I love the WHITE MAN running around the world, saying he FOUND SOMETHING..

I agree!!

In this case, it's doubly stupid. Not only were the Americas populated from top to bottom, so to speak (really meaning north to south), and everywhere in between, but Columbus wasn't even the first Eurodude to get to the Americas. Erik beat him by 5 centuries. It would be just as accurate to say that in 1492, small pox discovered America.

Small pox and a few others...that wiped over 1/2 of north and south america TO DEATH.

Scotty--thanks for identifying my incorrect link.  I corrected it at post #4 for any who might have gotten confused.

Too many multithreads going everywhere.  I'll just respond to a few that stick with me now:

1.  Immigration is closely tied to indigenous peoples issues.  My opposition has nothing to do with being indigenous, or "different" in any way.  My only point that both immigration and indigenous people's rights raises is that you don't have people with conflicting rights/goals put within one country.  With great effort, it can work between contiguous countries, but not "within."

2.  There is nothing inappropriate with the dominate culture writing its own history of invasion, death, destruction, genocide, annihilation of everything they run into as "finding a new country."  Its what everyone does.  "Winners write the history."

3.  Self Awareness developed at least as well as hoomans, and certainly much more advanced than chimps and porpi, is the crowning achievement of the universe.  If somewhere else there are even more advanced self aware/thinking entities, that is the same thing I am identifying.  Is bio-diversity a beautiful and meaningful thing in and of itself?  I don't think so.  You have to actually scientifically study the phenomenon to even know if it exists.  Very "abstract" in that self awareness mode.

Well, 3 is not bad........

4.  I have never claimed to be careful with my word choice.  In fact, I am just as sloppy as everyone else.  BUT, my saving grace may be that when the definition of a word is actually controlling the discussion of a subject, I do like to define those relevant terms and use those definitions for at least the continuing discussion.  I haven't seen much of that around here.  Using words correctly/imaginatively is intertwined with being self aware==the ultimate achievement of the universe:  a stretch goal for us all.

3 with extra credit.

EDIT:  More Extra Credit:  since the issue of definitions has been fairly raised:  What should be the rights of indigenous people? - I say:  None.  I think my sensationalism is closer than you have stated so far as my position is that there should be no idigenous people.  If there are no indigenous people because there is only one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all==what is an indigenous person?  And if they don't exist, what rights can they have?  Yeah, its definitional, contextual, and I think far short of violence.

Scotty--thanks for identifying my incorrect link.  I corrected it at post #4 for any who might have gotten confused.

I'll check it out.

Too many multithreads going everywhere.  I'll just respond to a few that stick with me now:

1.  Immigration is closely tied to indigenous peoples issues.  My opposition has nothing to do with being indigenous, or "different" in any way.  My only point that both immigration and indigenous people's rights raises is that you don't have people with conflicting rights/goals put within one country.  With great effort, it can work between contiguous countries, but not "within."

The U.S. became the great country that it used to be precisely by having and allowing a great many conflicting viewpoints and cultures. E. Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

You conflict with the dominant induhviduals in the country on a regular basis, both politically and religiously. So do I. Your argument seems to be that we should be assimilated into the borg. Is that your statement? Certainly people must respect each others' rights. However, that need not result in all people being assimilated.

2.  There is nothing inappropriate with the dominate culture writing its own history of invasion, death, destruction, genocide, annihilation of everything they run into as "finding a new country."  Its what everyone does.  "Winners write the history."

Really bobbo??!!? You have no problem with genocide? Are you just trying to piss me off? It's one thing to accept that genocide has happened and attempt to move on. It's another to say that it was not wrong and is still a perfectly acceptable practice in a modern world. You can't really be saying that, can you? Please detail for me what you mean by this. Is genocide in Darfur fine? Was genocide in Rwanda fine? Bosnia? Please state what you mean here. Because, what you have stated can't possibly be your true beliefs ... I hope.

3.  Self Awareness developed at least as well as hoomans, and certainly much more advanced than chimps and porpi, is the crowning achievement of the universe.  If somewhere else there are even more advanced self aware/thinking entities, that is the same thing I am identifying.  Is bio-diversity a beautiful and meaningful thing in and of itself?  I don't think so.  You have to actually scientifically study the phenomenon to even know if it exists.  Very "abstract" in that self awareness mode.

Without a planet of great biodiversity, you don't get evolution of stupid humans. If no one goes to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, is it still beautiful? Must the painting be studied scientifically to be appreciated?

