After all the accomplishments and invention made by african american you'd think that we the descendan't would want to celebrate our ancestors. However Ifind that there are more blacks who are obsessed with claiming native american moreso than black. Although most of these blacks have no proof of any kind they are still obsessed with claiming and Indian heritage and I want to know why what did Indians do so important and where's the proof that we are mostly Indians when we are clearly just black.

Teleroda ... Hello and Welcome ... :wave:

I think that it's more about being something other than Black. In a country where being Black is the worse thing you can be, the most oppressed, the poorest, the least likely to get positive considerations ... who wouldn't want to be something other than that, if they could?

This is how we've been conditioned to be, by the years of oppresion. Never be proud of being Black.

Just like some of us don't want to marry / date our own, folk who don't look like us are more appealing to them.

At the same time, i'm sure there are many Black folk who have Native American blood coursing through their veins, and should rightfully be able to claim that ... whether they ever provide enough evidence for others to believe it.

What do Native Americans / Indians prefer being called ... Native Americans or Indians?

No disrespect intended, i just don't know.

Thanks for joining us, and please make yourself at home.

:heart:

Destee

After all the accomplishments and invention made by african american you'd think that we the descendan't would want to celebrate our ancestors. However Ifind that there are more blacks who are obsessed with claiming native american moreso than black. Although most of these blacks have no proof of any kind they are still obsessed with claiming and Indian heritage and I want to know why what did Indians do so important and where's the proof that we are mostly Indians when we are clearly just black.

It doesn't have anything to do with accomplishments. It's more a matter of thinking that having something 'else' makes you more attractive. Like Destee said, being just black means you're at the bottom of the barrel. So if you have other blood in you, you must be better.

The black community needs to find beauty and acceptance for all types of blackness. A darker-skinned person with kinky hair is just as beautiful and worthy as a lighter-skinned curly-haired mixed individual.

Teleroda ... Hello and Welcome ... :wave:

I think that it's more about being something other than Black. In a country where being Black is the worse thing you can be, the most oppressed, the poorest, the least likely to get positive considerations ... who wouldn't want to be something other than that, if they could?

This is how we've been conditioned to be, by the years of oppresion. Never be proud of being Black.

Just like some of us don't want to marry / date our own, folk who don't look like us are more appealing to them.

At the same time, i'm sure there are many Black folk who have Native American blood coursing through their veins, and should rightfully be able to claim that ... whether they ever provide enough evidence for others to believe it.

What do Native Americans / Indians prefer being called ... Native Americans or Indians?

No disrespect intended, i just don't know.

Thanks for joining us, and please make yourself at home.

:heart:

Destee

Indian is considered a racist term. Native American is a lot more respectful.

I used to have an online friend who was half Native American. She hipped me to this along with other interesting things about how life is for them currently.

I too agree that some blacks probably have some indian blood and that is just some but w for those who say we are all of indian descent are just plain self hating to me.

Indian is considered a racist term. Native American is a lot more respectful.

I used to have an online friend who was half Native American. She hipped me to this along with other interesting things about how life is for them currently.

Most indians though would rather be identified with their tribe rather than anything else. There are pow-wows in my area and the people working the booths will ask people if they're indian or not, the people doing the asking are Indian. I've never heard that it's a racist term.

Indian is considered a racist term. Native American is a lot more respectful. I used to have an online friend who was half Native American. She hipped me to this along with other interesting things about how life is for them currently.

Indian as applied to Native Americans is a misinformed term. These people were called Indians because Colombus intended to travel to the Indies, and thought he arrived in India, when he reached the shores of Barbados. Thus he classified the people Indians, and that is what most Americans have called the various native American tribes since! The only true Indians are in Asia. Native Americans never have been Indian.

Just a question and a statement. I personally don't know many people who claim they are American Indian, But the indegenious people of this country have a heritage simular to ours they are very spiriyual people worhip the God's even as African traditional religon. They have endured much through the hands of the Oppressors as we have they were nearly wiped out by genocide But I am aDescendant of African slaves I claim African as who I am. I am going to post a speech by a chief very interesting I would ask that you read it

