Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) has issued a new report (PDF) asserting that the Early Asian Immigrants (incorrectly referred to as “Native” Americans) are hit the hardest by “climate-induced weather extremes”. I’ll leave aside the obvious problems with that fanciful claim, and the oddity of the idea of “climate-induced weather” whatever that means, to look at the NWF’s proposed solution to their imaginary problem.
Their solution? Well, their brilliant plan is that everyone but the Immigrants should pony up some money to give to the Immigrants.
Now, the history of the Early Asian Immigrants is a sad and tragic one. They were cheated, lied to, killed indiscriminately, and their culture and ways were denigrated and often destroyed.
The response of the US Government, after many years, was to give the remaining tribes of Immigrants their own nations. These are sovereign areas with their own leaders, where many US laws do not apply. Me, I’d give just about anything to be able to write my own laws, and not have to obey some US laws. But I don’t get to.
Now, however, the NWF wants to change the rules. They want to alter the laws so that the separate Immigrant nations can not only be sovereign and independent and run casinos and not be subject to various state laws, but they can also suck up tax money paid by people who live in my nation. As an example of what they want to change, they say:
Indian [sic] Tribes are also excluded —– because of statutes, regulations, or practice —– from dozens of federal natural resource programs that provide assistance to states, local governments, and other entities.
Well … yes indeed, they are excluded from using my tax money for a host of things, and for very good reasons. That’s the price they pay for independence and sovereignty, that they don’t get treated the same as other US citizens, or like a State, or like a local government—because they aren’t any of those things, they are a sovereign nation with all that implies. For example, I can’t go on the reservation and do what I want, that’s the Immigrant national land. Immigrants don’t have to follow a variety of laws, and rightly so. And I don’t get any money from tribal funds that they are getting from Immigrant casinos, casinos that are illegal for me to operate.
So while I definitely feel for the Immigrants, who historically have suffered unimaginably, they can’t have it both ways. If they want to be full participants in the American rush to have the US government reimburse them for every imaginary problem, they can’t also be exempt from various laws and State taxes and some even from Federal taxes and get to have their own nations. If they want the full panoply of dubious benefits that the rest of the citizens get, sorry, they’ve got to become just like me, subject to all of the nonsense which us Late European Immigrants have to put up with.
Or they could just pay for the things that they need from their casino takings … which were $7,300,000,000 ($7.3 billion with a “b”) just in California alone in 2009, and $26,400,000,000 nationally, and on which in many states they paid no state taxes. I say they should use their own money for that kind of quixotic quest. If they want to use my taxes to fight imaginary menaces, well, they should have to pay taxes just like I do and be subject to the same idiotic rules that constrain me.
In any case, if the Immigrants are entitled to my tax money, it seems only fair that in return I should be able to open my own casino. But I don’t need to make billions. If I can only make a few million dollars from my casino, I assure you that I can protect myself against the worst that man-made warming can do, and save the Government a pile of money in the process … plus I’ll pay all applicable taxes on my takings.
It’s a win-win kind of deal.
w.
=============================================================
UPDATE:
Willis has free reign to publish here, however this is not an article (in its present form) I would have published if consulted. Once published, I can’t put the cat back in the bag. – Anthony
=============================================================
A note from the author. Anthony has most graciously given me the room to write here without censorship or interference or suggestions of any type,and has my great thanks for the freedom. As such, I ask that everyone be clear that what I write is mine, and what Anthony writes is his. He is passionate about his causes, as am I about mine. I thought long and hard about this before I posted it, as I do with all of my posts, but even more so because it is a touchy subject. I re-wrote it several times to try to make it clearer and clearer.
Now, I could have just said “Ooooh, too hot to handle” and picked a less controversial subject … but if Anthony and I and all the guest posters did that, this would be the most boring blog on the planet.
All I ask is that people quote my words when they object, because most people are treating this subject like a web-based Rorschach test, and reading into it all of their hopes, fears, and prejudices.
Again, my thanks to Anthony for his marvelous blog,
w.
This should help Willis – http://www.irs.faithweb.com/
Might be easier to just open a casino in your spare room and argue discrimination, by nationality or location (why Las Vegas and not your back garden?)
Dave Springer August 11, 2011 at 8:10 am
Wow, Dave, you read an awful lot into what I didn’t say. Sounds like you were projecting a bit.
Obviously you know nothing about me, but presume to.
Are you really equating the use of aspirin to the recreational use of LSD, Crack, Heroin, etc? Wow. Just wow. Asshat indeed.
While you guys are going back and forth…..
…I can’t help but think of the Maldives
That are building 11 new airports…
…while trying to claim we owe them money because they are sinking
Well Willis, I imagine your argument reduces to two main points.
1) No culture is native to anywhere, there are no such things as native people.
2) No ancient peoples deserve respect unless, in your eyes they have earned it.
The first point in my opinion is patently wrong. The second puzzling, because what would they have to do to earn your respect? Who’s standards? yours or theirs?
A word you may be interested in is “indigenous”
First Nations people are indigenous to the Americas, late arrivals are not, they are immigrants in the true sense of the word having come from another country, as opposed to the indigenous people who did not.
There is a useful definition in Wikipaedia you may find helpful.
