Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: WLJ on December 10, 2020, 08:17:43 PM
-
Tastes like failed quarterback
We’ve teamed up with @Kaepernick7! Introducing Change the Whirled Non-Dairy, the flavor that's supporting the fight to dismantle systems of oppression and empower Black and Brown people. Coming to freezers in 2021! Learn more: https://t.co/7c0Se2vut4 pic.twitter.com/LY90ObEwCj
— Ben & Jerry's (@benandjerrys) December 10, 2020
Well, 2020 receives its official ice cream as Ben & Jerry’s announces it will create a Colin Kaepernick flavor
https://twitchy.com/brads-313037/2020/12/10/well-2020-receives-its-official-ice-cream-as-ben-jerrys-announces-it-will-create-a-colin-kaepernick-flavor/
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eo4Z4mVWMAM00W9?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eo4Z4mVWMAM00W9?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Tastes like failure and insanity.
-
Fake ice cream
-
Yet another example of the left picking shitty heroes.
-
Aldi sells pints of super-premium ice cream in flavors that look suspiciously like Ben and Jerry's for half the price, and no politics. Just a few flavors, though. I get the cherry one with chocolate swirls occasionally. I can't remember what it's called (not Cherry Garcia)
-
I'm just glad there's finally a flavor of ice cream that fights the all-pervasive white supremacy found in all other ice creams.
-
This means that once the fake ice "cream" languishes in freezers for months on end, with nobody choosing to pay for it, we will have to listen to Kaepernick blame everyone other than himself for the poor sales.
-
I gave up on them years ago when they came out in favor of unilaterally releasing a cop killer from jail.
Not retrying him, releasing him.
-
I gave up on them years ago when they came out in favor of unilaterally releasing a cop killer from jail.
Not retrying him, releasing him.
Yeah, this company is led by, and populated by, idiots. If they were the only ice cream maker in the US and I absolutely needed ice cream, I'd still boycott them and just...
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61OBT86g9jL._AC_SX522_.jpg)
-
Aren't the titular Ben and Jerry long gone? I thought I read the company was acquired years ago.
-
Yeah, this company is led by, and populated by, idiots. If they were the only ice cream maker in the US and I absolutely needed ice cream, I'd still boycott them and just...
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61OBT86g9jL._AC_SX522_.jpg)
Somebody has a photo of an APS contingent sitting around the campsite taking turns cranking the ice cream bucket here in Illinois at a meet up. Must have been ten years ago or so.
-
Aren't the titular Ben and Jerry long gone? I thought I read the company was acquired years ago.
Yeah, IIRC Unilever picked them up. Not sure, though, but they may still be involved on the board or whatever, but even if they're not the corporate owner has maintained B&J's "corporate wokeness..."
-
Yet another example of the left picking shitty heroes.
How does the left pick their heroes? Nike never stopped paying the guy which allowed him to play politics rather than shut up and try to get on an NFL team years ago. IMO, the elitists and media picked him and the lemming leftists followed along.
-
Happy 4th of July from Ben & Jerry's
Ben & Jerry’s has called on the US to return “stolen Indigenous land” in a bold Fourth of July message.
Taking to social media, the ice cream company divided fans over its Independence Day post, tweeting, “The United States was founded on stolen indigenous land. This Fourth of July, let’s commit to returning it.”
In a similar message on its website, the company argued that July 4 festivities and celebrations can “distract from an essential truth about this nation’s birth.”
Ben & Jerry’s proposed to “start with Mount Rushmore,” writing, “What is the meaning of Independence Day for those whose land this country stole, those who were murdered and forced with brutal violence onto reservations, those who were pushed from their holy places and denied their freedom.”
