North Carolina... Why?

[walksalone11]

Yeah, but you, I and maybe 2 or 3 others here are the only one's who would/will get that. heh heh heh

No doubt the day will arrive that someone will claim to be descended from the "Anasazi", (not just a Pueblo tribe). If so, I'll have questions. *chuckle*

I guess we don't even need to get into a discussion on the sad numbers of "Apples" running around, who are such as a direct result of the "forced assimilation/genocide" policies that have been in place for 520 years now.

Unless a family history is riddled with inbreedings, pretty much eberyone is genetically-'mixed' in some way.  Even different tribal ancestoral mixtures occurred to such an extent that I've wondered before how blood quantum requirements to be on the 'rolls' are determined.  Plus, if someone had viking/norse ancestors that arrived in North America 500 years before Columbus stumbled upon it, should they be entitled to federal aid as well?  What about those who Chinese ancestors were from "Fou-Sang" in the Pacific Northwest from the 5th century?

http://www.geographicus.com/blog/rare-and-antique-maps/fou-sang-or-fusang-a-5th-century-chinese-colony-in-western-america/

Most nations that I am aware of that has B/Q requirments base it on proven ancestry of a person/people who are listed on their rolls as a tribal member. Thing is, traditionally there have been multitudes of "adoptions". Just because someone is on a Nations roll doesn't necessarily mean they are of that Nation by blood. I have heard, however, that some Nations do not recognise ancestry of an adoptee when it comes to deciding tribal membership in regards to the descendant.

[Jwhit2012]

The living God must be homophobic as well; marriage between a man and a woman was His idea. North Carolina did the right thing. You can lift up same sex marriage and legislate morality all you want, but man is not the one with whom we ultimately have to do.

[Abrupt]

No, you mis-understand my question. Again, how would allowing same sex unions force upon you anyones idea that such is normal? You are free to have any ideas you wish, I just think it is being dis-honest of you to make the claim that if others are allowed to enter into union of any kind, much less a same sex union, that it would force upon you someone else's ideas.

Now, if they were to get on their soap box at each and every oppertunity, declaring that their chosen life style was the only normal and there for acceptable one, then perhaps, that would be an attempt at assimilating you into their lifestyle.

As for your stated claims in regards to your Grandmother? Why would that be of special interest to me? Doesn't everyone have a full blood Cherokee GrandMother?

"Our Nations" are the indigenous nations of this continent, "yours" is not.

Many of our Peoples believed that those whom you call gay had a special and much deeper connection to the spirit world, and were/are held in great esteem and admiration. I could continue with this line of conversation but will decline on the basis of the need to know is completely lacking in this instance.

I will give you the same answer that I did before, and that is that I don't know that it would.  I will also once again bring to your attention that I never said that allowing same sex marriages would force upon me such ideas of normality.  I will challenge you to indicate where I said this, and if you continue to spread this assumption about me I will challenge you to explain where you have divined such an assumption.

Yes I am well aware of the claims to native American ancestry that are often made by people.  This doesn't seem as common to me now as it did in the 70's though.  I am not making any claim, I am simply telling you how it is and if I were speaking nonsensically I would have at least come up with a less known heritage.  The reason I pointed it out was exactly indicated in your following sentence where you imply that you have some rights to this continent that I don't.  I am not my ancestors, though, and I will not shame myself by allowing what is mine to be taken from me, or for me to be driven like a dog from my own land.  I claim what is mine by right of will alone.

[falcon9]

Most nations that I am aware of that has B/Q requirments base it on proven ancestry of a person/people who are listed on their rolls as a tribal member. Thing is, traditionally there have been multitudes of "adoptions". Just because someone is on a Nations roll doesn't necessarily mean they are of that Nation by blood. I have heard, however, that some Nations do not recognise ancestry of an adoptee when it comes to deciding tribal membership in regards to the descendant.

Understood.  It can get convoluted concerning B.Q. percentages.  Instead of getting into that at depth, I segued into the whole 'where did people come from originally' contentious subject because that's something I've researched on and off over the years, (since that tangentially bears on the subsequent arguments about 'who got where first' and ancestry).  As mentioned, it's a contentious and controversial subject.  Some people get quite offended when it's even discussed, (let alone, debated).  If you don't wish to discuss that underlying subject matter, I'd understand.  If you do ...

What about those whose Chinese ancestors were from "Fou-Sang" in the Pacific Northwest from the 5th century?  If there was a Chinese colony on the PNW in the 5th century, they might've had contact with the Tlingit, Makah, Nisga'a,Tsetsaut, Haida, Tsimshian, Gitxsan, Haisla, Heiltsuk,
Wuikinuxv, Kwakwaka'wakw, Nuu-chah-nulth, Coast Salish, Nuxálk, Willapa, Chimakum, or Quileute.  It may be that there are oral traditions related to any such ancient contact however, not that I'm aware of.
 
http://www.geographicus.com/blog/rare-and-antique-maps/fou-sang-or-fusang-a-5th-century-chinese-colony-in-western-america/
[/quote]

[falcon9]

The living God must be homophobic as well; marriage between a man and a woman was His idea. North Carolina did the right thing. You can lift up same sex marriage and legislate morality all you want, but man is not the one with whom we ultimately have to do.

What "living g-d" is that?  Can you produce evidence to support your assertions or, is this one of those 'taken on faith' claims?

[falcon9]

... where you imply that you have some rights to this continent that I don't.  I am not my ancestors, though, and I will not shame myself by allowing what is mine to be taken from me, or for me to be driven like a dog from my own land.  I claim what is mine by right of will alone.

So, is it all about who "calls dibs" second-to-last or, the last ones to do so?  The reason that question arises is because throughout history, people have invaded/conquered/colonized/wandered into the lands of others.  How far back does one go to determine 'original ancestries'; as far back as possible or, only considered the most recent/current descendent-lines?

[walksalone11]

Most nations that I am aware of that has B/Q requirments base it on proven ancestry of a person/people who are listed on their rolls as a tribal member. Thing is, traditionally there have been multitudes of "adoptions". Just because someone is on a Nations roll doesn't necessarily mean they are of that Nation by blood. I have heard, however, that some Nations do not recognise ancestry of an adoptee when it comes to deciding tribal membership in regards to the descendant.

Understood.  It can get convoluted concerning B.Q. percentages.  Instead of getting into that at depth, I segued into the whole 'where did people come from originally' contentious subject because that's something I've researched on and off over the years, (since that tangentially bears on the subsequent arguments about 'who got where first' and ancestry).  As mentioned, it's a contentious and controversial subject.  Some people get quite offended when it's even discussed, (let alone, debated).  If you don't wish to discuss that underlying subject matter, I'd understand.  If you do ...

What about those whose Chinese ancestors were from "Fou-Sang" in the Pacific Northwest from the 5th century?  If there was a Chinese colony on the PNW in the 5th century, they might've had contact with the Tlingit, Makah, Nisga'a,Tsetsaut, Haida, Tsimshian, Gitxsan, Haisla, Heiltsuk,
Wuikinuxv, Kwakwaka'wakw, Nuu-chah-nulth, Coast Salish, Nuxálk, Willapa, Chimakum, or Quileute.  It may be that there are oral traditions related to any such ancient contact however, not that I'm aware of.
 
http://www.geographicus.com/blog/rare-and-antique-maps/fou-sang-or-fusang-a-5th-century-chinese-colony-in-western-america/

[/quote]That's very interesting and something I haven't heard of(Chinese colony). I will follow up on that link later as I am totally off grid and its quite a storm here now IE: Im not making solar power and my batteries are almost depleted. Thanks for the link. I'll get back to you on that as well as my thoughts on ancestry.

[walksalone11]

No, you mis-understand my question. Again, how would allowing same sex unions force upon you anyones idea that such is normal? You are free to have any ideas you wish, I just think it is being dis-honest of you to make the claim that if others are allowed to enter into union of any kind, much less a same sex union, that it would force upon you someone else's ideas.

Now, if they were to get on their soap box at each and every oppertunity, declaring that their chosen life style was the only normal and there for acceptable one, then perhaps, that would be an attempt at assimilating you into their lifestyle.

As for your stated claims in regards to your Grandmother? Why would that be of special interest to me? Doesn't everyone have a full blood Cherokee GrandMother?

"Our Nations" are the indigenous nations of this continent, "yours" is not.

Many of our Peoples believed that those whom you call gay had a special and much deeper connection to the spirit world, and were/are held in great esteem and admiration. I could continue with this line of conversation but will decline on the basis of the need to know is completely lacking in this instance.

I will give you the same answer that I did before, and that is that I don't know that it would.  I will also once again bring to your attention that I never said that allowing same sex marriages would force upon me such ideas of normality.  I will challenge you to indicate where I said this, and if you continue to spread this assumption about me I will challenge you to explain where you have divined such an assumption.

Yes I am well aware of the claims to native American ancestry that are often made by people.  This doesn't seem as common to me now as it did in the 70's though.  I am not making any claim, I am simply telling you how it is and if I were speaking nonsensically I would have at least come up with a less known heritage.  The reason I pointed it out was exactly indicated in your following sentence where you imply that you have some rights to this continent that I don't.  I am not my ancestors, though, and I will not shame myself by allowing what is mine to be taken from me, or for me to be driven like a dog from my own land.  I claim what is mine by right of will alone.

You have illustrated my point to my satisfaction.....carry on.

[falcon9]

That's very interesting and something I haven't heard of(Chinese colony). I will follow up on that link later as I am totally off grid and its quite a storm here now IE: Im not making solar power and my batteries are almost depleted. Thanks for the link. I'll get back to you on that as well as my thoughts on ancestry.

Fair enough, take your time.  Let those batteries recharge.

[Abrupt]

... where you imply that you have some rights to this continent that I don't.  I am not my ancestors, though, and I will not shame myself by allowing what is mine to be taken from me, or for me to be driven like a dog from my own land.  I claim what is mine by right of will alone.

So, is it all about who "calls dibs" second-to-last or, last the ones to do so?  The reason that question arises is because throughout history, people have invaded/conquered/colonized/wandered into the lands of others.  How far back does one go to determine 'original ancestries'; as far back as possible or, only considered the most recent/current descendent-lines?

I am more of a possession determines ownership type thinker, but as you point out is indeed more complex than that and often convoluted and indeterminate.  Occasionally a people that once occupied a place will have later split into two different 'peoples' and it muddies it even more.  I choose a more simplified, possibly 'caveman' (well I have been called that a few times here) approach and say if you control and hold it then it is yours.  I don't approve of additional conquering or even necessarily having to give back what was conquered (although I am sympathetic and in favor of spiritual lands being restored but would approach such claims intentionally dubiously). 

[Abrupt]

You have illustrated my point to my satisfaction.....carry on.

Would you share with me what your point is please?

[falcon9]

I am more of a possession determines ownership type thinker, but as you point out is indeed more complex than that and often convoluted and indeterminate.  Occasionally a people that once occupied a place will have later split into two different 'peoples' and it muddies it even more.  I choose a more simplified, possibly 'caveman' (well I have been called that a few times here) approach and say if you control and hold it then it is yours. 

As you may or, may not be aware of, every land has been conquered/reconquered, settled and resettled by various people throughout millenia. My inquiries stemmed from that basis and trying to determine where descendants drawn the line; at next-to-the-last to 'call dibs' on it before usurped or, going back to when those 'dibs-callers' pushed the previous occupants out and so on.  The situation gets even more diffuse the further back in time one looks.  Of course, there are those who claim that their ancestors/people had "always been" wherever they are.  This is simply not so; folks initially migrated/wandered around following hunted prey wherever those wandered, etc. to such an extent that all of that migrating & wandering overlapped and "dibs" becomes a transitory claim.

I don't approve of additional conquering or even necessarily having to give back what was conquered (although I am sympathetic and in favor of spiritual lands being restored but would approach such claims intentionally dubiously). 

Okay, then the would the S'klallum tribe have to give back land, (which was 'ceded' back from american settlers), that they occuppied by subduing the Quileute tribe, who swiped it from the Salish and so on and so on?  Like I queried; how far back do 'dibs' go?  If it's just the most recent 'call'/claim, then possession being 9/10s of all that means the last previous tenants don't have a 'dibs claim', (unless everyone who was there prior to them gets to preempt that claim and so forth unto the mists of prehistory.

[walksalone11]

My own thoughts on the subject is that no man can actually own a piece of the earth. I believe the earth in it's entirety is here for all of us. I also believe that each of us are entitled our own culture believes and traditions as long as exercising those ways do not victimize in any way, anyone else, as would happen if one were allowed to insist that another assimilate into/adopt their ways, culture, language etc etc. In other words you do you and allow me do me or....."can't we all just get along?"

[walksalone11]

You have illustrated my point to my satisfaction.....carry on.

Would you share with me what your point is please?

No.

[Abrupt]

You have illustrated my point to my satisfaction.....carry on.

Would you share with me what your point is please?

No.

In other words you are in agreement with me then, as their can be no other conclusion.