“Indigenous peoples, or Natives, are ethnic groups who are native to a land or region, especially before the arrival and intrusion of a foreign and possibly dominating culture. They are a group of people whose members share a cultural identity that has been shaped by their geographical region. A variety of names are used in various countries to identify such groups of people, but they generally are regarded as the “original inhabitants” of a territory or region. Their right to self-determination may be materially affected by the later-arriving ethnic groups”
.
If you move to claiming first nations peoples are not indigenous to the Americas our views are to far apart to debate.
Myrrh says:
August 11, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Bankers? I said nothing about bankers. My point is that we should not change the treaties so that the Tribes can be treated like States. Has nothing to do with bankers, nor did I say that taxes should not go to Indians. That’s all you. QUOTE MY WORDS, you’re off in fantasy.
I don’t understand that one at all.
Well … yeah, I did miss that bit, because it wasn’t in your citation. According to your cite, what the “prophecy” actually said about cobwebs in the skies was:
There was also supposed to be a cobweb around the earth, which the citation says was the telephone, although there was no prophecy about cell phones … but never mind, it gets better.
I didn’t realize the best part of your pseudo-prophecy until after I last wrote to you. When the white man first came into contact with the American Indians, one of the things that was immensely popular as a trade item was iron in any form. While a few Indian tribes used copper, the use of bronze was unknown in the Americas, and iron was a complete unknown. So iron knives, hatchets, and even nails were extremely valuable trade items, as the Indians didn’t have iron in any form..
The citation you gave said:
OK, cool, when the “final warnings” come we’ll know it’s time for the purification by fire. I’m readying the marshmallows now. According to your citation, the prophecy in question, handed down in the oral tradition from the ancient Hopi shamans, says:
I’m sure that you can see the logical flaw in the claim that the above is actually an ancient Hopi prophecy … you’ve been suckered, my friend, there is no ancient Hopi prophecy about iron horses, iron cows, or iron anything. That’s just some do-gooder’s fantasy, the ancient Hopi never heard of iron.
It is worth noting as well that (as is true in most cases) the land the Hopi live on was occupied before them by another group we call the “Anasazi” … so once again, the Hopi are not native to their “ancestral” lands. And naturally, even the word “Anasazi” is not politically correct, nor is it agreed to by the various tribes. No surprise, political correctness near as I can tell is completely unobtainable, since shortly after one term is deemed incorrect and replaced with another, the new term becomes politically incorrect in turn. See the unending sequence of words used to refer to the toilet for one of many examples.
Finally, in an ironic twist of fate, the Anasazi seem to have succumbed to a long-term drought lasting hundreds of years, and thus were done in by climate change … good thing there were no climate scientists around then, or I’m sure that the Europeans would have gotten the blame.
Even more curiously, I am sure that the ancient Anasazi believed exactly what the modern AGW supporters believe, that the drought was the direct result of their own actions and thus it demanded sacrifices (literal or figurative) in order to stop or avert it … plus ça change, as they say, we’ve learned nothing since then.
w.
Myrrh, your supposed quotation from Benjamin Franklin is totally bogus … you really should not be so credulous. You have fake Benjamin Franklin quotes and ancient Indians talking about iron … not good for your credibility.
Paper scrip was used in the Colonies, but it was generally used in time of war. The Currency Acts of 1751 and 1764 greatly restricted their use. The average person of the time didn’t see much money at all, and only trusted in gold and silver. But the Benjamin Franklin scenario is pure fantasy.
What you need, mon frere, is a healthy dose of skepticism. Google is your friend.
w.
Gareth Phillips says:
August 12, 2011 at 12:51 am
I’m sure you do imagine that, but why should we care about the fevered products of your imagination? Come back when you want to discuss what I actually said, and not what you imagine my argument reduces to.
My points were nuanced and specific, and contained a host of subtleties that obviously escaped you. Your “reduction” of them is your own construction, a straw man that has nothing to do with what I said.
w.
Willis says:
@Garethman
Well Willis, I imagine your argument reduces to two main points.
1) No culture is native to anywhere, there are no such things as native people.
2) No ancient peoples deserve respect unless, in your eyes they have earned it.
I’m sure you do imagine that, but why should we care about the fevered products of your imagination? Come back when you want to discuss what I actually said, and not what you imagine my argument reduces to.
Garethmanresponds
Willis, I know you seem incapable of having a normal discussion without resorting to attacks on the person themselves, especially when you have no answer, but take a deep breath here. If you do not like my summary, and as I point out, it is my summary, my interpretation of your message, thats fine, I cannot speak for you, I cannot just copy and paste your posts to ensure I say exactly the same thing as you. I am trying to understand you here Willis, and have a reasonable but assertive debate. My points relate to what I think you are trying to say, I am not you. I have worked in psychiatry for many years and quickly learned that what we say is hardly ever interpreted in the way we would like it to be understood. That is why I am checking and clarifying what you are trying to say.
Now try and answer a simple question without throwing your dummy out of the pram.
Do you agree that first nations people/indians/aboriginals or whatever as inhabitants of North America are the indigenous people of that continent who moved there during the last ice age before Countries and Nation states came into being?
