Scott--you are not being mentally flexible.  I'll express it another way you may find light at the end of the tunnel.....of?

I said THE PROBLEMS you get by giving indigenous people a reservation are of xyz nature.
Then I linked to Muslims causing many of the same problems.
My POINT being that ECA is entirely correct.

YOU fixating on the definition of indigenous is ingenuous but it is not salubrious.

tHE FIRST SETTLERS TO THE n. aMERICA, WERE ONLY LOOKING FOR free land TO GROW THINGS FOR TRADE.
There were many trials and failures.
Even the Pilgrims were a mixed batch of idiots.
NONE of them cared what/who the indians were/did.
The Pilgrims just wanted to be left to themselves..which almost killed them.
Idians didnt care, as MOSt of those white idiots were DIEING almost as fast as they GOT HERE.

ALL of a sudden..What was LEFT BEHIND by those that CAME HERE..followed them.
it was called Civilization, religion(all of those Christian white ones), White mans Euro Wars, LAND OWNERSHIP..
If all that could have been LEFT BEHIND(IMHO) things might have been better for the Indians..
I wont even go into the Spanish conquistadors..  robbing and pillaging..

tHE FIRST SETTLERS TO THE n. aMERICA, WERE ONLY LOOKING FOR free land TO GROW THINGS FOR TRADE.
There were many trials and failures.
Even the Pilgrims were a mixed batch of idiots.
NONE of them cared what/who the indians were/did.
The Pilgrims just wanted to be left to themselves..which almost killed them.
Idians didnt care, as MOSt of those white idiots were DIEING almost as fast as they GOT HERE.

ALL of a sudden..What was LEFT BEHIND by those that CAME HERE..followed them.
it was called Civilization, religion(all of those Christian white ones), White mans Euro Wars, LAND OWNERSHIP..
If all that could have been LEFT BEHIND(IMHO) things might have been better for the Indians..
I wont even go into the Spanish conquistadors..  robbing and pillaging..

I once listened to an NPR program as I was driving in the USA, about how America was settled. Throughout much of their history it has been a matter of record that scam artists, con artists have preyed upon anyone and everyone as the Westward invasions / settlements proceeded.[this applies to Canada, too!]  Of course they cited the films which depict this like The Grifters,or The Sting, etc.
http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=conartist.htm
North America does not have a stellar human rights record that is often implied by our media when discussing other jurisdictions of negative distinction!

No country in history does.  Scott would be quick to point out that even when Homo moves into "empty" (sic!) land, he destroys the natural non human flora and fauna.

Land is always taken and held by force of arms against the interest of those previously there.  No other intent is required other than "being there."  Invasion by immigrations and procreation is a might fine tactic.  If you have a homeland to cling to at the same time, all the better.

Its the way of our species.  I don't think any of this was referenced in either the Grifters or the Sting, but its been awhile since I have seen those films.  Grifters about mother/son disfunctions and Sting about taking down a mob boss.  No indigenous involved.

No country in history does.  Scott would be quick to point out that even when Homo moves into "empty" (sic!) land, he destroys the natural non human flora and fauna.

Land is always taken and held by force of arms against the interest of those previously there.  No other intent is required other than "being there."  Invasion by immigrations and procreation is a might fine tactic.  If you have a homeland to cling to at the same time, all the better.

Its the way of our species.  I don't think any of this was referenced in either the Grifters or the Sting, but its been awhile since I have seen those films.  Grifters about mother/son disfunctions and Sting about taking down a mob boss.  No indigenous involved.

Dr. Definition, you totally missed my point: America was settled and developed by scam and con artists! Are you color blind? Do you not recognize a Red Herring when you read it? Finally, how does your dictionary spell dysfunctions? [my spell check is working again!]

ob,
YOU ARE ABOUT 99% CORRECT.
N. america was settled with scam artists...as well as TRADERS that wanted a quick buck...

There were a few of them that JUST wanted to get away from Europe and UK, because of being DIFFERENT from the beliefs in those countries...

Obtuse---getting all excited about my word usage and spelling?  Fair enough.  Not re-reading, even if one says USA"s manifest destiny was fulfilled by grifters and con artists, those movies were about grifters and con artists that had nothing to do with manifest destiny.  I think that is pretty clear.  I don't know what it is that words/ideas cannot be maintained in context and to the subjects being variously addressed by their different applications and nuances?

As to disfunction:  dysfunction I let my spell checker correct it using dysfunction.  Is that an American vs British issue?  Tis but a nat.  Great Minds are better left identifying what single issue grew America when the obvious truth is that it was many factors?

None of them addressing whether or not idigenous peoples should have extra/different/additional rights to their conquerors whether out right by war, or clever and odious as a weasel by treaties.

Its the way of the world, or am I a disfuntional con?

Scott--you are not being mentally flexible.  I'll express it another way you may find light at the end of the tunnel.....of?

I said THE PROBLEMS you get by giving indigenous people a reservation are of xyz nature.
Then I linked to Muslims causing many of the same problems.
My POINT being that ECA is entirely correct.

YOU fixating on the definition of indigenous is ingenuous but it is not salubrious.

Are you f___ing kidding me??!!?

Sorry. Let me try that again. After all off those times you accused me of not using a proper definition of a word now you want me to be flexible in my definitions??!!?

Try saying what you mean. What is it you mean by indigenous? Would you like to correct your term and use another? How about 3rd generation citizen or some such. And, please, really, do explain how Muslims in Europe has anything to do with indigenous anybody anywhere or anything to do with your topic.