For America To Live, Europe Must Die! By Russell Means, member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) The following speech was given by Russell Means in July 1980, before several thousand people who had assembled from all over the world for the Black Hills International Survival Gathering, in the Black Hills of South Dakota. It is Russell Means' most famous speech. The only possible opening for a statement of this kind is that I detest writing. The process itself epitomizes the European concept of "legitimate" thinking; what is written has an importance that is denied the spoken. My culture, the Lakota culture, has an oral tradition, so I ordinarily reject writing. It is one of the white world's ways of destroying the cultures of non-European peoples, the imposing of an abstraction over the spoken relationship of a people. So what you read here is not what I've written. It's what I've said and someone else has written down. I will allow this because it seems that the only way to communicate with the white world is through the dead, dry leaves of a book. I don't really care whether my words reach whites or not. They have already demonstrated through their history that they cannot hear, cannot see; they can only read (of course, there are exceptions, but the exceptions only prove the rule). I'm more concerned with American Indian people, students and others, who have begun to be absorbed into the white world through universities and other institutions. But even then it's a marginal sort of concern. It's very possible to grow into a red face with a white mind; and if that's a person's individual choice, so be it, but I have no use for them. This is part of the process of cultural genocide being waged by Europeans against American Indian peoples' today. My concern is with those American Indians wh! o choose to resist this genocide, but who may be confused as to how to proceed. (You notice I use the term American Indian rather than Native American or Native indigenous people or Amerindian when referring to my people. There has been some controversy about such terms, and frankly, at this point. I find it absurd. Primarily it seems that American Indian is being rejected as European in origin-which is true. But all the above terms are European in origin; the only non-European way is to speak of Lakota-or, more precisely, of Oglala, Brule, etc.-and of the Dineh, the Miccousukee, and all the rest of the several hundred correct tribal names. (There is also some confusion about the word Indian, a mistaken belief that it refers somehow to the country, India. When Columbus washed up on the beach in the Caribbean, he was not looking for a country called India. Europeans were calling that country Hindustan in 1492. Look it up on the old maps. Columbus called the tribal people he met "Indio," from the Italian in dio, meaning "in God.") It takes a strong effort on the part of each American Indian not to become Europeanized. The strength for this effort can only come from the traditional ways, the traditional values that our elders retain. It must come from the hoop, the four directions, the relations: it cannot come from the pages of a book or a thousand books. No European can ever teach a Lakota to be Lakota, a Hopi to be Hopi. A master's degree in "Indian Studies" or in "education" or in anything else cannot make a person into a human being or provide knowledge into traditional ways. It can only make you into a mental European, an outsider. I should be clear about something here, because there seems to be some confusion about it. When I speak of Europeans or mental Europeans, I'm not allowing for false distinctions. I'm not saying that on the one hand there are the by-products of a few thousand years of genocidal, reactionary. European intellectual development which is bad; and on the other hand there is some new revolutionary intellectual development which is good. I'm referring here to the so-called theories of Marxism and anarchism and "leftism" in general. I don't believe these theories can be separated from the rest of the of the European intellectual tradition. It's really just the same old song. The process began much earlier. Newton, for example, "revolutionized" physics and the so-called natural sciences by reducing the physical universe to a linear mathematical equation. Descartes did the same thing with culture. John Locke did it with politics, and Adam Smith did it with economics. Each one of these "thinkers" took a piece of the spirituality of human existence and converted it into code, an abstraction. They picked up where Christianity ended: they "secularized" Christian religion, as the "scholars" like to say- and in doing so they made Europe more able and ready to act as an expansionist culture. Each of these intellectual revolutions served to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and spirituality from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer! This is what has come to be termed "efficiency" in the European mind. Whatever is mechanical is perfect; whatever seems to work at the moment- that is, proves the mechanical model to be the right one- is considered correct, even when it is clearly untrue. This is why "truth" changes so fast in the European mind; the answers which result from such a process are only stopgaps, only temporary, and must be continuously discarded in favor of new stopgaps which support the mechanical models and keep them (the models) alive. Hegel and Marx were heirs to the thinking of Newton, Descartes, Locke and Smith. Hegel finished the process of secularizing theology- and that is put in his own terms- he secularized the religious thinking through which Europe understood the universe. Then Marx put Hegel's philosophy in terms of "materialism," which is to say that Marx despiritualized Hegel's work altogether. Again, this is in Marx' own terms. And this is now seen as the future revolutionary potential of Europe. Europeans may see this as revolutionary, but American Indians see it simply as still more of that same old European conflict between being and gaining. The intellectual roots of a new Marxist form of European imperialism lie in Marx'- and his followers'- links to the tradition of Newton, Hegel and the others. Being is a spiritual proposition. Gaining is a material act. Traditionally, American Indians have always attempted to be the best people they could. Part of that spiritual process was and is to give away wealth, to discard wealth in order not to gain. Material gain is an indicator of false status among traditional people, while it is "proof that the system works" to Europeans. Clearly, there are two completely opposing views at issue here, and Marxism is very far over to the other side from the American Indian view. But let's look at a major implication of this; it is not merely an intellectual debate. The European materialist tradition of despiritualizing the universe is very similar to the mental process which goes into dehumanizing another person. And who seems most expert at dehumanizing other people? And why? Soldiers who have seen a lot of combat learn to do this to the enemy before going back into combat. Murderers do it before going out to commit murder. Nazi SS guards did it to concentration camp inmates. Cops do it. Corporation leaders do it to the workers they send into uranium mines and steel mills. Politicians do it to everyone in sight. And what the process has in common for each group doing the dehumanizing is that it makes it all right to kill and otherwise destroy other people. One of the Christian commandments says, "Thou shalt not kill," at least not humans, so the trick is to mentally convert the victims into nonhumans. Then you can proclaim violation of your own commandment as a virtue. In terms of the despiritualization of the universe, the mental process works so that it becomes virtuous to destroy the planet. Terms like progress and development are used as cover words here, the way victory and freedom are to justify butchery in the dehumanization process. For example, a real-estate speculator may refer to "developing" a parcel of ground by opening a gravel quarry; development here means total, permanent destruction, with the earth itself removed. But European logic has gained a few tons of gravel with which more land can be "developed" through the construction of road beds. Ultimately, the whole universe is open- in the European view- to this sort of insanity. Most important here, perhaps, is the fact that Europeans feel no sense of loss in all this. After all, their philosophers have despiritualized reality, so there is no satisfaction (for them) to be gained in simply observing the wonder of a mountain or a lake or a people in being. No, satisfaction is measured in terms of gaining material. So the mountain becomes gravel, and the lake becomes coolant for a factory, and the people are rounded up for processing through the indoctrination mills Europeans like to call schools. But each new piece of that "progress" ups the ante out in the real world. Take fuel for the industrial machine as an example. Little more than two centuries ago, nearly everyone used wood- a replenishable, natural item- as fuel for the very human needs of cooking and staying warm. Along came the Industrial Revolution and coal became the dominant fuel, as production became the social imperative for Europe. Pollution began to become a problem in the cities, and the earth was ripped open to provide coal whereas wood had always simply been gathered or harvested at no great expense to the environment. Later, oil became the major fuel, as the technology of production was perfected through a series of scientific "revolutions." Pollution increased dramatically, and nobody yet knows what the environmental costs of pumping all that oil out of the ground will really be in the long run. Now there's an "energy crisis," and uranium is becoming the dominant fuel. Capitalists, at least, can be relied upon to develop uranium as fuel only at the rate which they can show a good profit. That's there ethic, and maybe they will buy some time. Marxists, on the other hand, can be relied upon to develop uranium fuel as rapidly as possible simply because it's the most "efficient" production fuel available. That's their ethic, and I fail to see where it's preferable. Like I said, Marxism is right smack in the middle of European tradition. It's the same old song. There's a rule of thumb which can be applied here. You cannot judge the real nature of a European revolutionary doctrine on the basis of the changes it proposes to make within the European power structure and society. You can only judge it by the effects it will have on non-European peoples. This is because every revolution in European history has served to reinforce Europe's tendencies and abilities to export destruction to other peoples, other cultures and the environment itself. I defy anyone to point out an example where this is not true. So now we, as American Indian people, are asked to believe that a "new" European revolutionary doctrine such as Marxism will reverse the negative effects of European history on us. European power relations are to be adjusted once again, and that's supposed to make things better for all of us. But what does this really mean? Right now, today, we who live on the Pine Ridge Reservation are living in what white society has designated a " National Sacrifice Area." What this means is that we have a lot of uranium deposits here, and white culture (not us) needs this uranium as energy production material. The cheapest, most efficient way for industry to extract and deal with the processing of this uranium is to dump the waste by-products right here at the digging sites. Right here where we live. This waste is radioactive and will make the entire region uninhabitable forever. This is considered by the industry, and by the white society that created this industry, to be an "acceptable" price to pay for energy resource development. Along the way they also plan to drain the water table under this part of South Dakota as part of the industrial process, so the region becomes doubly uninhabitable. The same sort of thing is happening down in the land of the Navajo and Hopi, up in the land of the Northern Cheye! nne and Crow, and elsewhere. Thirty percent of the coal in the West and half of the uranium deposits in the United States have been found to lie under reservation land, so there is no way this can be called a minor issue. We are resisting being turned into National Sacrifice Area. We are resisting being turned into a national sacrifice people. The costs of this industrial process are not acceptable to us. It is genocide to dig uranium here and drain the water table- no more, no less. Now let's suppose that in our resistance to extermination we begin to seek allies (we have). Let's suppose further that we were to take revolutionary Marxism at it's word: that it intends nothing less than the complete overthrow of the European capitalists order which has presented this threat to our very existence. This would seem to be a natural alliance for American Indian people to enter into. After all, as the Marxists say, it is the capitalists who set us up to be a national sacrifice. This is true as far as it goes. But, as I've tried to point out, this "truth" is very deceptive. Revolutionary Marxism is committed to even further perpetuation and perfection of the very industrial process which is destroying us all. It offers only to " redistribute" the results- the money, maybe- of this industrialization to a wider section of the population. It offers to take wealth from the capitalists and pass it around; but in order to do so, Marxism must maintain the industrial system. Once again, the power relations within European society will have to be altered, but once again the effects upon American Indian peoples here and non-Europeans elsewhere will remain the same. This is much the same as when power was redistributed from the church to private business during the so-called bourgeois revolution. European society changed a bit, at least superficially, but its conduct toward non-Europeans continued as before. You can see what the American Revolution of 1776 did for American Indians. It's the ! same old song. Revolutionary Marxism, like industrial society in other forms, seeks to "rationalize" all people in relation to industry- maximum industry, maximum production. It is a doctrine that despises the American Indian spiritual tradition, our cultures, our lifeways. Marx himself called us "precapitalists" and "primitive." Precapitalist simply means that, in his view, we would eventually discover capitalism and become capitalists; we have always been economically retarded in Marxist term. The only manner in which American Indian people could participate in a Marxist revolution would be to join the industrial system, to become factory workers, or "proletarians," as Marx called them. The man was very clear about the fact that his revolution could only occur through the struggle of the proletariat, that the existence of a massive industrial system is a precondition of a successful Marxist society. I think there's a problem with language here. Christians, capitalists, Marxists. All of them have been revolutionary in their own minds, but none of them really means revolution. What they really mean is continuation. They do what they do in order that European culture can continue to exist and develop according to its needs. So, in order for us to really join forces with Marxism, we American Indians would have to accept the national sacrifice of our homeland; we would have to commit cultural suicide and become industrialized and Europeanized.
