
>>> 
>> 
>> How is that a "flaw"?  Being an inconvenient fact does not
>> make it a flaw.
>> 
>>> In any case, an alternate interpretation of 'native' and one
>>> which has greater validity is that whoever was already present
>>> during the US Revolutionary War are whose descendants today
>>> have the sole right to the land ... and the litmus test here
>>> is actually quite straightforward:  one requires a descendant
>>> who has been confirmed as valid by the DAR (Daughters of the
>>> American Revolution).
>>> 
>>> So unless you can prove your family has been in the USA for at
>>> least seven (7) generations ... stop being a hypocrite & leave.
>>> 
>> 
>> Any definition of "Native Americans" as a peoples would allow Neil
>> Armstrong's descendants to be considered "Lunar Natives" since he "got
>> there first."  The only definition of "Native American" that makes any
>> sense is "born in America."  If you were born here, you are a native.
>> If you weren't, you're not.
>> 
> 
> Are you trying to argue you TRULY do not know what is meant by a native
> American? 
> 
> If so, I think this should do well enough to help you:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States>
>     -----
>     In the United States, Native Americans are considered to be people
>     whose pre-Columbian ancestors were indigenous to the lands within
>     the nation's modern boundaries. These peoples were composed of
>     numerous distinct tribes, bands, and ethnic groups, and many of
>     these groups survive intact today as sovereign nations. The terms
>     Native Americans use to refer to themselves vary regionally and
>     generationally, with many older Native Americans self-identifying
>     as "Indians" or "American Indians", while younger Native Americans
>     often identify as "Indigenous". Which terms should be used to
>     refer to Native Americans has at times been controversial. The
>     term "Native American" has been adopted by major newspapers and
>     some academic groups, but has not traditionally included Native
>     Hawaiians or certain Alaskan Natives, such as Aleut, Yup'ik, or
>     Inuit peoples. Indigenous American peoples from Canada are known
>     as First Nations.
>     -----

So your response to my claim that a definition is wrong is to present 
me with that definition?  Does your brain work?

All the so-called "Native Americans" are descendants of people who
themselves migrated here.  The only true "Native Americans" are people
who were born in America.  Period.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330873

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 11:23 AM, in article sngbcur74.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> Are you trying to argue you TRULY do not know what is meant by a native
>>> American? 
>>> 
>>> If so, I think this should do well enough to help you:
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States>
>>>     -----
>>>     In the United States, Native Americans are considered to be people
>>>     whose pre-Columbian ancestors were indigenous to the lands within
>>>     the nation's modern boundaries. These peoples were composed of
>>>     numerous distinct tribes, bands, and ethnic groups, and many of
>>>     these groups survive intact today as sovereign nations. The terms
>>>     Native Americans use to refer to themselves vary regionally and
>>>     generationally, with many older Native Americans self-identifying
>>>     as "Indians" or "American Indians", while younger Native Americans
>>>     often identify as "Indigenous". Which terms should be used to
>>>     refer to Native Americans has at times been controversial. The
>>>     term "Native American" has been adopted by major newspapers and
>>>     some academic groups, but has not traditionally included Native
>>>     Hawaiians or certain Alaskan Natives, such as Aleut, Yup'ik, or
>>>     Inuit peoples. Indigenous American peoples from Canada are known
>>>     as First Nations.
>>>     -----
>> 
>> So your response to my claim that a definition is wrong is to present
>> me with that definition?  Does your brain work?
> 
> So you reject a term because you want to say the definition is wrong. Um, at
> that point I think we have to pretty much just say the conversation is over.

"At that point"?  That "point" was the start of the discussion.

> You do not accept the very concept being used... there is no way to go
> forward.
> 

Sure there is.  Defend the definition.  If you cannot defend the definition,
then you must accept that it is wrong. 

>> All the so-called "Native Americans" are descendants of people who
>> themselves migrated here.  The only true "Native Americans" are people
>> who were born in America.  Period.
> 
> Maybe the word "indigenous" would help you to understand what is meant by a
> Native American?