Obviously these airports are meant to allow the inhabitants to escape quickly once the waters inundate them, any day now, you just wait…
Myrrh says:
August 11, 2011 at 4:12 pm
More apocalyptic nonsense, supposedly from a people who couldn’t even foresee their own immediate demise.
See you in 2013…
Gareth Phillips says (August 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm): “My name is also commonly misspelled, I have learned to live with it, though I agree, it is always irritating. ”
I feel your pain. 🙂
As do I. I leave a trail of Ss everywhere I go…
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 12, 2011 at 1:46 am
Bankers? I said nothing about bankers.
I said something about bankers, I was referring to it.
My point is that we should not change the treaties so that the Tribes can be treated like States. Has nothing to do with bankers, nor did I say that taxes should not go to Indians. That’s all you.
You could try a laxative Willis, one only has to go to the top of the page to see you’re lying. Why so defensive? If that’s your view fine, just quit pretending that you are being so nuanced that no-one can understand you.. Maybe you should re-read what you’ve written.
My point is, I was trying to be helpful.., is that your tax money doesn’t go to anywhere but to pay off interest to the Bwankers who are in control of your money supply, so you’re missing a step in the process.
Re my: “And, if you’re annoyed because you can’t set up a casino, well whose fault is that? You keep confirming that the ‘goverment’ has the right to dictate to you and then you complain.”
“I don’t understand that one at all.”
Then certainly re-read what you’ve written..
You moan that you are restricted in the stuff the government allows you to do and accept it as an annoying fact of your life, I again was trying to be helpful.., rebel. The US constitution was set up to protect the freedom of the people from overbearing government…
Re my: “The net in the sky was communications, telephone, did you miss that bit? There are a surprising amount of prophecies from centuries way before all this which saw it too. That page was a bit difficult to read will find another.”
Well … yeah, I did miss that bit, because it wasn’t in your citation. According to your cite, what the “prophecy” actually said about cobwebs in the skies was:
THE WARNING: Cobwebs will crisscross the skies.THE FULFILLMENT: These are the contrails of planes and jets.
There was also supposed to be a cobweb around the earth, which the citation says was the telephone, although there was no prophecy about cell phones … but never mind, it gets better.
As I said, you must have missed it.. “There would be a cobweb built around the earth, and people would talk across this cobweb. When this talking cobweb, the telephone, was built around the earth,”
I did try and find you a page that didn’t have so much commentary, but you’re not really interested in what anyone else has to say, are you? Even in the last bit quoted from you, you have not taken in, it appears, that the telephone was what I was referring to. Are you having difficulties concentrating? I do appreciate that there must be enormous difficulty, not least constraints of time, to answer the many posts your pieces generate, especially when so many are critical. Being abusive to us instead of engaging with us is counterproductive. We’re all left frustrated that the communication between us hasn’t developed.
I didn’t realize the best part of your pseudo-prophecy until after I last wrote to you. When the white man first came into contact with the American Indians, one of the things that was immensely popular as a trade item was iron in any form. While a few Indian tribes used copper, the use of bronze was unknown in the Americas, and iron was a complete unknown. So iron knives, hatchets, and even nails were extremely valuable trade items, as the Indians didn’t have iron in any form..
Hmm, if they knew them to be valuable, how were they unknown? And if they traded them, how did not have iron in any form? I think you’re imagining a prehistoric Hopi.. 🙂 Prophecies are basically reading the signs of the times, think Jeremiah. Some get the picture earlier than others..
The citation you gave said:
The Hopi Native Americans of the American Southwest have an ancient prophecy that has long foreseen the destruction of our present world through a purification by fire. You will know the times for this purification are at hand when a series of prophecies known as the “final warnings” are fulfilled.
OK, cool, when the “final warnings” come we’ll know it’s time for the purification by fire. I’m readying the marshmallows now.
Now, this is an ancient prophecy, if I recall, it comes from around a thousand years ago when the Hopi moved to their present location. It’s from this time their ceremonials were established and their concept of themselves as a ‘spiritual vortex’ to pray for humanity and themselves as peaceful. Hey, I certainly prefer that people have such a concept about themselves than some others, the current popular one from the Eugenics stable is that billions surplus to their requirements should be annihilated and the Greens are busy, busy, busy spreading their message there are too many people..
According to your citation, the prophecy in question, handed down in the oral tradition from the ancient Hopi shamans, says:
THE WARNING: An iron horse will come to the land of the red man.THE FULFILLMENT: This is the train. It appeared in the 19th century
I’m sure that you can see the logical flaw in the claim that the above is actually an ancient Hopi prophecy … you’ve been suckered, my friend, there is no ancient Hopi prophecy about iron horses, iron cows, or iron anything. That’s just some do-gooder’s fantasy, the ancient Hopi never heard of iron.
Certainly before the time of iron trading, but interpretation later from the time of Spanish contact could have clarified – there are descriptions of such prophecies in Africa before the coming of the whites land grabbing, as a large black snakes crossing the land. I’m finding it difficult to believe you lack the imagination necessary for context.. Gourd as a description of the cloud from a nuclear blast fits, and it came in the US after the railroads became the method of ready transport across the continent. Maybe you should add a first aid kit, or are you just thinking of sitting back and watching the show?