At this point, I've got to stop and ask myself whether I'm being too harsh. Marxism has something of a history. Does this history bear out my observations? I look to the process of industrialization in the Soviet Union since 1920 and I see that these Marxists have done what it took the English Industrial Revolution 300 years to do; and the Marxists did it in 60 years. I see that the territory of the USSR used to contain a number of tribal peoples and that they have been crushed to make way for the factories. The Soviets refer to this as " the National Question." The question of whether the tribal peoples had the right to exist as peoples; and they decided the tribal peoples were an acceptable sacrifice to the industrial needs. I look to China and I see the same thing. I look to Vietnam and I see Marxists imposing an industrial order and rooting out the indigenous tribal mountain people. I hear the leading Soviet scientist saying that when uranium is exhausted, then alternatives will be found. I see the Vietnamese taking over a nuclear power plant abandoned by the U.S. military. Have they dismantled and destroyed it? No, they are using it. I see China exploding nuclear bombs, developing uranium reactors, and preparing a space program in order to colonize and exploit the planets the same as the Europeans colonized and exploited this hemisphere. It's the same old song, but maybe with a faster tempo this time. The statement of the Soviet scientist is very interesting. Does he know what this alternative energy source will be? No, he simply has faith. Science will find a way. I hear revolutionary Marxists saying that the destruction of the environment, pollution, and radiation will all be controlled. And I see them act upon their words. Do they know how these things will be controlled? No, they simply have faith. Science will find a way. Industrialization is fine and necessary. How do they know this? Faith. Science will find a way. Faith of this sort has always been known in Europe as religion. Science has become the new European religion for both capitalists and Marxists; they are truly inseparable; they are part and parcel of the same culture. So, in both theory and practice, Marxism demands that non-European peoples give up their values, their traditions, their cultural existence altogether. We will all be industrialized science addicts in a Marxist society. I do not believe that capitalism itself is really responsible for the situation in which American Indians have been declared a national sacrifice. No, it is the European tradition ; European culture itself is responsible. Marxism is just the latest continuation of this tradition, not a solution to it. To ally with Marxism is to ally with the very same forces that declare us an acceptable cost. There is another way. There is the traditional Lakota way and the ways of the American Indian peoples. It is the way that knows that humans do not have the right to degrade Mother Earth, that there are forces beyond anything the European mind has conceived, that humans must be in harmony with all relations or the relations will eventually eliminate the disharmony. A lopsided emphasis on humans by humans-the Europeans' arrogance of acting as though they were beyond the nature of all related things-can only result in a total disharmony and a readjustment which cuts arrogant humans down to size, gives them a taste of that reality beyond their grasp or control and restores the harmony. There is a need for a revolutionary theory to bring this about; it's beyond human control. The nature peoples of this planet know this and so they do not theorize about it. Theory is an abstract; our knowledge is real. Distilled to its basic terms, European faith-including the new faith in science-equals a belief that man is God. Europe has always sought a Messiah, whether that be the man Jesus Christ or the man Karl Marx or the man Albert Einstein. American Indians know this to be totally absurd. Humans are the weakest of all creatures, so weak that other creatures are willing to give up their flesh that we may live. Humans are able to survive only through the exercise of rationality since they lack the abilities of other creatures to gain food through the use of fang and claw. But rationality is a curse since it can cause humans to forget the natural order of things in ways other creatures do not. A wolf never forgets his or her place in the natural order. American Indians can. Europeans almost always do. We pray our thanks to the deer, our relations, for allowing us their flesh to eat; Europeans simply take the flesh for granted and consider the deer inferior. After all, Europeans consider themselves godlike in their rationalism and science. God is the Supreme Being; all else must be inferior. All European tradition, Marxism included, has conspired to defy the natural order of all things. Mother Earth has been abused, the powers have been abused, and this cannot go on forever. No theory can alter that simple fact. Mother Earth will retaliate, the whole environment will retaliate, and the abusers will be eliminated. Things come full circle, back to where they started. That's revolution. And that's a prophecy of my people, of the Hopi people and of other correct peoples. American Indians have been trying to explain this to Europeans for centuries. But, as I said earlier, Europeans have proven themselves unable to hear. The natural order will win out, and the offenders will die out, the way deer die when they offend the harmony by over-populating a given region. It's only a matter of time until what Europeans call "a major catastrophe of global proportions" will occur. It is the role of American Indian peoples, the role of all natural beings, to survive. A part of our survival is to resist. We resist not to overthrow a government or to take political power, but because it is natural to resist extermination, to survive. We don't want power over white institutions; we want white institutions to disappear. That's revolution. American Indians are still in touch with these realities-the prophecies, the traditions of our ancestors. We learn from the elders, from nature, from the powers. And when the catastrophe is over, we American Indian peoples will still be here to inhabit the hemisphere. I don't care if it's only a handful living high in the Andes. American Indian people will survive; harmony will be reestablished. That's revolution. At this point, perhaps I should be very clear about another matter, one which should already be clear as a result of what I've said. But confusion breeds easily these days, so I want to hammer home this point. When I use the term European, I'm not referring to a skin color or a particular genetic structure. What I'm referring to is a mind-set, a worldview that is a product of the development of European culture. People are not genetically encoded to hold this outlook; they are acculturated to hold it. The same is true for American Indians or for the members of any culture. It is possible for an American Indian to share European values, a European worldview. We have a term for these people; we call them "apples"-red on the outside (genetics) and white on the inside (their values). Other groups have similar terms: Blacks have their "oreos"; Hispanos have "Coconuts" and so on. And, as I said before, there are exceptions to the white norm: people who are white on the outside, but not white inside. I'm not sure what term should be applied to them other than "human beings." What I'm putting out here is not a racial proposition but a cultural proposition. Those who ultimately advocate and defend the realities of European culture and its industrialism are my enemies. Those who resist it, who struggle against it, are my allies, the allies of American Indian people. And I don't give a **** what their skin color happens to be. Caucasian is the white term for the white race: European is an outlook I oppose. The Vietnamese Communists are not exactly what you might consider genetic Caucasians, but they are now functioning as mental Europeans. The same holds true for Chinese Communists, for Japanese capitalists or Bantu Catholics or Peter "MacDollar" down at the Navajo Reservation or Dickie Wilson up here at Pine Ridge. There is no racism involved in this, just an acknowledgment of the mind and spirit that make up culture. In Marxist terms I suppose I'm a "cultural nationalist." I work first with my people, the traditional Lakota people, because we hold a common worldview and share an immediate struggle. Beyond this, I work with other traditional American Indian peoples, again because of a certain commonality in worldview and form of struggle. Beyond that, I work with anyone who has experienced the colonial oppression of Europe and who resists its cultural and industrial totality. Obviously, this includes genetic Caucasians who struggle to resist the dominant norms of European culture. The Irish and the Basques come immediately to mind, but there are many others. I work primarily with my own people, with my own community. Other people who hold non-European perspectives should do the same. I believe in the slogan, "Trust your brother's vision," although I'd like to add sisters into the bargain. I trust the community and the culturally based vision of all the races that naturally resist industrialization and human extinction. Clearly, individual whites can share in this, given only that they have reached the awareness that continuation of the industrial imperatives of Europe is not a vision, but species suicide. White is one of the sacred colors of the Lakota people-red, yellow, white and black. The four directions. The four seasons. The four periods of life and aging. The four races of humanity. Mix red, yellow, white and black together and you get brown, the color of the fifth race. This is a natural ordering of things. It therefore seems natural to me to work with all races, each with its own special meaning, identity and message. But there is a peculiar behavior among most Caucasians. As soon as I become critical of Europe and its impact on other cultures, they become defensive. They begin to defend themselves. But I'm not attacking them personally; I'm attacking Europe. In personalizing my observations on Europe they are personalizing European culture, identifying themselves with it. By defending themselves in this context, they are ultimately defending the death culture. This is a confusion which must be overcome, and it must be overcome in a hurry. None of us has energy to waste in such false struggles. Caucasians have a more positive vision to offer humanity than European culture. I believe this. But in order to attain this vision it is necessary for Caucasians to step outside European culture-alongside the rest of humanity-to see Europe for what it is and what it does. To cling to capitalism and Marxism and all other "isms" is simply to remain within European culture. There is no avoiding this basic fact. As a fact, this constitutes a choice. Understand that the choice is based on culture, not race. Understand that to choose European culture and industrialism is to choose to be my enemy. And understand that the choice is yours, not mine. This leads me back to address those American Indians who are drifting through the universities, the city slums, and other European institutions. If you are there to resist the oppressor in accordance with your traditional ways, so be it. I don't know how you manage to combine the two, but perhaps you will succeed. But retain your sense of reality. Beware of coming to believe the white world now offers solutions to the problems it confronts us with. Beware, too, of allowing the words of native people to be twisted to the advantages of our enemies. Europe invented the practice of turning words around on themselves. You need only look to the treaties between American Indian peoples and various European governments to know that this is true. Draw your strength from who you are. A culture which regularly confuses revolt with resistance, has nothing helpful to teach you and nothing to offer you as a way of life. Europeans have long since lost all touch with reality, if ever they were in touch with who you are as American Indians. So, I suppose to conclude this, I should state clearly that leading anyone toward Marxism is the last thing on my mind. Marxism is as alien to my culture as capitalism and Christianity are. In fact, I can say I don't think I'm trying to lead anyone toward anything. To some extent I tried to be a "leader," in the sense that the white media like to use that term, when the American Indian Movement was a young organization. This was a result of a confusion I no longer have. You cannot be everything to everyone. I do not propose to be used in such a fashion by my enemies. I am not a leader. I am an Oglala Lakota patriot. That is all I want and all I need to be. And I am very comfortable with who I am.