I am indigenous to the US.  Are you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330875

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 12:00 PM, in article ghnvmdie9.3a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/15, 11:23 AM, in article sngbcur74.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Are you trying to argue you TRULY do not know what is meant by a native
>>>>> American? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> If so, I think this should do well enough to help you:
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States>
>>>>>     -----
>>>>>     In the United States, Native Americans are considered to be people
>>>>>     whose pre-Columbian ancestors were indigenous to the lands within
>>>>>     the nation's modern boundaries. These peoples were composed of
>>>>>     numerous distinct tribes, bands, and ethnic groups, and many of
>>>>>     these groups survive intact today as sovereign nations. The terms
>>>>>     Native Americans use to refer to themselves vary regionally and
>>>>>     generationally, with many older Native Americans self-identifying
>>>>>     as "Indians" or "American Indians", while younger Native Americans
>>>>>     often identify as "Indigenous". Which terms should be used to
>>>>>     refer to Native Americans has at times been controversial. The
>>>>>     term "Native American" has been adopted by major newspapers and
>>>>>     some academic groups, but has not traditionally included Native
>>>>>     Hawaiians or certain Alaskan Natives, such as Aleut, Yup'ik, or
>>>>>     Inuit peoples. Indigenous American peoples from Canada are known
>>>>>     as First Nations.
>>>>>     -----
>>>> 
>>>> So your response to my claim that a definition is wrong is to present
>>>> me with that definition?  Does your brain work?
>>> 
>>> So you reject a term because you want to say the definition is wrong. Um, at
>>> that point I think we have to pretty much just say the conversation is over.
>> 
>> "At that point"?  That "point" was the start of the discussion.
> 
> OK, you have nothing to add to a conversation about Native Americans. I can
> accept that.
>

I'm a Native American.  My ancestors were German/Swiss, but I was born
here.  That makes me a native.
 
>>> You do not accept the very concept being used... there is no way to go
>>> forward.
>> 
>> Sure there is.  Defend the definition.  If you cannot defend the definition,
>> then you must accept that it is wrong.
> 
> They are the natives. Europeans and others are not. Done.
> 

Anyone born in the US is a Native American.  Period.

> This, of course, does not imply that long ago in history they also did not
> come from other places - but if you go back far enough we all came from the
> Big Bang (or whatever started our universe... and, heck, if there is a
> before that then we can go back even earlier). Such regressions into forever
> take us nowhere.
> 
>>>> All the so-called "Native Americans" are descendants of people who
>>>> themselves migrated here.  The only true "Native Americans" are people
>>>> who were born in America.  Period.
>>> 
>>> Maybe the word "indigenous" would help you to understand what is meant by a
>>> Native American?
>> 
>> I am indigenous to the US.  Are you?
> 
> No, I am a European American, born in the US but none of my
> great-grandparents were. I am not indigenous to the Americas.

Yes, you are.

> Apparently
> GreyCloud is... or so he claims and I have no reason to doubt.
> 
> So for those who want all the illegal foreigners gone, he gets to stay and
> we all have to leave. :)
> 

You are wrong.  "Born here" == "Native"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330885