Lastly, as I pointed out, most people are only barely self-aware. It is only a few who can appreciate biodiversity or opera or the Mona Lisa or the horrors of war. Most people are too busy watching American Idol and eating McDonald's while thinking that food comes from the supermarket.

BTW, count yourself among those who do not appreciate biodiversity (and count me among those who do not appreciate opera).

We may have to study biodiversity to appreciate the loss of it. But, many people are moved by a beautiful beaver meadow. What is more important is that when studying biodiversity reveals that we need it in order to survive as a species, as a species we still fail to appreciate it and go right on with our destruction of it. What does that say about your precious human consciousness.

We can't even recognize our own long term self interests.

Crowning achievement of the universe my ass.

In fact, with the universe not being self aware or even alive, can we really say that the universe has achieved anything?

Well, 3 is not bad........

4.  I have never claimed to be careful with my word choice.  In fact, I am just as sloppy as everyone else.  BUT, my saving grace may be that when the definition of a word is actually controlling the discussion of a subject, I do like to define those relevant terms and use those definitions for at least the continuing discussion.  I haven't seen much of that around here.  Using words correctly/imaginatively is intertwined with being self aware==the ultimate achievement of the universe:  a stretch goal for us all.

I'm glad you admit the sloppiness of your language use. Too bad that whenever the discussion turns in a direction you don't like, you suddenly begin to question the meanings of commonly used words. That seems to be your pattern.

Now, I know your words are a bit sloppy in that last sentence. Please tell me that you did not just call yourself the crowning achievement of the universe. You can't really be that paranoid, right?

3 with extra credit.

EDIT:  More Extra Credit:  since the issue of definitions has been fairly raised:  What should be the rights of indigenous people? - I say:  None.  I think my sensationalism is closer than you have stated so far as my position is that there should be no idigenous people.  If there are no indigenous people because there is only one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all==what is an indigenous person?  And if they don't exist, what rights can they have?  Yeah, its definitional, contextual, and I think far short of violence.

Quoting the pledge now? Interesting. A friend of mine has pointed out that the pledge and other common patriotic statements around the world always seem to point out what is not true. Taking our pledge of allegiance:

We are not a nation. We are a federation. We have no national elections. We are a collection of 54 little fiefdoms. *

We are most certainly not under God. We have a proud history as the very first country in the world to have been founded as a secular country. Instead of being proud of our great heritage of freedom of and from religion, we are trying to bury that past and pretend that we were founded on Christian beliefs. Still, for the moment, we are a federation with a great many belief systems, some with multiple gods, some with no gods, some with one god, some claiming to have one god but instead having father, son, holy ghost, the devil (God's equal) and a whole cadre of lesser deities including saints, angels, seraphim, cherubim, incubi, and succubi (think Catholicism). And, add to that the fact that we only added "under God" during the red scare and McCarthyism. It's also when we changed our motto from the all inclusive "E. Pluribus Unum" to the very divisive "In God we trust".

We included indivisible in our pledge. Hmm.... Why did we do that? Well, in 1892 the memory of the Civil War had probably not yet faded. We knew how deeply divided our nation could become. We knew how close we had come to dividing it. In fact, for a time it actually had been divided. The Confederate States of America had its own money and government.

So, as you quote the pledge, remember, it is full of lies we wish were true, not that which is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

As for what an indigenous person is, I think the common definition would be a descendent of the people who had long established histories here before any European came. That said, I agree with you. They are no more indigenous to the Americas than we are. They just immigrated earlier ... ~15,000 years earlier. We are all African. Those of us who are citizens of the United States all have a true claim to calling ourselves African Americans. I would not tend to do so as it would likely offend some people and confuse most others. But, it is an undeniable truth. I'll be curious whether and how you deny it.

* I stopped saying 50 when I saw the "state search" on a municipal bond search screen and realized that it included DC, Puerto rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam.

Obtuser==fair question if you are not sympatico with context, which so few people are.  Indigenous as used in the link I provided and what sparks my rant:  earlier peoples to whom some kind of land reparation is considered.

Legal vs reality is pretty well at issue in that first link.  I assume some kind of breached written treaty entered into when of convenience to the USA?---who are we to not honor it now?

But just how much of the USA should be given back and for what reason?  What apparent reason?  What real reason?  And if given back under the honor of law, why not simply invade and conquer for the purposes of setting a new treaty?=="Lay down your arms and become citizens of the USA."  Keep fighting and be labeled terrorists.

Just like every other country in history has done samve for minor periods of transition.  A universal lesson that has to be learned/experienced/learned over an over again.