Tele

Although most of these blacks have no proof of any kind they are still obsessed with claiming and Indian heritage and I want to know why what did Indians do so important and where's the proof that we are mostly Indians when we are clearly just black.

Well...

To tell the living truth, the Native Americans have far less of a civilization and even present government to show for themselves than we do.

Not only has all of their land been stolen and occupied with no chance of them getting it back, but darn near all of them have been either anihalated or diluted to the point of non-existance.

While we're growing stronger and have reclaimed all of the formally colonized African countries.

If anything, Natives should be claiming black ancestry as a badge of superiority

Well, looking down on people because their culture doesn't have the elements whites consider more civilized is not the solution either.

We definitely need to be more proud of ourselves as a people and embrace ALL elements of our blackness. But we should have respect for the differences of others (not that I'm saying most blacks don't, but just speaking specifically in response to the above post). Doing anything but is exactly what whites and other groups trying to be white have done to us.

I am just as proud of my native american heritage(all 4 nations in fact) as I am of my African heritage. There are more similarities between the African and Native, than differences.

Our people would do themselves a great service by reading Ivan Van Sertima's "They came before Columbus".

That's true. Natives and Africans have A LOT in common spiritually. Both have a high respect for their ancestry and nature which became incorporated in their spiritual practices. This is probably one of the reasons why they were able to bond so well in the past, (though we should keep in mind that not all relations between Natives and blacks were friendly). We should also remember that some Natives in today's time do not always have respect for blacks.

However, if one does possess different bloodlines in their genetic makeup, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging them. The problem lies in touting around the 'other' race as if it's better than your blackness. This gets even sillier among those that look more black, and/or have their NA genes so far back in the family tree that they aren't that prominent.

A Blood That Flows Together
By Amber Skinner, BET.com Staff Writer
Posted September 21, 2004 -- The historic relationship between Indians and Blacks was forged right along with the foundation of America itself.
The arrival of Europeans to the so-called “New World” -- their ships laden with their cargo of Africans -- triggered an eternal relationship between Blacks and Native peoples. During the 18th and 19th centuries, for example, thousands of Africans, fleeing the brutality of forced bondage, found refuge in the Indian Nations.
The union between the Red man and the Black man seemed only natural given their common hate for a White oppressor. Oftentimes, not only were Blacks given haven, but they folded seamlessly into the flow of Indian culture, often intermarrying and reaching the highest echelons of society.
European officials, fearing a unified state among Blacks and Indians, discouraged them from forming alliances. In an oft-used strategy of divide and conquer, colonial officials would commission Native peoples to hunt down and kill runaway slaves, and Blacks were hired to hunt down and kill Native peoples.
At the end of the Civil War, with few employment opportunities, many African Americans soldiers re-enlisted in the Army for the meager but steady income. Recognizing the undeniable merit and skill of Black soldiers, in 1866 the Army organized two segregated regiments (the 9th and 10th United States Cavalries) of Black military. These cavalries were transferred to the western United States to fight Indians.
Nicknamed by Indians as “Buffalo Soldiers,” these "Colored" troops wrongly thought they would gain the respect of the U.S. military and from the broader society. Instead, their involvement in the government’s plan to eradicate their former allies was rewarded with segregation and scorn. During that period, some influential Black leaders, like Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce, spoke out against the Indian Wars.
During the late-1800s, in order to keep lands and property, many Native Americans began listing themselves as “Negro” or “Mixed” following Ulysses S. Grant’s “Peace Policy,” which empowered the U.S. Army to forcibly re-locate Indians to reservations. Many Indians opted to pass as Black and risk becoming enslaved than to be confined to what was known as “Indian Territory.”
Although most African Americans are oblivious to these historic connections with Native peoples, the Black American-Native American connection cannot be denied. Consider the many notable African Americans with Indian ancestry, including Frederick Douglass, Coretta Scott King, Langston Hughes and Crispus Attucks – as well as the more than 15 million Blacks living in the United States today.

A Blood That Flows Together
By Amber Skinner, BET.com Staff Writer
Posted September 21, 2004 -- The historic relationship between Indians and Blacks was forged right along with the foundation of America itself.
The arrival of Europeans to the so-called “New World” -- their ships laden with their cargo of Africans -- triggered an eternal relationship between Blacks and Native peoples. During the 18th and 19th centuries, for example, thousands of Africans, fleeing the brutality of forced bondage, found refuge in the Indian Nations.
The union between the Red man and the Black man seemed only natural given their common hate for a White oppressor. Oftentimes, not only were Blacks given haven, but they folded seamlessly into the flow of Indian culture, often intermarrying and reaching the highest echelons of society.
European officials, fearing a unified state among Blacks and Indians, discouraged them from forming alliances. In an oft-used strategy of divide and conquer, colonial officials would commission Native peoples to hunt down and kill runaway slaves, and Blacks were hired to hunt down and kill Native peoples.
At the end of the Civil War, with few employment opportunities, many African Americans soldiers re-enlisted in the Army for the meager but steady income. Recognizing the undeniable merit and skill of Black soldiers, in 1866 the Army organized two segregated regiments (the 9th and 10th United States Cavalries) of Black military. These cavalries were transferred to the western United States to fight Indians.
Nicknamed by Indians as “Buffalo Soldiers,” these "Colored" troops wrongly thought they would gain the respect of the U.S. military and from the broader society. Instead, their involvement in the government’s plan to eradicate their former allies was rewarded with segregation and scorn. During that period, some influential Black leaders, like Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce, spoke out against the Indian Wars.
During the late-1800s, in order to keep lands and property, many Native Americans began listing themselves as “Negro” or “Mixed” following Ulysses S. Grant’s “Peace Policy,” which empowered the U.S. Army to forcibly re-locate Indians to reservations. Many Indians opted to pass as Black and risk becoming enslaved than to be confined to what was known as “Indian Territory.”
Although most African Americans are oblivious to these historic connections with Native peoples, the Black American-Native American connection cannot be denied. Consider the many notable African Americans with Indian ancestry, including Frederick Douglass, Coretta Scott King, Langston Hughes and Crispus Attucks – as well as the more than 15 million Blacks living in the United States today.