Ben & Jerry’s claims ‘US exists on stolen Indigenous land,’ on July 4th, outcry ensues: ‘Make them Bud Light again’
https://nypost.com/2023/07/05/ben-jerrys-claims-us-exists-on-stolen-indigenous-land-on-july-4th-outcry-ensues/
-
Happy 4th of July from Ben & Jerry's
Ben & Jerry’s claims ‘US exists on stolen Indigenous land,’ on July 4th, outcry ensues: ‘Make them Bud Light again’
https://nypost.com/2023/07/05/ben-jerrys-claims-us-exists-on-stolen-indigenous-land-on-july-4th-outcry-ensues/
Well, it's true, land was taken from the indigenous folks. Not like the early migrants from Europe bought the land from the native.
-
Well, it's true, land was taken from the indigenous folks. Not like the early migrants from Europe bought the land from the native.
You giving it back? Ship sailed on that a long time ago.
And who did they take it from is a question they never ask.
Oh and welcome to the history of human kind
-
Well, it's true, land was taken from the indigenous folks. Not like the early migrants from Europe bought the land from the native.
Taken, not stolen. As has been the case the world over, throughout history. The injuns took land as well.
EDIT: WLJ types faster than me. :laugh:
-
Well, it's true, land was taken from the indigenous folks. Not like the early migrants from Europe bought the land from the native.
That's arguable.
he population density of North America was much lower in the 17th century. Lots of the first colonies were established on land no one was activly using, and 17th Century Native American views on land ownership were very different from what they are now.
It should also be noted that many times over the course of the establishment of the colonies, the Brits attempted to buy the land they were settling from the locals as they settled. Translation issues and differeing views on "ownership" hampered this, but clear effort was made.
Certainly, later in the expansion of the US we just took land as we found it.
We also fought and won wars to conquer land (not just with Native Americans). In the historical context it's lying to call conquered land wo in a war "stolen". It's not ideal for the losers, but it is the way the world works, and by world I mean the whole world animals kingdom included. You only keep territory you can hold against conquest.
So while the "Stolen" soundbite is catchy, it's only partially true, and mostly historical revisionism and wishful thinking.
Also Ben and Jerry's is overpriced mediocore ice cream.
-
I'm sure that Unilever will be turning over Ben and Jerry's Vermont factory to the Mohicans, and whatever other real estate they own to the relevant tribes.
-
Just another product (one of many) that I don't buy anyway which I'd like to boycott . . .
-
You giving it back? Ship sailed on that a long time ago.
And who did they take it from is a question they never ask.
Oh and welcome to the history of human kind
Yep. You can find instances of it in the Old Testament.
And renaming by the winners has always been a thing too.
From the biblical book of Judges, the account of "how the Danites got their priest":
But the people of Dan took what Micah had made, and the priest who belonged to him, and they came to Laish, to a people quiet and unsuspecting, and struck them with the edge of the sword and burned the city with fire. And there was no deliverer because it was far from Sidon, and they had no dealings with anyone. It was in the valley that belongs to Beth-rehob. Then they rebuilt the city and lived in it. And they named the city Dan, after the name of Dan their ancestor, who was born to Israel; but the name of the city was Laish at the first. And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land. So they set up Micah’s carved image that he made, as long as the house of God was at Shiloh.
(My understanding is they actually settled outside the area God allotted to the twelve tribes, and the author seems to be making a special effort to point out that it was a dick move by them.)
-
That's arguable.
he population density of North America was much lower in the 17th century. Lots of the first colonies were established on land no one was activly using, and 17th Century Native American views on land ownership were very different from what they are now.
It should also be noted that many times over the course of the establishment of the colonies, the Brits attempted to buy the land they were settling from the locals as they settled. Translation issues and differeing views on "ownership" hampered this, but clear effort was made.
Certainly, later in the expansion of the US we just took land as we found it.
We also fought and won wars to conquer land (not just with Native Americans). In the historical context it's lying to call conquered land wo in a war "stolen". It's not ideal for the losers, but it is the way the world works, and by world I mean the whole world animals kingdom included. You only keep territory you can hold against conquest.
So while the "Stolen" soundbite is catchy, it's only partially true, and mostly historical revisionism and wishful thinking.
