Ancestoral blame and moral judgements

Originally posted by pinguin   The 1/4, 1/8, 1/2048 stuff is culturally American. In here in the south, for both Mapuches and Hispanics, what counts is what you have in your heart.

So if ancestorial land was handed to Indians by the Canadian government in the 1930's. Grey Owl would be entitled to an equal share?

Originally posted by pinguin Originally posted by Paul ...� But, what if�they accept�most of the culture and traditions, meanwhile rejecting�the rest? Or they reject all of the culture and traditions, wanting too keep their own; "BUT"... they remain law abiding citizens and remain very friendly and respectful to the culture of the locals as well as their traditions. Not wishing too change anything about the country,�but to simply live their lives as peacefully as they can, as was well as wishing no harm upon anyone surrounding�them in Chile? � In Chile is impossible to live isolated from the rest. No matter how immigrants try the society force them to assimilate. In some critical cases they can't stand it and leave. � Originally posted by Paul ...� Would any of that be a problem in Chile? Or would any of that be frowned upon by your society? � No problem with Chile, except that we believe if someone comes here to live is because want to become one of us. Otherwise, why should come in the first place, anyways? � In other words: In Rome do as Romans do, and in Chile as Chileans do � �

Only problem, Pinguin, is that paul didn't make these statements. The person that you happen to be quoting here is Panther.

Originally posted by pinguin Originally posted by Paul So if ancestorial land was handed to Indians by the Canadian government in the 1930's. Grey Owl would be entitled to an equal share?     Tricky question   I am afraid governments in the Americas are not as open minded as Native themselves.   In fact, the business of the governments in the Americas is to keep Indian demographics as small as possible by putting a lot of restrictions to memberships. That's why you have so few "real" natives in Canada, Brazil, the U.S. or Chile. Even in Peru or Mexico, where most people are racially indigenous, the numbers of Indians is bellow the 5% of the population!   Weird.   I remember when the Chilean government ask a question about Amerindian ancestry to Chileans in the 1992 census, and millions of people answered positively.... The government never asked the question again

Edited by Paul - 22-Jan-2008 at 01:55

It seems that the Mapuche are very happy in Chile indeed:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080122/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/chile_fasting_mapuche;_ylt=ApHv8bsaf8RHpKP5m9C1XH.3IxIF
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/americas/south-america/chile

Originally posted by Paul ...-   1. Actually it's a difinitive question. If someone agrees he has the same rights as a full blood Indian. The claim to ancestoral lands is a claim for a preservation of a culture. In similar ways to creating nature preserves.   If someone disagrees he has the same rights. Someone is creating a distinction based not on culture but genetics. They are in fact in every sense a nazi.

Originally posted by pinguin Originally posted by Mixcoatl It seems that the Mapuche are very happy in Chile indeed:   Your irony is originated in the ignorance on the topic. Mapuches are fighting to recover theirs lands occupied by powerful logging companies and german settlers. They have all our support.   Better study the issue and then come back making jokes, please.

The homeland of the Mapuche was stolen by the state of Chile.

---
So in summary your view upon the matter is the following:

1) The state of USA stole the land of the natives. Therefore, they should get all the blame for the theft.

2) Chile, and other SA countries, stole the land from the native. They however, should not get the blame for stealing the land from the natives. The reason for this is that the predominantly male conquistadors and settlers took native women as wives, slaves or mistresses and their offspring make up a large part of the current population pool. Instead we blame Spain, whose population's ancestors did not go to South America to steal land, since the people who actually stole the land (ie the ancestors of the modern Chileans etc) happened to be born there.



Edited by Styrbiorn - 22-Jan-2008 at 15:53

Originally posted by pinguin Your irony is originated in the ignorance on the topic. Mapuches are fighting to recover theirs lands occupied by powerful logging companies and german settlers. They have all our support.

It's Chilean territory. If the Chilean government sympathizes with the plight of the Mapuche why don't they kick out the logging companies and relocate the Germans instead of maltreating protesters?

Besides, the reason immigration of Germans and other Europeans was promoted in the 19th century was precisely because the government believed 'cultured' Europeans would be able to develop the country, believing Indians were incapable of doing that.

Natives defines who is Indian or not according to theirs blood lines.

Funny, most Native Americans considered tribe membership to be something of culture, not 'blood'. 'Blood' (or genetics) is typically European way of defining ethnicity, not Amerindian.


Edited by Mixcoatl - 22-Jan-2008 at 16:28

Originally posted by Mixcoatl ... It's Chilean territory. If the Chilean government sympathizes with the plight of the Mapuche why don't they kick out the logging companies and relocate the Germans instead of maltreating protesters? Besides, the reason immigration of Germans and other Europeans was promoted in the 19th century was precisely because the government believed 'cultured' Europeans would be able to develop the country, believing Indians were incapable of doing that.

Originally posted by Seko What did Chile say to the bean? Move on over buddy and make room for the Gazpacho! Such is the fate of those who do not understand the laws of the kitchen jungle.