Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It isn't about what the blacks wanted. It is about what the abolitionists wanted(pretty much all of them were opposed to integration). Lincoln wanted blacks to go back as well. Without the abolitionists the blacks would have been slaves for much longer.The separate but equal thing was about preserving segregation so that blacks could eventually be sent back. The dogs and fire houses and political lynchings came out of desperation to preserve even the possibility of sending blacks back."Their parents" are the rebels I am talking about, moron. Baby boomers fucked everything up with their mindless counter-culture nonsense.Bullshit. White graduation rates dropped because their parents weren't around and they were raised by after school care workers making minimum wage, and because they weren't taught to work for what they wanted. The "egalitarian bullshit and the endless rebellion against societal norms" are just excuses. Oh, and some of the rebellions were righteous. The idea that women couldn't have their own credit cards or that blacks had to remain separate but equal are NOT libertarian ideals either. And neither is sending our young men & women to die in foreign lands to fund the Military Industrial Complex. And before you try that "YOu libtard leftist" nonsense, we were warned about that by an actual conservative republican president.
The fact that Asians are not European is not even close to a reason. If you want to live in an exclusively European culture, go to Europe.
Segregation was supposed to be a temporary measure until the "back to Africa" movement picked up steam, but instead that entire movement turned into merely trying to preserve segregation until they fell completely.
Women also couldn't vote at one point because they weren't the drivers of the economy and they weren't learned or educate enough at that time to make decisions outside of the household.
Learn about the demographic replacement of indigenous Europeans(who aren't afforded the status of indigenous peoples)before claiming I can go to Europe to live in an exclusively European culture.
The separate but equal was about keeping blacks in their place. That is why they had dogs set on them and fire hoses turned on them when trying to get people registered to vote. Or why people were murdered by cowards when they tried to get people registered to vote.
And if you are going to try and chastise me for not knowing, at least actually read what I post. I didn't say anything about women voting. I was referring to more recent things women were denied.
Like the fact that the US Supreme court ruled in 1974 that states could not exclude women from juries.
It was also 1974 that the Equal Opportunity Credit Act meant women could apply for a credit card without their husband's name on the bill.
And the first time the courts recognized sexual harassment in the workplace was 1975.
It was in the 1970s that the courts allowed that women could refuse to have sex with their husbands. Before that there was no such law in most states against marital rape.
So, like I said, some of those "rebellions against the norm" were actually justice in action.
Women's suffrage has to do with all of the later women's rights events. Women originally were not needed to do anything but keep up the home.
Marital rape is a nonsensical idea to everyone but the dumbest of the dumb. You can't rape your spouse when sex is an unspoken condition of marriage.
I guess if the blacks wanted to go back to Africa that would make sense. They didn't. They wanted to be treated equally in the nation that they, their parents, their grandparents, and their great-grandparents helped to build. They wanted their constitutional rights. They wanted to vote on the leaders that would determine the direction of their nation.
If a woman wants to be a homemaker, I have no problem with it. But t o tell her she HAS to do that, or that she only has what her husband gives her is simply wrong.
Marital rape is not nonsense. Marriage does not guarantee a husband that he will get sex anytime he wants, even if she doesn't want it. She is an American citizen, not her husband's property.
It is not any more unfair to the woman than it is to the man who has to use his masculine mind and body to make money to support the family, instead of staying at home.
Sticking your penis in your wife's vagina when she isn't up for sex at the time isn't rape. It may be grounds for divorce and possibly legal action like a restraining order or something, but it isn't rape. Physically harming your spouse and/or forcing them to perform actions that are harmful to them is very different from pouncing on your wife when she has a mental chastity belt on.
She is right.(If some other member has already posted this news , please combine my thread with his/hers. THANKS)
*****
An Asian man, his wife, and daughter were walking in a suburb of Los Angeles.
A woman came up and told them, "Go back to your home country."
The man explained that he and his wife were born in the States.
