Talk:Mexica Movement/Archive 1

From PROD to NPOV
I have removed the PROD tag from this article, and replaced it with the NPOV tag. If you are concerned that this article is not neutral or accurate please discuss it here. Otherwise see WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not censored for anyone's protection). Megapixie 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is indigenous-supremacist propaganda
This article is so patently racist, complete with "European blood merely being a colonial scar", that it is a real danger to young, impressionable readers.

List of offenses:


 * historical revisionism
 * disdain for racial impurity
 * other forms of racism
 * founded on a raft of lies
 * defensive argumentation couched in fictions.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panem (talk • contribs).


 * So provide a neutral counter-point. If you want examples of articles that touch contraversial areas check out Nazism or British National Party. Megapixie 00:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, historical revisionism is basically a good thing. More importantly, the article contains a lot of Mexica Movement nonsense and silliness because it is attempting to accurately describe what they believe in. For instance, the article does not say "European blood is a colonial scar"; it says, "The organization asserts that both mixed-bloods (so-called mestizos) and full-bloods are indigenous people, with European blood merely being a 'colonial scar'". That's true. They do assert that, and it's important to know what they assert if we are to understand what they stand for.


 * What exactly do you want to change? In any event, please do not add editorial comments to the article like, "This is similar to the Nazi fixation on the word Aryan" or "... which is a patently racist viewpoint". - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To "Nat", the term "scar" is derogatory and hurtful, and is hate speech. Such things are only said by racist extremists. Clearly you are a sock puppet for whoever wrote that.--panem


 * Heck no. However, this doesn't respond to my main point, which is that "scar" is being used as a direct quote from the Mexica Movement. It reflects their opinions. Of course it is derogatory and hurtful hate speech. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how they are racist for saying the small amount of spanish blood they have is a scar, because it is. Should we acknowledge the european blood in african americans like we do with mexican and central american "mesitizos" and call them mulattos? The truth is we don't do the same for african americans and this is clearly a double standard.24.126.115.119 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's exactly what they believe and say...
I can understand someone disagreeing with what a given group says, but if you are offended because an account of what they believe is made, then you should stay away from anything dealing with this site or a newspaper.

Life is full of people with positions we don't agree with. That doesn't mean you don't tell the story of what they purport and claim. And thisd article reports what the Mexica Movement claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropmeoff (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mexica Movement Representative
A user removed this part. I don't know if this is the best representative Mexica Movement member but this is the only interview of one. Does anybody know a better interview. --Dark Tichondrias 06:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's Manuel. I don't know if he holds any position within the org, but he is always at the rallies, and usually taking video.--Rockero 15:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone take these people seriously?
They seem like a real bunch of clowns and wackos. Volksgeist 17:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The nativists, immigration reductionists, and the conservatives sure do (see WND "exposés", etc.) And there are some in the Mexican-American/Central American-American that take them seriously, too (despite my best efforts). But let's try to remember to use discussion pages only for discussions about what should or should not be included in an article, shall we?--Rockero 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Disney I'm sure Disney is considering them with some seriousness. These guys were successful in derailing a $20 MILLION movie project called "Zapata" which Disney never released. It starred Antonio Banderas. The Mexica guys did a boycott on Disney and after a year got the movie killed. They also got Salma Hyek to change her public comments about claiming her Mexican pride. These guys are actually getting more sophisticated and bolder. I hear they have established more contacts inside the Native American community. I think they have some big projects coming down the pipe. If this group starts getting its hands on some money, I seriously think they will grow and make some big waves. Right now, they seem to be hatching out the egg. You can bet your last dollar in 25 years more kids will be thinking like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropmeoff (talk • contribs)


 * I don't think that too many people have even heard of them, much less take them seriously. IMO, this is an example of a general problem on Wikipedia with articles about obscure fringe groups.  Because few people outside of these movements and organizations even know of their existence, the content of the articles is provided disproportionately by people who take the groups seriously and support their agendas.  It creates the illusion that these movements are more mainstream than they really are, and obscures the reality that most normal people would see them as crackpots. - Skaraoke 04:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see them ranting and raving their violent hate towards White people on YouTube. Even some of their comments have offended Black people, some of whom have tried to disrupt the Los Angeles protests with their own protest against being told that they don't belong in their own country. I don't see who could put up with this racial supremacism, unless they believe in it themselves. In some people's minds, the statements by these racists are justified, so not seen as supremacist and just "the truth" in their eyes. They don't care who it hurts, because to them, enough pain and anguish has been dealt on the Brown race that these haters are "speaking up for". It's nonsense hate from a race conscious group that only cares about its own, to the exclusion of all others. Other groups don't get away with this stuff, but those who complain at the nasty bigotry are deemed racist for even mentioning that it happens and doesn't stop. Regiment 17:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No matter what you guys say they are right. I am Irish and speak english. Does that make me anglo? no. So mexicans of indigenous blood whether they are called "mestizo" or not should be considered the same race as their ancestors and us native american neighbors. My dad considers himself 100% Irish, but he grew up with black hair. He is what you call black Irish in the sense that somewhere down the line he is related to a spaniard who raped an irish woman during the spanish raids. He doesn't call himself hispanic though. Same idea with what the mexica movement is saying. As for the whole continent thing. Even though I would have to leave, unless they let me stay because I actually respect their people, I still can see what they mean. They're people were murdered, stolen from raped, and lost their land. And now that they are trying to stand up for themselves, you call them racists. If I were in that position, I'd want my continent back too.24.126.115.119 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Black Irish, for stating your opinion in a factual manner. So, since you think the Mexica should take back their continent (which was never theirs anyway), why don't the Irish get back the rest of their lost Celtic lands? That would include Britain, France, Spain, Northern Italy, possibly parts of Northern Africa (some natives still have red hair from back then) and parts of Egypt where your ancestors served as mercenaries in exchange for land ... land that later stolen when you allied yourselves with the Hebrews during the time of Moses. (Where do you Irish think you learned how to make beer?) And, oh yes, Central Turkey once belonged to the Irish (aka Celtic) people, the Galatians. Don't forget Tylis too, in Bulgaria, and possibly some Greek lands won after defeating the Spartans ... yeah, when is that Hollywood epic going to be filmed? But WAIT! There may be evidence that the Celts also colonized ancient America! Well, that just complicates things badly.


 * So let's uncomplicate it. The only people that have any business owning land is individual people, not races, governments, churches or empires. Just people, the one's that know how to till the soil and farm the land and support other people with their land. Only people know what is best for their land, not dead ancestors, not social planners, not political movements. As an Irishman, you should have already known that, for the British have been trying to take that away for a long time now. Jcchat66 (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you fail badly. I am Irish. Not Celtic. Studies show that the vast majority of all the people of the British Isles are descended from a single founding population that predated all invasions to the Isles, including the Celtic invasion. So you are already wrong on your claims about Celtic lands. Second, how could this continent have never belonged to its Indigenous people? The had lived here for atleast 30,000 years before Europeans arrived!24.126.115.119 (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I am of mixed Irish and Mexican backround and I know the Mexica Movements stuff, first up, no one said all Europeans need to be removed, just those who are suppremists like the Nazis and KKK, secondly, I dunno where the dude before got his info, but Native Americans are the Indigenous people, we descended either Siberia( but this can be proven false) or potentially West Asian (Iran, Indian, Sumeria, etc.) as the hook nose, low brows and black hair is visible. I personally support Sinn Fein style Republicanisn like James Connelly, America can only succeed as a socialist nation and the Irish actually fought alongside Mexicans against the US as did Americans of Scottish, German and even English descent, the leader though being the Irish, so why would a Mexican hate and Irishman? Most of us only want equality and the treaty honored. As to black haired Celts, there are alot of black haired Irish, most Irish I know are either red or black haird with blue or green eyes, Celts are indigenous to Ireland, Scotland Walkes and originally migrated out of modern day Macedonia and were displaced by the Romans and Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.94 (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Images
The two screenshots (of Manuel and of Olin, the second of which hasn't been on the page for quite a while) are of very poor quality. Furthermore, the caption on the pic of Manuel is inflammatory. There is no need for that language in the caption of the image; it does nothing but attract vandalism. We can leave a link to the video footage, but the image and its caption are not doing anything to enhance the article. DT, you seem to be the one who is most insistent on keeping this image. How about if we get a higher quality image? and leave the potentially-inflammatory text out of captions?--Rockero 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The picture is not the highest quality photo, but it is highly informative none-the-less, and that trumps questions of prettiness. The caption accurately reflects what he said - why would there be a problem with quoting it? Johntex\talk 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How many other Wikipedia images are captioned with a quote? The caption should describe the image. So it should say something like "Screenshot of Mexica Movement member Manuel at a counterprotest of Save Our State in Glendale, California". If we want to use one of his more memorable quotes, perhaps as an example of MM slogans or tactics, we should do so in the main body of the article. (PS, I was at that rally, and I can look up the date from my files if that's what we decide to do.)--Rockero 22:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That may also be a good solution. As to the prevelance of quotes in an image caption - I agree it is not typical, but I know of no policy against it.  The quote does help explain why the picture captures him with his mouth wide open - it makes the photo look more natural while at the same time being informative.  I'll be curious to see what other people think. Johntex\talk 23:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The pictures are of poor quality, but they should stay. The picture of Olin was taken using a digital camera off of a windows media player video.  This explains its poor quality.  I hoped it would spurr on another user to add a better quality picture.  I could not just take pictures of Olin off the Mexica Movement website because there is no image license for that.  I do not know the reason users keep on taking Manuel's picture off.  I agree it is probably due to the picture's inflamatory nature, but I would like the users who removed it to state their reasons.  It would still be inflamatory even if the quotes were taken off because the statements in the video link are inflamatory. Taking Manuel's picture off entirely would remove the only interview with a Mexica Movement member available, so would not be a sufficient solution.--Dark Tichondrias 23:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting note about the Manuel interview is that it does not exactly represent the Mexica Movement's stated ideology, but does represent how the ideology is interpreted in practice. Manuel claimed Europeans belong in Europe.  The Mexica Movement has a similar claim that European Americans have Europe as a homeland and that only racist Europeans should go back to Europe; however, the Mexica Movement labels all European Americans with views contrary to their own as racists such as all SOS, anti-illegal immigration politician and Minute Men, so Manuel effectively characterized the accurate views of the Mexica Movement in his particular confrontation with tighter border advocates.--Dark Tichondrias 00:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do want ALL European descent people back to Europe. They just want the racist ones to be the first to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropmeoff (talk • contribs)

Anahuac Theology
If the section on Anahuac Theology becomes big enough, it should be its own article similar to other religions.--Dark Tichondrias 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting my comments
-Whoever keeps on deleting my comment on most Mexicans being decended from some European ancestry in the Criticism section needs to stop. If you don't like what you're reading then that's your problem. The comment even links to information on Mexico's inhabitants so it is a fair and accurate comment. If it keeps getting deleted I will keep putting it back up.

