Movement!!! MOVEMENT PLEASE READ.

[happy fool called Nigel]

By the way, sorry for posting this in the Voices in your Head forum, the other ones were disabled because of the stupid Hell thing.


This an organization I'm forming, and suggestions for a new name or anything in general would be welcomed.


An organized group of non-violent guerrilla agents dedicated to the ending of the European-based occupation of The Americas and the re-establishment of a non-centralized and peaceful Native American government.



Our mission is clear.

We will not stage a holocaust.


We are not terrorists.

We will not establish a dictatorship or a racist government.


we are:

Indigenous
Peoples
Ending the
Oppression and
Occupation of the
Americas

ipeooa


See, it would be like... France.

Who lives there, mainly? French People. Who runs the place? The French. The French government.

Can I move there? Can you? Can some guy from China move there and make his own business? Yes.








Comments?

Assistance?

Questions? I'd be glad to answer them.

[randyhart]

It doesn't have enough flavour or clear message for what you really want to do.....


"European-based occupation of The Americas and the re-establishment of a non-centralized and peaceful Native American government."

What ever do you mean? American people living here?

[happy fool called Nigel]

randyhart Wrote:It doesn't have enough flavour or clear message for what you really want to do.....


"European-based occupation of The Americas and the re-establishment of a non-centralized and peaceful Native American government."

What ever do you mean? American people living here?

'European-based occupation'

The Europeans came to the America's and suppressed the majority Native Americans by means of a Holocaust. Afterwards, people from all over the world joined in on the occupation (We're still fucking here!) and it continues to this day.

're-establishment of a non-centralized and peaceful Native American government.'

Re-establishment: To re-establish something. In this case, a Government.

Non-centralized: A centralized government is a government that revolves around one central authority. Like America.

A non-centralized government: The opposite

Peaceful Native American government: The Native Americans are the ones in the government. Other people can help, but it's mainly Native Americans.

[randyhart]

Native Americana's as in Pocahontas?

I don't know I think it sounds Fascist like Native Americana's know everything or something

[happy fool called Nigel]

randyhart Wrote:Native Americana's as in Pocahontas?

I don't know I think it sounds Fascist like Native Americana's know everything or something

Sorry if I gave that impression. It's just that, like... if you live there, you have always lived there, and in pretty much every aspect, it's your land, why not run your own government?

By the way, I despise fascism and will to everything in my power to fight it.

[lifelongblondmoment]

i am really confused you used too many big words you need to dumb it down

[SoulRiser]

Quote:It's just that, like... if you live there, you have always lived there, and in pretty much every aspect, it's your land, why not run your own government?

So if the "European Invaders" (who are all dead now) live there, they have always lived there, and it's their land too?

[happy fool called Nigel]

SoulRiser Wrote:

Quote:It's just that, like... if you live there, you have always lived there, and in pretty much every aspect, it's your land, why not run your own government?

So if the "European Invaders" (who are all dead now) live there, they have always lived there, and it's their land too?

as a whole, they have only been here for about five hundred years, which is almost relatively nothing compared to how long us natives have been here.

[happy fool called Nigel]

lifelongblondmoment Wrote:i am really confused you used too many big words you need to dumb it down

do you think you could help? I would welcome it, if you know how.

[SoulRiser]

So... what do you want to do? Just rename America so it sounds more like Native American... somethingorother?

What do you want? Recognition for people who died? Do you want someone in present day to apologize for what their ancestors did? What would be the point of this?

[Rebelnerd]

sorry, i'm not going to support this. if it was some movement to get better living conditions for indians living on reservations or to pay some reparations or something, then that's great. but putting the natives back in power is ridiculous. just because your distant ancestors lived somewhere doesn't mean it still belongs to you, and even though america did some pretty evil stuff to the indians, it doesn't mean we should carry on the feud into the 21st century. that was over a hundred years ago, get over it! the indian wars are over, they're not getting shot and infected with smallpox blankets anymore. except on the reservations, the indians aren't being oppressed and it's not worth a total upheaval to fix a few pieces of land. it's stupid to act like white people alive today somehow bear responsability for what our ancestors did so long ago. i'm sorry, but the last thing the world needs now is more racism.

