---

races may be equal, but we aren't treated equally by the racist society that we live in. Being Native American, having never had the option of having a nation, I am for having more Indian Nationalism. Reservations are officially sovereign nations but in fact just get screwed over by the U.S. government by that status. We need actual sovereignty.

---

---

races may be equal, but we aren't treated equally by the racist society that we live in. Being Native American, having never had the option of having a nation, I am for having more Indian Nationalism. Reservations are officially sovereign nations but in fact just get screwed over by the U.S. government by that status. We need actual sovereignty.

---

What reservation do you know of that has the territory/tribe that has the membership necessary to constitute a functioning, independent state? Or are you instead envisioning something like a plurality of little Monacos; sovereign on paper, but practically exactly the same as the country engulfing it, with no room for political self determination.

---

Yeah, I assume that as you're mixed yourself.

---

---

Similar to Whites... I see...

---

---

Then good ol' George Washington wasn't an immigrant.

---

---

I'm sure their cotton kept my ancestors quite warm, but it would be foolish to value that over many White contributions.

---

---

Quote: from snowfish at 8:40 am on Oct. 15, 2008

---

races may be equal, but we aren't treated equally by the racist society that we live in. Being Native American, having never had the option of having a nation, I am for having more Indian Nationalism. Reservations are officially sovereign nations but in fact just get screwed over by the U.S. government by that status. We need actual sovereignty.

---

What reservation do you know of that has the territory/tribe that has the membership necessary to constitute a functioning, independent state? Or are you instead envisioning something like a plurality of little Monacos; sovereign on paper, but practically exactly the same as the country engulfing it, with no room for political self determination.

---

1) your latter description is just basically an overview of how rezes work today. As to needing large membership for a functioning state, there are a lot more indians out there than those federally recognized and there's not a minimum number of people needed to constitute a nation, tribal living worked for us for thousands of years. In the last 500 years we've had to abandon a lot of tribalism and work together with other indigenous folk as we all get lumped into the same catagory. On my rez for example, there are three tribes living together, only two of which are federally recognized (the other 1/3rd of the indians supposedly don't exist). Intertribal solidarity and banding together is necessary and I don't advocate a return to how things were before european contact, but to say that we are incapable of governing ourselves is ridiculous colonial diatribe.

-------
LW's resident eccentric radical.

Quote: from Bud2400 at 6:24 am on Oct. 9, 2008

---

1) If all races are truly inherently equal (and by that, I mean if hypothetically born under the same exact circumstances, with the only difference being their race), then what is the significance of keeping a certain racial group pure?  Why would it be important?

---

When those kinship groups mix they effectively destroy a nation and create a new nation. Being instinctivly conservative and frightened by rapid change not to mention rootlessness I found the idea of creating new nations and destroying the old ones concerning.

---

2) What are the dangers of racial intermixing?  If it's so important that we do not intermix despite our inherent equality, what kinds of negatives are we preventing?  Why would these negatives come about?

---

---

3) If you answered racial tensions in question #2, then is racial intermixing really the cause of the problem, or is self-identification with a race (that supposedly has little implications on a person due to every race's inherent equality) to the point that it forms a major part of one's identity, thereby leading groups to form and tensions to form between these groups more of the cause?

---

---

While believing all races to be inherently equal and also needing to remain separate is not a contradiction in and of itself, it seems to me that the reasoning for keeping the races separate appears to contradict that.  After all, if everyone individual was inherently equal despite the race, what would be the issue with intermixing?  If dangers come about from racial intermixing, it certainly could not be because both are inherently equal, could it?

---

The dangers I assume do not come from the fact that one race is "lower" than another and might drag the other down though so much as if, for example, one race has a more passionate temprament and another has a cooler one then the character of the nation can be altered by the introduction in large numbers of the different character. Even if its only a slight tendency it could, with large enough numbers effect things. Obviously some people might then paint passionateness or calmness as "better" or "worse" but really its no more true than to say a passionate or a calm individual is better than the other, which is to say its pretty much one of those "eye of the beholder" things.

Post edited at 6:14 am on Oct. 16, 2008 by osmoticdespair

-------
Κύριε ἐλέησον

---

I think even if tomorrow I turn out to be 100% asian I would feel the same way. Many of my "pure race" friends fel the same in fact. Its not like its unusual.

---

---

You say it. not me.

---

---

That's true. Not technically. But he MADE himself an immigrant when he created the new country.

---

---

So you DO place value on the basis of race. Yep just like Shaknbake proved.