The couple started to record the incident. (The Facebook video has had more than 440,000 views so far.)
The woman has been identified as a college professor.
She has told a local TV station the following: "If you would like to have a full normal interview about the displacement of European Americans , then I gladly am available to enlighten the public."
Los Angeles Times, print edition for March 7, 2018.
Unfortunately she is in the wrong state to make a difference now.
Unless you are 100% Native American, the same could be said to you.
No. Being born in America makes a person a native American. .
No, that’s not what the term means, no matter how bad your OCD gets.
Wrong:
native
na·tive
ˈnādiv/
noun
adjective
- 1.
a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.
"a native of Montreal"
native definition - Google Search
Tell me little sissy, do you honestly think it is "rape" for a wife to grab her husband's penis when he doesn't feel in the mood to have sex or thinks he doesn't have the time or energy?It isn't about what the blacks wanted. It is about what the abolitionists wanted(pretty much all of them were opposed to integration). Lincoln wanted blacks to go back as well. Without the abolitionists the blacks would have been slaves for much longer.The separate but equal thing was about preserving segregation so that blacks could eventually be sent back. The dogs and fire houses and political lynchings came out of desperation to preserve even the possibility of sending blacks back."Their parents" are the rebels I am talking about, moron. Baby boomers fucked everything up with their mindless counter-culture nonsense.
Segregation was supposed to be a temporary measure until the "back to Africa" movement picked up steam, but instead that entire movement turned into merely trying to preserve segregation until they fell completely.
Women also couldn't vote at one point because they weren't the drivers of the economy and they weren't learned or educate enough at that time to make decisions outside of the household.
Learn about the demographic replacement of indigenous Europeans(who aren't afforded the status of indigenous peoples)before claiming I can go to Europe to live in an exclusively European culture.
The separate but equal was about keeping blacks in their place. That is why they had dogs set on them and fire hoses turned on them when trying to get people registered to vote. Or why people were murdered by cowards when they tried to get people registered to vote.
And if you are going to try and chastise me for not knowing, at least actually read what I post. I didn't say anything about women voting. I was referring to more recent things women were denied.
Like the fact that the US Supreme court ruled in 1974 that states could not exclude women from juries.
It was also 1974 that the Equal Opportunity Credit Act meant women could apply for a credit card without their husband's name on the bill.
And the first time the courts recognized sexual harassment in the workplace was 1975.
It was in the 1970s that the courts allowed that women could refuse to have sex with their husbands. Before that there was no such law in most states against marital rape.
So, like I said, some of those "rebellions against the norm" were actually justice in action.
Women's suffrage has to do with all of the later women's rights events. Women originally were not needed to do anything but keep up the home.
Marital rape is a nonsensical idea to everyone but the dumbest of the dumb. You can't rape your spouse when sex is an unspoken condition of marriage.
I guess if the blacks wanted to go back to Africa that would make sense. They didn't. They wanted to be treated equally in the nation that they, their parents, their grandparents, and their great-grandparents helped to build. They wanted their constitutional rights. They wanted to vote on the leaders that would determine the direction of their nation.
If a woman wants to be a homemaker, I have no problem with it. But t o tell her she HAS to do that, or that she only has what her husband gives her is simply wrong.
Marital rape is not nonsense. Marriage does not guarantee a husband that he will get sex anytime he wants, even if she doesn't want it. She is an American citizen, not her husband's property.
It is not any more unfair to the woman than it is to the man who has to use his masculine mind and body to make money to support the family, instead of staying at home.
Sticking your penis in your wife's vagina when she isn't up for sex at the time isn't rape. It may be grounds for divorce and possibly legal action like a restraining order or something, but it isn't rape. Physically harming your spouse and/or forcing them to perform actions that are harmful to them is very different from pouncing on your wife when she has a mental chastity belt on.
