We are native americans

Discussion in 'Native American' started by Oak Leaves, Dec 29, 2011.

  1. Oak Leaves

    Oak Leaves New Member

    I find it fascinating to think about where all those Native Americans ended up. Some went to reservations and passed down their heritage. Many, many more were absorbed into the cultures around them. Their traditions and culture either was lost in the dominant race or eventually forgotten. I figure this has been true throughout the centuries, no matter the culture.
  2. Nadai

    Nadai Active Member

    It is unfortunate, in my opinion, as a Native American. I wish I remembered stories that my grandmother and great grandmother used to tell my sisters and I, when we were girls, about our heritage and the truth about our history as told from a Cherokee's point of view rather than what American children are taught in history books written by Americans.
    In college, for Anthropology, I took a Native American Studies course. We looked at how, after Westernization, a great many cultures lost their roots in their attempt to assimilate with the whites. So many Anthropological studies done on Native Americans and the Inuit are written by white men (ones who had little understanding, who were ethnocentric and biased and couldn't sympathize or change their ways of thinking and believing) the ones that aren't are written after the near loss and destruction of the cultures. Native Americans gave up their pagan beliefs for Christianity and changed their lifestyles to fit with the image.
    What is amazing to me is that people came to this country so that they could have the freedom to practice their beliefs openly and without persecution and in the process destroyed countless lives doing the very thing that was being done to them.
    ...
    I suppose that that does happen a lot. I suppose to avoid persecution people just change to fit the social norms. Of course there are those who would rather die for their beliefs rather than conform. There was a great deal of persecution for Christians (and Pagans a couple hundred years later) in Rome for centuries after the death of Christ until Constantine, but rather than flee or renounce their faith they stayed and continued to declare Jesus as Lord and many were tortured and killed for it.
    I suppose it's human nature to oppress and condemn and kill. And I guess it's also human nature for those on the receiving end of that brutality to either get over it or die... Yes we humans truly are the superior race:rolleyes:
  3. RLynn

    RLynn Active Member

    I am part Cherokee from my maternal grandmother. Her (very large) family was assimilated into the dominant culture, but they have retained their distinctive physical characteristics. They were the most individualistic bunch of people I've ever known. They scattered across the US from New Jersey to California and had occupations ranging from chicken farmers to parking lot owners to state troopers. In spite of this they had a lot of family coherence. I blame them for some of my own maverick tendencies (which almost drove my parents nuts).
  4. Nadai

    Nadai Active Member

    Just to clarify... you blame your rebellious and disruptive tendencies on the fact that you have a bit of Cherokee blood in you...?
  5. RLynn

    RLynn Active Member

    That's not what I said. Please don't resort to calumny because you don't agree with my religious beliefs. You are a valuable asset to this forum.
  6. Nadai

    Nadai Active Member

    I apologize if I made you feel that way; I didn't mean to seem as if I were attacking you or your reputation. It's not my place to disagree with anyone's religion or beliefs. We all are entitled to have our own opinions about the world and our place in it. Religion, in my opinion, is not something to debate about; you have your beliefs and I have mine. If they don't line up with one another then it isn't because one is wrong and the other is right, it's because we've learned to believe in something different. So again, I apologize for making you feel that way, but it wasn't my intention. However, I did not put words into your mouth. Your post stated " I blame them for some of my own maverick tendencies ". Since your post was about your Native American relatives I assumed you were referring to them. If you weren't then obviously something was lost between us in translation; I believed you to be blaming your own bad habits on the fact that you have Native American blood and was offended by the accusation that having Native American ancestry causes one to behave in a disruptive and offensive way. I actually am Native American, father and mother are both Cherokee, and while we all have our own unique personalities, no one has ever accused me or my family to be disruptive or rude or anything of the sort. So to me, it wasn't an attack against your religion (which I don't know anyway), just me trying to point out the fact that you stated, whether you meant to or not, that you blame your Native American blood for your bad habits.
    Myrddin likes this.
  7. OracleLady

    OracleLady Member

    I have a cousin whose grandmother was a full-blooded Native American. I don't know which branch. We came across some photos of her a few months ago. Although I never recognized those characteristics in the grandmother when I was young, I see them so clearly now. My cousin is quite a beauty, but I don't see the Native American features in her face at all.
  8. RLynn