:congrats: on an Excellent post! :thanks:

[QUOTE=Destee]Teleroda ... Hello and Welcome ... :wave:

I think that it's more about being something other than Black. In a country where being Black is the worse thing you can be, the most oppressed, the poorest, the least likely to get positive considerations ... who wouldn't want to be something other than that, if they could?

This is how we've been conditioned to be, by the years of oppresion. Never be proud of being Black.

Just like some of us don't want to marry / date our own, folk who don't look like us are more appealing to them.

At the same time, i'm sure there are many Black folk who have Native American blood coursing through their veins, and should rightfully be able to claim that ... whether they ever provide enough evidence for others to believe it.

What do Native Americans / Indians prefer being called ... Native Americans or Indians?

No disrespect intended, i just don't know.

Thanks for joining us, and please make yourself at home.

:heart:


Destee, you're a born teacher... I don't envy you reading most of these posts as you do, but you do it with great class, intelligence, and patience, and that's very special...

As to Teleroda's comments, again, I don't undrstand it when one has a few personal experiences, and concludes that their premise for such conclusions are iron-clad, lead pipe real... I have a Black Nationalist perspective which has led me to seek the company of other Black Nationalists who echo my sentiments, and who commune with me for the same reasons I commune with them... I would certainly not conclude that every one thinks as myself, or other Black Nationalists...

Rarely have I heard African Americans express the view that they are "indians", with zero relationship to their Blackness... In that many do claim Indigenous heritage, as Destee has said, it is a fact that Africans and Indigenous Peoples of this land shared many marriages and relationships... This is true of my own family - though rarely do I make claims on the Indigenous past.

I would that folk would SEE such expressions for what they are, and that means KNOWING a little something about the individual making the statement apart from the statement... Meaning is the individual a conscious individual, or a straight confused individual... Don't simply conclude that one size fits all, and fit folks in the clothing of self-hatred...

Peace!
Isaiah

A Blood That Flows Together
By Amber Skinner, BET.com Staff Writer
Posted September 21, 2004 -- The historic relationship between Indians and Blacks was forged right along with the foundation of America itself.
The arrival of Europeans to the so-called “New World” -- their ships laden with their cargo of Africans -- triggered an eternal relationship between Blacks and Native peoples. During the 18th and 19th centuries, for example, thousands of Africans, fleeing the brutality of forced bondage, found refuge in the Indian Nations.
The union between the Red man and the Black man seemed only natural given their common hate for a White oppressor. Oftentimes, not only were Blacks given haven, but they folded seamlessly into the flow of Indian culture, often intermarrying and reaching the highest echelons of society.
European officials, fearing a unified state among Blacks and Indians, discouraged them from forming alliances. In an oft-used strategy of divide and conquer, colonial officials would commission Native peoples to hunt down and kill runaway slaves, and Blacks were hired to hunt down and kill Native peoples.
At the end of the Civil War, with few employment opportunities, many African Americans soldiers re-enlisted in the Army for the meager but steady income. Recognizing the undeniable merit and skill of Black soldiers, in 1866 the Army organized two segregated regiments (the 9th and 10th United States Cavalries) of Black military. These cavalries were transferred to the western United States to fight Indians.
Nicknamed by Indians as “Buffalo Soldiers,” these "Colored" troops wrongly thought they would gain the respect of the U.S. military and from the broader society. Instead, their involvement in the government’s plan to eradicate their former allies was rewarded with segregation and scorn. During that period, some influential Black leaders, like Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce, spoke out against the Indian Wars.
During the late-1800s, in order to keep lands and property, many Native Americans began listing themselves as “Negro” or “Mixed” following Ulysses S. Grant’s “Peace Policy,” which empowered the U.S. Army to forcibly re-locate Indians to reservations. Many Indians opted to pass as Black and risk becoming enslaved than to be confined to what was known as “Indian Territory.”
Although most African Americans are oblivious to these historic connections with Native peoples, the Black American-Native American connection cannot be denied. Consider the many notable African Americans with Indian ancestry, including Frederick Douglass, Coretta Scott King, Langston Hughes and Crispus Attucks – as well as the more than 15 million Blacks living in the United States today.

I second Sekhemu on this article, brother Bandele... No shame in being Associated with Indigenous People... They are our ancestors too...

Peace!
Isaiah

many indians worked with whites in slave owner ship. andd many worked with blacks also. dont get it twisted they're not all our friends.

Kwaku Bendele ... posting articles in their entirety, without including the owner's written permission, is against our forum rules. You have done this twice in this thread alone, here (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=319635&postcount=14) and here (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=318713&postcount=9). Please refrain from doing this. I will allow these posts to remain as is, but in the future, like posts will be edited or deleted.

Please review our forum rules (http://destee.com/rules) to see how to include the property of others, without their permission.

We are actually more interested in your words, your thoughts, your opinions ... but if you want us to know the opinions of others, get their permission to share their property here or invite them to join us to share it themselves! :)

Thanks a Bunch.

:heart:

Destee

Destee, you're a born teacher... I don't envy you reading most of these posts as you do, but you do it with great class, intelligence, and patience, and that's very special...

Brother Isaiah ... Thank You !!! :love:

You must have known i had something else i wanted to say, and just needed an excuse to post again ... huh ... :wink: ... you're so kind! :)

I did want to add ... that we often get caught up in what someone else says they are. We are ready to argue, debate, and prove that what they say they are ... is wrong. We are consumed with labeling ourselves and each other, labels based on who's definition? ... using Brother Khasm's words ... that's some krazee ish ... :)

Are inter-racial children Black or White? Is Tiger Woods African, African American, Chinese or whatever?! Are you Christian or Muslim? African or African American? Indian or Native American? Colored, Black, Negro, what ... ?? It seems we go from one label to the next, as the years pass us by.

What difference does it really make? You are what you are. It doesn't make me any difference what a person says they are, i'm going with what they say! They know better than i do! They're the ones that must live what they claim to be. I will honor their own understanding of their own selves! You could tell me that you are a green one-eyed martian ... :martian: ... and i'd say okay, i believe you! :)

I do know that if we're blessed, our understanding of ourselves and each other will grow. With that growth comes the understanding that it's not about what a person says ... what they call themselves ... it's about what they do.

They got us focus'n on what to say ... instead of what we're doing.

:heart:

Destee

many indians worked with whites in slave owner ship. andd many worked with blacks also. dont get it twisted they're not all our friends.