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 12:28 PM, in article s968y.jhkfi@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ...
>>>> "At that point"?  That "point" was the start of the discussion.
>>> 
>>> OK, you have nothing to add to a conversation about Native Americans. I can
>>> accept that. 
>> 
>> I'm a Native American.  My ancestors were German/Swiss, but I was born
>> here.  That makes me a native.
> 
> Word play can be fun, sure. But not useful for the discussion.
> 
>>>>> You do not accept the very concept being used... there is no way to go
>>>>> forward.
>>>> 
>>>> Sure there is.  Defend the definition.  If you cannot defend the definition,
>>>> then you must accept that it is wrong.
>>> 
>>> They are the natives. Europeans and others are not. Done.
>> 
>> Anyone born in the US is a Native American.  Period.
> 
> Again, not accurate.
> 
>>> This, of course, does not imply that long ago in history they also did not
>>> come from other places - but if you go back far enough we all came from the
>>> Big Bang (or whatever started our universe... and, heck, if there is a
>>> before that then we can go back even earlier). Such regressions into forever
>>> take us nowhere.
>>> 
>>>>>> All the so-called "Native Americans" are descendants of people who
>>>>>> themselves migrated here.  The only true "Native Americans" are people
>>>>>> who were born in America.  Period.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Maybe the word "indigenous" would help you to understand what is meant by a
>>>>> Native American?
>>>> 
>>>> I am indigenous to the US.  Are you?
>>> 
>>> No, I am a European American, born in the US but none of my
>>> great-grandparents were. I am not indigenous to the Americas.
>> 
>> Yes, you are.
> 
> Nope.
> 
>>> Apparently
>>> GreyCloud is... or so he claims and I have no reason to doubt.
>>> 
>>> So for those who want all the illegal foreigners gone, he gets to stay and
>>> we all have to leave. :)
>> 
>> You are wrong.  "Born here" == "Native"
> 
> Nice word play! But not useful.
> 

It doesn't matter if you have a use for the truth or not.  It still hurts, I
see.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330899

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 1:19 PM, in article fhdsu03.faef@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/15, 12:28 PM, in article s968y.jhkfi@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>> "At that point"?  That "point" was the start of the discussion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> OK, you have nothing to add to a conversation about Native Americans. I can
>>>>> accept that. 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm a Native American.  My ancestors were German/Swiss, but I was born
>>>> here.  That makes me a native.
>>> 
>>> Word play can be fun, sure. But not useful for the discussion.
>>> 
>>>>>>> You do not accept the very concept being used... there is no way to go
>>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sure there is.  Defend the definition.  If you cannot defend the
>>>>>> definition,
>>>>>> then you must accept that it is wrong.
>>>>> 
>>>>> They are the natives. Europeans and others are not. Done.
>>>> 
>>>> Anyone born in the US is a Native American.  Period.
>>> 
>>> Again, not accurate.
>>> 
>>>>> This, of course, does not imply that long ago in history they also did not
>>>>> come from other places - but if you go back far enough we all came from the
>>>>> Big Bang (or whatever started our universe... and, heck, if there is a
>>>>> before that then we can go back even earlier). Such regressions into
>>>>> forever
>>>>> take us nowhere.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> All the so-called "Native Americans" are descendants of people who
>>>>>>>> themselves migrated here.  The only true "Native Americans" are people
>>>>>>>> who were born in America.  Period.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Maybe the word "indigenous" would help you to understand what is meant by
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> Native American?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am indigenous to the US.  Are you?
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, I am a European American, born in the US but none of my
>>>>> great-grandparents were. I am not indigenous to the Americas.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, you are.
>>> 
>>> Nope.
>>> 
>>>>> Apparently
>>>>> GreyCloud is... or so he claims and I have no reason to doubt.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So for those who want all the illegal foreigners gone, he gets to stay and
>>>>> we all have to leave. :)
>>>> 
>>>> You are wrong.  "Born here" == "Native"
>>> 
>>> Nice word play! But not useful.
>>> 
>> 
>> It doesn't matter if you have a use for the truth or not.  It still hurts, I
>> see.
>> 
> 
> If you find that the truth hurts then maybe you should reevaluate your
> views.

I'm not hurt by the truth that I am an "Native American" by virtue of
having been born in America.  You are hurt by that truth though.