This ^^^^^^^ is off-topic trolling, and the worthless spittle of the lowest kind of pathetic weakling scum. No real man believes that ^^^^^^ kind of bullshit, and no weakling loser would ever say it in the presence of a real man (or real woman for that matter).
Tell me little sissy, .....It isn't about what the blacks wanted. It is about what the abolitionists wanted(pretty much all of them were opposed to integration). Lincoln wanted blacks to go back as well. Without the abolitionists the blacks would have been slaves for much longer.The separate but equal thing was about preserving segregation so that blacks could eventually be sent back. The dogs and fire houses and political lynchings came out of desperation to preserve even the possibility of sending blacks back.The separate but equal was about keeping blacks in their place. That is why they had dogs set on them and fire hoses turned on them when trying to get people registered to vote. Or why people were murdered by cowards when they tried to get people registered to vote.
And if you are going to try and chastise me for not knowing, at least actually read what I post. I didn't say anything about women voting. I was referring to more recent things women were denied.
Like the fact that the US Supreme court ruled in 1974 that states could not exclude women from juries.
It was also 1974 that the Equal Opportunity Credit Act meant women could apply for a credit card without their husband's name on the bill.
And the first time the courts recognized sexual harassment in the workplace was 1975.
It was in the 1970s that the courts allowed that women could refuse to have sex with their husbands. Before that there was no such law in most states against marital rape.
So, like I said, some of those "rebellions against the norm" were actually justice in action.
Women's suffrage has to do with all of the later women's rights events. Women originally were not needed to do anything but keep up the home.
Marital rape is a nonsensical idea to everyone but the dumbest of the dumb. You can't rape your spouse when sex is an unspoken condition of marriage.
I guess if the blacks wanted to go back to Africa that would make sense. They didn't. They wanted to be treated equally in the nation that they, their parents, their grandparents, and their great-grandparents helped to build. They wanted their constitutional rights. They wanted to vote on the leaders that would determine the direction of their nation.
If a woman wants to be a homemaker, I have no problem with it. But t o tell her she HAS to do that, or that she only has what her husband gives her is simply wrong.
Marital rape is not nonsense. Marriage does not guarantee a husband that he will get sex anytime he wants, even if she doesn't want it. She is an American citizen, not her husband's property.
It is not any more unfair to the woman than it is to the man who has to use his masculine mind and body to make money to support the family, instead of staying at home.
Sticking your penis in your wife's vagina when she isn't up for sex at the time isn't rape. It may be grounds for divorce and possibly legal action like a restraining order or something, but it isn't rape. Physically harming your spouse and/or forcing them to perform actions that are harmful to them is very different from pouncing on your wife when she has a mental chastity belt on.
This ^^^^^^^ is off-topic trolling, and the worthless spittle of the lowest kind of pathetic weakling scum. No real man believes that ^^^^^^ kind of bullshit, and no weakling loser would ever say it in the presence of a real man (or real woman for that matter).
She is right.
Unfortunately she is in the wrong state to make a difference now.
Unless you are 100% Native American, the same could be said to you.
No. Being born in America makes a person a native American. .
No, that’s not what the term means, no matter how bad your OCD gets.
Wrong:
native
na·tive
ˈnādiv/
noun
adjective
- 1.
a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.
"a native of Montreal"
native definition - Google Search
The specific term means something specific. What you want it to mean is immaterial. Speak English or don't.
They kept it clean.Technically true. I mean they did exactly jack squat with it for...10,000 years? However, true.She is right.(If some other member has already posted this news , please combine my thread with his/hers. THANKS)
*****
An Asian man, his wife, and daughter were walking in a suburb of Los Angeles.
A woman came up and told them, "Go back to your home country."
The man explained that he and his wife were born in the States.
The couple started to record the incident. (The Facebook video has had more than 440,000 views so far.)
The woman has been identified as a college professor.
She has told a local TV station the following: "If you would like to have a full normal interview about the displacement of European Americans , then I gladly am available to enlighten the public."