The whole concept of reparation is flawed. Plus there are tribal lands in both the USA and Canada which have not been ceded by Treaty, eg. the New Mexican Arrapaho and the Ontario Ojibwa [2/3 of Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron]. Plus much of the higher Arctic.

Why should any treaty signed prior to your Revolutionary War be valid?

Furthermore, in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms impacts on this subject. Upon rereading this document, I see a huge error in the logic: Part 1 sets out all of these rights + freedoms, but ignores the right to hold property! HELLO, what was it that Pierre Elliot Trudeau avoiding and refusing to explain?
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html
Furthermore Part 2 goes on to declare that if you are a status Indian aka born on or descendant of a father registered to a granted reserve THESE RIGHTS + FREEDOMS DO NOT APPLY TO YOU!

I my opinion [for what it is worth!] Part 2 negates Part 1 and thus the whole document is null and void! Furthermore the very concept of registering and reserving is both racist plus discriminatory which on e of the most important tenets which Part 1 tries to rule illegal and unconstitutional! { I am aware of an legal process being mounted to challenge this at the Cdn. Supreme court in the not too distant future!}

I don't have a solution to this major issue, as it is not a simple fix situation. But the politicians and bureaucrats are not working towards a proper resolution of these problems. Furthermore, there is a special case of the American Mohawks that were run out of upstate New York by Col. Sullivan and his horse soldiers into lower parts of Ontario where they were granted lands on either side of the Grand River from Lake Erie up to the head waters by then Governor Haldimand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_of_the_Grand_River_First_Nation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldimand_Proclamation

Since that time [Oct. 1784] there was a subsequent law issued called Grants Land Act in 1835 after which the Province proceeded to sell off many pieces of this reserve to settlers as if it were unfettered Crown Lands! this has given rise to recent uprisings and occupations that has to this day not been resolved!

http://www.sixnations.ca/SNGLobalSolutions-Web.pdf

I would not like to be a member of the Supreme Court which will at some date have to deal with this issue!

As to other recent negotiated treaties/settled in North Western Canada, they have been very expensive and beyond what this nation can afford. There is also a huge land claim by the Mississauga Tribes to a portion of Southern Ontario from Pembroke/Algonquin Park to and including most of Toronto! this has been denied, but it is still a bone of contention.

This whole subject is also colored by the desperate poverty and squalor on some of the Reserves where the Caln Chiefs and Tribal Councils have been accused of and in some cases proven to have bilked the Treaty Monies for personal use and gain at the expense of their members. And likewise one of the richest Reserves in Alberta sitting on top of a very good oil field is ripe with drug gangs plus on going criminal activity not tolerated in the rest of society.

Finally, I remind anyone reading this that I personally am not of Aboriginal Heritage, am not married to one, nor am I a close friend of any. I do know several casually, though, through association during my working days. The main reason I am chirping, is that I see this as a very badly handled and blatant abuse of fellow humans regardless of their education, wealth, or customs. The biggest flaw I see is the whole concept of conquering and payoffs! Many aboriginal societies did not and may still not have this idea/concept of individual land title deed ownership. This is the basic clash of the societal customs of all peoples involved.

Scotty and Obtuser==why am I always contesting with you two?  I think an excellent "general" answer/response/direction of attention has already been given:  its not about what should be but rather about what is.  From there, we immediately, if not repetitiously get to pragmatism:  what works.  NOT what is fair, legal, nice, or warm and cozy==just what works.  History shows us this in spades:  Those who use force of arms to get and maintain land:  have that land.  Those who don't:  don't.  Every other issue is subsidiary.

After that, most of the issues and their nuances really are definitional.  I don't turn to definitions "whenever the discussion turns in a direction you don't like, you suddenly begin to question the meanings of commonly used words. That seems to be your pattern." but rather when I see a discussion being hijacked by the ambiguity of words used.  Commonly used words can easily be misused.  You posted several lists of them to all our great advantage?  An argument without substance.

If I were the Supreme Court I'd deal with reality:  like Drew Carey said:  If the Indians wanted their land, they should have fought harder for it.  Thats reality.  Treaties are just another weapon of war.  Useful as long as they are useful.  "Legalities" are fun to think about.  Meaningless until there is a one world government actually using them to govern as opposed to subvert.  Or could the legal principle of "changed circumstances" reach the same end goal with more acceptable illusions?

Scott:  you really gotta let your sense of humor out more often.  Or maybe you are doing the double reach around stupid on the Pledge joke?  Do you really want jokes to be labeled?  Thats how I read every "animals are better than people" position that you post.  Like the Plains Indians, Like Frenchmen in Paris re the Muslims, Hoomans are animals too.  If the bonobo's or Mother Nature wants Earth in a particular way, they should fight harder.