El Diablo Volador Sunday, October 15, 2006

The problem is with the text that says, "Many would also claim ..." Do they claim it or don't they? Who are the "many"? Can you provide us with a reference in which they make this claim? -Will Beback 19:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

-Watch any videos from or attend any demonstrations where the Mexica Movement are present and "many" use that argument directly against them.

El Diablo Volador Sunday, October 15, 2006


 * Can you give us a link to a specific video? -Will Beback 19:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many Mexican Americans who share the same view as EL Diablo


 * You mean the view that this article should contain unsourced hearsay? If that's so then I hope they don't come edit here without learning our policies. In particular, we require all information to be verifiable. -Will Beback 05:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

-

native american support
this almost certainly counts as original research, but regarding the claim that "so far no Native Americans have supported the cause", I personally have spoken to at least two Native Americans online who expressed support for the Mexica movement in their correspondences. Clearly it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to verify any statements that effectively say "no individual of a certain cultural/ethnic/racial group holds such and such views". Perhaps instead "So far no Native American organizations have supported the cause" should be used? --Krsont 00:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is hard to verify, but as far as I know, this movement has very limited support from Native American organizations.69.235.132.123 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)James Lopez

Mixed blood point of view
Alright, I am an American of mixed White and Indian blood. I can tell you right now that a majority of Mexicans are of Mixed White and Indian ancestry. I have family in Mexico City (who, by the way, unlike me are completely White), and I'm sure they'll tell you that. The Mexica movement, is probably bigger in the United States than it is in Mexico, I'm sure that a majority of Mexicans (obviously) will admit to their Mestizo heritage. Even if the mixing started way back when, people mixing with people who have been mixing for centuries would not make your Spanish or any other European ancestry a "scar", even if it was the result of something horrible. It's there, and it's not going to be any less or any more, if that's the way it happened. Mind you, that there has been some Spanish immigration since colonial times, and I know there is a significant German population there. So, the people of the "Mexica" movement, could in fact be more White than Indigineous. I don't think and Mexican can take this seriously (though I'm sure some do), and I'm a bit surprised that Americans (by the way, I'm American) can take this seriously at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.195.17 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledging white blood that you have that only came from rape is rediculous and stupid. When people look at you they are not going to think you have white blood from 500 years ago. They are just going to think you're another brown person. I'm half Italian. Do you see me running around saying I'm arab because I probably have arab blood? No of course not. And it doesn't make me any more arab than someone with no arab blood. African Americans have more European blood than Africans from Africa. Do they claim their white blood? Of course not. The whole word mestizo is a lie that needs to die out. As radical as the Mexica Movement may seem, they are exactly right. No one should have to "admit" to being something that they are not.24.126.115.119 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In some ways they do have a point
It disappoints me to see only negative comments on this discussion-page like the Mexica-Movement activists could only be wacko's or something. They're too intelligent for that really. Someone even wondered "Does anyone take them seriously?" Well, I for one do, be it that I don't take everything literally, which would be a more appropiate word than seriously. Or maybe call it hypothetic. I think they want to present people, and especially the white supremacists (who do not necessarily need to be white* as it's an ideology more than anything else to me) a mirror when they're on about DNA, and deporting Europeans back to Europe. A way of waking people up. To give an example: I once saw some Native Americans at Oprah and they were on about offensive sports mascots as before the game the players would send in a pig, painted red with a feather-headdress and because Oprah didn't understand what the "fuzz" was about the Indian said "Suppose they'd painted the pig black make it wear an Afro-wig..." and ah, the coin finally dropped there! So somethimes you have to deliberately turn things around to make people see things. I believe they have a very good point about cultural genocide for instance. The white people of that era really believed that another race could only become civilized if they'd wear the white man's clothes, eat the white man's food, the men would wear their hair short like the white man and profess the white man's religion. You could say; okay, that's an old 19th century idea. in fact indeed it is, but you'd be surprised to know that these ideas are still pretty much alive in some circles. But I have to add that I wouldn't agree with them on really every detail, but nevertheless I think they deserve a much positive image than they're so far getting. Theo, Amsterdam


 * (I think it's fair to say that the "Uncle Tomahawks" or "Indian Apples" as they're called, like for instance David Yeagley can be classed as White Supremacists, no matter the colour on the outside) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea that Europeans are one race and one culture is equaly absurd and ignorant as the Anahuac believing they are one race and one culture. The Mexica were at war with most of their neighbors, because like any empire, they sought power over others ... just like the Germans and the Persians and every other empire in the world that tried to force their ways on others. But for Anglo-Americans to be called European is just insulting! For thousands of years the Germanic races have been pushing westward into the indegionous Western European populations. The Celts were a mix between both, and despised by their Germanic neigbors anyway. Almost every culture and race in the world is mixed and shares ideas. This Mexica Movement also seems to ignore the growing evidence of ancient visitors from Africa and Asia. And what about the Jewish heritage in Mexico and America that is so strong? Would the Mexica Movement call them illegals too, who had no choice but to migrate across the world to escape racist hate-mongering?


 * Let's get the facts straight about Europeans. They are not all the same by a long shot. British culture is entirely different from mainland Europe (which is why they still have not joined the EU.) The Germans and Italians are NOT part of Western Civilization, because they are such a different culture. (Though Germans would love to assert otherwise.) The Germanic people constantly attacked and harrassed Western Civilization. Likewise, the North American nomadic tribes avoided trying to be dictated to by empires constantly emerging from Mesoamerica, and were more like the Celts of Europe (Who actually got along well when mixed, like the Scots and Seminoles) The Celts also migrated away from the advancing Germanic, and later, Romanic oppressors, becoming British Irish and Scottish. The Celts CONTINUED to escape to America when the opportunity arose, this was not an active campaign by the British Kingdom to colonize or war with the Indians. Colonization would have existed, and did exist, without he saction of the king or queen. These were FREE people trying to escape persecution! The REAL culprits were always the mega-corpoations chartered by the royal families. India suffered the worst under the East India Company, and the American populations under the Hudson Bay Company. All the worst crimes occured under these power-mongering entities, not by free people seeking only a place to live in the world. Were their mistakes in history? Of course! What poeple have not made mistakes in their history?


 * And lastly, since when could anyone be responsible for the actions of their ancestors? No one alive today had anything to do with the crimes of the past. If this Mexica Movement had their way in deporting Americans to Europe, this would be no less a crime than what the Romans or Nazis did. Jcchat66 (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as an aside, the UK is not just a member of the EU, it is one of the ORIGINAL members of the EU. HedgeFundBob (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Try to understand this movement better!
negativityI'm appalled by seeing only negative reactions on this discussion-page about this Mexica Movement except my own. It's also very evident that none of you have been really carefully reading and examening it's material and what this Movement is really trying to say. First of all their so-called "offensive" statements like "Deport white people back to Europe" that you people choose to see as "racist" is only a hypothetical mirror presented towards the White Supremacists who can't stop using abusive terms like "redskins" and "squaws". I am convinced that they are no racists at all.

Second: here's yet again another one whining and complaining that "we white people are not responsible for what our ancestors did". Thing is that white people are still benefiting from the slavery and the stealing of land and recources from the past. We (I'm white myself) may not be directly responsible for what the 7th cavalery did at Wounded Knee in 1890 but we are collectively responsible for Native Americans living in impoverished conditions on reservations without electricity or running water as if living in a third world country. Reservations started out as concentration camps, so readily copied by South African apartheid. As long as the US Government does not do anything significant to reverse this it is therefore obviously not really there for ALL Americans, and shouldn't be lecturing countries like Iran about "human rights" or "democracy". A country that wants to see itself as a "democracy" and "part of the free world" shouldn't have any political prisoners like Leonard Peltier and the Cuban Five. Or rig any elections like Bush did in Florida 8 years ago. Then there's this "one people"-thing: this may be one of the few details in which I'd disagree with this movement because it's a known fact that the Hopi and Navaho do not get along very well. But they are right however that the American continent should be governed by a Indigenous Government and NOT a government established by whites, who mutilated the landscape of Mount Rushmore with faces of American presidents. It's THEIR continent and just like the African continent is predominantly black and the Asian continent predominently yellow so the Ameirican continent is supposed to be predominently red. Perhaps there should be different (indigenous) there countries like on other continents, countries to be renamed Lakota, Cheyenne, Hopi, Chippewa etc. I don't think the MM really wants the white people to leave like that because there'll be no room for them in Europe anyway. It's just a mirror. A reactions to white supremacy who states that "Indians should go back to the rez" etc. Theo van Rossum, Amsterdam, the Netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No editing conflict, I edited my own comments above.