Los Angeles Times, print edition for March 7, 2018.
Unfortunately she is in the wrong state to make a difference now.
Unless you are 100% Native American, the same could be said to you.
What President Trump’s New Order Means for Clean Water
Trump EPA to repeal power plant emissions plan, posing challenge to Maryland clean air efforts
It isn't about what the blacks wanted. It is about what the abolitionists wanted(pretty much all of them were opposed to integration). Lincoln wanted blacks to go back as well. Without the abolitionists the blacks would have been slaves for much longer.The separate but equal thing was about preserving segregation so that blacks could eventually be sent back. The dogs and fire houses and political lynchings came out of desperation to preserve even the possibility of sending blacks back."Their parents" are the rebels I am talking about, moron. Baby boomers fucked everything up with their mindless counter-culture nonsense.Bullshit. White graduation rates dropped because their parents weren't around and they were raised by after school care workers making minimum wage, and because they weren't taught to work for what they wanted. The "egalitarian bullshit and the endless rebellion against societal norms" are just excuses. Oh, and some of the rebellions were righteous. The idea that women couldn't have their own credit cards or that blacks had to remain separate but equal are NOT libertarian ideals either. And neither is sending our young men & women to die in foreign lands to fund the Military Industrial Complex. And before you try that "YOu libtard leftist" nonsense, we were warned about that by an actual conservative republican president.
The fact that Asians are not European is not even close to a reason. If you want to live in an exclusively European culture, go to Europe.
Segregation was supposed to be a temporary measure until the "back to Africa" movement picked up steam, but instead that entire movement turned into merely trying to preserve segregation until they fell completely.
Women also couldn't vote at one point because they weren't the drivers of the economy and they weren't learned or educate enough at that time to make decisions outside of the household.
Learn about the demographic replacement of indigenous Europeans(who aren't afforded the status of indigenous peoples)before claiming I can go to Europe to live in an exclusively European culture.
The separate but equal was about keeping blacks in their place. That is why they had dogs set on them and fire hoses turned on them when trying to get people registered to vote. Or why people were murdered by cowards when they tried to get people registered to vote.
And if you are going to try and chastise me for not knowing, at least actually read what I post. I didn't say anything about women voting. I was referring to more recent things women were denied.
Like the fact that the US Supreme court ruled in 1974 that states could not exclude women from juries.
It was also 1974 that the Equal Opportunity Credit Act meant women could apply for a credit card without their husband's name on the bill.
And the first time the courts recognized sexual harassment in the workplace was 1975.
It was in the 1970s that the courts allowed that women could refuse to have sex with their husbands. Before that there was no such law in most states against marital rape.
So, like I said, some of those "rebellions against the norm" were actually justice in action.
Women's suffrage has to do with all of the later women's rights events. Women originally were not needed to do anything but keep up the home.
Marital rape is a nonsensical idea to everyone but the dumbest of the dumb. You can't rape your spouse when sex is an unspoken condition of marriage.
I guess if the blacks wanted to go back to Africa that would make sense. They didn't. They wanted to be treated equally in the nation that they, their parents, their grandparents, and their great-grandparents helped to build. They wanted their constitutional rights. They wanted to vote on the leaders that would determine the direction of their nation.
If a woman wants to be a homemaker, I have no problem with it. But t o tell her she HAS to do that, or that she only has what her husband gives her is simply wrong.
Marital rape is not nonsense. Marriage does not guarantee a husband that he will get sex anytime he wants, even if she doesn't want it. She is an American citizen, not her husband's property.
It is not any more unfair to the woman than it is to the man who has to use his masculine mind and body to make money to support the family, instead of staying at home.
Sticking your penis in your wife's vagina when she isn't up for sex at the time isn't rape. It may be grounds for divorce and possibly legal action like a restraining order or something, but it isn't rape. Physically harming your spouse and/or forcing them to perform actions that are harmful to them is very different from pouncing on your wife when she has a mental chastity belt on.