Here is theft with repartitions (refused by the Lakota nations because they wanted their land back, that was in a treaty)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/1868-two-nations-made-treaty-us-broke-it-and-plains-indian-tribes-are-still-seeking-justice-180970741/
Then we have the theft of native children and taken to orphanages or adopted out.
https://www.lakotatimes.com/articles/1960s-native-children-adopted-by-thousands/
Also have native children forced into schools, beaten if they speak their native tongue or wear native dress.
https://boardingschoolhealing.org/education/us-indian-boarding-school-history/
Also Ben and Jerry's is overpriced mediocore ice cream.
Agreed
-
To take, means to possess something that is available to you, like taking a cookie from a tray at work in the break room.
To steal, means to possess something that doesn't belong to you or is not available to you.
-
You giving it back? Ship sailed on that a long time ago.
And who did they take it from is a question they never ask.
Oh and welcome to the history of human kind
Giving it back would involve the current property owner being compensated by the entity that took the land. On my abstract the first owner is the US government. So, the US Government would have to compensate the current owner (at fair market value) if the land is given back or compensate the indigenous nation who possess it first. Where my house it, it would be the Ho-Chunk nation.
-
I think we're going to see more of this. And people are gonna get pissed.
Here we are seeing increasing fallout from the McGirt decision. Cops won't even bother pulling over a vehicle with tribal tags. Speeding, reckless, suspected DUI, isn't worth the hassle. Non-native gets assaulted by native? Pretty much tough *expletive deleted*it. It'll go to federal/tribal jurisdiction and never see the light of day, in large part due to the huge case backlog.
Now there are the beginnings of talk about taking back "tribal land" from the white thieves. I don't think it'll get much traction but it's popping up.
-
Giving it back would involve the current property owner being compensated by the entity that took the land.
Why is that the only possible route for justice? You have made up an arbitrary standard that is specifically designed to protect you from the consequences of your claims or having to bear the guilt you are trying to impose on others.
You are in possession of something you believe was stolen and you were aware of the situation when you purchased it. Most laws relating to stolen property require only that someone be in possession of something stolen and to know that it was stolen to be liable for the crime of being in possession of stolen property. That certainly seems to apply to your case.
Regardless of what other possible paths that could settle the issue, one that would be consistent with a moral person who really believes that they knowingly bought stolen goods would be for you to give up your land to the Ho-Chunk nation tomorrow. But you won’t.
-
Why is that the only possible route for justice? You have made up an arbitrary standard that is specifically designed to protect you from the consequences of your claims or having to bear the guilt you are trying to impose on others.
You are in possession of something you believe was stolen and you were aware of the situation when you purchased it. Most laws relating to stolen property require only that someone be in possession of something stolen and to know that it was stolen to be liable for the crime of being in possession of stolen property. That certainly seems to apply to your case.
Regardless of what other possible paths that could settle the issue, one that would be consistent with a moral person who really believes that they knowingly bought stolen goods would be for you to give up your land to the Ho-Chunk nation tomorrow. But you won’t.
I bought my house, and the previous owners bought it in good faith that there were no restrictions on the sale. The original thief of my property is the US government. I will give my property willing to the Ho-Chuck after the original thief compensates me at fair market value.
I would not want you to give up your property to the pervious indigenous people either without fair compensation from the original thief's either.
I was referencing the story about the Lakota winning monetary value for the Black Hills lands was to be paid to the Lakota via Supreme Court Decision.
-
I bought my house, and the previous owners bought it in good faith that there were no restrictions on the sale. The original thief of my property is the US government. I will give my property willing to the Ho-Chuck after the original thief compensates me at fair market value.
If it is in fact stolen property then the person who is in possession of it while knowing it is stolen is guilty of receiving stolen property and there is no requirement that they be reimbursed prior to being made to return it … or ever. Even if they paid for it. If you weren’t aware of the fact that it was stolen land then that might be a defense, but you clearly are aware of it. If you knowingly bought a stolen car it would be taken from you without compensation. You couldn’t just keep it until you were reimbursed by the original thief.