 * In response to "here's yet again another one whining and complaining that "we white people are not responsible for what our ancestors did." from above, what kind of concept are you speaking of exactly? Responsibility and accountability require control, as those words are defined in every dictionary. Logically, no one can be responsible for something they could not control, or in this case prevent. There might have been some kind of collective responsibility at one time, but that was generations ago. As for slavery, only Western Civilization was the FIRST civilization, on earth to abolish it, which countless died to accomplish. There would still be slavery practiced by the American Indians and the Muslims had it not been for colonization, so obviously some good came out of bad situations. So if there is going to be blame thrown around for negative things regarding so-called "white people.", then remain unbiased and remember the positive things as well. But the simple fact remains, there is no such concept as responsibility for the actions of one's ancestors, for the simple reason it could NOT have been prevented by today's generation. Unless, of course, you believe in destiny and reincarnation and other forms of mysticism. Likewise, absolutely no one today can claim to be victimized by a past generation. For example, Israelis had every right to go after those directly responsible for the Holocaust, but obvious its has slowed down as there are very few left alive to pursue. There are no forthcoming plans for Israel to demand that every generation of Germans hereafter pay every generation thereafter in Israel for the Holocaust. It's over, and now Germans and Israelis do business with one another without enmity. Which brings up another point, if the descendants were responsible for their ancestors actions, how many generations would this go? I don't know about other countries, but that form of economic slavery known as inheritable debt was abolished a long time ago in the Western world. When there was inheritable debt, which is the closest real-world example of attempting to make someone responsible for that which they had no control to prevent, it was used to as form of indentured servitude. So how can anyone be responsible for what their ancestors did anywhere in the world? That would be a nice bit of original research!


 * Follow this to it's illogical conclusion. The Greeks would be entitled to land and money from the Turks. Western Europeans would be entitled to land and money from Italy. North Africa would be entitled to lands and money from all Arabians that stole it from the Berbers. Half of India, most of Iran, most of China, and much of Russia would be entitled to money from Mongolia. What an endless cycle! And if the Mexica Movement is only pretending to want to uproot all European descendants and exile them to Europe, then that is simply a bad joke. It is also narrow-minded and hateful. Why only negative things to say about the Mexica Movement? Read it's website ... nothing but negativity! Jcchat66 (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As for this comment: "But they are right however that the American continent should be governed by a Indigenous Government and NOT a government established by whites, who mutilated the landscape of Mount Rushmore with faces of American presidents. It's THEIR continent and just like the African continent is predominantly black and the Asian continent predominently yellow so the Ameirican continent is supposed to be predominently red."


 * What part of history did you miss about such having empires? One government to rule all North America? Um, the whole point of whites LEAVING Europe was to escape that kind of oppressive thinking. What about self-government, and the fact that the Navajo and Hopi enjoy self-government today? Without fear of constant warfare from other tribes, mind you! Yes, let's just all bow down to a new Reverend Speaker of Cemanahuac! Good grief, have you not learned anything from history at all? And Turkey was suppose to be predominately Greek, but that just didn't remain, did it? North Africa was predominately Christians before the Mulsims came, so what? Who has any business or right to decide what continent should contain what race? Most continents have never had only one race. Asia is predominately yellow, are you insane? The Israelis, Arabs, Indians, Persians, and Russians are all yellow? Wow. What does race matter amongst free people? Nothing. The last time someone got all high and mighty on race caused the deaths of millions! Jcchat66 (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jcchat66,

Apparantly one can say that good reading is an art in itself because, as expected, you're still not getting it. Basically, you're wrong about these two things: 1. the webpages of Mexica Movement containing only negativities 2. the injustice or slavery being a thing of the past

You're constantly on about history, while that was not all I mentioned, as I've already said that the injustice towards towards Native Americans continues to this very day! The age-old practice of breaking treaties with Ameican Indians by the US Government continues today, as can be seen with this conflict there is with the Tribal Government of Pine Ridge over the growing of hemp (industrial hemp that is, not pot!). Despite offical approval from the tribal government to grow this hemp, intended for a clothing industry the FBI continued to destroy the harvest! Another broken treaty in an already long history of it! There IS no real self-governing in reservations, that's just a farce! All reservations are still under the Ministry of Interior's BIA. Up to this day there (unfortunately) does not exist any complete souvernty independant from the United States Government. And there are still trics to con them out of land-pieces. And then there's the mining of uranium, being a health-hazard for an area where people live. And the lack of electricity and running water. But I've been saying this before, but this must have escaped your attention or something. If America claims that Native Americans are Americans too, this just shouldn't be happening! Another thing: it's strange that it took 'til the late 80's to have a seperate law for religious freedom voor Indians (American Indian Freedom of Religion Act) under the Carter government. Strange because you'd think that Freedom of Religion as being layed down in the Constitution should be for everybody, so apparantly this right has been abused by the authorities for a long time before this act came into being. All these seperate laws for American Indians are indeed strange which only indicates that they're still not seen as equal citizens.

Yes, I know that todays white people are not responsible for what their ancestors did, but that is not my point. Please make an attempte to try and understand "context". I was also talking about TODAY's injustices, not just HISTORY and the fact that WE are still benefiting from past slavery. Everywhere there's wealth and progress it's at the expense of others. Now you're saying American Indians are being victimized. Well, if you have no electricity or clean water aren't you just entitled to be called a victim? Mind you: not all reservations can afford a casino. Is it right that in rich country like the US that now likes to spend (waste is a better word) millions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has people who live like they're in a third world country? Isn't it time we did something back for them if we now claim to be more humane than our ancestors for which we don't want to be responsible? For the Indians who helped the first white settlers survive on this continent and later turned out to be their assassins? The broken treaties aren't over yet, nor is the genocide. In most countries in the America's the Native American population is less that 1%! And why do I say the genocide isn't over yet? Because the American Indian Movement, during their occupation of BIA in the 70's, discovered secret documents there for the sterilization of Indian women! Not military "option" anymore like in the Wounded Knee massacre but more sneaky this time. It's however still genocide. But no, people just want to see AIM as militant etc. while nobody listened to them before they decied to organise more attention-grabbing actions, which was proving by the refusal of the government to recieve or look at their petition. Slavery still exists and you don't need to be in chains for that anymore. The American Civil War only ended visible slavery. Everybody who is poor is still a slave. Money opens doors, poverty makes one dependant. Even Afro-Americans have more rights today than the American Indian.

I'm not saying that white people have to go back (how can we now still accomodate for you on the smallest continent in the world?) to Europe, but you people just don't seem to understand context, presenting a mirror to people and cinicism. And no, it's not a "bad joke" as you call it. It's not a joke at all, but apparantly you're missing my point yet again and my example of the Oprah Show apparantly was in vain then (*sigh*). A mirror is sometimes needed to make people realize certain things. No joke. No one is laughing.

The "negativity" on the MM-webpage is material from White Supremacists like Minutemen, SOS, KKK and Immigration Watchdog. Why blaim the Mexica Movement for showing it? It's not theirs, is it? They're just rightfully pointing it out. For positive comments see http://www.mexica-movement.org/JOHNBROWNPAGE.htm. And they have repeatedly expressed their appreciation for white people who've protested together with them. Any real negativity can be found on these webpages of Minuteman Project and SOS with all sorts of exaggerations about Mexican criminals, the deceases they spread (courtesy of Lou Dobbs), the abusive terms like "wetbacks", and their alledged ties with AL Qaeda (what a vivid imagination some people have!). And how can shop-owners, close to the Mexican border, have the cheeky audacity to put a sign in their windows saying "When ordering something, speak English. This is America!" while there's no law supporting this? As yet English is no official language in the US and there isn't even one yet anyway. Besides, no American ever spoke my language when visiting Amsterdam. They all expect us to speak English for them. How they'd feel lost if we'd refuse but we don't. That's just not how we are.

As for your comment about Indian tribes being at war at each other. Well, that's why they too need a federal (indigenous) government, don't they, like the USA has now. You make it sound like "If it wasn't for us white people the Indians would be killing each other off", but for your information, before Columbus the population was much more impressive than it is now. I'm convinced that much more of them have been killed by the hands of whites than ever been by any hostile tribes. Besides, like white people never go to war with each other. That's just another patronizing idea we have to get ridd of, that "if it wasn't for us white people"-thing. Like we are the example of civilization and others should be following it. Don't make me laugh. Many more crimes have been committed in the name of (the Christian) God than we can imagine. And don't forget that the French Revolution in which many innocent aristocrats died was after the Declaration of Droits Humaines(Human Rights) in France.

Quote from JCChat66: "What part of history did you miss about having such empires? One government to rule all of North America? The whole point was about white Europeans escaping this kind of oppressive ruling". I did not speak of one government for North America. Tell where I did? I spoke of seperate Indigenous countries, but ruled by a federal government. But why should you object to that? Practically most of North America is USA now, especially since you gained serveral states from Mexico and had Alaska being added. You have a federal government now. So where is the problem? And the Europe you speak of from the 16th century was a Europe with lots of dictatorial monarchies. So far I've only seen the Mexica Movement speak of a DEMOCRATIC government, not the EMPIRE that you're mentioning now. But like I said: good reading is an art.

Quote from Jcchat66: "What about self-government?" This one I already anwsered now, but I should only add that any REAL self-government can only be obtained by COMPLETE SOUVERNTY. It's their right. And the reason I mentioned a "predominantly red Ameica" is because less than one % is left. Not in any racist terms, but to turn the tables towards a compensating justice.