It is worth noting as well that (as is true in most cases) the land the Hopi live on was occupied before them by another group we call the “Anasazi” … so once again, the Hopi are not native to their “ancestral” lands. And naturally, even the word “Anasazi” is not politically correct, nor is it agreed to by the various tribes. No surprise, political correctness near as I can tell is completely unobtainable, since shortly after one term is deemed incorrect and replaced with another, the new term becomes politically incorrect in turn. See the unending sequence of words used to refer to the toilet for one of many examples.
I think they’re the same people, they have the same ceremonial kivas. It was the Navajo who called them Anasazi, meaning “ancient peoples”, or, “ancient enemies”. The Navajos came into the area around a thousand years ago according to the Hopi who say they came from the north and and didn’t know how to make pots, the Hopi taught them. This is what p*ss*d the Hopi off later, that the Navajo began a violent land grab after they had been treated well by the Hopi.
There’s been some work done recently on analysing the food used over the period of the climate change that drove the Anasazi out of the canyon, from plentiful domesticated to scrabbling around for small mamals in the desert. I’ve just found something which says the Hopi are considered direct decendant of the Anasazi, so your diabtribe against them needs to have that crossed off the list. Unless you have some proof they are different people?
Will continue replying to your posts later,
Meanwhile Willis, google can also be your friend..
http://www.sangres.com/features/anasazi.htm
http://www.ehow.com/list_6862777_types-religious-ceremonies-anasazi-indians.html
The Hopi are considered direct descendants, so much so that the religion of the Anasazi can be inferred from the Hopi. The first link also gives some information on the migration patterns of the Hopi and other tribes as they spread northwards – the Hopi themselves have detailed memory of the stops they made on this journey, I do hope you’re not expecting to be shown a diary kept over those many centuries..
..which begins according to their keeping of their own memory in their own traditions, around 22/23,000 years ago.
From Myrrh on August 13, 2011 at 4:16 am:
Likewise it is inferred that the Romans were direct descendants of the Greeks, as the religion of the pre-Christian Greeks can be inferred from that of the pre-Christian Romans.
===
Ah Willis, I had read this post before but not the comments. I found it factual, was surprised at its brevity, did note a slight one-offish ranting tone. Come to think of it, it may have been the complete lack of any graphs whatsoever influencing my last two views. Most surprising indeed.
Then at a recent post someone was griping about the site while using your “ignorant comments” as an example of the depths this blog is sinking to. So I’ve come back and read the comments.
I see that, once again, you have stuck to the philosophy of science:
1. First comes the facts.
2. Then comes the analysis of the facts.
3. Then opinions are made and remade to reflect the facts and the results of the analysis of the facts.
By the bulk of the comments here, which strangely parallels what is found in Climate Science™, many people have problems following those steps in the proper sequential order.
Gareth Phillips says:
August 12, 2011 at 2:36 am
Gareth, I am sick and tired of trying to deal with your “interpretation” of what I say. I’m interested in what you and other people think of my ideas, but I don’t care in the slightest what you think about your interpretations of my ideas. I’m bored with your attacks, not on what I said, but on your imaginary ideas about what I said. I am uninterested in your fantasies about what I actually wrote on the page. If, as you say, you are unable to copy and paste the part of what I said that you are referring to, then learn how to do it. I am not interested in your straw men. Let me show how easy it is to cut and paste, I’m sure that you can figure out how to accomplish it given enough time. Here we go, hold on to your hat, it’s a wild and difficult ride, here comes the cut-n-paste …
See how tough it is? Now I can respond to exactly what you said, not confuse the issue with my “interpretation” or my “summary” of what you said, but discuss exactly what you said. Here it comes …
Well, it depends on what you call “first nations”. That construct is odd in itself, because it implies that the “first nations” on a continent are different and distinct from the “first people” on the continent. But from your words, it appears that you use “first nations” to mean “first people” … or not, it’s not entirely clear. I don’t see how the first nations could be the first people, that’s doing violence to the language. I don’t use or like the term myself for that reason. It seems like a vague boast rather than an actual distinction. Indeed, calling a small tribe a “Nation” is an egotistical claim on my planet, where we still use different words to mean different things and a “nation” is distinct from a “tribe”.
Let me give you an example of the problems with the “First Nation” claims. I just got back from Alaska, where I used to work as a sport fishing guide on the Kenai River. The local Indians (their own term) have lived on the Kenai far beyond anyone’s living memory, and consider themselves the “First Nation” of that area, to use your term.
But archaeology shows that a couple thousand years ago the people now proudly claiming the exalted title of “First Nation” for that area actually killed and drove out the previous inhabitants, a tribe of Eskimos. In other words, they stole the land from the previous inhabitants, just like most tribes (and nations) on the planet have been doing forever. And it’s far from clear if the Eskimos were the first inhabitants of the area either.
So no, Gareth, to answer your question, in that case people claiming to be the “First Nation” in the area are NOT the original inhabitants, they’re just a bunch of land thieves like, oh, say the Europeans who came after them and stole the land from them in turn. It is the Indians’ “sacred ancestral land”, to be sure, but only because they stole it from someone else’s ancestors.