I’m also curious why it should return to the Ho-Chunk and not the Ioway or Otoe or the Oneota people instead.
Regardless, my point is that your stated morals conflict with your revealed morals.
-
If it is in fact stolen property then the person who is in possession of it while knowing it is stolen is guilty of receiving stolen property and there is no requirement that they be reimbursed prior to being made to return it … or ever. Even if they paid for it. If you weren’t aware of the fact that it was stolen land then that might be a defense, but you clearly are aware of it. If you knowingly bought a stolen car it would be taken from you without compensation. You couldn’t just keep it until you were reimbursed by the original thief.
I’m also curious why it should return to the Ho-Chunk and not the Ioway or Otoe or the Oneota people instead.
Regardless, my point is that your stated morals conflict with your revealed morals.
Ioway and Ote are part of the Ho-Chunk.
Oneota are believed to be the ancestors of the Ho-Chunk. Many of the Mississippian cultures died out by 1700, they figured it was due to the European diseases.
So, Ho-Chunk would be correct (also known as the Winnebago Nation as the French and English called them).
Regarding stolen property, I was going off what the Supreme Court ruled for the Lakota.
Me giving it up, well I'm Native American, so do I keep my house or do I get a different house where my ancestors are from. Best they can figure is that my ancestors were enslaved from the Carribean or Central America and taken to Europe during the early days of the conquests and came back to the North America 50-100 years later. Yes the European enslaved Indians and brought them back to Europe.
-
One gift the Natives gave the Europeans was Syphilis.
-
Me giving it up, well I'm Native American,
Make up your mind, Elizabeth Warren. You've also told us you're a "direct descendant of Rollo" and Catholic. You realize there's a search function here, yeah?
Teuton, Hebrew, Germanic-French, Native American, Swiss, Portuguese, Scotch and English here. I prefer Samsonite to describe my ethnicity.
-
Ioway and Ote are part of the Ho-Chunk.
I'm not sure that is true. They share a language and moved around in the same region, but they have their own tribal governments, cultures, and traditions. I guess if we start giving back everything there would be plenty to go around, but it's not nearly as simple or straightforward as presented.
Regarding stolen property, I was going off what the Supreme Court ruled for the Lakota.
The supreme court ruling is immaterial to your personal beliefs or Ben and Jerry's corporate beliefs. If you don't believe you live on stolen property then you can point to your clear title and say that you don't personally owe previous occupants of that land anything. If you do believe you live on stolen property which you bought knowing it was stolen then you have a clear moral path and it is not to wait for someone else to reimburse you. Are you going to act or do you just like virtue-signaling with empty words?
Me giving it up, well I'm Native American, so do I keep my house or do I get a different house where my ancestors are from. Best they can figure is that my ancestors were enslaved from the Carribean or Central America and taken to Europe during the early days of the conquests and came back to the North America 50-100 years later.
You have no ancestral claim to the land, you have no association with the tribes that you say are the rightful owners of your land, your ancestors didn't even live within 2,000 miles of your home, and your ancestral lands (whether they be in the Caribbean or Central America) aren't even part of the USA? Given your situation I don't think you'd have any tribal claim to your home in Iowa whatsoever. I have no doubt that like every human on earth you have some ancestors who were enslaved, displaced, and mistreated. You'd have to take up your complaints with Europe and the government of whatever island or nation your distant native ancestors came from.
Since you lack proof of lineal descent (to the point of not knowing whether you were from the Caribbean or Central America), blood quantum, or cultural/community involvement you'd have a hell of a hard time convincing them that you should be party to their reparations. Tribes tend to be pretty racially exclusive, and given your history you're almost certainly not pure blooded enough to be considered a member of any tribe. My wife can show at least 1/16th which gets her beautiful skin and high cheekbones but zero tribal affiliation.