[i-am-the-liquor]

i agree, but evrybody should fight one commen enemy,capitilisim

[happy fool called Nigel]

SoulRiser Wrote:So... what do you want to do? Just rename America so it sounds more like Native American... somethingorother?

What do you want? Recognition for people who died? Do you want someone in present day to apologize for what their ancestors did? What would be the point of this?

The ending of the European-based occupation of The Americas and the re-establishment of a non-centralized and peaceful Native American government.

I think it's pretty clear.

[happy fool called Nigel]

Rebelnerd Wrote:just because your distant ancestors lived somewhere doesn't mean it still belongs to you

Actually, it does. Treaties were made my Natives and Americans alike, and they let the Naatives keep their land.

Those treaties have been blatantly broken by the US government.

Rebelnerd Wrote:except on the reservations, the indians aren't being oppressed and it's not worth a total upheaval to fix a few pieces of land.

Actually, we are. That's the most simple way to put it. We are being oppressed. And as for a 'few peices of land', The Americas. Both continents.

Rebelnerd Wrote:it's stupid to act like white people alive today somehow bear responsibility for what our ancestors did so long ago. i'm sorry, but the last thing the world needs now is more racism.

I'm not being racist! Never will be! I don't think it's a very racist thing to want Native Americans to govern their own land.

Besides, I never said white people. Europeans came, conquered, and let everybody else come in. Btw, I am half white myself, so don't think I hate white people.

[SoulRiser]

Quote:I don't think it's a very racist thing to want Native Americans to govern their own land.

That's the racist part. You're advocating a particular "race" owning land. Whoever lives there owns the land. Not someone else based on their "race".

The Native Americans owned the land when they lived on it. It was wrong of the Europeans to take it from them. Making the modern "europeans" (who are now Americans, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the original conflict) give it back would not right that wrong from long ago. It would make another wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Rebelnerd]

i just don't think it's right to make billions of white give up the place they live just because their distant ancestors did something bad. i agree that life on the reservations is shit, i've seen them and it's appalling. that's a just cause that's worth fighting for, but trying to put ancient tribes back in power is ridiculous. politics change. if the distant past is what you want to base modern politics on, then should the Church get total domination of Europe because they once "owned" it? should the Czar be brought back in Russia? and don't start saying that it's different because the indians were "good" and the europeans were "bad," the Aztecs were the most savage butchers in the western hemisphere until smallpox arrived. you want them in power again? tying race to politican domination is not a good idea.

[Bob Dole]

Okay. Here's a fucking concept. Nobody owns land. Everyone just thinks they do. Now, quit bitching about who owns land, realize that there are more important things to correct, and then fix them.

[happy fool called Nigel]

SoulRiser Wrote:

Quote:I don't think it's a very racist thing to want Native Americans to govern their own land.

That's the racist part. You're advocating a particular "race" owning land. Whoever lives there owns the land. Not someone else based on their "race".

The Native Americans owned the land when they lived on it. It was wrong of the Europeans to take it from them. Making the modern "europeans" (who are now Americans, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the original conflict) give it back would not right that wrong from long ago. It would make another wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I don't think it's wrong.

Again, it's an occupation. (And they didn't take all of it.)

Would you think it was wrong for Tibet to take back it's own country from the Chinese, for Tibetans?

[happy fool called Nigel]

Anonymous1.0 Wrote:Okay. Here's a fucking concept. Nobody owns land. Everyone just thinks they do. Now, quit bitching about who owns land, realize that there are more important things to correct, and then fix them.

Wtf man.

Gaining independence. Not just land. Being ourselves. Our own government. Not the U.S. Government.


And I'm not bitching. Actually trying to make an organization and trying to get something done about it is not 'bitching'.