Which is why I dislike the term “first nations”. It is very frequently a very false claim. Also, it implies that “I was here first” actually means something, that there should be some respect accorded to the culture simply because it claims to be (not necessarily is, but claims to be) the first people in the area. The odds are great that they are not the first, and even if they are … so what? Antiquity doesn’t buy respect in my world, there’s plenty of ancient customs and ancient cultures whose beliefs and actions aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit.
I note that you didn’t reply to my example of the woman from Savo Island, and her scathing indictment of the idea that a culture deserves respect because of its antiquity, an idea deeply embodied in your blind “First Nation” hero-worship.
w.
PS–You see how easy it is to copy and paste exactly those of your words I am talking about? That way I don’t have to make any kind of “summary” or “boil down” your argument or question. I just respond to exactly what you said. Novel idea, huh? It’s not tough, you should try it. I know you’re a psychologist, but that shouldn’t be any barrier to cutting and pasting.
Myrrh says:
August 13, 2011 at 4:16 am
From your citation:
My point exactly, the Hopi cannot be the first people, since the Anasazi came before them. And according to your citation, there was another society in the area before the Anasazi, and the Anasazi were a part of the Archaic people, so the Anasazi can’t be the first people either.
Thank you for making it easy for folks to demostrate just how stupid these claims of “First Nation” and “native people” really are. At best, the successors of the Anasazi might deserve the term “Third People” … but of course, that wouldn’t do, it has the distinct disadvantage of being somewhat historically accurate.
(However, the idea that we can “infer” the religion of the Anasazi from that of the Hopis is a stretch. The cite says only that “The exact nature of their religion is unknown, but it may have been similar to the religion the Hopi …”, and you’ve converted that “may have been” to “can be inferred.” You’d do better to quote, rather than to exaggerate, their claims.)
w.
Myrrh, thanks for quoting what you object to, it makes everything much more clear on both sides.
Myrrh says:
August 13, 2011 at 2:44 am
OK, we agree it’s an ancient prophecy, a thousand years old, from well before the time of first contact with Europeans. I went on to say:
Spanish contact 1500s 1600s
Railroads 1800s
You appear to believe that slavery and the large scale trading of slaves are inventions of the melanin-challenged like myself … consult any history of slavery in Africa. Lines of black slaves being moved across the face of Africa are as ancient as the land itself. They far predate white involvement in the slave trade.
It’s easy to take any combination of poetic images (iron horses, gourds, and all the rest) and fit it to the past. It’s fitting it to the future that’s hard. “The beast dying in the East”? Oh, that’s the breakup of the Russian Empire. “The five Lords agree”? That’s the original NATO alliance. Everything is always explained, and the somehow, the same message is always decoded:
I place no more credence in Hopi prophecies than I do in Nostradamus. The actual Hopi stories are a fascinating look at the beliefs of an ancient, very complex, and successful society. Their “prophecies” as reported on some uncited page on the web? Not so much. I always listen closely to what my Indian friends say, often there’s wisdom there in unexpected places … so which modern Hopi said that some Hopi commentator from the time of the Spanish contact interpreted an unknown earlier Hopi shaman as saying iron horses would whatever? …
I’m sure you can see the problem with that.
Let me clarify my objection. I don’t like to see claims made in the name of some anonymous Hopi “prophecy”. I am a shamanist myself, as are the Hopi, and there are many similarities and much overlap between my beliefs and theirs. The Hopi culture is rich and deep, and I have studied it at some depth. I am a shamanist of another lineage, and so as you might imagine similar beliefs are fascinating to me, I get to explore the similarities and differences. I have said before that as a kid, Indians were my heroes. As an adult, I have found that among the various Indian world views that I have studied, the Hopi ideas and beliefs are the closest to my own. Haven’t had the good fortune to meet a member of the Tribe, but I may get lucky yet. In any case, be clear that I have the greatest respect for the Hopi Nation and what it believes and what it has accomplished. How could I not, when the Hopi beliefs are not dissimilar to my own?
So your use of claimed ancient Hopi prophecies to make some gringo argument doesn’t sit right with me. If the best supporting argument you can come up is an anonymous recent interpretation of an underlying unknown prophecy, you really should look for something else to buttress your claims.
w.
Hi Willis, apologies for the delay in responding, been a busy week, By the way I am not a psychologist, I work with mentally ill patients, not in theoretical psychological processes. Not sure where you got the idea, interpretation perhaps? Try hard not to make any more assumptions about me. QUOTE MY WORDS WILLIS, QUOTE MY WORDS. ( annoying eh !) DON’T LEAVE THE BITS YOU CANNOT ANSWER OUT WILLIS ! ( we really must stop shouting at each other )
OK, joking aside,
Here is a quote by you I would like to challenge (I will refrain from using my own words)
“So no, Gareth, to answer your question, in that case people claiming to be the “First Nation” in the area are NOT the original inhabitants, they’re just a bunch of land thieves like, oh, say the Europeans who came after them and stole the land from them in turn. It is the Indians’ “sacred ancestral land”, to be sure, but only because they stole it from someone else’s ancestors.”