-
Can the redskins who claim they owned the land produce any deeds or titles dating back to before the ones the palefaces have? Including a record of who they obtained the land from?
If not, their ancestors must have been - at best - squatters. And the only reason they can make a claim is because their ancestors had more bows & arrows than the next tribe over.
-
Again, virtue signaling on the internet aside, Conquer =/= Steal.
Nation States gain and lose territory through war all the time, and have for the entire history of the world, including the native tribes of North America. It is a valid way to gain territory.
-
Nation States gain and lose territory through war all the time, and have for the entire history of the world, including the native tribes of North America. It is a valid way to gain territory.
Indians might justifiably point out that the agreements made after hostilities concluded were rarely upheld by the US. At that point it might be argued that it was no longer conquering but theft.
Regardless, at some point you have to move forward and not constantly be dwelling in the past. Historical recriminations and obsessing about someone else's ancient ancestor's evils toward your ancient ancestor only encourages and justifies modern atrocities. If you go back far enough we all have ancestors on both sides of horrors, and given the way survival works most of our ancestors tended to be on the perpetrating side of the worst of them.
-
Make up your mind, Elizabeth Warren. You've also told us you're a "direct descendant of Rollo" and Catholic. You realize there's a search function here, yeah?
Teuton, Hebrew, Germanic-French, Native American, Swiss, Portuguese, Scotch and English here. I prefer Samsonite to describe my ethnicity.
Different ethnicities can have sex and produce offspring. Plenty of Darkies and Whities f*cked a lot in my ancestry.
Also almost all of my European ancestry were here and settled (British and French colonies) before the Revolutionary War.
Also DNA tests are a thing now too. I and other family members paid quite a bit of money for a couple extremely comprehensive ones since 2009 that matched up with family stories. I'm a lot more Native American than Elizabeth Warron, FYI.
Add Hebrew, Italian, Greek, South Asian, East Asian and East African to the mix since then.
Not related to Charlemagne. Someone managed not to be one of his bastards.
You're probably not going to give a *expletive deleted*it about reading this.
I met a Lakota man at a conference pre Covid (also pre DNA tests), he asked me if I was Native, I said a little bit, not sure how much. He replied, claim it, one drop if native blood makes you native. Ran into him earlier this year at a conference, he asked me if I joined a tribe yet, I said well I did the DNA but wasn't any nations of the lower 48 or Alaska. He told me to claim my heritage and it stinks that you don't have a nation to learn about your past. He told me that he was taken as a baby shortly after birth from his mother by Christian missionaries (late 1950s) and adopted out as a Mexican child. His extended family ended up finding him several years later as a young adult and invited him the reservation to learn about his ancestry. Now he teaches you people on the reservation their language and traditions. If he gave me the ok to claim my native roots, I'm going to claim them.
-
This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humoring them costs nothing and adds happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.
-- Lazarus Long
I was under the impression that tribes tended to be pretty protective of their membership and require a hell of a lot more than “one drop” or permission from a random dude at a conference to allow you to be part of the tribe. My wife has considerably more native blood than you do. Her ancestors would have come out of Oklahoma in the 1870s so could be any of a bunch of tribes. Which tribes would allow her and my kids to join? I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t be allowed, but at the one drop level I bet even I could find an ancestor.
-
The supreme court ruling is immaterial to your personal beliefs or Ben and Jerry's corporate beliefs. If you don't believe you live on stolen property then you can point to your clear title and say that you don't personally owe previous occupants of that land anything. If you do believe you live on stolen property which you bought knowing it was stolen then you have a clear moral path and it is not to wait for someone else to reimburse you. Are you going to act or do you just like virtue-signaling with empty words?
Why do you want me to say give it back? I haven't said give any land back. I have said the federal government should compensate the indigenous people for taking of their resources and property.
