Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020 Census to have Citzenship Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    How does merely coming to the new world make you a “colonizer”?
    Neither came here for the purpose of colonizing.

    Therefore they are not “colonizers”. If they are somehow guilty for merely being white, then say so.
    I made very clear that it is not that people are colonists just because they "merely" came here. I also came her... It is the belief that these savage indigenous people were not worthy of sovereignty and would be better off under the Christian Europeans that makes a newcomer a colonist...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    What makes you say that none of these were colonizers? Did they get land in the New World?
    How does merely coming to the new world make you a “colonizer”?
    Neither came here for the purpose of colonizing.

    Therefore they are not “colonizers”. If they are somehow guilty for merely being white, then say so.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Catholic Missionaries in the Great Lakes lived in the native villages and were worried about saving souls. The French never had enough people wanting to go to the New World. In fact most were males who wanted to get rich. There was a shortage of eligible White Females until after the Americans took over Louisiana. The French and British did make land grants. Many of these single males married native women or Free Black women.

    To me Colonists are people that go to a new land and settle. The only places you saw the Catholic Church "settle" was in New Spain and South America. This happened in the former Mexican areas of the United States. Los Adaes was made the capital of Tejas and a group of Indians were settled there and a church was built. It seems the Jumanos Tribe had decided the Mission had to go. The Comanche came in and reinforced the decision.

    In Father Marquette's case the Great Lakes Tribes were too warlike to put up with being slaves. They were even able to persuade some Iroquois to re-settle in Canada.

    Pruitt
    Bold mine...

    He was a Jesuit, right?

    The fact that he was too weak in the Great Lakes does not mean that he recognized the Indian sovereignty in principle. And to me a colonist is a person who does not recognize the sovereignty of indigenous people. Of course, when you are weak you have to compromise. Even Cortes had to create alliances with certain Indians. But the long-term planning did not see Indians as being independent people. Explorers and Jesuits were serving in different ways the European colonization.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    I understand this! My implied point is that an explorer and a priest can also be colonists. Columbus was an explorer also. So what? A Jesuit priest who established a Mission in the New World and made plans to christianize and use Indians was also a colonists...
    Catholic Missionaries in the Great Lakes lived in the native villages and were worried about saving souls. The French never had enough people wanting to go to the New World. In fact most were males who wanted to get rich. There was a shortage of eligible White Females until after the Americans took over Louisiana. The French and British did make land grants. Many of these single males married native women or Free Black women.

    To me Colonists are people that go to a new land and settle. The only places you saw the Catholic Church "settle" was in New Spain and South America. This happened in the former Mexican areas of the United States. Los Adaes was made the capital of Tejas and a group of Indians were settled there and a church was built. It seems the Jumanos Tribe had decided the Mission had to go. The Comanche came in and reinforced the decision.

    In Father Marquette's case the Great Lakes Tribes were too warlike to put up with being slaves. They were even able to persuade some Iroquois to re-settle in Canada.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Robert Cavalier de la Salle was an explorer from what is now Canada. He went down the Great Lakes and then the Mississippi until they reached the Gulf. He later tried to find the mouth of the Mississippi by sailing through the Gulf. He missed the Mouth and ended up shipwrecked on the Texas Coast. They built a boat and disappeared. They either drowned or were killed by natives.

    Father Marquette was a Catholic Priest and Missionary.

    De la Salle may have owned property in Quebec. I don't see the good Father getting rewards on Earth.

    There is a Catholic Boy's High School in New Orleans.

    Pruitt
    I understand this! My implied point is that an explorer and a priest can also be colonists. Columbus was an explorer also. So what? A Jesuit priest who established a Mission in the New World and made plans to Christianize (often forcefully) and use Indians was also a colonists.
    Last edited by pamak; 29 Mar 18, 22:06.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Robert Cavalier de la Salle was an explorer from what is now Canada. He went down the Great Lakes and then the Mississippi until they reached the Gulf. He later tried to find the mouth of the Mississippi by sailing through the Gulf. He missed the Mouth and ended up shipwrecked on the Texas Coast. They built a boat and disappeared. They either drowned or were killed by natives.

    Father Marquette was a Catholic Priest and Missionary.

    De la Salle may have owned property in Quebec. I don't see the good Father getting rewards on Earth.