Theo van Rossum, Amsterdam, Netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, Amsterdam, calm down. Good reading indeed! It likewise appears that you missed a few points I made, where I admit that I may have missed some of yours. But while you live in Amsterdam, I live right here in New Mexico, yet another Hispanic being overrun by Mexicans with a political agenda. I also speak for my wife, who is very angry about this Mexica Movement, as just more Mexican propoganda. SO before you begin assuming anything, know that we are very intimately aware of the politics of this. Calling minutemen white supremacist is a joke. While we have not associated with them (mostly in Taxes anyway) we know damn well that some of them are Hispanic as well. Do you know the difference between Mexican and Hispanic? Because that's a very sensative issue here in New Mexico. Most of the Spanish-speaking population have absolutely no affiliation with Mexico, neither now or in the past. Many are descedants of Crypto-Jews who had escaped the Inquisition. And of course the US has no official language, it's not a nation-state like most European countries. Each state sets its official language, 28 of which is English. Spanish and English are legally de facto languages in New Mexico, the government has to print everything in both languages. Not a written law, but public policy which is the law none the less. So it is valid for any business to request that English be spoken in his business, and vice versa for Spanish. In some parts of Albuquerque all the signs are in Spanish, public and private, so what's wrong with a business owner putting up a sign to speak English? If people don't like it, he will probably go out of business, and that's his problem. It's not audacity, it's just his right just like the Spanish-speaking population does the same here, or the Navajo do in Dinetah (as they call their nation.)


 * So far it seems that we agree with all the causes of all the problems you mentioned. But where you or the Mexica Movement blame this on race and injustice, (except John Brown), it is clearly a human nature issue. And yes, the whole page appears out of context when language is not used correctly. The website for promoting the Mexica Movement is just simply awful. It actually gave me the impression of being Marxist, but of course it is not. It's not a very friendly website, and it does not beg to be read, but only to stir up trouble. And self-government, you seem not to understand what that means. It means free will and taking responsibility for one's own actions, which EVERY Native American in the USA is capable of doing. And you are DEAD WRONG about oppression lingering on in this country. Indians are given vastly more opportunities than even the Afro-Americans. While Hispanics and Afro-Americans get grants from the government to go to the University of New Mexico (and all universities in the USA I believe) they still have to meet a minimum grade-point average. Indians do not, at all. They can go to college for their entire life and never graduate. All of them get far more money, even the poorer reservations with no casinos, than the average American family of any social class. As for sovereignty, well, while I don't trust the federal government anymore than the next American, the tribal governments still are strong in influence and power. In fact, the federal government directly violated its own constitution to grant them sovereignty in any form. The reservation lands are untouchable here, ruthlessly protected by the tribes, and highly respected by everyone ... except that age old enemy of ALL people since before even the Romans ... the corporate elite. So I don't know where you're getting you information, or the Mexica Movement.


 * The population was much more impressive before Columbus came? Then, logically, so was the human sacrifices, the slavery, and the constant state of fear that drove the Anasazi to their cliff-dwellings before the end. Sorry, no one else caused all that but the natives, whose nations rose and fell long before Columbus. The Mexica were quite busy expanding their borders against other nations before the Spanish arrived. And I am all for John Brown, but you seem to have missed my point about the Anglo-Celts (or Celto-Iberian Jews like myself) fleeing Europe to escape oppression, which unfortunately followed us here anyway. John Brown was a victim of the corporate elite as well, forced into bankruptcy several times, and his talents taken advantage of at every turn. Slavery, once again, was perpertrated by slave magnates, corporations, and John Brown saw this and fought against it. I did mention the East India Company, didn't I? They were not the only one's greedily seeking power over the world, I'm sure. Nor is that a racial thing. The seeking of power over others has never been racial, but it has always been done by the few, the elite, the aristocracy (that last word invented by your friends to the East in Germany.) Cemanahuac and all the various native tribes were no different ... power held on to by the few, and jealousy guarded by traditions and mysticism. Just like the European monarchies and their merchant bed-buddies with monopolistic charters ... the very same thing the Mexica had with their Pochtecatl. It was no more and no less tragic what happened to them than what the Romans did to the Celtic tribes who were very similiar. The Romans were bastards, racists, corrupt, and sinister to the core. The only virtues they had were borrowed from the Greeks and Carthiginians. Now take a long look at history and compare the colonial nations to Rome. You can't, they are not even remotely close in the scope of their war-mongering, rampant slave-taking, racism, or treachery. Had the Romans encountered the Mexica, they would have exterminated most of them by sword as they did with Carthage, taken the rest as slaves, and THEN colonize their land. John Brown was not the only good American, the sentiments of most Americans were like him in the 1700's. If they had not been, there would not have been a civil war, and slavery might still exist. Today, all Americans abhor slavery thanks to the John Brown's of America, and the British who were the first to outlaw the practice. But saying John Brown would have supported the Mexica Movement is like saying Adam Smith would have supported Marxism ... they both had the same goals ... but oh how different was the method for going about it!


 * So, going to the two things.

1. the webpages of Mexica Movement containing only negativities. On this I was wrong. But the sentiments of this website are no less atrocious. Perhaps if we could find where they stand on classic positions like free will and what legal system would be implimented (instead of using the US constitution as a transitional law) we can add that to this article. Where do they stand on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Welfare? (The Incas at least were strong in this.) Democracy (which is not a Native American tradition) Property rights? (Traditional Native Americans had no concept of individual land ownership, but control of land and resources still remained with tribal chiefs, warlords, and kings no different than feudalism everywhere else.) The very use of the word Mexica, for example, brings on visions of imperialism, exploitation, oppression, and human sacrifice. To most other Native Americans, it is meaningless, and hardly a word suitable in rallying them all together. Anahuac is likewise meaningless to the other tribes and nations. Frankly, it sounds Mexi-centric.

2. the injustice or slavery being a thing of the past. This I am not wrong on as a matter of historical facts, which John Brown proves. The ONLY injustice that exists is the SAME injustice that has always existed ... those aristocracies that pursue power over others. No race and culture can be blamed for this, only those few individuals that always have done this, and probably, sadly, always will. There will always been criminals in the world, and the rest of us must do are very best to keep them to a minimum ... not play into their hands by creating new governments and new laws to enpower them further. Or, state exactly what injustice. All living Native Americans in the USA can practice whatever tradition they could before ... as long as it does not violate an individual's rights. They were not known for equality among the sexes or sufferage, after all. So what injustice still remains? If anything the Native Americans can do far more than every before, for written language, math, and science were enhanced.


 * The only REAL self-government is sovereignty? That means that sovereignty lies with the people. If that is so, then what does it matter what color their skin is? The USA and Canada is the best hope for such a thing in the Americas. It's their right to start some kind of revolution, seize control over parts of the USA, and take sovereighty as a new nation? Well, let me know how that works out. Jcchat66 (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jcchat66, but I'm currently having some problems with my computer which is behaving a bit strange so I might have to save little pieces that I write or a lot of it will be written in vain and gone otherwise.

I'm sorry if I give you the impression to be worked up because you said "Alright Amsterdam, calm down" Can I call you "New Mexico" then? But alright, let's cut the subjects in distinctive, recognizable pieces here:

Mexico/Mexican/Hispanic/Latino: This may sound like the silliest question to you, but what do you mean when you say Mexican? Do you mean Mexican as in Mexican national? As someone from the country called Mexico? The reason I'm asking you this is because you said "most Hispanic have no affiliation with Mexico" and I believe there is a difference between mexicO and MexicA to be made. Especially because the Mexica Movement claims to reject all "Eurocentric imposed artificial" borders. They claim to be indigenous therefore Native American. Mexica (ending with an A) is the native word for Aztec like Dineh is for Navajo.
 * Yes, I mean those of Mexican nationality, who impose their culture on Hispanics, or try to merge them. Hispanic traditional meant an American national of Latin heritage (not strictly Mexican), which includes Puerto Rican (my grandmother) or Cuban or Spain. However, at UNM, you have many Latinos who have been convinced that all should embrace Mexican heritage, and a lot of racism. Since I look white, my wife was actually asked by other Hispanics taken in by this nonsense why she didn't like Mexicans because she married a gringo. The Mexica Movement does little to prevent a growing trend of racism against anyone that looks white, including Jews, which is also in my lineage. I remember my the stories about Germany in the 1800's, when Germans and Jews mixed and married and got along just fine ... until that one spark of hate ignited. I see all groups like the Mexica Movement as potential sparks of hatred, regardless of whether they have good points or not. The Nazis had good points too, but obviously that did not matter in the end. The the borders in the Americas where not imposed by any European power, but by many hundreds of thousands of Americans and Latin Americans that revolted against their European oppressors. It is insulting to call any Latin or Anglo American nation "Eurocentric." It is simply ignorant.
 * You have no idea what you are saying. You equate Mexican nationals with propoganda flinging whatevers... No. Stop. Think about that, why would Mexican nationals care about trying to make you Mexican? You looking White has nothing to do with anything either... many Mexicans are white and in fact there are more white Mexicans than there are white puerto ricans.... You are very interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.157.119 (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nican Tlaca: This is just one little thing on which I have to disagree with the Mexica Movement. They want all Native Americans as far as Canada to embrace the (obviously Meso-Indian) concept of Nican Tlaca. Anahuac is North America in the Anahuatl language but not in other North American native languages. Proud of being "urban" people and "we had very few tribes". They even find it offensive to be asked "What tribe do you belong to?" Oh yes, certainly the Aztecs and Maya were urban, building large cities but I don't think it will really apply very much to North America as the Lakota, Cree, Chippewa, Cheyenne, Cherokee, and Navajo are certainly anything but "urban".
 * I agree. There is also a certain element of warrior societies and lack of respect for the individual for the sake of the many that is disturbing ... perhaps that's why it struck my as slightly Marxist ... the very last thing any native people need.