You have no ancestral claim to the land, you have no association with the tribes that you say are the rightful owners of your land, your ancestors didn't even live within 2,000 miles of your home, and your ancestral lands (whether they be in the Caribbean or Central America) aren't even part of the USA? Given your situation I don't think you'd have any tribal claim to your home in Iowa whatsoever. I have no doubt that like every human on earth you have some ancestors who were enslaved, displaced, and mistreated. You'd have to take up your complaints with Europe and the government of whatever island or nation your distant native ancestors came from.
Since you lack proof of lineal descent (to the point of not knowing whether you were from the Caribbean or Central America), blood quantum, or cultural/community involvement you'd have a hell of a hard time convincing them that you should be party to their reparations. Tribes tend to be pretty racially exclusive, and given your history you're almost certainly not pure blooded enough to be considered a member of any tribe. My wife can show at least 1/16th which gets her beautiful skin and high cheekbones but zero tribal affiliation.
You are correct, I wouldn't get sh*t. I was trying to make a joke that failed.
The quantum blood was created to limit the rights of the natives at first by the government, later it was used by the government to limit benefits to the natives. Weird how it wasn't applied to African decedents, in the same way, figuring the reservations and treaties were in full swing before and after the US Civil War.
Taino/Arawak is one of the DNA markers I have, I have checked at the US doesn't even recognize them as a nation. Native Puerto Ricans and other islands are the Taino people, US doesn't recognize any indigenous people outside of the lower 48 or Alaska. I found out over lunch that a movement was made several years ago to catalog all the people who are US citizens with known Taino ancestry or DNA and to petition the US Government to recognize them as a indigenous nation. It just sort of fizzled out. I did find it cool that they were trying to find people with Taino DNA since many of them were enslaved back to Europe and their descendants returned to NA as mixed heritage. Christopher Columbus is reported to have to enslaved 550 of them and brought 350 of them back to Spain to be sold as slaves, 200 or so died at sea.
I figured the Aztec/Mayan DNA markers are out because of being located in Mexico and other Central American countries. No, I am not Mexican, ancestors left there, but never returned to stay.
-
This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humoring them costs nothing and adds happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.
-- Lazarus Long
I was under the impression that tribes tended to be pretty protective of their membership and require a hell of a lot more than “one drop” or permission from a random dude at a conference to allow you to be part of the tribe. My wife has considerably more native blood than you do. Her ancestors would have come out of Oklahoma in the 1870s so could be any of a bunch of tribes. Which tribes would allow her and my kids to join? I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t be allowed, but at the one drop level I bet even I could find an ancestor.
I was replying to Ben, not you. I replied to your post in a different reply.
-
Why do you want me to say give it back? I haven't said give any land back. I have said the federal government should compensate the indigenous people for taking of their resources and property.
Because you keep saying how you bought and live on stolen land, but your unwillingness to act on that indicates you don’t really believe that it is stolen.
Just like Ben & Jerry’s could give up their land to the tribes that historically lived there, but they won’t because it is all empty words.
-
Because you keep saying how you bought and live on stolen land, but your unwillingness to act on that indicates you don’t really believe that it is stolen.
Just like Ben & Jerry’s could give up their land to the tribes that historically lived there, but they won’t because it is all empty words.
Seriously, does everything have to be black and white to you?
Isn't it just fine to recognize that the history we are taught to believe is different than it really was?
-
Isn't it just fine to recognize that the history we are taught to believe is different than it really was?
I think so, as long as we realize that a lot of the history people believe is not really taught; just pieced together from random scraps of things they've heard, read, assumed, and half-remembered from somewhere.
And obviously, "history" (what actually happened), and "history" (what is recorded and passed on about what happened), will always be two different things, just because we can't know or understand everything about the past.
-
Insanity cannot be logically countered.
It's nearly impossible to reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
My observation is that most of the Left's "reasoning" only involves a thin veneer of the top layer of wish-fulfillment without delving any deeper into more realistic consequences.
Just a general observation, subject to confirmation.
"I want a cookie."
Conclusion:
"Therefore, give me one."