> Then again, sometimes reality can lead to painful situations - but
> this is all very much off topic.
> 
> Not even sure what point, if any, you are trying to make.
> 
> To get back to the initial point: for those who say they want foreigners to
> leave America, and even go so far as to say that those born in the US are
> not citizens if their parents were not, then they should give the land back
> to the TRUE historic natives, the American Indians / Native Americans.
>

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/man-who-wrote-14th-amendment-explains-it-liberals-are-furious/
<quote> 
Howard wrote ???that every person born within the limits of the United
States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural
law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of
course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners,
aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
accredited to the government of the United States, but will include
every other class of persons.???
</quote> 


> From this you went off on trying to pretend you are a Native American
> because you were born here, which is comparable word play to my saying I am
> an African American because all of humanity, apparently, can trace back to
> Africa. In a sense one can argue it is correct, but it removes all
> usefulness from the term and is simply word play.
> 

If you want to call yourself "African American" that's fine with me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330909

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 1:34 PM, in article sfhvnc83.a03@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ... 
>>> To get back to the initial point: for those who say they want foreigners to
>>> leave America, and even go so far as to say that those born in the US are
>>> not citizens if their parents were not, then they should give the land back
>>> to the TRUE historic natives, the American Indians / Native Americans.
>> 
>> http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/man-who-wrote-14th-amendment-explains-it-li
>> berals-are-furious/
>> <quote> 
>> Howard wrote ???that every person born within the limits of the United
>> States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural
>> law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of
>> course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners,
>> aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
>> accredited to the government of the United States, but will include
>> every other class of persons.???
>> </quote> 
> 
> And your point? All Europeans are foreigners so their kids are not
> Americans. Um, OK. Only American Indians, based on that, are natives and the
> rest of us should leave.
>

Nope.  Foreigners can gain citizenship, and their children born in the US
would be natural-born citizens.  The children born here by *visiting*
foreigners (legally or otherwise) shoud *not* be considered natural-born
citizens. 
 
> Of course nobody is really pushing for that - or no major movement - but it
> is fun to shove in the face of those who demand "foreigners go home" and the
> like. 
> 
> GreyCloud gets to stay. The rest of us leave.
>  

You can leave if you want.  I'm a native.  I'm staying.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330924

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 1:53 PM, in article sfhe80.a3r@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/15, 1:34 PM, in article sfhvnc83.a03@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ... 
>>>>> To get back to the initial point: for those who say they want foreigners to
>>>>> leave America, and even go so far as to say that those born in the US are
>>>>> not citizens if their parents were not, then they should give the land back
>>>>> to the TRUE historic natives, the American Indians / Native Americans.
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/man-who-wrote-14th-amendment-explains-it-
>>>> li
>>>> berals-are-furious/
>>>> <quote> 
>>>> Howard wrote ???that every person born within the limits of the United
>>>> States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural
>>>> law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of
>>>> course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners,
>>>> aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
>>>> accredited to the government of the United States, but will include
>>>> every other class of persons.???
>>>> </quote> 
>>> 
>>> And your point? All Europeans are foreigners so their kids are not
>>> Americans. Um, OK. Only American Indians, based on that, are natives and the
>>> rest of us should leave.
>> 
>> Nope.  Foreigners can gain citizenship, and their children born in the US
>> would be natural-born citizens.  The children born here by *visiting*
>> foreigners (legally or otherwise) shoud *not* be considered natural-born
>> citizens. 
> 
> Why not? They have been until now.
> 

Because the author of the 14th Amendment said so.  No amount of
"interpretation" of meaning can outweigh the man's own words.


>>> Of course nobody is really pushing for that - or no major movement - but it
>>> is fun to shove in the face of those who demand "foreigners go home" and the
>>> like. 
>>> 
>>> GreyCloud gets to stay. The rest of us leave.
>> 
>> You can leave if you want.  I'm a native.  I'm staying.
> 
> You are a citizen

I'd be better off as an illegal.

> and should be able to stay, of course. But the whole
> blaming of all the countries ills on immigration, even illegal, is just
> silly. They take all our jobs as they sit at home collecting money from the
> government.

They come here and take jobs and keep wages below what they would be
if the employers had to hire an American to do the job.  They go to ERs
for free treatment.  They get government assistance.  They are the cause
of every product package having a mix of English and Spanish.