Same as it always is.

Hey Scotty--your second entry did not appear in the thread I responded to.  I think you have provided some meat?

I came back to post this relevant news item regarding the proper/improper effect of immigration and/or subcultures within a main culture.  I will post this and then go back to read what I expect and hope will be a valuble addition or balance to my "universal" recognition?

LATE EDIT TO CORRECT LINK:  (Thanks Scotty):  http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/103080/europe-islamist-immigration-islamophobia?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=2f84c4fd68-TNR_Daily_050812&utm_medium=email

Certainly, those who choose to live in a country must abide by its laws and respect the rights of others. But, please keep in mind that while there is a very violent and growing Muslim subculture, it is still clear that most Muslims are not violent. Imagine what the world would be like if it were really as many Americans believe, that all 1.2 billion Muslims in the world want us dead. Me thinks we would all be dead. Unfortunately, our friends (hah!) the Saudis keep funding extremist fundamentalist schools that teach kids to be Osama bin Ladens.

I just thought I'd post this because it seemed like it might get a lot of support here based on the comments so far.

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/

OK, actually, I just got an email from them begging for money. So, I thought the time was ripe to post this. I hadn't heard of them before today's email.

Scotty naively and irrelevantly sez:

Certainly, those who choose to live in a country must abide by its laws and respect the rights of others. /// Huh?  The link was to an example of just the opposite.  People/groups/religions "in revolt" don't follow the law.

But, please keep in mind that while there is a very violent and growing Muslim subculture, it is still clear that most Muslims are not violent. /// Large groups are led by the extremly motivated minority in most cases.

 Imagine what the world would be like if it were really as many Americans believe, that all 1.2 billion Muslims in the world want us dead. Me thinks we would all be dead. ///  I doubt anything near a majority of Europeans immigrating into the USA wanted to see the Indians wiped out.  What did that matter? >>>>>>it NEVER DOES!!!  Hence the power of culture over individuals.  If the Indians had the numbers, there would be conflict today==just like Israel/Palestinians, just like anywhere people get a reserved land to call their own==then they go ahead and act just like that.  Pretty straightforward.

Unfortunately, our friends (hah!) the Saudis keep funding extremist fundamentalist schools that teach kids to be Osama bin Ladens. /// So, where is the comfort in the violent are not a majority?  Taking inconsistent conflicting positions all within one post.  That should be avoided for clear thinking.

YOU WANT TROUBLE? - - - return land to the indigenous.  Simmer.  Wait for the boil.

Its always the same.

Hey Bobbio, this quote: "If I were the Supreme Court I'd deal with reality:  like Drew Carey said:  If the Indians wanted their land, they should have fought harder for it.  Thats reality. " end quote....Is just not valid. The so called First Nations of this continent were technologically out gunned, out bombed, out maneuvered in so many ways that it was just a forgone conclusion. Hence you are taking an inept position!
The Indian Wars were prosecuted to drive the pesky raiders away from the industrial and agricultural developments of the invading Whites. In retrospect they should have been assimilated not segregated.
As for your comment about a single World government, be realistic and recognize that there will always be revolutions, schisms, and usurptions if that is a word!
Now regards your sense of humor.....early in my driving career I saw a sign over a shipper/dispatcher's window that read:
Arguing with a truck driver is like mud wrestling with a pig. Very quickly the pig learns to enjoy it!
There was another one just beside it, but decency denies description of that cartoon!

Scotty, your quote:
Certainly, those who choose to live in a country must abide by its laws and respect the rights of others. But, please keep in mind that while there is a very violent and growing Muslim subculture, it is still clear that most Muslims are not violent. Imagine what the world would be like if it were really as many Americans believe, that all 1.2 billion Muslims in the world want us dead. Me thinks we would all be dead. Unfortunately, our friends (hah!) the Saudis keep funding extremist fundamentalist schools that teach kids to be Osama bin Ladens.

I say that when they do try it there will be more of them dead than us! Like the cartoons sez, We have played Cowboys and Indians, and next will be Cowboys and Muslims! And why do you think so many of your countrymen are "packing"? Eh!

Certainly, those who choose to live in a country must abide by its laws and respect the rights of others. /// Huh?  The link was to an example of just the opposite.  People/groups/religions "in revolt" don't follow the law.

Yes. My point exactly. But, everyone must follow the law. It doesn't matter what group we're speaking about.