1. The Mexica Movement donounce Marxism. 2. They are merely stating that the assumption that all indigenous people are/were tribal is biased and wrong. They support all the indigenous people of their continent but want to maintain that most were urban. This is most likely true because if you've done your research you'd know that the Anasazi of the Southwest had big towns such as Pueblo Bonito, the Southeast was dominated by the Mississippian culture that built cities and towns and the Mound Builders of the Midwest also built large cities/towns like Cahokia. Not all urban people lived in what is now Mexico and Central America but most did. With this in mind one would assume that the majority of people in North America before 1492 were urban. That is all their saying. They also point out how the Germans were once made up of tribes. The Germans today don't identify as tribal people but that doesn't mean they deny their own culture24.126.115.119 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

English in America: What I find an audacity is that the shopkeeper ended his request for speaking English with "This is America!" If it would have been for any the reasons you mentioned, you'll understand that the US of A has nothing do with it! So no one can say "because this is America". Ofcourse most Americans speak English and the government certainly does, but if I were a shopkeeper in my country and would be putting a sign like that out, I'd soon get a visit from the police requesting to remove it immediately as ovehere it's considered a racist thing. And we even have laws against that as well. In the past American saloons had signs saying "No Indians allowed". It's not much different from South African apartheid having signs saying "Whites only". And let's not forget the fact that negroes were to sit in the back of a bus in the days of Martin Luther King back in the 60's. I'm not calling all Americans racist but there's quite bit of it overthere, I'll say.
 * I understand your point, but you must consider this. Freedom means freedom, and at the cost of people being free to be stupid and ignorant and go out of business. Second, language has nothing to do with culture or race, it has to do with communication. If everyone spoke one language, we would get along a lot better, period. If all Americans suddenly spoke Spanish, or Nahuatl, or Mandarin, it would have no real impact on culture. The US Constitution would still be the same in Japanese. Saying "No Indians Allowed" is not the same as saying "English only." As a business owner I would not do that, and most businesses certainly don't. Miami once passed an ordinance that only English could be spoken in public, for the SOLE reason that it was a public safety issue, not to disrespect the Latins. People were getting shot for not obeying the police, or crashing their cars because they did not understand the traffic signs. Peronally, I think Americans need to be like they were in John Brown's day, and speak several languages.

Self-government: I do not know what it means? You think I'm ignorant? We all have to "take responsibilty for our own actions", don't we, but are we governments? I don't think so. Like I said, as long as the tribal governments are operating UNDER the Bureau of Indian Affairs which is part of the Ministry of the Interior of the US Government, there can be no real Indian land. I don't understand why you say the reservations are "untouchable". Because if they are, how can the FBI come and repeatedly destroy the hemp harvests on Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota? How could the FBI have chased an Indian (who alledgedly had stolen a pair of cowboy boots, vey strange story) onto this reservation, later leading to the arrest of Leonard Peltier, the American Nelson Mandela, if you look at the lengthy sentence he got? Why are you so in denial about the continueing injustices towards Native Americans and the broken treaties? How can it be that many have no electricity and/or clean water if they get more money than Afro-Americans do as you say? It makes no sense. Are you perhaps suggesting that the tribal councils are putting the government fees in their own pockets instead of spending it on thier tribes?
 * I don't mean to imply that you are ignorant, my aologies. But no, the American Revolution meant just that about self-government ... literally that every man (and later every woman) was their own monarch over their own land. Yes, democracy literally means government by every individual over their own lives and property, not by professional politicans, lawyers, nobles, or intellectuals. The United States began its career as a confederation of kings, land was truly owned in the same manner as a king, as no property taxes could be imposed in the very early days of the first liberal revolution. That also meant that no matter how poor the people were, they could not be thrown off their land for lack of paying taxes ... the very opposite of the feudal system. To keep this system intact, corporations could not own land at all. That did not come until the railroad companies seduced congress, and the new aristocracies once again imposed their will, and then came Wal-Marts and McDonalds and the end to the small businesses championed by Adam Smith (who was opposed to large corporations, or mercantilism back then). This important point of self-government, quite literally a form of organized anarchy, is often missed by Europeans because they NEVER experienced this degree of freedom, EVER in their history. Yes, how very Eurocentric indeed. Most of the horrible crimes in history against the Indians were by the government and corporations in the mid 1800's, right after the Mexican-American War. After the Civil War property taxes were imposed on the Southern states, and then upon the Northern states, and then many were thrown off their lands. You will also note that's when most of the crimes against the Indians were made, by governments working against the will of the people and corporations working against the will of governments. It ALWAYS boils down to a few individuals that cause all the problems. Culture might make it easier or harder for criminals to prosper, as Roman culture made it easy to justify slavery. But in the end, only a few people are EVER responsible for the evils of the world. Governments break treaties, not society. If there is still injustices going on against the Indians, then blame the same people today that caused John Brown so much financial grief back then ... the aristocracy. How can Americans change their government and prevent it from oppressing the Indians when they are taxed into debt, when the media is controlled by the elite, and only two political parties exist and the whole country is polarized?


 * But being in denial? I just don't see it. I live amongst these Indians, I drive through their lands every week, and buy fuel from their clean, new, gas stations where they DON'T have casinos. The few Indians that don't have electricity or modern amenities that I've head of it because they want to keep it traditional. Many Anglos do this as well, one of the beneifts of having so small a population and so much land. Show me some evidence, for I can physically go and verify it right here in New Mexico. But if you trying to make Americans feel guilty and ashamed, as the Mexica Movement is trying to do, then I refer you to Psychology 101. Making people feel ashamed and guilty is very, very destructive, and many times has been used as a weapon to maintain slavery. No one, anywhere, should be made to feel ashamed for who they are, or what their ancestors did, and that is exactly what the Mexica Movement seems to promote above all else. Slavery was maintained for THOUSANDS of years with shame and guilt alone, with psychological warfare. Well, shame on them for using those as weapons now, who in one breath says we of European descent should be ashamed, oh, but the US Constitution is the best thing going, so let's use that. They want to throw shame and blame around, well every cultrue on earth has equal measures of it to share. At least the crusades were documented to remind us how religion can be used destructively. How about all the human sacrifices over thousands of years, or all the women raped for thousands of years, or all the children thrown out into the winter cold to become strong or die? Unfortunately, we only have the bones to tell that story, and a few codexes (who knows what other crimes would have been revealed had the Catholics NOT burned so much?) Yes, plenty of blame and shame to throw around.

I'll be working on the rest of my answer to you omorrow as it's now getting a bit late. Almost 11 PM in my country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've gone on too long myself, almost 2am here, oops. Jcchat66 (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't wait te respond I see while I wasn't finished at yet. Oh well, fair enough. I'll continue:

Marxism: It always strikes me how conservative Americans always come up with this labeling term "marxism"every time they come across something seemingly "leftish" to them. Please explain the Mexica Movement's alleged marxism to me? I'm curious. Where is their reference to Marxist heroes like Lenin or Mao Zedong? And where did they ever object to free enterprise? So apparantly the McCarthy era isn't over yet after all? And we all know that his investigating witchhunt led to nothing. Careful, there might be a communist under the bed. Better check every night. I've been called a marxist and even an anarchist by a minuteman once or "one of those people who want to destroy America, but that's the usual reaction towards critism at the United States I've noticed. It doesn't make sense however.
 * Unfortunately, the Eurocentric experience of history has caused a great deal of confusion with such words. Liberals in Europe would be considered conservatives in America. Marxism was a reaction to the totally aristocratic control over resources, while America is only now going through such an aristocratic mercantile phase, now labeled capitalism. I don't use Marxism to describe some cold war paranoia, I use it as it relates to Karl Marx and the revolutions he sparked in Europe as a reaction to mercantilism (European Capitalism). Since Marx and socialists in Europe had no real experience at all with true liberalism and freedom, they mistakenly deemed liberals as allies of the capitalists, when that was never the case in America at all. What European capitalist were doing was hiding behind such labels to deflect some of the revolutionary spirit of the era, and thereby doom any hope of real freedom the Marxist were pursuing by separating them from liberal ideology. Thus, Marxism played into the hands of the warmongering elite, and that is what I call Marxist ... a bunch of fanatics barking up the wrong tree and painting everything red. Well, there is a lot of red on the Mexica Movement's website, thus that Marxist feel. But I'm not calling them Marxist, as I said before they obviously are not. But they do promote the idea that society is more important than the individual ... which is at the very root of almost every religious crusade and jihad there ever was. It's just not a good look.

Native American problems: You seem to think I'm making this all up or perhaps that the Indians who are complaining should put themselves together? WHre do I get my information? American Indian Movement, European organisations who help Indians, YouTube (controversial source to some, I know), Voz de Aztlan (I disagree with the ADL's idea of any anti-semitism by the way), Democracy Now!, Amnesty International, etc. Varied enough? Or perhaps too leftish for you? But I at least didn't make anything up. There does exist poverty, discrimination, mining, rape of indigenous women in Alaska, etc.
 * Okay, perhaps you are right. Perhaps the media is worse than I thought here, because they never mention this.

Reservations: Why shouldn't american Indians get complete sovereignty? It was their land for thousand of years anyway (meaning that Columbus did not discover America)to start with. There is a very good comparison on the Mexica Movement website (one of their video's) with the famous War of the Worlds story. and they didn't invent reservations of Manifest Destiny. Those were only fascist white man's inventions.
 * If sovereignty lies with the people, what's with the nationalist mood? You know what, if it came to a vote, I would vote for their full sovereignty, or member as a full sovereign state in the union.

Human sacrifice: I do not claim to be a scholar of expert on Meso-American culture but I do think that too much emphasise has always been put on human sacrifice. Voz de Aztlan denies human sacrifice completely and the Mexica Movement only says it's highly exaggerated. Most archeologists and historians believe they took place on a large scale. The only who can find out the real truth about is the man who invents the time machine in order to take a look and God knows how many history books need to be rewritten when that happens. So I cannot really judge who's right or wrong in this. But I do say that Mel Gibson's Apocalypto wasnt'very helpful and his completely one-sided view only puts more oil on the fire. Like he wants to return the old savage-image of the American Indian. He even believes that the Maya destroyed themselves. Yeh right: like the Spaniards (expert on Inquisition as we all know) had nothing to do with it! In short: a very cheap way of avoiding responsibilty by simply blaming the victim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, who knows, we need a time machine to know for sure what really happened. Likewise for everyone else, not just the American Indians. And hey, the Mayans perished long before Columbus arrived, what's the deal? The Mexica were not Mayans. And come one, see the bigger picture that Mel Gibson was shooting for ... the city-dwelling sun-worshippers attacking the peaceful freedom-loving moon-worshippers. It's the same story with Abraham when he left Mesopotamia, or Cain and Abel, or Persia and Greece, or the Romans and the Celts. I thought the movie elevated the idea of the Mayans, who were sophisticated and intelligence and as cunning as their European, Mongolian, or Muslim counterparts. We have too few movies that show more about Indian life as it is.