Terry, 230RN
-
I met a Lakota man at a conference pre Covid (also pre DNA tests), he asked me if I was Native, I said a little bit, not sure how much. He replied, claim it, one drop if native blood makes you native.
Lakota man. That's some real scienceymcscience right there.
It baffles me that people want to Rachel Dolezal themselves with race infatuation to the point that they want to claim to be something that is a miniscule part of their genetic makeup. One percent indian, and you want to put on buckskins, dance around going "woo woo woo" and try to make it rain. You're 99% other stuff, and having mixed genetics could be argued to make one healthier and less susceptible to many genetically inherited diseases.
If you want to claim to be something, claim to be whatever your DNA test says you're the most of, not the least of. My DNA ancestry says that I'm 0.2% Senegambian & Guinean and 93.4% Bavarian. I'm not grabbing a BLM flag and demanding reparations. I'm drinking beer, eating sausage, and making kraut jokes while wearing funny looking shorts with suspenders.
-
. . . One percent indian, and you want to put on buckskins, dance around going "woo woo woo" and try to make it rain . . .
No buckskins or rain dances for me - If I thought I had any Amerindian blood, I'd get a DNA test and see if it came from a tribe that had a profitable casino so I could claim a share of the profits. Woo woo woo indeed. ;)
-
That's okay, just came across another YT video that claimed blacks were here first so we need to give the land back to them.
You can actually find people saying blacks were here first and that the slave trade and Indian stuff was a story created to cover up the fact that this land belongs to them. First found out about this stuff when I encountered a man preaching this stuff in a coffee shop. Starting searching the internet and yep, there's a movement and web sites devoted to pushing this.
-
Hot Take:
If you need a DNA test to learn about some cultural ancestry of yours, then it's not your heritage, and attempts to make it so is just Cosplay.
-
Hot Take:
If you need a DNA test to learn about some cultural ancestry of yours, then it's not your heritage, and attempts to make it so is just Cosplay.
As a side note when E.Warren "apologize" when her DNA tests came back if you listen to what she actually said she apologized for taking the test not for claiming she was Cherokee this whole time. Wonder how many caught that
-
I supposedly have a small bit of Cherokee and Choctaw in my family but it is WAY back and not worth "proving".
-
Seriously, does everything have to be black and white to you?
If I believed myself to be in possession of something I genuinely believed was stolen I'd want to return it even if I wasn't the original thief. I guess not everyone feels that way.
Isn't it just fine to recognize that the history we are taught to believe is different than it really was?
Absolutely. I'm aware of the historical wrongs done to various Indian tribes by various groups (including other Indians) over the centuries and I don't need to minimize them. The point is, once you start obsessing about historical wrongs and "correcting" them in modern times you are really just creating new injustices.
As far as your claim about being a Native American because of some distant ancestor dating back to the 1500's or something, I guess that still really rubs me the wrong way. You've played a little coy with exactly how many generations back your Taino/Arawak roots are supposed to be, but assuming they were 15 generations or so ago (an extremely conservative estimate based on the history you claim - it may have been more than that) then barring severe inbreeding that likely makes up no more than 1/16,384th of your extraction. If that is your only connection then it's likely that Elizabeth Warren (and most of the people on this forum) is actually more Native American than you.
I find it hilarious that it is likely that Ben is significantly more black than you are native.
-
I'm a lot more Native American than Elizabeth Warron, FYI.
So is my Chinese made waffle maker, what's your point? :rofl:
My wife is Cherokee, on "the rolls" as it were.
I tell people I don't have any Indian in me but I've had a little of me in an Indian. =D
I wouldn't be surprised to find I have some native ancestry but I don't claim it.
-
I find it hilarious that it is likely that Ben is significantly more black than you are native.
Heh. It's likely many of us are. While it was surprising to read of African origins in the initial report, digging into the data at 23andme, we're talking connections that go back up to 200,000 years. Mine apparently came from my maternal haplogroup:
Ben, your maternal haplogroup is HV0a.