That is true for some peoples, they may have come earlier, they may have come later. They attacked each other and stole each others lands. They were remarkably like us in that respect they were human beings. But here is the critical point . None of these people came from another country as immigrants. They all had ancestors who were hunter gatherers who moved into the American continent many thousands of years ago.
Thats why they are called First Nations, note the plural, some may have arrived later than others etc, but they all have that ancestry in common. They did not arrive here from other countries. They did not move to another country. As a result, they cannot be immigrants in the accepted meaning of the word.
Due to arriving before the advent of recorded history they are seen as Indigenous to that area. Without archeology we would have no idea of where they came from and neither would they.
Judging by past responses you will skate over this fact and tell me you are sick and tired of me interpreting your ideas. But just try this once to answer the question below without getting angry. Remember, all interaction is about interpretation of what people say to each other, we are not tape recorders.
So Willis, this is the question. Are your fellow first nations citizens indigenous to America or not?
Remember, they can’t all have stolen it from each other, and they all have one common ancestral characteristic as described above.
With reference to your example from Alaska I’m not sure what you want me to say, apart from yes, anyone can call themselves what they want, but the subject here is a major group of peoples who lived in the American continent before the arrival of people from the old world and your description of them as immigrants.
Hopefully you are not one of these odd people who believe that First nations and Celts are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, so what is your answer?
Gareth Phillips says:
August 14, 2011 at 3:08 pm (Edit)
You seem to think that the fact that they were Early Asian Immigrants means something, as though somehow early immigrants are worthier or better than late immigrants or something. Or perhaps you think that since there weren’t countries then, that immigrating to North America from Asia was impossible … yet here they are, and there they were. What makes early immigrants better than late immigrants?
And what do you have against immigrants, anyhow? What is all of this anti-immigrant sentiment you’re putting out? How politically correct is that?
I can buy that they are called First Nations because they stole the land first. That makes sense to me.
First you say they are descended from “hunter gatherers who moved into the area”. Now you say they didn’t arrive from other countries, when you know they came not from another country but from an entirely different continent.
I haven’t a clue, I don’t much use that word. I said they weren’t native to America. They’re not, humans are native to Africa. That’s why I objected to calling them “Native Americans”. I’m willing to call them “First Nations” as you suggest on the basis that they stole the land first.
But “indigenous”? I don’t know. You said before:
Well, no, I wasn’t interested in it at all … but you seem to be. I don’t know what you mean by “indigenous”. Are humans “indigenous” to North America? I don’t think so, although you may. Let me look it up, I don’t use it much.
Dictionary says:
Did the so-called “First Nations” originate in the Americas as the dictionary definition requires? No, they did not. They arrived with their culture and their ideas from Asia, they didn’t originate in Canada at all.
So I guess I’d have to say no, based on the dictionary, the First Nations aren’t indigenous to the Americas. Humans, as the dictionary definition points out, are indeed indigenous to Africa …
Mostly, though, I don’t understand your point. What difference does it make? What counts are who they are, not whether they are indigenous to Canada (they aren’t). I’ve known Indians (their term) that I thought were among the most amazing folks I’ve ever met, and I’ve known Indians I wouldn’t cross the street to say hi to. I find them to be like everyone else, some sinners and some saints.
What I don’t get is your insistence on venerating them simply because they stole their land a long time ago. I pointed out that the “First Nation” of New Zealand, the Maori, took it over about the time the Vikings took over Iceland. I asked if that makes the Vikings the “First Nation” of Iceland … but you declined to answer.
I said above I was just on the Kenai river in Alaska. There, you’re in a real pickle. Should you venerate the local Indian tribe as a “First Nation” of the frozen north … or should you ask those same local Indians to pay reparations and set up reservations for the poor Eskimos that they killed and drove off the land?
There is no nobility that accrues with the passage of time. Killing people and taking their land does not become right because it happened long ago. Antiquity is not innately deserving of respect. Learn the lesson of the woman from Savo—some ancient historical beliefs are anti-human ugliness, and deserve no respect for that at all. I’m waiting for the neo-Aztecs to claim a religious exemption for cutting out people’s hearts … some historical ancient cultures suck.
I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember the fight over the Panama Canal, returned by the US to Panamanian control over strong domestic objections. My favorite line from that time, which seems to sum up your position, was the statement by Senator Hayakawa:
The First Nations stole the land from the Firster Nations, who in turn had taken it from the Firstest Nations … but they deserve respect, because they stole it fair and square.
Again, let me attempt to clarify my position. Each Indian tribe and its heritage is unique. Some tribes were farmers, some were fishers, some were fighters, some were fools, that’s the way of the world. I have lived and worked among many of the world’s people, and Indians obey the 80/20 rule like anywhere else I’ve ever been. Eighty percent of the Indians are decent, honest, hardworking folks, and twenty percent, not so much … just like with us melanin-challenged white folk. It’s been true everywhere I’ve been around the planet, the 80/20 rule holds.
But I can’t right past wrongs, no matter how wrong. All I can do is insist that the treaties be honored, both in the letter and in the spirit. I think that changing the treaties to allow the tribes to be treated as States is a huge mistake that could end up costing the Indians immensely. I don’t want to open that door of changing the treaties even a crack, I want them to retain their special status.
Thanks,
w.