Blaming the victim: And speaking of that now, how on earth can it be possible that there can be American Indians (and only a few according to you) who do not want electricity or clean water? It sounds like a completely illogic contradiction in terms to me that any human being would prefer a life of horrible poverty as a "tradition". My God, you sound exactly like David Yeagley now when you say that, and he's not exactly very popular among Native Americans, see: badeagle.org and badeagle.net. And what exactly do tyou mean by "traditional" anyway? That they'd live in teepees perhaps and still hunt buffalo? In the 21st century? You can't be serious? But even if someone wants to be "traditional" then I still cannot imagine him not wanting any clean water. Besides, I think the hunting culture of the Plains Indians is a thing of the past anyway, except for actors making another western, as today's Navajo's are into sheep herding now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oncee again, spoke like a true Eurocentric intellectual. In America, the natural water is very, very clean. Well-water, spring water (which feeds my home) etc. It's all drinkable. As much as Europeans detest Americans, we don't pollute our land to the point that people cannot live on wells and without electricity. Many Anglo-Americans go for weeks without this by choice. Now whose the capitalist right-winger, thinking everyone needs electricity and sterilized water? This is your definition of poverty? Not here, it's a chosen lifestyle for many, who would be insulted by such a statement. Hispanics and Anglos spend MONEY to stay in teepees in campgrounds. And yes, the Indians still like to hunt, as their ancestors did, because there is plenty of game ... except buffalo of course. They still enjoy being at once with nature. Apparently, you Europeans need to learn what we Americans learned a long time ago ... we don't need cities and electricity to be happy. Besides, all Indians are US citizens and can move someplace better if they chose, so what's the deal? They already get plenty of funding. Jcchat66 (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are some links to video's that deal with these problems having to do with native Americans and/or reservations:

There are also plenty of video's dealing with the hemp-conflict but I can't find them so quickly for you at the moment but "pine ridge" in the search-page can be helpful in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Native American Rights video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=HsBHALwBuC8&feature=related
 * Sexual violence against indigenous women: http://youtube.com/watch?v=W4pwGoDeGg&feature=related
 * Native Americans secretly sterilized: http://youtube.com/watch?v=uNsAK7jS0WY&feature=related
 * Racism the way we see it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ySSpLhM4-ls&feature=related
 * NRC video of American Indian Reservations: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vMKvXgd-rT8&feature=related
 * Interview with Redbone (rockband) in 2004: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ElGAfZcmfoc&feature=related. Now this one should be interesting! It's from Dutch television (hence the subtitling) and shows how Redbone's voice was being silenced in America by record companies among others, but a little later in 1973 the Wounded Knee-song (containing an inconvenient truth ofcourse) hit the European charts. At least we listened did want to hear their story.

Unfortunatley someone has deleted the last bit of my comments ("conflict of editing"-message) without giving me (us) any reasons. It makes me a bit angry to have to do it all over again but I now don't feel like it anymore! Whoever did this has obviously no respect whatsoever for free speech. It was my comment in which I tried to esplain that I do not wich to make anyone feel guilty. Never mind. I've already written a good bit anyway. theo van Rossum, Amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me! And I hate that, because it's happened to me many times. Jcchat66 (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Challenge to the Rise of Europe Section
I'm sure this movement may have academic references, but how well researched are they? My research into this indicates that very little wealth was extracted from the Americas during the Habsburg period, as gold and other resources deemed valuable to Europe and not to the Amerindians were simply not used very much. Yes, much gold was brought into Europe by Spain, but gold is not wealth, it is a medium of exchange, and a poor one at that. What resource (precious metals are not resources) were brought over? Chocolate? Gold itself does nothing for anyone. The British colonies in America, for example, prospered without gold as currency, but using paper currency backed by cattle and sheep, and then nothing at all. Simple fact about currency is that it needs not be backed by anything to serve as legal tender, a fact which we only now begin to understand with credit cards.

On the other hand, far more resources were obtained from India and China during this same time period, so what percentage is attributed to them? Since gold was deemed extremely valuable in those cultures, unlike the Amerindians, there was far more of it to be had there, if that was Europe's aim.

Another problem is all the plagues that went through Europe at this time, from the 1400's to the 1700's. This alone could have freed up enough resources for a burst of prosperity, even without any imperial expansion and mercantile criminality (of which I certainly do not challenge the Mexica on, crimes were done by many individials and chartered joint-stock companies.) There is even some evidence that some of those plagues came from Amerindians, as it makes no sense biologically that if both cultures were in isolation, then both cultures would suffer from new diseases. There is no question that the Hudson Bay Company dispersed blankets to the Indians already contaminated, but how many accidents had there been overall? If, in fact, it was one-sides, and the Indians suffered from lack of immunities to our diseases, but we did not from their diseases, then why were Europeans already immune? Leif Erikson? No plagues around his time, however. But there were around the time the Irish allegedly crossed the Atlantic around the 600's, or the Knights Templars in the 1300's that may have visited the Americas, when the Black Death decimated Europe. All speculation at this point, but this would really confuse the matter if more evidence appears. None the less, the Black Death really freed up a lot of resources in Europe, and it was not long after that Western Civilization pushed out other invaders like the Moors.

And lastly, what technological advances are attributed to Europe? Most inventions that truly propelled Western Civilization into its current state were from American inventors! And long after they had finally gained liberal freedoms and disassociated themselves, quite violently, from all European powers, including the criminal monopolistic charters of the time that had commited so many crimes against the Amerindians. Freeing up resources from plague does not mean there will be technological advancements. The Muslims and Chinese invented things that could have made them superpowers, but because they had no social freedoms, it never blossomed. But freedom in America gave incentives for many inventors to keep what they created, and this led to immeasurable prosperity never before seen in history, while Europe was busoer than ever at warmongering and revolutions and counter-revolutions. What did Spain do with all that gold they extracted from the Americas? Why, they promptly attempted to invade England and bring her back into the fold of the Catholic Church. Yeah, a lot of technology came from that! But they sure learned how to refine their cannons and guns then. And cannons were invented in India, and gunpoweder in China! No, Europe doesn't appear to have advanced at all due to their encoutner with the Americas, not until some of those Europeans ran away from Europe and made a new home amongst the Indians.

Anyway, any thoughts on this from anyone? Sources, cititions? Jcchat66 (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * About gold: it indeed had not the same value to the Meso-Indians as it did to Europeans. Not in a materialistic sense anyway. To them it was the colour of their sungod, so more of religious significance. If you think the Europeans or early Americans didn't need gold for their prosperity, then why the goldrush. Why the name El Dorado? And why the later goldrush (which is basically why the reservations came about to keep the Indians out to of he way) in the USA? I do not think they found all that much gold in the Americas and many "golddiggers" became disappointed from sifting their pans in creeks but the sories of gold and the want for getting rich must have been quite strong.


 * Plague: Now you're suggesting that the plague may have come from Amerindians? That's just hypthetic is it not? It's generally believed the Black Death coma from Asia. Besides, the habits of Europeans in those days were not exactly very hygienic which led to the spread of this highly contageous desease, even if there isn't a cure yet, because no-one suffered inside the isolation of castles. Excuse for saying this but I do find this argument a bit immature actually if it is in response to the DELIBERATE (and recorded mind you) contribution of smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans.


 * New Mexico: You live in New Mexico, which is I believe a state where basically Navajo, and Apache live. From what I've heard they're not doing too bad, but tribes like the Hopi do. In a neigbouring state to yours the Hopi land is completely surrounded by Navajo now which gives the Hopi that much islolation that they'll have to ask the Navajo permission to get any electricity (for more information about that, please vist the Hopiproject.org). Let's not forget that US government usually gave the worst bits of land to the Indians. Desert -ike and all that. It still surprisies me how the Navajo have their sheep (they call them sheep though they look more like goats to me) graze in a barred land like Monument Valley in Utah.


 * Poverty: You said you'd visit any reservation that I would suggest to see if there is poverty there. Well, did you bother yet or do you have plans to now? I suggested Pine Ridge in S. Dakota. My sister's seen it when she was in America and she was shocked to see it. It exists! When will you take a look? All the focus is always towards third world countries all the time these days, but it just shouldn't be happening inside the USA! Then this hemp-project of Pine Ridge. Of course it's not about drugs eventhough it's probably what the American authorities want us to believe, but an economically independant Pine Ridge is just not desirable for Washington because the BIA will just loose their athority of the rez!


 * East Indian Company: The Dutch had such a company too. It was a racist thing. The Europeans of the past have a racist history. They brought the products from far and wide back to Europe and didn't respect anybody. Africans and Asians alike had the very same complaints about the arrogant white mentallity. My ancestors were racists! Everybody outise Europe was savage in their minds. It's not that you and I are personally responsible, but we, as human beings are brothers and sisters in humanity and we have the power to REVERSE it. Not the power to make it undone of course, but to reverse it. And we just should.
 * Right now however people are turning a blind eye. Maybe the US authorities control the media too much and keep people ignorant this way, because the American Book Center (ABC) who still has a store in Amsterdam has been ousted from the USA because of being too leftish. Now books about hemp and homesxuality are of course sort of a taboo in the States, but how democratic is this now?
 * It always pays to investigate on our own and find things out that are hidden from most of us.
 * The Spaniards you say escaped the Inquisition were otherwise very keen to use the same torture on Indians there. And all because of this goldrush that didn't even yield too much. The myth of gold did more than any intelligent resoning. But how intelligent was this so much reverred Christopher Columbus anyway that he thought he landed in India? I even think he'd never been to India in his life or he would have noticed there were no elephants or Hindu shrines in America.


 * And you didn't even comment yet on the links I gave you. Now, that's diappointing. Do you deny that Indian women are being sterilized against their will then and even without their knowledge?


 * Plague: No, I didn't say the Plague (did I mention the plague?) freed up recources in Europe and that the Europeans had no contribution to America. How did you "figure" that out from my words? I don't understand really. And yes, I know the Americans did inventions: the telephone, the electric light bulb... But what about it? But why are we talking inventions now or scientific progress? I was only talking about social injustice. Isn't that more important? I mean: the Romans have done a lot of inventions (aquaducts, sewers, concrete, pipelines) but they were still a barbarious lot with these gladiator fights and sexual explicit orgies of them. I don't think we should measure a "civilization" by it's scientific progress, but by social justice and humane ethics, provided they are more sincere than just lip-service. The German scientist who invented the atom-bomb was sorry afterwards. If he hadn't sold his invention to the Russians, America would have conuered the world by now.
 * If we're going too much off-topic, could we continue privately perhaps? It seems like a discussions between just the two of us now and no-one else is commenting anymore...
 * Regards, Theo, Amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, I really think there is too much "beating about the bush", and that is one of the diversions that I still call "denial" which you keep denying. I really don't think it's relative what scientific advancements Native Americans gave to the world and why we should be discussing the plague in Europe. Just as the idea that the "owning of land" traditionally means nothing to Indians, is no excuse at all to take it from them. It is generally believed the plague came from Asia but you just like to blame Indians to have been spreading it to us. Strange though, 'cause then why didn't it kill as many people in the "New World" then as it did in Europe? Besides, it's only hypothetical anyway.
 * The main thing is that you're trying by these "counter-accusations" to shift or dodge responsibilty. "We did this to the Indians, all right that was wrong I guess, but wait a minute, didn't they do things to us as well?"
 * There is of course no way we can undo what happened at the Wounded Knee massacre (the most cowardly act of the US Army against unarmed people for which they were even given medals), but we (our generation) can work towards more justice for Indians. Mr Giuliani wants to become president of the United States but he has nothing at all in his program about Native Americans, according to http://www.indiancountry.com, but anyone who wants to be president is supposed to be the president of ALL Americans. As far as I know only Jimmy Carter did something for them. I heard an Indian from Leech Lake Reservation say "100 years ago the policy of shooting Indians was abolished, 70 years ago we became US Citizens, in the 60's we got civil rights". It makes we think "Wait a minute: aren't you supposed to get these civil rights the minute you become US citizens?" I would think so. These things, the third world-poverty on reservations, the Cuban Five, the death penalties for negroes in Texas without much evidence to even prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and Guantanamo Bay really make me think there is something seriously wrong with America (go ahaed and call me "anti-American", but inconvenient truths are just a fact of life) calling itself a member of the "free world". I don't hate Americans, I only hate the continueing "washing hands"-policy taking place all the time.
 * Theo, Amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Theo of Amsterdam, the Challenge to the Rise of Europe was not directed towards you, but to everyone that may have better information on the subject. The mention of plagues is a scientific inquiry. I simply asked that if in isolation the Amerindians were devastated by plague, then why not the Europeans as well? Biologically this makes no sense, simple as that. And you should know very well that Europeans were equally devastated by those plagues as the Amerindians were. It is estimated that about two thirds of the population on both sides of the Atlantic was wiped out by contact. As I stated before, there is no doubt that corporations like the Hudson Bay Company spread diseases as a weapon of war against the Indians, just as medieval lords and the Mongols did the same in their time. I am merely asking if there might be any connection between the diseases that devastated Europe and America around the same time period.


 * You admit that individually we are not responsible for what our ancestors did in the past, but then negate that by arguing about taking responsibility as a race? There is no such thing, and it is a abuse of any language to use the word "responsibility" on events in history over which modern society had no control. There is no such concept in English, as much as we like to twist words around for political guilt-mongering and war-mongering. And then you go off on a tantrum about how all Europeans are racist? Are you insane? Of all the cultures on earth, the Western European Celtic culture is among the least racist. Perhaps you have too much German East European and Persian influence in your culture to have made this statement. The German culture is NOT apart of Western Civilization, but a perversion of it (such as the Norman conquest of England, the Visigothic invasion of Spain and North Africa, etc.), for they above all people believe in power and aristocracy and titles of nobility which they hold so dear and precious to their elite thinking and racist Eurocentric view. History has proved this beyond the shadow of any doubt. It is that kind of thinking that has caused so many crimes in history, including those committed against the Indians. So why don't we argue about how the Germans screwed up the world then, and hold all of them collectively responsible for the crimes of the past? But once again you fail to recognize that it is individuals and small groups of people that commit all these crimes, not entire populations. German culture may make it easier for individuals and small groups of people to rule (the classic Nazi experience, which would have been impossible in France or England or America because of an anti-aristocratic culture.) So this whole argument is moot anyway.


 * Poverty of the Indians? The vast majority of the American population is in poverty, and far worse than anything the Indians suffer on their reservations. At least the Indians cannot be thrown off their land now, while the poor of America have no land at all, and can be thrown into the street for nothing more than failing to pay property taxes. And yes, I have visited the homes of some of the poorer reservations of New Mexico, as a delivery driver for medical supplies, and experienced first-hand such poverty. Some truly live in dirty and poverty-stricken conditions, but at least have a home that they cannot be thrown from. Many have joined the capitalist community by looking poor on the outside, while big-screen TV's, computers, and Mercedes Benz's exist on the inside. Yes, I have witnessed that first hand, a Mercedes Benz in the garage of a shack out of the Old West, and many big-screen TV's seen from between the ancient and decrepit door frames. So why should I comment on the links you provided when I have no first-hand knowledge of such racist sentiments? Racist back-woods people like that in America are considered inbred hillbillies and on the verge of extinction. Extremely few Americans think like that at all. What we have is free will, and everyone has the ability to take responsibility for their own actions in America, even the Indians. Even the poorest individual here can still start a business and proper, despite all the European-like obstacles put in their way. Start in new business in Europe? Next to impossible! Corporations and government control everything there. With that, there is no excuse for being poor in America ... save one. The return of aristocracy and autocracy in the name of false prophets like Marx or Gramsci. But that is a debate you can take to my personal page if you wish, it is not appropriate for this article, which I clearly see as nothing more than oppressive guilt-mongering, just like the Germans tried to make the Jews feel guilty in their own country long ago. Now we Americans are made to feel guilty to be free at every turn, and ignorant Europeans with their arrogance that have never, ever, known true freedom as we have, are not helping the matter at all. If such movements like the Mexica Movement were left unchecked and unchallenged, there could be another genocide, it's as simple as that. It is the duty of everyone to challenge attacks against there culture, and not accept them blindly without research. Jcchat66 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I never said we need to "take responsibilty as a race". You seem to take my words differently to what I'm actually saying. I don't even want to speak in racial terms. I'd be a racist myself if I did, wouldn't I? To my surprise some Americans have even suggested that I hate my "own white race" standing up for Indians. It's not about race at all because I do not like the "hang-around-the-ford-Indians" (as Russell Means likes to call them) either. I also do not want to dwell in the past. What's done is done. We will all agree to that. But on the other hand the past should never be forgotten, as those who don't want to know the past are only condemned to repeat it over and over again. If it is true that we are still benefiting from the slavery of the past, as the Mexica Movement claims we do, we're not supposed to crawl through the dust crying out mea culpa or something, but we are obliged to put this right i.e. reverse it. I shouldn't think this is too much to ask? And in that sense I think it's not an abuse of the language at all and even think it to be obscene to deny responsilbilty over past events. And I'll tell you why. Because if it is true that we still benefit from slaveries of the past, although there are no more slaves today in the strict sense of the word, these people are still suffering. Where ever someone gets richer someone else is becoming poorer. So you see, I'm not dwelling in the past now, because the injustice is transferred onards into this day. And that makes it a thing of today. No, I'm not insane. I disagree about everything you said about European-Celtic culture (least racist? On the contrary!) but I just see no point argueing with you about it as I don't believe we are ever going to agree on this. It is evident that almost all European colonists have had racist points of views about people on other continents (don't care if Celtic, Nordic, Germanic or otherwise), wondering if they actually had a soul or whether they were entirely human or not. Seeing those illustrations of the past where European so-called "explorers"* are carried out of their boats through shallow water by natives in order not to get their feet wet are simply obscene for me to have to look at. What is insane however is that you believe that my kind of thinking is harming the Indians. And like so many Americans, you exaggerate the power of monarchs, without regard to today's modern monarchies. I'm not a supporter of monarchies, but it's just not realistic to think in medieval terms about them in this day and age.


 * I say "So-called explores" because there's actually nothing to explore if there are already people living there. Places, mountains and lakes get all new Eurocentric names as if the local hadn't already named them. It's actually quite racist therefore that Columbus and Cook are named in history books as people who discovered "new worlds". It would have been a lot better if they'd stayed right were they are.

If as you say the vast majority of Americans is living in poverty, which I sincerely doubt, how can the standard of living of Americans and their consumption be about the highest in the world? Yes, there is indeed a lot of poverty in the US. The are also a lot of millionairs. The two things go together, the one causing the other. If would have been more balanced if there'd be more middleclass. You think that capitalism is the one way to give opportunity to everyone. Everybody can start a business. But not every business is a success-story and you need money in order to be able to start a business. In the past I used to be brain-washed overhere about America being the land of infinite opportunities or what you would call the American Dream. Ah yes, I'm quite familiar with American euforisms but I'd like to be more realistic myself. Moderare optimism is more sensible. But yet again, your way of thinking that everybody has a chance to improve and start a business, without any regards to circumstances, is yet again another way of blaming the victim.