I can't see anyone here suggesting that ALL native peoples were or are our friends, just like some AA's have not been their friend either. This was the point that was being made.

many indians worked with whites in slave owner ship. andd many worked with blacks also. dont get it twisted they're not all our friends.
How do you know what makes you an authority on the issue

Brother Isaiah ... Thank You !!! :love:

You must have known i had something else i wanted to say, and just needed an excuse to post again ... huh ... :wink: ... you're so kind! :)

I did want to add ... that we often get caught up in what someone else says they are. We are ready to argue, debate, and prove that what they say they are ... is wrong. We are consumed with labeling ourselves and each other, labels based on who's definition? ... using Brother Khasm's words ... that's some krazee ish ... :)

Are inter-racial children Black or White? Is Tiger Woods African, African American, Chinese or whatever?! Are you Christian or Muslim? African or African American? Indian or Native American? Colored, Black, Negro, what ... ?? It seems we go from one label to the next, as the years pass us by.

What difference does it really make? You are what you are. It doesn't make me any difference what a person says they are, i'm going with what they say! They know better than i do! They're the ones that must live what they claim to be. I will honor their own understanding of their own selves! You could tell me that you are a green one-eyed martian ... :martian: ... and i'd say okay, i believe you! :)

I do know that if we're blessed, our understanding of ourselves and each other will grow. With that growth comes the understanding that it's not about what a person says ... what they call themselves ... it's about what they do.

They got us focus'n on what to say ... instead of what we're doing.

:heart:

Destee

Very well stated Sistah Destee... I agree wholeheartedly. In the end what does it really matter ??? You could go around and around with someone and in the end they are still gonna feel how they wanna feel and be how they wanna be. Everybody just needs to stop worrying about other folks' identities and concentrate on SELF and the world would automatically be a better place !

Akilah :bellyd:

Well the reason I started this post is because there was a group of black americans
who were planning to go to washington and march to be acknowlged as Indians.
Now I don't know this group name but I was offended by them. As well as several others
who claim a heritage that's not thier I know not all blacks claim Indians it's just that those who do claim Indian should leave the rest of us out of it and stop saying that all blacks have Indian in them. Becasue they don't know that and can't prove it.

Do you think there's more to the story... like they're trying to get some of the benefits attached to being Native American (welfare, scholarships, etc.)? There are quite a few whites doing it... in fact there was an ******* at my school who looked 100% white, identified with his whiteness, and cared nothing for his so-called Native American brethren but guess what... on his college applications, all of a sudden he was Native American. People that do that make me sick!

[
What difference does it really make? You are what you are. It doesn't make me any difference what a person says they are, i'm going with what they say! They know better than i do! They're the ones that must live what they claim to be. I will honor their own understanding of their own selves! You could tell me that you are a green one-eyed martian ... :martian: ... and i'd say okay, i believe you! :)



Destee[/QUOTE]

Strangely enough, Destee, I believe you'd do that too!(smile!)

Do you think there's more to the story... like they're trying to get some of the benefits attached to being Native American (welfare, scholarships, etc.)? There are quite a few whites doing it... in fact there was an ******* at my school who looked 100% white, identified with his whiteness, and cared nothing for his so-called Native American brethren but guess what... on his college applications, all of a sudden he was Native American. People that do that make me sick!

In order to qualify for any of this, you normally have to be able to prove tribal affiliation. For the Cherokee this means tracing your ancestory back in the Dawes Roll. Cherokee tribe in oklahoma recognizes back to 1/16 blood.
So if they are doing it for benefits, they are going to a lot of trouble! normally takes at least a year to go through the paper work, and get the registration (roll) number. In most cases you can't just say I'm Native American. You have to be able to prove it.

http://www.allthingscherokee.com/atc_sub_gene_feat_121100.html

Tele

Well...

To tell the living truth, the Native Americans have far less of a civilization and even present government to show for themselves than we do.

If anything, Natives should be claiming black ancestry as a badge of superiority

I see that ignorance and lack of information is not restricted to just one section of this site........ :shakes head:

For someone who talks alot about white people, you certainly think like one.

PEACE

Black folk are always claiming to be part of other races but I have yet to hear people of other races openly or proudly claim to have black blood.

My young son was confused with a school mate whose parents are black and who acknowledge they are black. In school the girl (15 yrs old) refused to acknowledge being black to her schoolmates. My son says she tells people she is "other" or "mixed". I know adults who do this too.

Black folk are always claiming to be part of other races but I have yet to hear people of other races openly or proudly claim to have black blood. My young son was confused with a school mate whose parents are black and who acknowledge they are black. In school the girl (15 yrs old) refused to acknowledge being black to her schoolmates. My son says she tells people she is "other" or "mixed". I know adults who do this too.

This pretty young dark skin girl I taught last year used to talk all the time about having "Indian blood". According to her, her Indian blood was why she had long flowing hair (which she did). However despite her long flowing hair she was one of the darkest girls I've ever seen (easily as dark as the many Africans who make up my immediate circle of family & friends). Like Destee already stated, blackness is so despised in this society, that many of us wish to be something else. Also in today's social climate, being biracial is now seen as cool & in. Just yesterday I was reading a school based magazine (I forget the title) which had a cover story about the "benefits of being mixed race". The article wasn't that deep, I believe only 2 or 3 pages. However the gist was that being biracial is cool, and it featured sports stars & celebrities that were biracial.

The black community needs to do a better job of seeing beauty in worth among all types of blackness, whether the person is full-blooded or biracial.

Black folk are always claiming to be part of other races but I have yet to hear people of other races openly or proudly claim to have black blood.

My young son was confused with a school mate whose parents are black and who acknowledge they are black. In school the girl (15 yrs old) refused to acknowledge being black to her schoolmates. My son says she tells people she is "other" or "mixed". I know adults who do this too.


I've been to flagstaff Arizona, and the there are Navajo people who identify with their black ancestry, and proud of it!

I've been to flagstaff Arizona, and the there are Navajo people who identify with their black ancestry, and proud of it!

Hmm... interesting.

Isn't there also a group of Seminoles in Florida that claim their black ancestry?

Hmm... interesting.

Isn't there also a group of Seminoles in Florida that claim their black ancestry?

Sister Karmashines, "Seminoles" actually means "Runaway", and is actually not an Indigenous "tribe"... Note the similarity in the word Cimmarones, which is the spanish word for "runaway." Also not that the so-called "Seminoles" are exclusive to Florida, which was Spanish territory until 1822, I Believe...

In this thread, I have included a page on Fort Mose, which was a fort held by escaped Africans and Indigenous peoples in Florida... The connections are mad interesting, but if you really want to get into the relationships between African Americans and Indigenous peoples, Look up Professor William Loren Katz, who has written extensively about THAT particular subject... He's written like 7 or 8 books on the subject covering our relationships with Native Americans throughout the United States...

Peace!
Isaiah

Sister Karmashines, "Seminoles" actually means "Runaway", and is actually not an Indigenous "tribe"... Note the similarity in the word Cimmarones, which is the spanish word for "runaway." Also not that the so-called "Seminoles" are exclusive to Florida, which was Spanish territory until 1822, I Believe...

In this thread, I have included a page on Fort Mose, which was a fort held by escaped Africans and Indigenous peoples in Florida... The connections are mad interesting, but if you really want to get into the relationships between African Americans and Indigenous peoples, Look up Professor William Loren Katz, who has written extensively about THAT particular subject... He's written like 7 or 8 books on the subject covering our relationships with Native Americans throughout the United States...

Peace!
Isaiah


Interesting. Thanks for the info. I'll be sure to look him up when I get time.

Indians are special. Because they are. You are special because you are. I am special because I am. Both races are special because we both hold a connection to the earth.

“ Down to Earth” is more than a term. It is our understanding. Not forgotten but not cherished like most Native Americans still can, they haven’t completely lost all of their culture yet. Feet on the ground. Well grounded. No current flows unless you have ground. The true fact that can't be attacked. This earth demands respect.