---

Whites contributed pretty much all of the government - the constitution, the declaration of independance, ect, ect ect.

As I said, it would be foolish to value cotton over all of these historic happenings - that Whites did.

If Whites picked cotton and Negroes created the country, I wouldn't claim cotton was more important than the Negro achievements...

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

I doubt many mongrels are opposed to race mixing.

---

---

I don't think that's right....

---

---

Whites contributed pretty much all of the government - the constitution, the declaration of independance, ect, ect ect.

---

---

As I said, it would be foolish to value cotton over all of these historic happenings - that Whites did.

---

---

If Whites picked cotton and Negroes created the country, I wouldn't claim cotton was more important than the Negro achievements...

---

---

Just like many inbbreeders are opposed to inbreeding.

---

---

opnion opinion

---

---

And nonwhites contributed little right?

---

---

without the sale and profit from cotton and the real money it brings all the politics don't do shit.

---

---

And you'd be dead wrong.

---

---

That doesn't make any grammatical or factual sense.

---

http://www.helium.com/items/365169-cotton-and-its-impact-on-the-early-american-economy

Without the money and properity brought by the sale and production of cotton and many many other goods  it would have been harder for the US to develop an independent economy.

Anybody can just draft a paper and declare its independence. But making sure you have the goods to BE independent is what MAKES it real.

---

So cotton is more important, or equally important?

---

yep. its one thing to write words and make declarations. But SUPPORTING it with real work is what makes it real.

Post edited at 1:10 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Have trouble reading? Look up how the cotton economy contributed to the prosperity of the US, especially in the South. Look at the importance of cotton for British industry and textile even before the independence of the US.

 http://www.helium.com/items/365169-cotton-and-its-impact-on-the-early-american-economy

Without the money and properity brought by the sale and production of cotton and many many other goods  it would have been harder for the US to develop an independent economy.

Anybody can just draft a paper and declare its independence. But making sure you have the goods to BE independent is what MAKES it real.

yep. its one thing to write words and make declarations. But SUPPORTING it with real work is what makes it real.

---

Negroes set the laws for the land?

Negroes bought out large masses of land from Amerinds and fought them when they retaliated?

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

So Negroes fought the British for independence?  

---

---

African Americans — slave and free — served on both sides during the war. The British actively recruited slaves belonging to Patriot masters. Because of manpower shortages, George Washington lifted the ban on black enlistment in the Continental Army in January 1776. Small all-black units were formed in Rhode Island and Massachusetts; many were slaves promised freedom for serving. Another all-black unit came from Haiti with French forces. At least 5,000 black soldiers fought for the Revolutionary cause and more than 20,000 black soldiers fought on the British side

---

---

Negroes set the laws for the land?

---

[quite] Negroes bought out large masses of land from Amerinds and fought them when they retaliated?Actually they helped Amerians buy tat land

---

The first Africans to arrive in Jamestown were welcome additions to the labor force. They were needed for the tasks of opening the wilderness, clearing land, and building settlements around the Chesapeake Bay. The first Africans, as few as they were, fulfilled a sorely needed and relatively empty labor niche in Virginia society. They and the African immigrants that followed also served another equally important purpose. Under the head-right system, they enabled the growth of a new landowning middle class located socially between the gentleman who had been granted the Virginia Company land by the Crown and the laboring class of indentured servants and slaves.  

---

http://www.nps.gov/history/ethnography/aah/aaheritage/ChesapeakeA.htm

---

Seventeenth century slavery in the Chesapeake was flexible enough to provide enterprising Africans the opportunity to earn their freedom. Through the head-right system, colonists who helped populate the colony with slaves or indentured servants received ownership of 50 acres of Virginia Company land for each laborer they purchased or indentured. Upon completion of their term of service, freed indentured servants received "freedom dues," usually a quantity of clothing and corn. Slaves were sometime freed, or more often allowed to work for themselves, save their earnings, and seek to buy themselves out of slavery.  

Most of the free Africans and their descendants in Virginia became free in the 17th and early 18th century before chattel slavery became the law of the land. Many of them lived on Virginia's Eastern Shore.  

Freed slaves as well as former indentured servants could lease land, work, buy slaves, or indenture other servants thus gain head-rights and ownership of private land. Africans could, and some did participate in the head-right system. Most of what little we know or can speculate about Africans' cultural life in 17th century Virginia comes from the documentary evidence they left as they reached beyond the anonymity of enslavement to become recorded propertied men and women, taxpayers, plaintiffs or defendants in court proceedings.  

