| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sody
Joined: 14 May 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Aboriginals in Canada - treated like crap 
I hear in Toronto it's even worse but then again in Toronto Black people are treated badly. But I guess Black people are treated poorly in most places.
Sody |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tony_Balony
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Five Civilized Tribes is the term applied to five Native American nations, the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole, considered "civilized" by white society because they had adopted many of the colonists' customs and had generally good relations with their neighbors. The Five Civilized Tribes lived in the Southeastern United States before their removal to other parts of the country, especially the future Oklahoma. Today, many Native Americans, especially those from other nations, find the "Five Civilized Tribes" label patronizing or racist. When the tribes are discussed together, sometimes the modified label "Five Tribes" is used to avoid the suggestion that other indigenous peoples were savages. |
The Cherokee mentioned above are doing very well, people can learn much from them. You can call them the "master race" of Indians and be kind of right. They are the ones that are least hurting. They recently had a scufflaw in that there were Black members of the tribe that were either escaped slaves or freemen that lived with the Cherokee. They and thier decsendents were given associate status tribal membership. The Cherokee just kicked them all out. Is that "well"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rapacious Mr. Batstove
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: Central Areola
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony_Balony wrote: |
Yes it does - lack of friction means peace, its a real peace. Its an absence of agitation not entirely due to stupification by head clubbing.
The Northwest Indians want to whale, PETA says no. In the midwest the Indians want to spearfish, the locals say no. As of late the nature of the confrontations have been superficial. Indians have been generally sucking up to the Fed and acting docile so that the get tribal recognition and then more benefits. The last bad thing i've read about my states Indians have been Latin gang activity on the reservations.
|
Lack of friction means peace? Lack of friction means conditions are improving? Sounds like balony to me.
Good one.
Natives can challenge local authorities on fishing rights and should be adjudicated as so according to general policy. I wouldn't call that friction.
Tribes sucking up to the feds to get tribal recognition? If you had been put on a reservation in the first place you'd probably fighting your way to the surface in any way you could as well. Even the tern 'sucking up' sounds like you have some kind of bias.
Latin gang activity? Looks like blatant finger pointing to the majority over an isolated case. Bias.
Sounds like native race relations are all smooth in America. Keep convincing yourself of that TB, and keep the man down while you're there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony_Balony
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, I had so much information to share you are such a p*ick. I worked for the USPHS which runs the IHS-Indian Health Service. This means I'm veritable expert on the matter. I know all about thier business and all of thier secrets because I could read their medical records. My coworkers got hired due to Indian preference which means they were Indians.
| Quote: |
Code of Federal Regulations
Title 25 -- Indians
CHAPTER V -- BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Canada is the best. In Canada Indians can stage illegal blockades of roads and shoot police and not be punished for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:20 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darkhorse_NZ
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i read about how the Tasmanians lost the ability to make fire, build boats and refused to eat fish despite living on an island. It's just craziness how they managed to survive there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| he origin of the name 'All Blacks' relates to the first uniform worn by the team in which there we no native players. |
Actually the name arises from the fact that a Brittish journalist covering the 1905 tour described them as playing like "all backs" as in they were all very attacking runners, and this became a typo "all blacks", and the name stuck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darkhorse_NZ
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Quote: |
| he origin of the name 'All Blacks' relates to the first uniform worn by the team in which there we no native players. |
Actually the name arises from the fact that a Brittish journalist covering the 1905 tour described them as playing like "all backs" as in they were all very attacking runners, and this became a typo "all blacks", and the name stuck. |
is that confirmed? or isn't it still disputed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rapacious Mr. Batstove
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: Central Areola
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Quote: |
| he origin of the name 'All Blacks' relates to the first uniform worn by the team in which there we no native players. |
Actually the name arises from the fact that a Brittish journalist covering the 1905 tour described them as playing like "all backs" as in they were all very attacking runners, and this became a typo "all blacks", and the name stuck. |
Perhaps. It's been debated for 100 years.
http://www.natlib.govt.nz/collections/highlighted-items/1905-all-blacks
| Quote: |
The New Zealand rugby team that toured the United Kingdom in 1905-06 was the first to be known as the All Blacks.
When they began the tour, the team was usually called the New Zealand Football Team or the New Zealanders. The name �All Blacks� first appeared in an article written about a match played in Hartlepool on 11 October 1905, published in the Daily Mail.
Debate rages over whether the name came from the team�s uniform (all black, except for the silver fern on the jersey and white bootlaces) or from a mistake in a newspaper article, where the description of the team being made up of 'all backs' was misprinted as 'all blacks'.
You can read about the debate in Ron Palenski�s book about the All Blacks, The jersey (2001). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
