I disagree that equating reservations with concentration camps is an apt comparison. The reservations were established by treaties, albeit grossly inequitable treaties, and were not set up by the military to confine prisoners of war.
I grew up on Southern Arizona on a ranch in what was once the heart of Chiricaua Apache land. My folks came into that country at the turn of the century from Southwest Texas around Uvalde and San Angelo. For years we were given to believe that our great, great-grandmother was Comanche. That presumed heritage actually caused some trouble for the generation before me. A few years ago, one of my sisters researched the family tree in an exhaustive fashion. She's traced us back to a henchman of William the Conqueror who was awarded some prime estates after 1066. That was a surprise, since we were under the impression that most of the ancestors were from Ireland, with a scattering of Scots. Even more surprising, she found that our great, great-grandmother became the Postmistress of Comanche County, Texas after her husband died. It turned out that she was a Jackson from Tennessee. Just a few generations and the Post-mistress of Comanche County became a Comanche. Oh well, we walked a mile or so in Comanche moccasins even if they weren't our own.
I might or might not agree with not too swift, can't tell, right now.
We might need to work up an entry room on a2k, so that people can make their posts more understandable for many..
but I think I agree with you, not too swift.
Please try to put your words into paragraph form, it is easier for many of us to understand.
I have, as long as I have been paying attention, been interested in where all of us came from and how that worked out re peoples on the earth, and I am still interested in all that. Still, a high score now will mean nothing at all in a quarter millennia.
High scores mean nothing anyway. Connections do, if they last.
Also, "war prisoner" isn't the only qualifier for the term "concentration camp," and neither is "treaty," Asherman. In an example you cited, the concentration camps of the Third Reich had nothing to do with war or treaties. By and large, the peoples confined to those camps in the Third Reich merely acceded to their transfer.
Ah, but Infrablue, you had just conceeded that tribal reservations in the U.S. are not analogous to the infamous political concentration camps of 20th century dictatorships. It seemed that your "fall-back" position was that they were set up in the 19th century to contain prisoners of war, and presumably still exist to contain the descendants of warriors.
Tribal reservations are not an expression of governmental or social racism, though some on both sides of the "fences" may be racist. Folks shouldn't over generalize, or over emphasize either the problems or the value to Indians who choose to live on their tribal lands.
cicerone imposter wrote:stand up, I said no such thing. It's not necessary to put words into my posts. Please just ask if you have any questions.
K, what??? Did I do this? And where did I do this?
I missed it too C.I. Thought maybe pessy had edited her post.
Nope, I didn't edit anything. I am very curious as to what you are referring to C.I.
It's quite evident you have edited your previous remarks. I suggest we drop it here; nothing gained in rehashing something that can't be proved. It was my mistake for not copying and pasting to my response.
c.i., you can check for a "last edited by [author's name] on [date and time]; edited [number] time in total" line at the bottom of the post. If it's not there, it hasn't been edited by the author after someone responded. (Posts can be edited without that line appearing if there have not been any responses yet.)
This post on the first page has an "edited" line (an example):
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=933131#933131
C.I. I can't see where pessy has edited a remark. I can't see where she ever adressed a remark to you.
Must have been a mistake.
I don't think it was 'directly' addressed to me, but felt the need to respond, because it sounded as though it was a response to my earlier post. I could be mistaken; racism is a hot button issue with me.
Hey! I know what you mean...I'm the same way
As a non-white, I've always wondered why non-whites posses this quarrel with whites who simply feel exuberant about their color.
--Ibn
Come to think of it...I've never felt exuberant about my color...when you're part of a majority there's no need to scrutinize it.
i repeat; why should we feel exhuberant about the colour of our skin which we have absolutely no control over!
[Michael Jackson excepted!]
We not only do not have control over our colour of skin, but also how we look. That's been determined by all our ancestors. Then about 40 million sperms wiggle their way around to find an egg. Bingo!
It takes that many sperm to fertilize an egg cause men hate to stop for directions.
Rather tangential aside... Height is much more closely linked to diet and health care than to genes. Many groups that are thought of as short are getting taller and taller as their health care and diet improves. (Thinking China here as an example -- Yao Ming, anyone?)
Meanwhile North Koreans are getting shorter and shorter... and America has leveled off after many years of getting taller and is now getting slightly shorter... but that takes this away from Philosophy & Debate and towards politics...
Very good analogy; most men are lost most of the time. The important thing is that we eventually find a woman to impregnate. Otherwise this would be a very lonely planet.