Just maybe the use of the word Indigenous is incorrect and should be supplanted with Aboriginal?
Aboriginal is less appealing, though, as it has implications regards, education, and comprehension levels. Our Canadian Indians, Inuit, and our Goofoffermunt have adopted the term First Nations, which side steps the above terms and connotations, but implies status through seniority!

Scott would be quick to point out that even when Homo moves into "empty" (sic!) land, he destroys the natural non human flora and fauna.

Absolutely! I'm glad to see how well you know me now.

Land is always taken and held by force of arms against the interest of those previously there.  No other intent is required other than "being there."  Invasion by immigrations and procreation is a might fine tactic.  If you have a homeland to cling to at the same time, all the better.

Don't confuse what is with what ought to be.

The fact that humans have done this throughout history does not make it right. BTW, for some reason, after expanding its territory to its current size, China got off the imperialistic band wagon. So, even if you are correct that land is always taken by force, it doesn't mean that all groups of humans have involved themselves in the ethical quagmire of self justification for the slaughter of others.

So, immigration and procreation is a common tactic. That doesn't make it a fine one.

Also, note that some humans have become so specialized for some specific typically undesirable habitat that no one comes to take it from them. So, for the Inuit (a.k.a Eskimos, though the term is derogatory), they have been heavily influenced in recent years by snow mobiles, rifles, and grocery stores that they have now mostly given up a lot of their old ways. But, giving the land back to them was basically no big deal for Canada. How many non-Inuit actually live in Nunavut anyway? No one else has ever figured a way to live there comfortably.

Similarly, the San (a.k.a. bushmen, though the term is derogatory) in the Kalahari desert may technically be part of the nation of South Africa. But, no one has ever taken their land from them. The simple fact is that no one wants that land for anything. So, there is not even a need to give the land back. For the sake of the San, I sincerely hope no one ever finds anything of value on that land. The last thing the San need is to find diamonds or oil there.

In general, as I stated earlier, I am not for giving land back to indigenous people, especially where it would, at this point, be very difficult or impractical to do so. For example, finding the Lenni Lenape tribe, if any members are still alive, and giving the greater New York City area back to them might put a crimp in the lifestyle of rather a lot of people. And, they'd do no better managing the place than those who are there now.

After all, we're all just people.

And, this brings us back to your original point, methinks. Indigenous people are people. People have rights. Indigenous people have and should have exactly those same rights, not no rights, just no additional rights. Correct?

Scotty---I don't know you as well as I would have to to figure out whether you are kidding or not.  If it is a mask, you have held it in place for a number of years now without a slip.  Could be time to take you at mask value?

I'm not saying be flexible about the definitions of words in this instance I clearly referred to being flexible about what is actually being discussed.  As stated:  it was clearly stated, so I won't repeat, unless you repeat, then I will repeat.

What is and what ought to be.  Thats close to a favorite Led Zepellin tune.  I need to go find that and listen again.  What is the value of what ought to be when it never has been and never will be?

Relevant stuff:  context and reality.

Ain't that a bitch?

bobbo,

I don't know you well enough to get any meaning from your response. All I can say is always take me at mask value. I don't do deadpan well, especially on a keybored.

As for the rest, you think you stated something clearly. You didn't. If you did, please quote it here. You don't need to retype, just paste. I never saw anything I thought even approached an answer, just several times of telling me that you answered. What post are you talking about? What is the relevance of your post #4 link?

As for flexibility, why only when you misuse a word, never when you think I did? What's good for the goose, ....

So, what do you mean by indigenous? 3rd generation? Any citizen? 10th generation? Daughters of the American Revolution? Since you insist on misusing indigenous, at least say what the hell you mean.

Oh, and what's a female dog got to do with this? Does it matter whether she's indigenous?

indigenous = those who claim a homeland

#4 link = different stimulus, same effect or issues

bitch = what bites us in the leg, when we think the context hasn't changed.

Yes, very clear.

indigenous = those who claim a homeland

Really? You're going with that? Are you sure?

So, who are the indigenous peoples of the United States in your mind? Italian-Americans? African-Americans? Jewish-Americans? Latinos? Irish-Americans? Polish-Americans? German-Americans? Japanese-Americans? Chinese-Americans? Native-Americans? Third-generation Americans? It seems many who live in the U.S. claim two homelands. To which one are they indigenous? What about anyone who has U.S. citizenship? Is that not a claim of a homeland? What about permanent residents?

Does it matter whether the claim is valid? How many years does it take for the claim to be valid? Must the homeland be a country? Or, can it be a region? Are there indigenous Texans? Southerners? Native New Yorkers?

To quote someone who frequents this blog, "it's all definitional."

Scotty - yes, it is all definitional and contextual.  I have been totally clear, narrow, and consistent.  All confusion lies on your end of the twisty curvy internet tube.

My first post with link = indigenous = native American Indians.

From this clear, narrow, defined central rock core, with Post #4 I expanded the application of tangential concepts.  Once again, clear, narrow, consistent, defined, linked.  And once again, all confusion lie on you end of the twisty curvy internet tube even after each point above has been repeated about 3 times now.

Heh, heh.....cracks me up.  The mask of comedy and tragedy.  Neither fits well on the sculpture of "The Thinker."

When I accept your mask at face value, its all humorous.

You really can't make sense of something so simple?  Are all my efforts so completely independent of which way the winds of analysis and application blow?  No input, all conclusion?  So in vain?

Really?