    RLynn Active Member


    Maverick: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party. I don't see what being individualistic has to do with "bad habits" or behaving "disruptively" or "offensively." Nonconformism in a child can be problematic for parents, but it is not indicative of bad behavior.
  9. Nadai

    Nadai Active Member

    maverick: a person persuing rebellious, even potentially disruptive, policies or ideas. A rebel, cowboy; loose cannon.
    ...
    Once again, my point escapes you. Obviously we're going around in circles, as usual, so perhaps it would be best if we just agree to disagree.
    Myrddin likes this.
  10. Atehequa

    Atehequa New Member

    Greetings.

    I prefer American Indian as anyone born in this land even today is a native.

    "I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.
    I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins . As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity . We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians, and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose."

    ~ Russell Means - Oglala Lakota, activist, and formally a leader of AIM(American Indian Movement)





    Read more: American Indian versus Native American | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterms.html#ixzz31rgTJTzr
    Myrddin likes this.
  11. Last Spartan

    Last Spartan New Member

    To be fair, the "persecution" of early Christians in Roman times is frequently looked upon through a one-way mirror as part of modern religious propaganda. What gets left out is that in Roman society, one was allowed to worship as they pleased as long as they paid proper respect to the Roman gods, which Christians and Jews refused to do, and as with any other law that gets broken, the perpetrator(s) were punished. In fact, there was very little religious tension among different societies until Christianity, Judaism, and later Islam started to become more mainstream.
    The Misfit likes this.
  12. Myrddin

    Myrddin Well-Known Member

    "To be fair"? There is nothing fair about it, Last Spartan. However any given religious groups worshipped does not make the Roman's persecuting them right, or moral. However you put it, the Roman's back then were cruel and unnecessary. They still basically said, "Bow down to our gods, or else!" So long as they're saying that, they are not really allowing others to "worship as they please". Because they still clearly think their own religion is more important. It's still intolerant. So, no, it is not fair. There is no defending what the Roman's did back in the time.

    E. M.
  13. Last Spartan

    Last Spartan New Member

    You're misconstruing what I meant by "to be fair". I didn't mean to imply it was right or moral, I was just pointing out that there was a cause behind the Romans' treatment of Christians that's oft ignored in modern times. They were no more intolerant than religions today, save for maybe Buddhism, are toward each other.
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2014
  14. Myrddin

    Myrddin Well-Known Member

    I think they were maybe a little more intolerant back then. I mean, persecution has definitely gone down. :) :rolleyes:

    I figured you didn't mean it quite like that, it was just the way you said it. Sorry, if I came off a little strong. :oops:

    E. M.
  15. Last Spartan

    Last Spartan New Member

    Not necessarily. Look at the treatment of Christians in the Middle East and how many of them are forced to convert to Islam or be killed, and the Islam phobia that's been running rampant in the West since 9/11. Maybe it isn't as dramatic as it was in Roman times with people being crucified and fed to lions in the arena, but it's still there and likely won't ever go away.

    No worries. Admittedly, I guess I did come off a bit one-sided, but it wasn't my intention. I don't condone the Roman persecution of Christians, nor the persecution of Pagans by Christianity. The issue with the subject that bothers me is that sometimes people look at the rise of modern religions with rose-colored glasses, ignoring many of the dirty little details.
  16. The Misfit

    The Misfit New Member

    I couldn't disagree with you more. The first point, is that "Native American" is the name given to a race, not an individual. Regardless of who was born where today, that race was native to the Americas. When an individual Caucasian is born in the Americas, his race still is not native to the Americas. Just as if a Native couple moved to Europe and had a child there, that child's race would not be different to his parents, he would not magically come out a Caucasian. His race would still be the one that is Native to the Americas, thus, racially, he would be a Native American.
    Second, Indians are the race native to the Asian country of India, and Native Americans simply are not of that race. No matter how much a Native American says he's an American Indian, he's not, because his race isn't from India. I am Caucasian. If I insisted that I'm an American Japanese, I wouldn't magically be one, because my race simply is not from Japan.

Share This Page