• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About youngrebelfan40

  • Rank
    Real World 'Merican and Liburul Bashur

Profile Information

  • Team
  • Gender
  • Location
    Gucci Row
  • Interests
    Sanchizing Fools

Recent Profile Visitors

14,434 profile views
  1. There is no"original culture", Native culture is and was changing all the time, before and after European contact. However, many indegenous peoples still maintain communal practices and ways of thought despite Western influence. Many property-holding values are imbued with indigenous precepts in complex ways depending on the tribe. There is not a black and white, Western conception of self and property in many instances however
  2. Many cultures didn't even have a conception of the "individual" or the private self with rights, so for them, the existence of such is questionable. The Enlightenment ideal of "individual" is actually a relatively recently constructed Western phenomenon that is quite antithetical to the vast majority of human experience. As for its objective truth, I think you're a little punch drunk off of your own society's ontology to make that statement for sure. But regarding the topic, in the world we live in, yes, individual rights must be respected in the United States' sphere of sovereignty. I'm just saying what you view as "oppression" may be quite different for those who experience it. Such a feeling of violated personal liberty is not a human universal.
  3. It's not about what I would do, it's about what they want to do. That's the whole point of self-determination. Some tribes will want to invite corps in to mine or use the land, some will not, and both need to be respected equally by the federal government, because that's what they want to do.
  4. These people are respected in their community and viewed as leaders. They are representative of tribal interests.
  5. Allotment Having to register tribal identities Just look at almost any BIA policy pre-2000.
  6. The problem is that your assignation of "oppression" is fairly Eurocentric. I know that the existence of free individuals is kind of a given in Western world, but many indigenous tribes have never operated off of this principle. Decisions have always been communal, and many associate with community first, not individuality. This is okay: it's not even necessarily incompatible with self-determination. Of course if individual members want to leave they should be able to, but the US government needs to respect tribal and communal decision-making.
  7. Yes, it's actually part of my academic focus so I'm pretty up to date on issues in various communities. I have working relationships with several Narive American community activists/academics
  8. Uh, the whole point was against generalizations: the situations across tribes are vastly different and thus require different solutions and different levels of government involvement. What I'm saying is more of a general principle: let the tribes decide their future, not the government, but help them as much as they want, need, or request along the way. Most of their problems are the result of white bureaucrats deciding what is best for them, not themselves.
  9. Where the hell would you get that from what I wrote? Are you brain-damaged?
  10. Well, the government certainly is responsible for most problems in the Native American community, both historically and currently, because they annihilated indigenous lifeways, stole land, murdered and raped their way across the continent, and then set up what were essentially prison camps called reservations where Indians were forced to conform to white norms, which was incredibly difficult due to cultural differences. This video obviously has an agenda though: economic exploitation of reservation lands may not always be the solution. I'm 100% for self-determination, and the way I see it, the US government owes them one (or many). So really, the solution should be to let individual tribes do whatever the hell they want, and the government should subsidize or get out of the way as much as needed. That's why I'm 1000% for Indian casinos controlled and operated by the tribe in which they are materially benefitting. If the tribe, without outside influence, decides on inviting corporations in to frack or mine, let them do it. If it decides it wants to live a more traditional lifestyle, let them do that too. If they need "welfare", give it to them. We owe it to them after stealing their means of providing for themselves and MAKING them dependent.
  11. Her life's mission has been scrubbing her father's legacy of blatant racism and anti-Semitism and packaging similar policies into a nicely couched "xenophobia for kids" that's more palatable to the general public
  12. Something in your church is fishy. Male sexual capital is important too, sexist!
  13. Actually I just made that up I'm high on Ritalin and caffeine grading undergrad papers all night and my brain is producing marvelous things
  14. Ah, so you're saying she was a whore? Yep, couldn't be that your cult is judgemental and restrictive of social behavior. Must be the whore's fault. And before you blow a gasket Rozzie it's not that I have anything against the Mormon church per se. It's probably just as socially exclusionary and controlling as any other close-knit sect. Systematic external codes of sexual behavior have a keen psychological effect on those who buy into them, it's a great way to create an "in-group" that feels almost organic, connected to biology. Of course, in order for a cult to function properly all female sexual capital must be kept within the "in-group", both for pleasure of the patriarch and for reproductive purposes. It's actually ingenious.
  15. Nope she was divorced, and dating a non-LDS man. As for sex, how would I, or they even know, or go about knowing such a thing? Do you ask unmarried women in your congregation (or whatever your sect calls it) if they are having sex?