But, please keep in mind that while there is a very violent and growing Muslim subculture, it is still clear that most Muslims are not violent. /// Large groups are led by the extremly motivated minority in most cases.

It's important to recognize the real players in deciding on action to be taken. Would you deport all Muslims? Would you deny immigration to people based on their religion?

Imagine what the world would be like if it were really as many Americans believe, that all 1.2 billion Muslims in the world want us dead. Me thinks we would all be dead. ///  I doubt anything near a majority of Europeans immigrating into the USA wanted to see the Indians wiped out.  What did that matter? >>>>>>it NEVER DOES!!!  Hence the power of culture over individuals.  If the Indians had the numbers, there would be conflict today==just like Israel/Palestinians, just like anywhere people get a reserved land to call their own==then they go ahead and act just like that.  Pretty straightforward.

Actually, the vast majority of the damage was done by a wave of small pox making its way across the country before those of European descent did. That's why the early estimates of native Americans were only on the order of a million not closer to the twenty or so million that is closer to reality.

Unfortunately, our friends (hah!) the Saudis keep funding extremist fundamentalist schools that teach kids to be Osama bin Ladens. /// So, where is the comfort in the violent are not a majority?  Taking inconsistent conflicting positions all within one post.  That should be avoided for clear thinking.

Nope. Nothing inconsistent in my words. Learn where the problem is and recognize it. Then we can deal with it. As long as the U.S. continues to mistakenly believe that Saudi Arabia is a friendly nation, we will not have peace. As long as the U.S. does not realize that fundamentalist schools, as well as Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are funded by oil money, we will not have peace. To have peace, we must dramatically cut our oil use. Oil is a huge problem in many areas of the world. It is the primary resource that defines the term "resource curse". Whether it's the Saudis and other oil rich middle eastern nations funding terrorist training camps and extremist fundamentalist schools or wholly owned totalitarian countries like Shell's virtual ownership of Nigeria or Hugo Chavez, oil causes war and terrorism and extreme human rights violations everywhere in the world that it defines the economies of whole countries.

YOU WANT TROUBLE? - - - return land to the indigenous.  Simmer.  Wait for the boil.

Its always the same.

And, what exactly did your article have to do with this? Come to think of it, how was it relevant to the topic at hand at all? Who are the indigenous people in the article? White Christian Europeans? I'm not aware of any group of humans in Europe ever having been referred to as indigenous by any commonly accepted definition. Wave after wave after wave of wars and migrations of peoples have virtually erased any trace of anyone who could be called indigenous European. Clear up what you mean by this.

Scott--I won't repeat what I posted and you responded to.  Each point that you contest is exactly my point.  For example:  YES, the current majority of European Whites, and all other peoples who have homogenized and view themselves as Americans, ARE the current indigenous peoples of America currently seeing the first discomfort of an invading culture demanding its conflicting rights.  Eventually they will either homogenize or armed conflict will result.

What do you do with a culture/religion/world view that says:  Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated?  You can ignore them when their numbers are small......but what when large?

YES---anyone at the door asking to be let in and demanding that "we" change should be denied entry, expelled if they are found to have lied, and killed if taking up arms to impose their views on us.

Its just everyone acting the same as everyone else:  in their own perceived LONG TERM interests.

Well, I'm not really familiar with your use of the word indigenous. So, I checked.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indigenous

in·dig·e·nous
adjective
1. originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often followed by to ): the plants indigenous to Canada; the indigenous peoples of southern Africa.
2. innate; inherent; natural (usually followed by to ): feelings indigenous to human beings.

So, humans are only indigenous to Africa. Any other use of the word, while common, is incorrect. Your use still seems different than the more common misuse of the word, which generally describes the first settlers to an area. Since Europe has been conquered and re-conquered and re-re-conquered, I'm not sure anyone can say who is indigenous to where by the normal misuse of the word.

(google break)

Clearly, I'm wrong. Here are the indigenous peoples of Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indigenous_peoples_of_Europe

So, what was your link in reference to again? It did not mention any of these people. That article from post 4 was completely irrelevant to your topic, as far as I can tell. Care to make any claim of why you posted it?

oNLY PROBLEM WITH iNDIGENOUS...
There are VERY FEW that are living in the same area/local as their genetics would think.

I dont care you are not...
I CARE that you bring ALL YOUR CRAP with you..and force it ON ME/US/WE..
Religious attitudes...WE ARE RIGHT you are DEAD. IS not right.
We want you to MOVE...you are dead.
HERE is land, we want it BACK, because it has gold/metals/we can farm it...you are dead.