> The arguments do not even make sense. And the wall is just
> idiotic and would not account for much of the issue any way... and the idea
> Mexico will pay is a fantasy.
> 
 
I'll chip in and help pay for it myself.  I'll chip in and pay to have miniguns
every couple hundred yards also.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330914

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 2:28:30 PM UTC-5, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > On 11/4/15, 12:00 PM, in article ghnvmdie9.3a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> On 11/4/15, 11:23 AM, in article sngbcur74.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>>> Are you trying to argue you TRULY do not know what is meant by a native
> >>>>> American? 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> If so, I think this should do well enough to help you:
> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States>
> >>>>>     -----
> >>>>>     In the United States, Native Americans are considered to be people
> >>>>>     whose pre-Columbian ancestors were indigenous to the lands within
> >>>>>     the nation's modern boundaries. These peoples were composed of
> >>>>>     numerous distinct tribes, bands, and ethnic groups, and many of
> >>>>>     these groups survive intact today as sovereign nations. The terms
> >>>>>     Native Americans use to refer to themselves vary regionally and
> >>>>>     generationally, with many older Native Americans self-identifying
> >>>>>     as "Indians" or "American Indians", while younger Native Americans
> >>>>>     often identify as "Indigenous". Which terms should be used to
> >>>>>     refer to Native Americans has at times been controversial. The
> >>>>>     term "Native American" has been adopted by major newspapers and
> >>>>>     some academic groups, but has not traditionally included Native
> >>>>>     Hawaiians or certain Alaskan Natives, such as Aleut, Yup'ik, or
> >>>>>     Inuit peoples. Indigenous American peoples from Canada are known
> >>>>>     as First Nations.
> >>>>>     -----
> >>>> 
> >>>> So your response to my claim that a definition is wrong is to present
> >>>> me with that definition?  Does your brain work?
> >>> 
> >>> So you reject a term because you want to say the definition is wrong. Um, at
> >>> that point I think we have to pretty much just say the conversation is over.
> >> 
> >> "At that point"?  That "point" was the start of the discussion.
> > 
> > OK, you have nothing to add to a conversation about Native Americans. I can
> > accept that.
> >
> 
> I'm a Native American.  My ancestors were German/Swiss, but I was born
> here.  That makes me a native.
>  
> >>> You do not accept the very concept being used... there is no way to go
> >>> forward.
> >> 
> >> Sure there is.  Defend the definition.  If you cannot defend the definition,
> >> then you must accept that it is wrong.
> > 
> > They are the natives. Europeans and others are not. Done.
> > 
> 
> Anyone born in the US is a Native American.  Period.
> 
> > This, of course, does not imply that long ago in history they also did not
> > come from other places - but if you go back far enough we all came from the
> > Big Bang (or whatever started our universe... and, heck, if there is a
> > before that then we can go back even earlier). Such regressions into forever
> > take us nowhere.
> > 
> >>>> All the so-called "Native Americans" are descendants of people who
> >>>> themselves migrated here.  The only true "Native Americans" are people
> >>>> who were born in America.  Period.
> >>> 
> >>> Maybe the word "indigenous" would help you to understand what is meant by a
> >>> Native American?
> >> 
> >> I am indigenous to the US.  Are you?
> > 
> > No, I am a European American, born in the US but none of my
> > great-grandparents were. I am not indigenous to the Americas.


You are an owl, Putz!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330916

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:13:53 -0800 (PST), John Gohde wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 2:28:30 PM UTC-5, owl wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/15, 12:00 PM, in article ghnvmdie9.3a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/15, 11:23 AM, in article sngbcur74.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Are you trying to argue you TRULY do not know what is meant by a native
>>>>>>> American? 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If so, I think this should do well enough to help you:
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States>
>>>>>>>     -----
>>>>>>>     In the United States, Native Americans are considered to be people
>>>>>>>     whose pre-Columbian ancestors were indigenous to the lands within
>>>>>>>     the nation's modern boundaries. These peoples were composed of
>>>>>>>     numerous distinct tribes, bands, and ethnic groups, and many of
>>>>>>>     these groups survive intact today as sovereign nations. The terms
>>>>>>>     Native Americans use to refer to themselves vary regionally and
>>>>>>>     generationally, with many older Native Americans self-identifying
>>>>>>>     as "Indians" or "American Indians", while younger Native Americans
>>>>>>>     often identify as "Indigenous". Which terms should be used to
>>>>>>>     refer to Native Americans has at times been controversial. The
>>>>>>>     term "Native American" has been adopted by major newspapers and
>>>>>>>     some academic groups, but has not traditionally included Native
>>>>>>>     Hawaiians or certain Alaskan Natives, such as Aleut, Yup'ik, or
>>>>>>>     Inuit peoples. Indigenous American peoples from Canada are known
>>>>>>>     as First Nations.
>>>>>>>     -----
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So your response to my claim that a definition is wrong is to present
>>>>>> me with that definition?  Does your brain work?
>>>>> 
>>>>> So you reject a term because you want to say the definition is wrong. Um, at
>>>>> that point I think we have to pretty much just say the conversation is over.
>>>> 
>>>> "At that point"?  That "point" was the start of the discussion.
>>> 
>>> OK, you have nothing to add to a conversation about Native Americans. I can
>>> accept that.
>>>
>> 
>> I'm a Native American.  My ancestors were German/Swiss, but I was born
>> here.  That makes me a native.
>>  
>>>>> You do not accept the very concept being used... there is no way to go
>>>>> forward.
>>>> 
>>>> Sure there is.  Defend the definition.  If you cannot defend the definition,
>>>> then you must accept that it is wrong.
>>> 
>>> They are the natives. Europeans and others are not. Done.
>>> 
>> 
>> Anyone born in the US is a Native American.  Period.
>> 
>>> This, of course, does not imply that long ago in history they also did not
>>> come from other places - but if you go back far enough we all came from the
>>> Big Bang (or whatever started our universe... and, heck, if there is a
>>> before that then we can go back even earlier). Such regressions into forever
>>> take us nowhere.
>>> 
>>>>>> All the so-called "Native Americans" are descendants of people who
>>>>>> themselves migrated here.  The only true "Native Americans" are people
>>>>>> who were born in America.  Period.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Maybe the word "indigenous" would help you to understand what is meant by a
>>>>> Native American?
>>>> 
>>>> I am indigenous to the US.  Are you?
>>> 
>>> No, I am a European American, born in the US but none of my
>>> great-grandparents were. I am not indigenous to the Americas.
> 
> 
> You are an owl, Putz!

Owls are wise.
Gohdes are retarded.

-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330883

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:10:27 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 12:00 PM, in article ghnvmdie9.3a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/4/15, 11:23 AM, in article sngbcur74.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> Are you trying to argue you TRULY do not know what is meant by a native
> >>>> American? 
> >>>> 
> >>>> If so, I think this should do well enough to help you:
> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States>
> >>>>     -----
> >>>>     In the United States, Native Americans are considered to be people
> >>>>     whose pre-Columbian ancestors were indigenous to the lands within
> >>>>     the nation's modern boundaries. These peoples were composed of
> >>>>     numerous distinct tribes, bands, and ethnic groups, and many of
> >>>>     these groups survive intact today as sovereign nations. The terms
> >>>>     Native Americans use to refer to themselves vary regionally and
> >>>>     generationally, with many older Native Americans self-identifying
> >>>>     as "Indians" or "American Indians", while younger Native Americans
> >>>>     often identify as "Indigenous". Which terms should be used to
> >>>>     refer to Native Americans has at times been controversial. The
> >>>>     term "Native American" has been adopted by major newspapers and
> >>>>     some academic groups, but has not traditionally included Native
> >>>>     Hawaiians or certain Alaskan Natives, such as Aleut, Yup'ik, or
> >>>>     Inuit peoples. Indigenous American peoples from Canada are known
> >>>>     as First Nations.
> >>>>     -----
> >>> 
> >>> So your response to my claim that a definition is wrong is to present
> >>> me with that definition?  Does your brain work?
> >> 
> >> So you reject a term because you want to say the definition is wrong. Um, at
> >> that point I think we have to pretty much just say the conversation is over.
> > 
> > "At that point"?  That "point" was the start of the discussion.
> 
> OK, you have nothing to add to a conversation about Native Americans. I can
> accept that.
> 
> >> You do not accept the very concept being used... there is no way to go
> >> forward.
> > 
> > Sure there is.  Defend the definition.  If you cannot defend the definition,
> > then you must accept that it is wrong.
> 
> They are the natives. Europeans and others are not. Done.
> 
> This, of course, does not imply that long ago in history they also did not
> come from other places - but if you go back far enough we all came from the
> Big Bang (or whatever started our universe... and, heck, if there is a
> before that then we can go back even earlier). Such regressions into forever
> take us nowhere.
> 
> >>> All the so-called "Native Americans" are descendants of people who
> >>> themselves migrated here.  The only true "Native Americans" are people
> >>> who were born in America.  Period.
> >> 
> >> Maybe the word "indigenous" would help you to understand what is meant by a
> >> Native American?
> > 
> > I am indigenous to the US.  Are you?
> 
> No, I am a European American, born in the US

