All Comments

  • Posted by Owlsrayne 4 years, 9 months ago
    The Speech Police (left-wing Dems,et al) want to rewrite history. They are History illiterate. They want to perpetuate their own myths through communist-style propaganda. They conjecture that 100% of the American people are uneducated.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 4 years, 9 months ago
    This reminds me of the recent controversy over the land where Mt. Rushmore is located. Speaking of "the Left" owning "big tech" social media, leftist preferences in google searches, etc., try googling Mt. Rushmore - almost all hits you get talk about how "the White Man" STOLE the land from the "indigenous peoples" (the Lakota, in this case). Well, the actual history is a little more complicated than that. See the linked article, written by a Western history author, Tom Correa: (spoiler alert: before the Lakota lived in that area of South Dakota, the Cheyenne lived there, and before them, the Kiowas, before them, the Pawnee, before them, the Crow, and before them, the Arikara, who go all the way back to ca. 1100 AD. Since they had no written language, I assume this was determined by archeologocial evidence.)
    http://www.americancowboychronicles.c...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ root1657 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do understand your tilt towards paper in hand, but for those who are so inclined, Epoch Times does have a very well made app so the news gets to my hand just that much faster.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bobsprinkle 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Just read the Prager article. I could not agree more.
    In the comments section of the article, here is an interesting statement....
    the left hates america for what we aren’t and they hate themselves for what they are.
    Kind of reminds me of something NObama said..
    "You didn't build that".
    Also, I just got a sample newspaper in the mail from Epoch Times. I may subscribe. Since I am an old fart the idea of a hardcopy/newspaper and a cup of coffee in the morning appeals to me.
    Thank you for the link.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bobsprinkle 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Similar to what NObama said....."You didn't build that." The trees and rocks were already here. We found/owned it. And, you used our stuff
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bobsprinkle 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    All this indigenous/who was here first is EXACTLY the same argument between the arabs/Israelis. Arabs say it is our land....we were first. Probably depends on how far back you wanna go. I say Israel actually did SOMETHING with the land. They built one hell of a country. Exactly the same with America/Americans.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Finders, keepers." Or do we want to rationalize that might makes right and taking by force or fraud is OK? Conquest and plunder were the modus operandi throughout history, notwithstanding a quaint old notion of "Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not kill." It's too seductive to go with "to the victors belong the spoils".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    +10, Drive Train. A new definition is needed so that "indigenous" can refer to first occupiers. I would also say that the recent focusing on "indigenous" people is to get them included in the oppressed minorities so as to share in any booty to come.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ root1657 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If it interests you, there is a great book called 'To Adam, About Adam'. It was written by a scientist explaining to his son that even the specific sequence of the days in the creation story checks out scientifically, and that the days have to be in that sequence to create a stable ecosystem.... fascinating stuff.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We are pretty sure that in New Zealand and Hawaii and the SE islands, the Polynesians were the first. Over in the Western areas of the Pacific, you get more layers as far back as Homo floriensis - who was pre H. sapiens. Homo floriensis is now thought to be a branch of H. erectus, but I am still excited by the thought that H. floriensis might be a separate branch that goes back to Australopithecus (because of the foot structure).

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Small quibble. After Cain murdered his brother, Cain left and went to the Land of Nod, where "he knew his wife." Where did that woman come from?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, I don't consider anyone to be indigenous other than in Africa. It's a flawed concept. Do we know if anyone was there before the Maori?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ root1657 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Small correction... that isnt the biblical concept. In the bible, all the people came from one place (Adam and Eve were the only ones created, then procreated), and there are TONS of references to them moving to more and more places...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not really. We consider the nene to be indigenous to Hawaii - but of course it came from 'somewhere else' because 400,000 years ago, Hawaii was just a bunch of molten rock. "Native" "Indigenous" and "Endemic" are all terms that refer to something that is local.

    You do point out that these terms are used unevenly. We consider the Maori to be indigenous to New Zealand but not the Mongols to Eastern Europe - and yet they both have lived in those places for about the same amount of time:750 years.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ DriveTrain 4 years, 9 months ago
    There simply are no "indigenous" Americans.

    Everybody in this hemisphere is a tourist, basically.

    I once had a Facebrag "Friend" who was (or so I thought,) a fellow advocate of at least liberty - he joined us in protesting a Gore appearance in the NW back in the '90s, and later ran (unsuccessfully,) for mayor of that particular town, on an explicitly Libertarian (not Objectivist) platform, but I gave him my support anyway, even going so far as to sneak onto the grassy knoll between two busy freeway ramps in downtown to jam his yard sign into the ground, for mega-visibility. And then do it the next night, after the local frothing collectivists removed it. 'Went through about six before election day came and went.

    Anyhow, this guy also happened to be part of some WA state tribe, which I thought was interesting but not critical - which it was, and wasn't.

    So up comes that thing a couple years ago where a bunch of people were bused into North/South Dakota to protest that innocuous pipeline that was unobtrusively traversing their sacred or scared or scarred something-or-other, and this guy (who shall remain unnamed,) casually jettisons his Libertarian... stuff and flops into the tribal side of the tribe vs. reason conflict.

    In the midst of some Facebook back-and-forth on the subject, the "I" word came up and I said what I just did above - that nobody here was always here; that everybody here came from somewhere else, meaning the "indigenous" and "aboriginal" pretensions are simply false. (Not, as others have pointed out here, that it would make a difference in any case, absent the concept of property rights.)

    To which I got a whole lot of frothing vitriol, then an "Un-Friending." So the human race has a long way to go before its constituents - some of them - will have successfully extricated themselves from toxic group-think.

    Even self-styled advocates of liberty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That would be a new meaning. Webster says "Originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native."

    It implies an ownership deeper than "I saw got here first!"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 4 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well...if we also consider that 'the very first people who set their feet on a place' to be indigenous, then much of Polynesia qualifies. But the current American Indian tribes do not, because we have at least two layers of predecessors identified.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 9 months ago
    These people came from mostly from the middle east. They got to the Americas first is all. Does that entitle them to the land? I don't think so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 4 years, 9 months ago
    Outrage! We need Outrage!

    How will we get votes if there is no outrage to keep people from thinking, and get out their pitchforks and torches. We need Outrage for the media to control the people.

    Worked for the Bolsheviks.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bassboat 4 years, 9 months ago
    The "Speech Police" are nothing but a bunch of nerds who couldn't hold a job out of academia. They have to do things, like meanings of words, to be recognized by their peers to have a meaningful life. Meanwhile, the press who are down the IQ pole fawningly adopt anything that they come up with. Someone needs to put a stop to these nerdlings from destroying our language. This is an area where people with a platform could be of use. Politicians, ministers, teachers plus several more come to mind if they only had the guts.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo