Conquer Club

I've got something like that except with Cherokee. My facial hair is evidence enough of that.

Anarkistsdream wrote:

HapSmo19 wrote: You should know that I'm 1/16 Chickasaw

Hahahahahahaha

Your Grandma's grandma???

Hahahaha

What a joke.

I know. I'm not proud of it either.

I myself am 1/8 Indian - yeah, that's right, not "Native American" or any other politically correct bullshit, just Indian. And i hate white people.


Honibaz

To add some more confusion:

Most Americans and probably Canandiens have at least a bit of American Indian blood, but up until VERY recently, they would be classified as "white" , so many people don't know. In particular, many children were adopted out and classified as simply "white".

But what really matters is culture. You can have little Tribal blood, but be immersed in tribal lore OR be full-blooded and know nothing. The problem is that the US government looks to the blood connection and proof of enrollment in one of the "recognized" tribes. This is convenient since many of the unrecognized tribes are also non-treaty tribes (in the lower 48) and therefore, if recognized, would have all their original rights. (look up the Bolt decision if you wish more info). In Alaska, this was largely sorted out, because they retained their integrity until pretty recently (most tribes are more or less still around with more or less "fully native" leadership, though much complicated by politics, money, etc. -- WAY too much to begin to address here).

HapSmo19 wrote: . If we were speaking of fish, you would be known as a "planter"(born in a hatchery and then shot out a bung into a river, lake or stream to provide sport for recreational fishermen).

No, you would be known as "stocked", as opposed to "wild" or "native".

And the biggest reason for salmon hatcheries was commerical fishing & dams -- the idea was they would be replacing all the cut off stream by raising the fish in hatcheries. It didn't truly work ... but that is for another thread.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that the US government looks to the blood connection and proof of enrollment in one of the "recognized" tribes.

Is it both, or could one suffice? Meaning, would say Hawkeye (Natty Bumppo), under today's conditions, be able to claim status as a Mohican (assuming they were a recognized tribe)? Or would his adoption into Chingachook's family not suffice as a blood connection?

I'm using a fictional character for a reason, since this is a hypothetical question.

b.k. barunt wrote:I myself am 1/8 Indian - yeah, that's right, not "Native American" or any other politically correct bullshit, just Indian. And i hate white people.


Honibaz

HapSmo19 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:or in your case "the arrogant, ignorant, insensitive arsehole (who's ripe for scalping)".

That sounds like a flame to me.
You should know that I'm 1/16 Chickasaw and that it doesn't make me an "arrogant, ignorant, insensitive arsehole" to state that I wouldn't take offense to that part of my ancestry being known as "the conquered". Maybe it was the smiley. I need to cut down on those.

jonesthecurl wrote:"fteclolbyaf"*.

What does that mean? Is that some native tongue or internet goon? I dont speak either.

jonesthecurl wrote:I have already said at least once that I really would like this to be a thread where we can talk rather than pose and throw insults. If you have nothing constructive to offer, please be absent.

I wasn't throwing insults around.
And let me correct you. Anyone who is born here is a native. If we were speaking of fish, you would be known as a "planter"(born in a hatchery and then shot out a bung into a river, lake or stream to provide sport for recreational fishermen).
Who cares what you call them as long as whoever you're talking to knows what you're talking about. What are you trying to accomplish here? Did you find another whiner band-wagon to jump on? Another pointless, centuries-old cause? How sweet. Your so sensitive.

jonesthecurl wrote:*"fails to even consider laughing out loud because you ain't funny"

Yeah well, I have an opinion of you too.

OK "fteclolbyaf" seemed hilarious when I made it up. It isn't, is it?
Just shows what several hours in the pub'll do for your sense of humour when you've segued into a lifestyle where you seldom spend several hours in the pub any longer. My bad.

However, I think that labelling an entire race "the conquered" is insensitive, even if you have a long-dead relative that you aren't proud of from it. Yes I flamed back, but racism is as out of place here as anywhere else.

I started this thread to ask a simple question, as an outsider. I've always though "Native American" smacked a little of the sort of PC-ness which is often deservedly mocked - but that was just my opinion, and the opinion of an ignorant outsider at that.

Interesting that you consider Indians (or whatever) to be a whiner bandwagon with a pointless cause.

Still at least you didn't suggest smallpox-infested blankets as a solution.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, you would be known as "stocked", as opposed to "wild" or "native".

Well, "stocked" would be the PC name as to not offend the fishes but, over here we calls em' "planters" behind their backs.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that the US government looks to the blood connection and proof of enrollment in one of the "recognized" tribes.

That's probably not a problem considering the sheer number of low-life bums they'd have showing up in indian outfits to claim their 5/64 cdib bennies.
I knew a guy that got a yearly check from the Osage tribe for being 3/32. He was a drug addict and about as indian as George Washington

pimpdave wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that the US government looks to the blood connection and proof of enrollment in one of the "recognized" tribes.

Is it both, or could one suffice? Meaning, would say Hawkeye (Natty Bumppo), under today's conditions, be able to claim status as a Mohican (assuming they were a recognized tribe)? Or would his adoption into Chingachook's family not suffice as a blood connection?

I'm using a fictional character for a reason, since this is a hypothetical question.

I don't know the official answer ... does anyone else?

Except that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is notorious for corruption and general ineptitude .. to the point that it has more than once been suggested it goes well beyond "ineptitude" and into intentional sabotage. (which is not to disparage any BIA employees out there ... government bureacracies have ways of making even the most capable employee work in ways that make the agency inept.)

Hasn't the Native American tribes, well, the ones that are still around, decided on an overall name for themselves? It would work much like how the Australian Aborigines did it, they decided on a name "Aboriginals", despite their past tribal names, and that is what they are called.

Skittles! wrote:Hasn't the Native American tribes, well, the ones that are still around, decided on an overall name for themselves?

Yep, we use our traditional names, still. Beyond that, we're American Indians or Native Americans.