---

And again WORTH is not just measured by ownership of land. Otherwise you'd considere most white immigrants worthless. Only the rich educated white land owners would be worthwhile if we use only that measure. Compared to what whites were that would be only 1% of all white population really.  

Post edited at 10:27 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Yes they did. You didn't know that?

African Americans — slave and free — served on both sides during the war. The British actively recruited slaves belonging to Patriot masters. Because of manpower shortages, George Washington lifted the ban on black enlistment in the Continental Army in January 1776. Small all-black units were formed in Rhode Island and Massachusetts; many were slaves promised freedom for serving. Another all-black unit came from Haiti with French forces. At least 5,000 black soldiers fought for the Revolutionary cause[/b] and more than 20,000 black soldiers fought on the British side

---

And, as it said, many were slaves and forced to fight - or fought to be freed. They didn't care about the USA itself, Britain wasn't treating the USA unwell.

---

Again making laws is one thing. [b]Helping the economy so that the country can REALLY be independent is ALSO important.

---

How much intelligence/effort is needed to pick a piece of cotton? How much is needed to make a country?

---

Actually they helped Amerians buy tat land

The first Africans to arrive in Jamestown were welcome additions to the labor force. They were needed for the tasks of opening the wilderness, clearing land, and building settlements around the Chesapeake Bay. The first Africans, as few as they were, fulfilled a sorely needed and relatively empty labor niche in Virginia society. They and the African immigrants that followed also served another equally important purpose. Under the head-right system, they enabled the growth of a new landowning middle class located socially between the gentleman who had been granted the Virginia Company land by the Crown and the laboring class of indentured servants and slaves.

http://www.nps.gov/history/ethnography/aah/aaheritage/ChesapeakeA.htm

Seventeenth century slavery in the Chesapeake was flexible enough to provide enterprising Africans the opportunity to earn their freedom. Through the head-right system, colonists who helped populate the colony with slaves or indentured servants received ownership of 50 acres of Virginia Company land for each laborer they purchased or indentured. Upon completion of their term of service, freed indentured servants received "freedom dues," usually a quantity of clothing and corn. Slaves were sometime freed, or more often allowed to work for themselves, save their earnings, and seek to buy themselves out of slavery.

Most of the free Africans and their descendants in Virginia became free in the 17th and early 18th century before chattel slavery became the law of the land. Many of them lived on Virginia's Eastern Shore.

Freed slaves as well as former indentured servants could lease land, work, buy slaves, or indenture other servants thus gain head-rights and ownership of private land. Africans could, and some did participate in the head-right system. Most of what little we know or can speculate about Africans' cultural life in 17th century Virginia comes from the documentary evidence they left as they reached beyond the anonymity of enslavement to become recorded propertied men and women, taxpayers, plaintiffs or defendants in court proceedings.

And again WORTH is not just measured by ownership of land. Otherwise you'd considere most white immigrants worthless. Only the rich educated white land owners would be worthwhile if we use only that measure. Compared to what whites were that would be only 1% of all white population really.

---

---

How much intelligence/effort is needed to pick a piece of cotton? How much is needed to make a country?

---

Did they develop the institutions and culture of North America, no, although they did have a stronger influence on pop-culture than you seem to give credit for.

But the fact is that the leisure to create the institutions and culture of North America was available to the upper class (who were overwhelmingly white) due to the day to day toil of workers (slaves or otherwise) - a significant proportion of whom especially in the South were black, to dismiss the contribution of the slaves to the nation is like dismissing the contribution of the vast majority of people in any nation who actually do the drudge work - without which there would be no nation.

-------
Κύριε ἐλέησον

---

5,000.. Compare that to the total death count.

---

---

And, as it said, many were slaves and forced to fight - or fought to be freed.

---

---

They didn't care about the USA itself,  

---

---

Britain wasn't treating the USA unwell.

---

---

They were forced to work -

---

---

nobody was forced to make laws and build the nation.

---

---

How much intelligence/effort is needed to pick a piece of cotton? How much is needed to make a country?

---

BOTH take effort and lots of it. Or you saying all of the efforts of ALL the whites that were NOT in government and were just workers DONT count? All those farmers and peasant and militia and ppl that did noy make laws DON'T count to you?

---

I know that Negroes had slaves, they usually treated them worse than the White owners.

---

---

to dismiss the contribution of the slaves to the nation is like dismissing the contribution of the vast majority of people in any nation who actually do the drudge work - without which there would be no nation.

---