[happy fool called Nigel]

Rebelnerd Wrote:i just don't think it's right to make billions of white give up the place they live just because their distant ancestors did something bad. i agree that life on the reservations is shit, i've seen them and it's appalling. that's a just cause that's worth fighting for, but trying to put ancient tribes back in power is ridiculous. politics change. if the distant past is what you want to base modern politics on, then should the Church get total domination of Europe because they once "owned" it? should the Czar be brought back in Russia? and don't start saying that it's different because the indians were "good" and the europeans were "bad," the Aztecs were the most savage butchers in the western hemisphere until smallpox arrived. you want them in power again? tying race to politican domination is not a good idea.

1. PEOPLE CAN STILL LIVE HERE. Didn't you read what I wrote?


This isn't 'giving up land'. It's about letting us govern ourselves and our home.

And seriously, it wasn't that long ago. 8 generations, at the most.

Not to forget:


Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

1924.


We've only been allowed to vote for 83 years! 83 out of about 500 years that other people have been here.

Seriously guys. That's the racist part.


2. Ancient tribes? WE'RE STILL HERE! WE ARE INTACT! NOT EXTINCT! We're as ancient as everybody else!


3. The church never owned Europe.

4. I'M NOT A FUCKING RACIST.

There were bad native Americans and there were good Native Americans. There were bad Europeans and there were good Europeans.


And the Aztecs were not the most savage butchers in the western hemisphere until smallpox arrived. I don't know who were, but it wasn't them And you can't just classify a whole tribe as 'savage butchers'. Who's prejudice now?


5. "tying race to politican domination is not a good idea."


We wouldn't even be considered our own race if we hadn't become so few that we all had to tie together. And if you don't want to talk on terms of race, then fine.

I want 'the people who lived in North America and South America' before 'any body else' came, to govern the land that they lived on (and still do!) before other people moved in at random and said it was theirs.

[SoulRiser]

Well, you want a certain group of people to have more control of land than other people who also live there. That's unfair. I'm not saying the way it is NOW is right either, but if you want people here to support you, you'll have to come up with something that will be better for EVERYONE, not just one group of people.

[happy fool called Nigel]

SoulRiser Wrote:Well, you want a certain group of people to have more control of land than other people who also live there. That's unfair. I'm not saying the way it is NOW is right either, but if you want people here to support you, you'll have to come up with something that will be better for EVERYONE, not just one group of people.

I admit, it may be viewed as a bit unfair, and yes, it is very unfair now.


And besides, It's not like it can be ONLY natives. Look at America. Our governor of California is from Austria.

[SoulRiser]

Quote:It's not like it can be ONLY natives. Look at America. Our governor of California is from Austria.

Then why don't you just get more natives to run for office now? Wouldn't that be the same thing?

[happy fool called Nigel]

SoulRiser Wrote:

Quote:It's not like it can be ONLY natives. Look at America. Our governor of California is from Austria.

Then why don't you just get more natives to run for office now? Wouldn't that be the same thing?

No, it wouldn't actually. New laws. We do it our way. And if we get this done, it would be easier than just having more natives run.

[happy fool called Nigel]

But I thank you for being reasonable, Soulriser.

[SoulRiser]

What would these new laws be?

[Shuri]

1) The indigenous peoples of what is now called America still own the land. Nigel has made this clear.
2) The treaties our ancestors made, which effectively rented this land out to the Europeans who claimed to have nowhere else to go, have been broken. This means, SoulRiser, you're living here illegally.
3) If I went to Italy, stuck a flag in the ground, and claimed it as mine by right of discovery, is it mine? If I formed a successful, hostile occupation of France, made legitimate treaties and then broke them, used military force to wipe out most of the Native French and did my best to erase them from history, does France still belong to my descendants three generations later just because they didn't actually do anything? If the French wanted their land back, would they be wrong? No.
4) I don't care if you didn't actually commit any of those crimes. You're still reaping the benefits. I'm still forced to live under the occupation your ancestors enforced. You want to stay here? Why don't you go live on a reservation? Were you aware that was actually the original agreement made between most of the indigenous peoples and the invading Europeans they corresponded with? The Europeans were to remain on set pieces of land, and if they crossed their boundaries, they were officially trespassing.
5) If Hitler actually carried out his Holocaust without fail, would he have a right to any lands he conquered? Would his descendants? Stop trying to pass off your personal innocence as some sort of defense. You say two wrongs don't make a right. I don't see one wrong making a right, either.