Or maybe she does know and doesn't care....This thread is about what this woman believes.The couple that are the actual topic of this thread did not COME here. They were BORN here. Why is that so hard to grasp? Then some ignorant bitch told them to "go back to their home country". They ARE in their home country.
the couple of this thread? lol ok
what about all the millions of others who come for money?
C,mon wake up
I guess you should start a thread about all those people.
Meanwhile, you should be pissed that some entitled bitch made obnoxious remarks to natural born American citizens.
It doesn't matter if she said this to an East Asian, an Indian, or any non-white group.
The topic would still be the same.
This topic is about a women telling natural born American citizens to go back to their home country. The ignorant bitch doesn't know that they are in their home country. And she doesn't seem ashamed of her ignorance.
There is nothing magical about American soil. It is all about the genetics.
Tell me little sissy, do you honestly think it is "rape" for a wife to grab her husband's penis when he doesn't feel in the mood to have sex or thinks he doesn't have the time or energy?It isn't about what the blacks wanted. It is about what the abolitionists wanted(pretty much all of them were opposed to integration). Lincoln wanted blacks to go back as well. Without the abolitionists the blacks would have been slaves for much longer.The separate but equal thing was about preserving segregation so that blacks could eventually be sent back. The dogs and fire houses and political lynchings came out of desperation to preserve even the possibility of sending blacks back.The separate but equal was about keeping blacks in their place. That is why they had dogs set on them and fire hoses turned on them when trying to get people registered to vote. Or why people were murdered by cowards when they tried to get people registered to vote.
And if you are going to try and chastise me for not knowing, at least actually read what I post. I didn't say anything about women voting. I was referring to more recent things women were denied.
Like the fact that the US Supreme court ruled in 1974 that states could not exclude women from juries.
It was also 1974 that the Equal Opportunity Credit Act meant women could apply for a credit card without their husband's name on the bill.
And the first time the courts recognized sexual harassment in the workplace was 1975.
It was in the 1970s that the courts allowed that women could refuse to have sex with their husbands. Before that there was no such law in most states against marital rape.
So, like I said, some of those "rebellions against the norm" were actually justice in action.
Women's suffrage has to do with all of the later women's rights events. Women originally were not needed to do anything but keep up the home.
Marital rape is a nonsensical idea to everyone but the dumbest of the dumb. You can't rape your spouse when sex is an unspoken condition of marriage.
I guess if the blacks wanted to go back to Africa that would make sense. They didn't. They wanted to be treated equally in the nation that they, their parents, their grandparents, and their great-grandparents helped to build. They wanted their constitutional rights. They wanted to vote on the leaders that would determine the direction of their nation.
If a woman wants to be a homemaker, I have no problem with it. But t o tell her she HAS to do that, or that she only has what her husband gives her is simply wrong.
Marital rape is not nonsense. Marriage does not guarantee a husband that he will get sex anytime he wants, even if she doesn't want it. She is an American citizen, not her husband's property.
It is not any more unfair to the woman than it is to the man who has to use his masculine mind and body to make money to support the family, instead of staying at home.
Sticking your penis in your wife's vagina when she isn't up for sex at the time isn't rape. It may be grounds for divorce and possibly legal action like a restraining order or something, but it isn't rape. Physically harming your spouse and/or forcing them to perform actions that are harmful to them is very different from pouncing on your wife when she has a mental chastity belt on.
This ^^^^^^^ is off-topic trolling, and the worthless spittle of the lowest kind of pathetic weakling scum. No real man believes that ^^^^^^ kind of bullshit, and no weakling loser would ever say it in the presence of a real man (or real woman for that matter).
No real man believes that his wife can decide on a whim that their lovemaking wasn't consensual, or even is some kind of sexual attack against her.
Not really the Native Americans are born in their own sovereign nation in the USA..She is right.(If some other member has already posted this news , please combine my thread with his/hers. THANKS)
*****
An Asian man, his wife, and daughter were walking in a suburb of Los Angeles.