To use an argument similar to yours elsewhere ("So it is not murder. Right there BY DEFINITION it 
is not murder")... So you are indigenous to the US. Right there BY DEFINITION it's clear you are indigenous:

"produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indigenous

It must be true, Snit, a dictionary says so ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330933

owl wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > owl wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> There are no "Native Americans."
> > 
> > The conventional definition is that the indigenous population
> > when the Continent was discovered by the Europeans.
> > 
> > However, the more recent pushback against this is that these
> > peoples themselves had migrated across the Bering Sea, so they 
> > supposedly don't "count".  
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > However, the flaw in this logic, stems from how all Europeans
> > also were migrants from Africa, so extending this to its rational
> > conclusion would mean that everyone in the world would have to
> > back to the Rift Valley, leaving 98% of the world unpopulated
> > by humans.
> 
> How is that a "flaw"?  Being an inconvenient fact does not
> make it a flaw.

It is flawed because the underlying motivation behind the claimed
logic is really to try to devise an excuse for why to deny a 
land claim to the Native Americans, while ignoring how their own 
land claim is weaker still.  

> > In any case, an alternate interpretation of 'native' and one
> > which has greater validity is that whoever was already present
> > during the US Revolutionary War are whose descendants today
> > have the sole right to the land ... and the litmus test here
> > is actually quite straightforward:  one requires [an ancestor]
> > who has been confirmed as valid by the DAR (Daughters of the
> > American Revolution).  
> > 
> > So unless you can prove your family has been in the USA for at
> > least seven (7) generations ... stop being a hypocrite & leave. 
> 
> Any definition of "Native Americans" as a peoples would allow Neil
> Armstrong's descendants to be considered "Lunar Natives" since he "got
> there first."  

Only if Neil stayed on the Moon & raised a family there.

> The only definition of "Native American" that makes any sense
> is "born in America."  If you were born here, you are a native.
> If you weren't, you're not.

Historically, the law has been that birth geographically in the 
USA automatically grants citizenship rights.  Similarly, there's
laws for how an immigrant can become a naturalized citizen, but
these laws have a long history of being rife with racially and
religiously based prejudices which make them in many instances 
to have been extremely unjust.  

A classical example of this are things such as the USA's 
immigration quotas, which have included outright bans at times:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act>

...as well as laws which pedantically "allowed" but pragmatically
were the same as an outright ban:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson_Act>

Overall, it became quite common for discrimination to be codified
into law, so as to exclude the so-called 'undesirables' based on
some factor, such as race/origin:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924>

such as religion:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing>

even based on who was already here:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924>

And it isn't even like all of these 'bad apples' can be excused
because they happened more than a century ago:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965>


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web