Willis, in reading up on this subject I found another “early immigrant” which apparently is not native or indigenous to North America. The Bison. It arrived from the Asian continent at about the same time as human beings. It displaced the earlier Steppes Bison. It interesting that by your standard you would not consider this to be a native or indigenous animal to the Americas. Some people would challenge that. It may also be worth reading up on the centres of diversification of the Bald Eagle.
By the way, the Oxford English dictionary defines and immigrant as :
a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
And Websters dictionary states:
The act of immigrating; the passing or coming into a country for the purpose of permanent residence.
And the legal definition is:
Immigration:
The term immigration is a noun used to describe the process by which a person moves into a country for the purpose of establishing residency. In such a case, the individual is not a native of the country which he immigrates to.
Emigration:
The term emigration refers to the process by which a person leaves his place or country of residency, to relocate elsewhere. In this case, the individual moving is referred to as an emigrant.
And so Willis, you can debate all you like, but if you do not leave and country and move to a country, you are not an immigrant. However, I can agree that hunter-gatheres in the upper and lower Palaeolithic were like many other humans and animals, migratory peoples. So it is perfectly acceptable to say they migrated to your continent, which is where the confusion may lie, but they could not have immigrated or emigrated, because that is a particular legal definition which could not have occurred because there were no countries. Your own settlers emigrated to the West in the 1800s. They could only be said to be emigrating because of the claim that the land was owned by another country ( Spain, then Mexico) If it had not been owned, they would have migrated. Our house Swallows and swifts do not emigrate to Africa each year because they do not live in countries. They migrate. You see the difference?
One quick last point, when we say “I imagine” it is like you saying “I guess” You are not really guessing any more than I am imagining. It is a grammatical foil meaning “this is my understanding of what you are saying”
ps When working with native peoples I sometimes got annoyed with them when they wanted to fish salmon as a traditional right, and used modern trawlers, and hunt Whales as a custom, from powerful boats to sell on to Japaneses and Norwegians. As Little Moustache said, “If they really want to gather traditional food, why don’t they come with me to pick berries?
Hi Willis, I missed one of your questions
What I don’t get is your insistence on venerating them simply because they stole their land a long time ago. I pointed out that the “First Nation” of New Zealand, the Maori, took it over about the time the Vikings took over Iceland. I asked if that makes the Vikings the “First Nation” of Iceland … but you declined to answer.
Firstly I don’t venerate them I just recognise them for what they are. They did not steal their land a long time ago, any more than the Bison stole the land from the steppes Bison. Maori could be described as first nations of New Zealand, but their arrival in New Zealand is nowhere near as ancient as North American first nations. The Vikings were not the first nations of iceland, they were preceded by Celtic monks. But if they had been, they would have been first nation. However they were first nation in Greenland having got there before Inuit peoples who are now the inhabitants. But Vikings did not emigrate to Greenland, they migrated. Hope that helps.
Gareth Phillips says (emphasis mine):
Umm … well … since the Bison came fully formed to the Americas from Asia, yes, I’d say it’s not an American native. That’s what “native” means, like in the sentence “no matter when they arrived there, boa constrictors are not native to Hawaii”. Nor are Bison native to North America, no matter when they arrived here.
August 15, 2011 at 11:12 am (Edit)
So I think I understand your position. Vikings are the First Nation of Greenland, Celtic Monks are the First Nation of Iceland, and the Kenai River Indian First Nation didn’t kill the Kenai River Eskimo Firster Nation and drive them off their land, they “displaced” them just like the Bison displaced the Steppes Bison. And the Bison, which did not originate here and arrived fully formed from another continent, are none-the-less native to the Americas.
Got it. You say “hope that helps” and it did, only perhaps not in the way you imagine.
w.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 13, 2011 at 12:16 pm
From Myrrh on August 13, 2011 at 4:16 am:
“The Hopi are considered direct descendants, so much so that the religion of the Anasazi can be inferred from the Hopi.”
Likewise it is inferred that the Romans were direct descendants of the Greeks, as the religion of the pre-Christian Greeks can be inferred from that of the pre-Christian Romans.
===
Context is your friend.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 13, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Myrrh says:
August 13, 2011 at 4:16 am
Meanwhile Willis, google can also be your friend..
http://www.sangres.com/features/anasazi.htm
http://www.ehow.com/list_6862777_types-religious-ceremonies-anasazi-indians.html
The Hopi are considered direct descendants, so much so that the religion of the Anasazi can be inferred from the Hopi.
From your citation:
At the end of the last Ice Age, the Southwest was being vacated by the big game hunters as they followed the retreat of the glaciers northward. After the hunters moved north, a society of hunter-gatherers moved in from the south. This ancient group of foragers (about 6000 BC to the first century CE) were highly mobile, carrying only lightweight tool kits and “atlatls,” sticks to extend their spear-throwing range. They traveled in small family groups of from 3 to 8 and were almost continually on the move, stopping just long enough to build crude huts and sleeping circles. What we know of them is found mostly among the stone chips left from their tool-making. Scholars call these people the Archaic or Desert Culture.