Edit: Nigel, I think you'll find this interesting:
http://www.republicoflakota.com/

[Rebelnerd]

the Aztecs WERE savages. they raped, conquered, burned, pillaged, and massacred every village and tribe within reach, and cut out their prisoners' beating hearts with a knife every day for their god. when the Europeans arrived, many natives agreed to fight WITH THEM just so they could get a shot at the Aztecs and avenge their people.
oh, right, but they were the BAD natives. and the Europeans who took over were the bad ones. my point is that that was a long time ago, they are not the same ones! what if some of the white in power now are the "good" Europeans (if they can even be classified as Europeans, which seems stupid seeing as many whites today have no connection with Europe, and we fought our own war against them)? when you have the indians take over again, what happens to the land that was ruled by the "bad" ones? who gets to pass judgement on that? not all of the indians were good at governing their people, just because they lived here first doesn't give them any special right to drag innocent people of European descent into that. and what happens when some of the "bad" indians try to bring back their old ways, and the people say no? your idea sounds really nice and inspirational as an internet speech, but in reality it won't work.

[Shuri]

Rebelnerd Wrote:the Aztecs WERE savages. they raped, conquered, burned, pillaged, and massacred every village and tribe within reach, and cut out their prisoners' beating hearts with a knife every day for their god. when the Europeans arrived, many natives agreed to fight WITH THEM just so they could get a shot at the Aztecs and avenge their people.

You're thinking of the Aztec Empire. I don't know what Nigel would support, but I would put the Aztecs back in power where they were originally.

Rebelnerd Wrote:oh, right, but they were the BAD natives. and the Europeans who took over were the bad ones. my point is that that was a long time ago, they are not the same ones!

No, but guess who has legal ownership? I'm sorry, "America" is incorrect. Try again.

Rebelnerd Wrote:what if some of the white in power now are the "good" Europeans (if they can even be classified as Europeans, which seems stupid seeing as many whites today have no connection with Europe, and we fought our own war against them)? when you have the indians take over again, what happens to the land that was ruled by the "bad" ones? who gets to pass judgement on that?

Yes, you fought a war for independence and in doing so oppressed another group of nations. That's what this government needs. More hypocrisy. And by lineage, all white people have connections with Europe, and are therefore Europeans. But you're missing the point. The point is that it's none of your business. WE are ruled by YOU. YOU have no right to rule US. WE want to rule OURSELVES. It's about our right to freedom and sovereignty. Figure it out.
And while I'm at it, who's the one "passing judgement" on the Europeans' actions?

Rebelnerd Wrote:not all of the indians were good at governing their people, just because they lived here first doesn't give them any special right to drag innocent people of European descent into that.

GUESS WHAT. None of the Europeans governed their people well. Go figure. Stop pointing fingers and get your head out of your ass. We're not saying "you're evil". We're saying "get your laws out of our faces". So the Aztec empire was oppressive and destructive. That's understood. I didn't see them take a ship over to Europe and rape and kill and plunder from and take over the land of all the European nations.

Rebelnerd Wrote:and what happens when some of the "bad" indians try to bring back their old ways, and the people say no? your idea sounds really nice and inspirational as an internet speech, but in reality it won't work.

Wrong. It IS working. Native people are taking a stand and getting things done. There's a movement going on right now for the Lakota to declare sovereignty (see other post). I don't see the world going to hell in a handbag just because the indigenous peoples get their rights back.

[SoulRiser]

Quote:This means, SoulRiser, you're living here illegally.

I live in South Africa

I don't care who was wherever first, or who legally owns whatever land, I only care about them trying their best to get along wherever they are now.