    There is a Catholic Boy's High School in New Orleans named De la Salle. We played them in the 1969 State Playoffs. Their Front Four was bigger than most of the Louisiana College Front Fours! Tyler Lafauchi went on to success at LSU.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Yes.
    LaSalle and MarQuette were not colonizers and they wrote about how the indians interacted with each other. According to their journals, the indians, being human, they were every bit as brutal and inhumane towards each other as the whites were to other whites.
    What makes you say that none of these were colonizers? Did they get land in the New World?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Karri View Post
    Do any such exist that are not written by the colonizers?
    It'd be kind of hard for Native Americans to write contemporary accounts at the time since about the only North American tribe with a written language was the Cherokee and that wasn't invented until 1810 - 1820...

    But reasonably unbiased accounts are out there. For example, the Great Lakes tribes under Tecumseh sided with the British in the War of 1812 thinking they could get Britain to make a treaty upon successfully winning the war. But the war ended in a draw and Britain walked away. The US as the titular victor in that region took their revenge on the Indian tribes for picking the wrong side in a war. That was no different than how a European nation would have been treated by another at the time.

    Another example is the French and Indian wars. Again, the Indians picked the wrong side and took the hit when the war ended.

    The Plains tribes were late stone age hunter-gatherers when they ran into Europeans. Between technology, disease, and sheer lack of numbers they were marginalized. That too isn't unique in history to culture clashes.

    The Apache were horse thieves and raiders. Even the other Indian tribes in the Southwest despised them. They were stomped on just like some criminal gang would have been. Nothing personal in that.

    The early tribes on the East Coast were mostly done in by technology and disease. The Europeans introduced domestic animals like pigs, cows, chicken, etc. Some got loose. Others were deliberately set free, a common Spanish practice, to procreate and create an eventual stock of such animals the settlers could later use.
    Fencing fields, crop rotation, introduction of new crops, all combined to decimate Indian slash and burn agriculture leading to mass starvation events that weren't forced or planned by Europeans, but rather simply a result of that technology clash.

    Small pox and other diseases the Indians had no resistance to were a further cause.

    So, the Progressive version of the "Noble Savage" or whatever is a bunch of BS. There were cases of mistreatment, like the Cherokee and Trail of Tears, but most of the history of the clash between indigenous peoples in North America and Europeans is one of technology, disease, and population disparity doing the Indians in rather than some evil plan concocted by Europeans to eradicate them.

    Sure, with the Spanish, and even worse the Portuguese, the Central and South American tribes were taken advantage of. But, that's not North America.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick24
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    What "immigrants"? are you talking about? The question of citizenship goes directly to illegal criminals who sneaked into our country - nothing to do with legal immigrants.
    True, they aren't immigrants, they are criminals if they came in illegally

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Karri View Post
    Do any such exist that are not written by the colonizers?
    Yes.
    LaSalle and MarQuette were not colonizers and they wrote about how the indians interacted with each other. According to their journals, the indians, being human, they were every bit as brutal and inhumane towards each other as the whites were to other whites.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
    There's a poll running on MSNs homepage right now asking that question. I copied and pasted it here, or you can go to MSN if you're in doubt.

    Should the 2020 Census ask whether respondents are citizens?

    74% Yes
    26% No

    Total responses: 157,104 vote

    Seems like a very large majority of people want that question on the census.
    I saw that same poll and voted twice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karri
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    You need a history lesson on Native Americans and their contact with Europeans...
    Do any such exist that are not written by the colonizers?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by the ace View Post
    Well once bitten, twice shy, I suppose.

    The fear of immigrants moving in, slaughtering the indigenous population, and stealing everything in sight has already happened there, so the descendants of those immigrants may feel a need for some caution.
    You need a history lesson on Native Americans and their contact with Europeans...

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    What "immigrants"? are you talking about? The question of citizenship goes directly to illegal criminals who sneaked into our country - nothing to do with legal immigrants.

    Leave a comment:


  • the ace
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    It is truly amazing how far into the muck the Left has waded. When they want to shield obvious criminals from the law there's something wrong.

    Well, Ace, if that's how Scotland wants to play it, fine. That's not how the vast majority of citizens in the US see things.
    Well once bitten, twice shy, I suppose.

    The fear of immigrants moving in, slaughtering the indigenous population, and stealing everything in sight has already happened there, so the descendants of those immigrants may feel a need for some caution.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X