Obviously you didn't bother to watch the links, you also didn't bother to have a look at Pine Ridge (thinking visting reservations in your state of New Mexico is enough), while you said you'd go and take a look at any rez I'd mention to you, so obviously you just don't want to know. Okay, that's your choice. You call us Europeans ignorant and do not wish to be lectured by us, but real ignorance in fact is really not wanting to know. Ofcourse it's your right to stick to your biased opinion and refusing to find out the facts for yourself, but this way I see no point in continueing any commmunication with you. You just stay in your blind-folded fantasy world if you like if that is more convenient to you, shifting responsibilty and shying away from any humilliating guilt. I cannot enlighten those who don't want to be where any attempt of any exchange of information has apparrantly been in vain. Therefore I believe now it's better if we stop this discussion right here and right now.

Theo, Amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides: stating that starting as business in Europw being "next to impossible" because the government "controls everything" is a bit like saying we have no democracies or something overhere. Like we're sort of living in communist states. Well, it at least figures that I'm not the one who's ignorant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Theo, I might have continued on about all the errors and misunderstandings, but I need go no further than what you quoted: "Where ever someone gets richer someone else is becoming poorer." This demonstrates such an utter and complete lack of understanding of the basics of economics that there is no wonder we will never agree. Also, another fallacy you harbor, that the standard of living has to do with wealth? Americans have a high standard of living because of freedom, not wealth, which even Marx had the sense enough to understand. Same with ANY country, even non-Western, that enjoys freedom enjoys are higher standard of living. The Tahitians, before Western contact, for example, had an outstanding standard of living, probably higher than we have now. Yet, you almost seem to understand this very thing with your quote: "It would have been more balanced if there'd be more middleclass." On this I agree at least, but the rest of your arguments simply fall apart. And what's all this talk of monarchies and democracies? These are merely forms of government, not policies of government. There have been great monarchies and horrible democracies, the form of government does not assure the policy of government ... which is in turn influenced by many things from religion to culture. Of course, you keep misunderstanding my use of culture with race, which are generally unrelated. Germans and Celts, for example, are not races, they are cultures, but you keep bringing up race when I make no mention of races, you do.


 * You quote: "And in that sense I think it's not an abuse of the language at all and even think it to be obscene to deny responsilbilty over past events." Abuse of language I mean strictly in the grammatical sense. Responsibility means control, without control there is no responsibility. The present generation is not responsible for anything GOOD or BAD in history, for no one had control over it. If you father was Nicola Tesla, does not that mean you should be praised? Or, if your father of Adolf Hitler, should you be condemned? If your answer is no, then you have just argued against your own assertions, and those of the Mexica Movement. Jcchat66 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I'd said I was done with Mr Jcchat66 now, he doesn't seem to know when to stop, but for those of you more broadminded than him and willing to check out new information than that which we are familiar to, here's a link that will disprove his more than ridiculous statement that there is "worse poverty than on Indian reservations" in the US: http://www.republicoflakotah.com. After that please click "why" for a list interesting statistics on poverty rates, incarceration, suicide, diabetes, life expectancy, etc. It shouldn't surprise anyone why this news is so much underreported and ignored, even on CNN. I could only find something about it on FoxNews. I guess there must be a lot of Jcchat66's overthere in Washington as well, i.e. People Who Do Not Want To Know. Theo, Amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.52.24 (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Theo, some links do have merit, I just don't have time to check them all, especially when many are biased anyway. Here is the text from the link you provided, and some simple questions that would be raised. Keep in mind that these are similar claims of the Mexica Movement:

MORTALITY
 * Lakotah men have a life expectancy of less than 44 years, lowest of any country in the World (excluding AIDS) including Haiti.
 * Lakotah death rate is the highest in the United States.
 * The Lakotah infant mortality rate is 300% more than the U.S. Average.
 * Teenage suicide rate is 150% higher than the U.S national average for this group.

DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
 * More than half the Reservation's adults battle addiction and disease.
 * Alcoholism affects 8 in 10 families.

INCARCERATION
 * Indian children incarceration rate 40% higher than whites.
 * In South Dakota, 21 percent of state prisoners were Native.
 * Indians have the second largest state prison incarceration rate in the nation.

DISEASE
 * The Tuberculosis rate on Lakotah reservations is approx 800% higher than the U.S national average.
 * Cervical cancer is 500% higher than the U.S national average.
 * The rate of diabetes is 800% higher than the U.S national average.
 * Federal Commodity Food Program provides high sugar foods that kill Native people through diabetes and heart disease.

POVERTY
 * Median income is approximately $2,600 to $3,500 per year.
 * 97% of our Lakotah people live below the poverty line.
 * Many families cannot afford heating oil, wood or propane and many residents use ovens to heat their homes.

HOUSING
 * Elderly die each winter from hypothermia (freezing).
 * 1/3 of the homes lack basic clean water and sewage while 40% lack electricty.
 * 60% of Reservation families have no telephone.
 * 60% of housing is infected with potentially fatal black molds.
 * There is an estimated average of 17 people living in each family home (may only have two to three rooms). Some homes, built for 6 to 8 people, have up to 30 people living in them.

UNEMPLOYMENT
 * Unemployment rates on our reservations is 85% or higher.

THREATENED CULTURE
 * Only 14% of the Lakotah population can speak Lakotah    language.
 * The language is not being shared inter-generationally, today, the average Lakotah speaker is 65 years old.
 * Our lakotah language is an Endangered Language, on the verge of extinction.

Now before I begin, the Lakotah pursuit of freedom is above all else their highest virtue, and this I respect first and foremost, for it is the pursuit of many people around the world. I do not wish to disrespect any American Indians. But what exactly was the life-expectancy before European oppression amongst the Lakotah? What was their standard of living? How did they define freedom? Were the rights of men and women equal? What morals did they believe in?

But I must also ask why do some pursuers of freedom suffer more than others, and why do some seem to survive better than others? The Lakotah are apart of a long list of peoples oppressed around the world. But while they have been oppressed for a few centuries, the Jews have been oppressed for thousands of years. Like the Lakotah, the Irish are losing their language too, yet Israel brought their language back!

Throughout all of Jewish history, who had no nation of their own since the Romans brutally destroyed it and renamed their lands the name of their enemies out of spite, the Jews did not suffer alcoholism or unemployment or drug use. They DID suffer poverty, but persistently strove to get out of it on their own, for no one helped them in Europe ... except Americans.

It all comes down to free will. Alcoholism, drug use, etc etc is making a choice. No one is keeping them from making those choices. Do they want everything handed to them on a platter, or do they want to go out and get it like the Jews did? Losing their language? So are the Irish, and yet the Jews brought their language back from extinction!!! Do they want their own nation like the Jews finally won after many hard and long wars? Or would they rather make America better for all people that pursue freedom as they do? Perhaps they do not have enough freedom to make the changes necessary, and that would be the REAL issue ... lack of freedom to pursue one's own happiness.

"After 150 years of colonial enforcement, when you back people into a corner there is only one alternative. That alternative is to bring freedom back into existence by taking it back - back to the love of freedom, to our lifeway." Canupa Gluha Mani. Well, I agree with Canupa whole-heartedly. And guess what, the colonials would like freedom, too! The Europeans are coming to America again with their revolutionary ideas and fanaticism!

Once again I never denied that individuals and organizations like the US government were responsible for Indian oppression, which is all your links really demonstrate. But I'm not going to sit here and watch some hick say words like "nigger." So is the Lakotah going over those individuals and organizations today for compensation, or are they just demanding the American people foot the bill? Well, we Americans are kind of busy working to stay out of debt, while our governments spends money like water on imperial ambitions. Hey, maybe we can get France to pay their debts to America to help the Indians! In fact, that's a great idea! Every US citizen should rise up in protest and demand that Europe pay their share! Maybe the Mexica Movement should go after Spain! Where exactly would this all end, anyway?

But you think America is wealthy? Then why did I just see several skyscrapers in Miami, Florida boarded up and condemned in 2007? Why do I see so many small-businesses going out of business here, while only the big corporations survive? Why are so many Americans in debt? Did you forget that being in ANY kind of debt is proof of a lack of wealth? If most Americans were wealthy, they would own their homes and land without a mortgage, and be able to buy a car outright. Farmers should never have to take out loans to keep their farms. And the Indians should not have to build casinos to survive either. The Indians, and all Americans, are suffering more and more because this nation is becoming more like a modern day European nation-state. Perhaps Americans should start an anti-Europe movement, and then Blacks, Whites, Hispanics and Indians would be better off pursuing freedom ... which Europeans know nothing of. After all, Europe could not even get themselves out of two world wars without America's help!

So what exactly is your point? Do you have one? Jcchat66 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Theo, Amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh * Could someone from the Wiki-editors please explain to this obnoxious person that I'm no longer interested in this discussion with him? Like I said, the man does not know when to stop and doesn't seem to want to take no for an answer in that: when I say no I really mean no. He never took any of the information that I brought up seriously because it apparantly doesn't fit in his self-rightious idea that everybody is to blame except his own people. Therefore any further discussion is a complete waste of time because no matter what I'll say and no matter what proof I'll offer and come up with, he will deny and disbelief all of it anyway. Because of course everybody is biased except him of course. I bet he even has an altar at home for himself. Mr Jcchat66, please talk to the hand, will you? I didn't even read your last comment anymore. I found more broadminded people in the forum of Republic of Lakotah, even someone from your own state of New Mexico. Where did all the other Wiki-readers go anyway?


 * Have you forgotten that this section was not addressed to you to begin with? Also, it is completely inappropriate to call me obnoxious, have I insulted you so? Talk to the hand? Do they use that expression in Europe now? Interesting. You have offered no proof and responded to none of my questions. Your arrogant, close-minded, offensive demeanor does not serve your political agenda and European opinion well. Jcchat66 (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)