As our ancestors ventured out of eastern Africa, they branched off in diverse groups that crossed and recrossed the globe over tens of thousands of years. Some of their migrations can be traced through haplogroups, families of lineages that descend from a common ancestor. Your maternal haplogroup can reveal the path followed by the women of your maternal line.
Some of my maternal DNA apparently went for Africa to the Middle East before making it to Europe. My mom's side doesn't have records going back nearly as far as my dad's family, who can trace to the Middle Ages before it gets foggy, but it's definitely long enough back that the idea of identifying as something other than European would be ludicrous. When you go back 200,000 years, you can find all kinds of relationships. In fact most of us here probably have some common great grandmother x1000.
-
I'd LOVE to run my DNA but I don't have that kind of $ to throw away.
-
As a side note when E.Warren "apologize" when her DNA tests came back if you listen to what she actually said she apologized for taking the test not for claiming she was Cherokee this whole time. Wonder how many caught that
E.Warren had a drop of Cherokee blood, the operative word being "had." Past tense.
You see, along came this mosquito, and . . .
-
Local chief wants to talk to B&J about the land B&J's HQ sits on.
A Native American chief in Vermont has called out Ben & Jerry's for having its headquarters on indigenous land.
The ice cream company has been receiving backlash after they tweeted on July 4th calling for the United States to 'return indigenous land'.
Now, Don Stevens, chief of the Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki Nation, has told the New York Post that the land the company built their HQ on is on Native land.
Stevens said: 'If you look at the [Abenaki] traditional way of being, we are place-based people. Before recognized tribes in the state, we were the ones who were in this place.'
Stevens also said he 'looks forward to any kind of correspondence with the brand to see how they can better benefit indigenous people.'
Ben & Jerry's is accused of hypocrisy for calling on the US to hand over all 'stolen indigenous land' when its HQ sits on Native American soil in Vermont - as local chief calls for woke ice cream company to engage in talks
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12277027/Native-American-chief-says-Ben-Jerrys-hand-stolen-land-HQ-stands-on.html
[popcorn]
-
"We at Ben and Jerry's decry the white paternalistic violent imperialism of the United States, which is why we have called for the return of stolen native land. However, the land on which our stores and our headquarters sit is not stolen native land because Ben and Jerry's is a loving, responsible steward who is a caretaker of the land for the wokeness of all. To show our fealty with our native brethren, we have released a limited time edition flavor called Blanket of Peace, which will be available only to those who are able to show authentic native roots."
In other news, a massive listeria outbreak has hit native American populations in the United States, sickening thousands...
-
In other news, a massive listeria outbreak has hit native American populations in the United States, sickening thousands...
It was either that or smallpox but they wouldn't take the damn blankets saying, "We have seen this before paleface!"! ;)
bob
-
Local chief wants to talk to B&J about the land B&J's HQ sits on.
Ben & Jerry's is accused of hypocrisy for calling on the US to hand over all 'stolen indigenous land' when its HQ sits on Native American soil in Vermont - as local chief calls for woke ice cream company to engage in talks
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12277027/Native-American-chief-says-Ben-Jerrys-hand-stolen-land-HQ-stands-on.html
[popcorn]
Man, does everything have to be black and white with those real Native Americans?!
-
Man, does everything have to be black and white with those real Native Americans?!
Shouldn't that be red and white?
-
The Abenaki tribe has taken notice of Ben & Jerry's message:
https://www.outkick.com/native-americans-ben-jerrys-land-back-abenaki-nation/
Nulhegan Band of The Coosuk Abenaki Nation Chief Don Stevens informed Newsweek he’s very interested in getting the land Ben & Jerry’s headquarters is on because it originally belonged to his tribe.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: [ar15]
-
Ben And Jerry Announce Native Americans May Exchange White Man’s Scalp For Free Pint Of Chunky Monkey
https://babylonbee.com/news/ben-and-jerry-announce-native-americans-may-exchange-white-mans-scalp-for-free-pint-of-chunky-monkey