A woman came up and told them, "Go back to your home country."
The man explained that he and his wife were born in the States.
The couple started to record the incident. (The Facebook video has had more than 440,000 views so far.)
The woman has been identified as a college professor.
She has told a local TV station the following: "If you would like to have a full normal interview about the displacement of European Americans , then I gladly am available to enlighten the public."
Los Angeles Times, print edition for March 7, 2018.
Unfortunately she is in the wrong state to make a difference now.
Unless you are 100% Native American, the same could be said to you.
No. Being born in America makes a person a native American. All so called "Native Americans" living today were born into a predominately white America. Not a matter of race; but a place of birth.
.She is right.
Unfortunately she is in the wrong state to make a difference now.
Unless you are 100% Native American, the same could be said to you.
No. Being born in America makes a person a native American. .
No, that’s not what the term means, no matter how bad your OCD gets.
Wrong:
native
na·tive
ˈnādiv/
noun
adjective
- 1.
a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.
"a native of Montreal"
native definition - Google Search
The specific term means something specific. What you want it to mean is immaterial. Speak English or don't.
Anyone born in the US is a native American. What you're referring to is an indian. Indians aren't native to America either.I think capitalization counts here.
A Native American is not the same as a native American. Make sense?
Tell me little sissy, do you honestly think it is "rape" for a wife to grab her husband's penis when he doesn't feel in the mood to have sex or thinks he doesn't have the time or energy?It isn't about what the blacks wanted. It is about what the abolitionists wanted(pretty much all of them were opposed to integration). Lincoln wanted blacks to go back as well. Without the abolitionists the blacks would have been slaves for much longer.The separate but equal thing was about preserving segregation so that blacks could eventually be sent back. The dogs and fire houses and political lynchings came out of desperation to preserve even the possibility of sending blacks back.The separate but equal was about keeping blacks in their place. That is why they had dogs set on them and fire hoses turned on them when trying to get people registered to vote. Or why people were murdered by cowards when they tried to get people registered to vote.
And if you are going to try and chastise me for not knowing, at least actually read what I post. I didn't say anything about women voting. I was referring to more recent things women were denied.
Like the fact that the US Supreme court ruled in 1974 that states could not exclude women from juries.
It was also 1974 that the Equal Opportunity Credit Act meant women could apply for a credit card without their husband's name on the bill.
And the first time the courts recognized sexual harassment in the workplace was 1975.
It was in the 1970s that the courts allowed that women could refuse to have sex with their husbands. Before that there was no such law in most states against marital rape.
So, like I said, some of those "rebellions against the norm" were actually justice in action.
Women's suffrage has to do with all of the later women's rights events. Women originally were not needed to do anything but keep up the home.
Marital rape is a nonsensical idea to everyone but the dumbest of the dumb. You can't rape your spouse when sex is an unspoken condition of marriage.
I guess if the blacks wanted to go back to Africa that would make sense. They didn't. They wanted to be treated equally in the nation that they, their parents, their grandparents, and their great-grandparents helped to build. They wanted their constitutional rights. They wanted to vote on the leaders that would determine the direction of their nation.
If a woman wants to be a homemaker, I have no problem with it. But t o tell her she HAS to do that, or that she only has what her husband gives her is simply wrong.
Marital rape is not nonsense. Marriage does not guarantee a husband that he will get sex anytime he wants, even if she doesn't want it. She is an American citizen, not her husband's property.
It is not any more unfair to the woman than it is to the man who has to use his masculine mind and body to make money to support the family, instead of staying at home.
Sticking your penis in your wife's vagina when she isn't up for sex at the time isn't rape. It may be grounds for divorce and possibly legal action like a restraining order or something, but it isn't rape. Physically harming your spouse and/or forcing them to perform actions that are harmful to them is very different from pouncing on your wife when she has a mental chastity belt on.