In my family there is Native American blood. I sympathize with the struggle of Native Americans and find many parallels in their struggle and ours. Today there are two governments. One the Native Americans have and the one that have a hold on us.

That same government that holds us still intrudes into the affairs of Native American. Way too much, and should not be trying to get a cut of the pie they made from casino’s and the commerce of their land they have been displaced onto.



Kwaku Bendele

Thank you for sharing this information. I completely read the article. Written by Russel Means. This is a great article. I found many things I believe to be fact and true in that article. I also read and could see man similarities in African American struggle and condition. That parallel well with Native American struggle. The article and writer is clear how the European use words, religion and the dehumanization of others, and how it was used to sanction murder and genocide.

Just last night my son and I were discussing the literature he receives from the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy trying to recruit him. I told him, this very fact that those exploiting war are dehumanizing those they want those in the military to kill. To do so and participating. He would be breaking one of the Ten Commandments. After that, you’re bound to fail and turn your back on the remaining nine.

================

“ The European materialist tradition of despiritualizing the universe is very similar to the mental process which goes into dehumanizing another person. And who seems most expert at dehumanizing other people? And why? Soldiers who have seen a lot of combat learn to do this to the enemy before going back into combat. Murderers do it before going out to commit murder. Nazi SS guards did it to concentration camp inmates. Cops do it. Corporation leaders do it to the workers they send into uranium mines and steel mills. Politicians do it to everyone in sight. And what the process has in common for each group doing the dehumanizing is that it makes it all right to kill and otherwise destroy other people. One of the Christian commandments says, "Thou shalt not kill," at least not humans, so the trick is to mentally convert the victims into nonhumans. Then you can proclaim violation of your own commandment as a virtue. In terms of the despiritualization of the universe, the mental process works so that it becomes virtuous to destroy the planet. “
===================
“ Material gain is an indicator of false status among traditional people, while it is "proof that the system works" to Europeans. “

Another fact I found tons of truth in. The process is alive, and is not understood how and why it is so important material possessions are obtained. Again sanctioning murder is a means of taking or getting these possessions. Stealing is another. More breaking of the Ten Commandments. Material gain is false status. Like it can be obtained, it can be taken. Like it is cherished and obtained. It can be used to control and hurt you by confiscation. Up and down, back and forth, but little understood and hard to get out of its grip.

==========================

" This is what has come to be termed "efficiency" in the European mind. Whatever is mechanical is perfect; whatever seems to work at the moment- that is, proves the mechanical model to be the right one- is considered correct, even when it is clearly untrue. "


The truth about construction of what seems to work for the present struck home. Nuclear waste and no way to destroy it. Cutting trees and with no plans to plant more. The killing of buffalo with no plan to eat it, it was just to deny the food source of an enemy. It all is at the moment fixes, and solutions that Europeans use and still exploit. With no concern for the future or well being of anyone but their own selfish and devilish means.


=====================

In this post. It is clear to be accepted we allowed our selves to be used. I hope this turn of events with recruitment and defiance to military participation turns out to be more than a dislike for bush and his war in Iraq. I hope it is a waking. To the time when we refuse to fight for a country that doesn’t care about us, before we go, or after we come back. What would be the fall out, will we all be jailed. Called cowards? Turned on and killed, for not supporting the system that doesn’t support us? Made to feel shame, while no shame is felt by those who deny us equal justice under the flag we defend.


“ Nicknamed by Indians as “Buffalo Soldiers,” these "Colored" troops wrongly thought they would gain the respect of the U.S. military and from the broader society. Instead, their involvement in the government’s plan to eradicate their former allies was rewarded with segregation and scorn. “


“ European officials, fearing a unified state among Blacks and Indians, discouraged them from forming alliances. In an oft-used strategy of divide and conquer, colonial officials would commission Native peoples to hunt down and kill runaway slaves, and Blacks were hired to hunt down and kill Native peoples.
At the end of the Civil War, with few employment opportunities, many African Americans soldiers re-enlisted in the Army for the meager but steady income. Recognizing the undeniable merit and skill of Black soldiers, in 1866 the Army organized two segregated regiments (the 9th and 10th United States Cavalries) of Black military. These cavalries were transferred to the western United States to fight Indians.
Nicknamed by Indians as “Buffalo Soldiers,” these "Colored" troops wrongly thought they would gain the respect of the U.S. military and from the broader society. Instead, their involvement in the government’s plan to eradicate their former allies was rewarded with segregation and scorn. “

Has black America forgotten that many so-called blacks are not really “black” anymore. As the races continue to mix, the 1/32 rule slowly but surely will be pushed into oblivion, and that was the white man’s rule at that – their attempt to keep the white (Caucasian) race as “white” as possible.

As in – if you’re half Asian and half white, you’re considered Amerasian; if you’re half Indian and half white, you’re considered mixed; but if you’re half “black” and half anything else, you’re always considered “black” – at least in the U.S., that is.

Many blacks seem to take offense at those who have some black blood in them claiming themselves as anything but black. Since when did Black America gain the right and mandate to determine who can claim a heritage that’s anything but black? Of course, perhaps those blacks that are complaining actually have no other heritage but “black” or “African” heritage to lay claim to. Like it or not, if you’re really “black”, then you’re “black”, and nothing can change that.

Don’t gripe, just get used to it.

Has black America forgotten that many so-called blacks are not really “black” anymore. As the races continue to mix, the 1/32 rule slowly but surely will be pushed into oblivion, and that was the white man’s rule at that – their attempt to keep the white (Caucasian) race as “white” as possible.

As in – if you’re half Asian and half white, you’re considered Amerasian; if you’re half Indian and half white, you’re considered mixed; but if you’re half “black” and half anything else, you’re always considered “black” – at least in the U.S., that is.

Many blacks seem to take offense at those who have some black blood in them claiming themselves as anything but black. Since when did Black America gain the right and mandate to determine who can claim a heritage that’s anything but black? Of course, perhaps those blacks that are complaining actually have no other heritage but “black” or “African” heritage to lay claim to. Like it or not, if you’re really “black”, then you’re “black”, and nothing can change that.

Don’t gripe, just get used to it.

What in the world are you talking about, this thread is about the Native american experience as it relates to African americans

Has black America forgotten that many so-called blacks are not really “black” anymore. As the races continue to mix, the 1/32 rule slowly but surely will be pushed into oblivion, and that was the white man’s rule at that – their attempt to keep the white (Caucasian) race as “white” as possible.

As in – if you’re half Asian and half white, you’re considered Amerasian; if you’re half Indian and half white, you’re considered mixed; but if you’re half “black” and half anything else, you’re always considered “black” – at least in the U.S., that is.

Many blacks seem to take offense at those who have some black blood in them claiming themselves as anything but black. Since when did Black America gain the right and mandate to determine who can claim a heritage that’s anything but black? Of course, perhaps those blacks that are complaining actually have no other heritage but “black” or “African” heritage to lay claim to. Like it or not, if you’re really “black”, then you’re “black”, and nothing can change that.

Don’t gripe, just get used to it.

No.. what MOST BLACKS get offended at is when a mixed person puts their 'other' heritage over their blackness! This is what this thread is talking about... blacks putting more pride in their supposed Native American heritage than their black one which is more prevelant.

And yet again, you seem content on putting the blame on the black community instead of the group that started it -- whites! It is white culture that sees just black in a biracial person, no matter how light they are or how curly their hair is! They did it back in slavery days when they wanted to deny their half-black offspring as being a part of themselves and continue to do it today!