It is thought that the Anasazi were either a northern branch of the Archaic people or they may have been northern settlers of the Mogollon Culture, which was located more in southern New Mexico. Somewhere in the first or second century CE the first signs of a distinct Anasazi culture began to emerge.”
My point exactly, the Hopi cannot be the first people, since the Anasazi came before them. And according to your citation, there was another society in the area before the Anasazi, and the Anasazi were a part of the Archaic people, so the Anasazi can’t be the first people either.
Thank you for making it easy for folks to demostrate just how stupid these claims of “First Nation” and “native people” really are. At best, the successors of the Anasazi might deserve the term “Third People” … but of course, that wouldn’t do, it has the distinct disadvantage of being somewhat historically accurate.
(However, the idea that we can “infer” the religion of the Anasazi from that of the Hopis is a stretch. The cite says only that “The exact nature of their religion is unknown, but it may have been similar to the religion the Hopi …”, and you’ve converted that “may have been” to “can be inferred.” You’d do better to quote, rather than to exaggerate, their claims.)
It also said, began with, “Anasazi” is a Navajo word that, depending on pronunciation, can mean “enemy ancestors” or “ancient people who are not us.” The Anasazi were the forebears of the Hopi, the Zuni and the Rio Grande Puebloan Indian tribes of the Southwest. They built a great civilization in some pretty barren landscape.”
So, you’re mis-reading from your prejudices into this…
However, not that I had any interest in discussing the Hopi particularly, the fact remains that by their own traditions they came into the Americas by the south-west corner about 22/23 thousand years ago, so they would be the original hunters who travelled north following the big game at the retreat of the ice, which would be some 20 thousand years ago. It seems to me, that if the Anasazi were the later arrivals from 6,000 BC, the family groups, they could have assimilated with the original Hopi so that now, the present Hopi are considered descendants of the Anasazi. Who themselves, according to this article, could be the 6,000 BC arrival of the hunter gatherers from the south, or the mongolian connection which came in from the north around the beginning of the Holocene. But Hopi tradition includes the stories of such hunter gatherer ancestors and their trek up north and nothing about any orgins from the north. It could be that the Anasazi had already assimilated with any such who came in from the north on their own way Chaco canyon times.
It is a fascinating mix, much has been discovered from extensive archeology over the Americas and associated research into language and culture. But, what I see here is the equally extensive traditions of the Hopis has not been taken into account. It has only recently become p.c. enough to even say that there were any inhabitants before 10,000 years ago and the influx from the north…
If you look at these traditions re time, the Hopi ages, or worlds, fit in well with our now known history of the ice age we are in.
The second world as the beginning of our last glacial some 100,000 years ago, destroyed by cold and ice. Followed by the destruction of the third world by floods – the beginning our present glacial with warming beginning about 18,000 to 10,000 years ago, a coupe of very dramatic sea level rises and these all over the world, varying with local conditions – the ubiquitous flood stories. So now in the fourth world after the floods and in the ‘benign’ temps of the Holocene – again to be destroyed. (Although for the Hopi stuck now in desert conditions this is not as benign as the general world piciture..) Well, that it will again be destroyed we know is true, our Holocene is due to end etc.
In the Hopi tradition they say their ancestors came and settled in the area and the signs written in Chaco canyon are from part of that journey:
If following the Hopi clues from their own traditions isn’t enough for you, I don’t know what would be. The earliest memory is of changes that fit in with thousands of years before any others came to the empty Americas – they didn’t displace anyone.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 12, 2011 at 1:56 am
Myrrh, your supposed quotation from Benjamin Franklin is totally bogus … you really should not be so credulous. You have fake Benjamin Franklin quotes and ancient Indians talking about iron … not good for your credibility.
Paper scrip was used in the Colonies, but it was generally used in time of war. The Currency Acts of 1751 and 1764 greatly restricted their use. The average person of the time didn’t see much money at all, and only trusted in gold and silver. But the Benjamin Franklin scenario is pure fantasy.
What you need, mon frere, is a healthy dose of skepticism. Google is your friend.
You could try making google your friend too – this was the big bone of contention at the time, Hansard, the Times, all discussing it. I suggest you do a bit of research of how banking came into existence to understand the power struggle at play here and the reasoning behind the US constitution and emphasis on your rights not to be controlled by government or banking interests in the hands of a few. This is what you lost in the Woodrow Wilson on an ego high influenced, brainwashed, by the banking cartel which had it origins in England.. You’ve lost the revolution 🙂
And Here: a potted history of banking, Benjamin Franklin was in England for 18 years, http://iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Bankers.htm
Recently by the way, Gordon Brown was instructed to sell of most of Britains gold, instructed by the Rothchilds, sold to, the Rothchilds. Banking is a scam.
Your interest payments to them for supplying your money is directly paid by your taxes, the Federal Reserve is a private company, it is not part of the government of the US, the IRS is the Feds collection arm heavies. None of that money goes to anywhere you think your tax maoney goes. You’ve been done.
From: http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html
Money for nothing and everything for free. This is what the war of independence was fought over.
From: http://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html
It’s the banking cartel which creates the booms and busts, your tax money goes to keep them in luxurious power and control over the masses. and see my posts above, it’s not legal, it’s against your constitution. Whinge about something worth whingeing about, we still have heroes, in every nation.