This ^^^^^^^ is off-topic trolling, and the worthless spittle of the lowest kind of pathetic weakling scum. No real man believes that ^^^^^^ kind of bullshit, and no weakling loser would ever say it in the presence of a real man (or real woman for that matter).
No real man believes that his wife can decide on a whim that their lovemaking wasn't consensual, or even is some kind of sexual attack against her.
If you study the history of immigration many took a while to learn the language. They ran newspapers in their home language and settled together in communities. That included those who immigrated from Europe.(If some other member has already posted this news , please combine my thread with his/hers. THANKS)
*****
An Asian man, his wife, and daughter were walking in a suburb of Los Angeles.
A woman came up and told them, "Go back to your home country."
The man explained that he and his wife were born in the States.
The couple started to record the incident. (The Facebook video has had more than 440,000 views so far.)
The woman has been identified as a college professor.
She has told a local TV station the following: "If you would like to have a full normal interview about the displacement of European Americans , then I gladly am available to enlighten the public."
Los Angeles Times, print edition for March 7, 2018.
I was in the dentist's office with an abscess the other day, and not to my surprise, the rest of the waiting area was filled with what I believe was an Indian couple and their FOUR children------ ALL OF THEM running around and speaking in a foreign language. I am very offended by that. My parents would be shocked and offended by that. In the history of this country, people immigrated here mainly from Europe because they WANTED TO BECOME AMERICANS! They were quick to learn our language, culture and values. I have no problem with people immigrating here or whatever, but when in Rome, speak Roman. I do not get and do not like foreigners coming here and bringing their foreign culture with them. If you want to live in America, then learn to speak English and be an American, otherwise it means NOTHING to be an American and our society is shit. For a nation to survive and be healthy, it must be united under one basic culture, one ideal and one basic set of values, not a bunch of isolated mini-cultures scattered and mixed within an area separate from each other culturally and linguistically. No healthy nation on this planet operates so nor was America founded to be this way, thus the term "melting pot": different people were supposed to come here and BLEND TOGETHER as ONE, not stay different.
I once saw on the news some indians had won a court case, and outside, the reporter asks one of the Chiefs "So, how do you feel after your victory in court today?" The Chief said "it's a good day to be an indian". If it's good enough for him...Anyone born in the US is a native American. What you're referring to is an indian. Indians aren't native to America either.I think capitalization counts here.
A Native American is not the same as a native American. Make sense?
I am normally not one to follow the trends of what people are called. But the Native Americans were called "Indians" when they thought they had landed in India. And even then, the explorers knew they were not in India. It is a laughable term that stuck.
And I think living somewhere for more than 10,000 years qualifies you as "native".
And I tried to differentiate between "native American", which is someone who was born here, and "Native American", which is someone who is descended from the indigenous tribes of the North American continent.
I once saw on the news some indians had won a court case, and outside, the reporter asks one of the Chiefs "So, how do you feel after your victory in court today?" The Chief said "it's a good day to be an indian". If it's good enough for him...Anyone born in the US is a native American. What you're referring to is an indian. Indians aren't native to America either.I think capitalization counts here.
A Native American is not the same as a native American. Make sense?
I am normally not one to follow the trends of what people are called. But the Native Americans were called "Indians" when they thought they had landed in India. And even then, the explorers knew they were not in India. It is a laughable term that stuck.
And I think living somewhere for more than 10,000 years qualifies you as "native".
And I tried to differentiate between "native American", which is someone who was born here, and "Native American", which is someone who is descended from the indigenous tribes of the North American continent.
And no, your ancestors being here 10,000 years doesn't make one a indigenous to the Americas any more than I will be considered a real native 10,000 years from now, no matter how PC you're trying to be.
Anyone born in the US is a native American. What you're referring to is an indian. Indians aren't native to America either.I think capitalization counts here.
A Native American is not the same as a native American. Make sense?