The black community needs to do a better job of seeing beauty in worth among all types of blackness, whether the person is full-blooded or biracial.

I agree! It is my opinion that the black community will make significant cultural improvement when a dark black man can date a light black woman...a light black man can date a dark black woman...a brown man can date a brown woman...without feeling that they made a political statement in their choice. In other words we need to stop looking at different skin tones as if they were somehow different races!

Has black America forgotten that many so-called blacks are not really “black” anymore. As the races continue to mix, the 1/32 rule slowly but surely will be pushed into oblivion, and that was the white man’s rule at that – their attempt to keep the white (Caucasian) race as “white” as possible.

As in – if you’re half Asian and half white, you’re considered Amerasian; if you’re half Indian and half white, you’re considered mixed; but if you’re half “black” and half anything else, you’re always considered “black” – at least in the U.S., that is.

Many blacks seem to take offense at those who have some black blood in them claiming themselves as anything but black. Since when did Black America gain the right and mandate to determine who can claim a heritage that’s anything but black? Of course, perhaps those blacks that are complaining actually have no other heritage but “black” or “African” heritage to lay claim to. Like it or not, if you’re really “black”, then you’re “black”, and nothing can change that.

Don’t gripe, just get used to it.


FromTheHip, I've been reading your posts, and thinking we might need to keep an eye out on your posts... Um, hum, you have become a target for Destee Surveilance Team, as in Board Moderators on alert...

Firstly, sir, the DNA of all humankind must come back to Africa and African people, so this construct of race you are talking about - and that includes the one-drop rule you were talking about - is all political, and not biological...

Pan, Karmashines, Sekhemu have pointed out to you what the thread is about... It is not about hating on Indigenous peoples, White Peoples, Black Peoples, or any kind of peoples... It is about addressing an issue of our self-hatred, how some of us might tend toward negating the cultural and physical characteristics of their beautiful African selves... Let's Move Forward FromTheHip, O.K.??? No more of these Race Theories, alright???

Peace!
Isaiah

I agree.

Fromthehip, you're new here, but you should know very well that this is a black-oriented website. And some of what you advocate (blacks not identifying themselves as African American, etc.) goes against the purpose of this site. So I would encourage you to check out Panafrica's 'Black Conservative Websites' to find a community that better suites your mindset.

An article on Fort Mose... More to come...

http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/lessons/african/african1.htm

Peace!
Isaiah

An article on Fort Mose... More to come...

The first African Americans came to Florida in the late 1500s. The Europeans brought them here from Africa. Most were enslaved in the British Colonies, but there were some free Africans who settled in St. Augustine.

In 1693, the King of Spain wanted to weaken England's rule in the New World. He decreed that slaves who ran away from the British colonies would be free if they converted to Catholicism and declared loyalty to Spain. As this information spread throughout the colonies, many slaves escaped to freedom. Large numbers of these freed slaves helped the Spanish settlers build the Castillo de San Marcos, St. Augustine's great stone fortress.

In 1738, the governor of Florida, Manuel Montiano, decided to set up a separate town for the free Africans. The location for this settlement was carefully considered. The decision was made to build it two miles north of St. Augustine in a salty marsh, so that it could not act as a military outpost for the town. It was named Fort Mose after the Indian name for that area.

The one hundred African Americans who settled in Fort Mose raised food for themselves and other settlements in St. Augustine. They built churches and shops. The men formed their own militia, or military unit. The captain of this militia, Francisco Menendez, was recognized as chief of Fort Mose.

In 1740, the Fort Mose militia and Spanish soldiers defended St. Augustine and the surrounding area when James Olgethorpe attacked them. Most of Fort Mose was destroyed during the attack. A second Fort Mose was built, but it never really thrived. After the British gained control of Florida in 1763, the inhabitants of Fort Mose, along with most of the Spanish settlers, fled to Cuba.

Fort Mose was the first free African American settlement in America. Today, it is a National Historical landmark on the Florida Black Heritage Trail. Artifacts found on the site reveal the rich culture and traditions of this historical settlement.



http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/lessons/african/african1.htm

Peace!
Isaiah

Just a little FYI about Native Americans and Blacks:

*Some Indian tribes are Darker than we are.

*Blacks have been mixing with Indians long before Blacks were brought here as slaves.

After all the accomplishments and invention made by african american you'd think that we the descendan't would want to celebrate our ancestors. However Ifind that there are more blacks who are obsessed with claiming native american moreso than black. Although most of these blacks have no proof of any kind they are still obsessed with claiming and Indian heritage and I want to know why what did Indians do so important and where's the proof that we are mostly Indians when we are clearly just black.
Oh really? So what's wrong with blacks claiming something other than black heritage, especially when a growing majority of them have multiple heritages? Hell, as it stands, many blacks can't even really prove they're black either. Looks can be deceiving.

I agree.

Fromthehip, you're new here, but you should know very well that this is a black-oriented website. And some of what you advocate (blacks not identifying themselves as African American, etc.) goes against the purpose of this site. So I would encourage you to check out Panafrica's 'Black Conservative Websites' to find a community that better suites your mindset.
Mindsets are free, censorship isn't. What you are professing?

FromTheHip, I've been reading your posts, and thinking we might need to keep an eye out on your posts... Um, hum, you have become a target for Destee Surveilance Team, as in Board Moderators on alert...

Firstly, sir, the DNA of all humankind must come back to Africa and African people, so this construct of race you are talking about - and that includes the one-drop rule you were talking about - is all political, and not biological...

Pan, Karmashines, Sekhemu have pointed out to you what the thread is about... It is not about hating on Indigenous peoples, White Peoples, Black Peoples, or any kind of peoples... It is about addressing an issue of our self-hatred, how some of us might tend toward negating the cultural and physical characteristics of their beautiful African selves... Let's Move Forward FromTheHip, O.K.??? No more of these Race Theories, alright???

Peace!
Isaiah
Boo! I'm scared.

Oh really? So what's wrong with blacks claiming something other than black heritage, especially when a growing majority of them have multiple heritages? Hell, as it stands, many blacks can't even really prove they're black either. Looks can be deceiving.

FromTheHip:

I edited your post because you can't link/advertise another website unless you are a premium member. Also in answer to your statements, the proof that many blacks are "black" is called a mirror! If that doesn't suffice, the research conducted to find out what "Indian" tribe they are from, or what branch of European blood they have....can also been done to find out what African ethnic groups make up the overwhelming majority of their heritage.

Boo! I'm scared.

All the sarcasm isn't necessary. If you don't like the way things are run here, then please find another forum to participate in.

When you join an online community such as this there are rules to follow. And if you see it as 'censorship' or impending your free speech, or whatever other complaint more conservative folks like to dish out, then there are thousands of other places on the Web you can visit.

Oh really? So what's wrong with blacks claiming something other than black heritage, especially when a growing majority of them have multiple heritages? Hell, as it stands, many blacks can't even really prove they're black either. Looks can be deceiving.

White culture lets black people know they're black regardless of how many other races are in their bloodline!

Boo! I'm scared.

Shootin' From The Hip, or whatever you call yourself, "boo" don't scare ya, it's YOU who scares you - as in that person lookin' backat'cha from your mirror...(smile!)

But, yo, who told you African people had to PROVE they are who they are??? What kind of idiocy is that??? Everyone is genetically an African, sun, and that's old news...

Brown skin, Black Skin, polka dot skin, does not make one, nor exclude one from being African... African is first and foremost a CULTURAL designation... European is a cultural designation, Asian is a cultural designation, mr. shootin' from the lip... No one has to prove what their cultural designation is to anyone... In other words, I am what I say I am, and if one doesn't like that, that's too tough - period...

Peace!
Isaiah