Looking for Pre-Colombian Southern Californian His

Originally posted by lirelou ...Both of you keep missing the point on North America, that part of the continent that nobody wanted because the Indians were not "civilized", as were the mesoamericans, Chibcha. and Peruvians. It was not a conquest.

OK folks we are beginning to ramble into the ad absurdum. And as for you "Pinguino" did you adjust a bow tie when writing this little gem:

Edited by drgonzaga - 11-Jun-2009 at 23:31

You've missed the actual point, Pinguin. What purpose with all this finger pointing? It tells us nothing of the past and even less of contemporary Amerinds, who confront entirely different problems today. As for the name calling, Sioux is an Ojibwa word meaning "snake" or "enemy". The Tewa gave their rivals the name, Navajo, and that little word stands for "thieves" or "takers of the fields".  As all anthropologists know a common characteristic of Amerind groups is the "we the real people" address [that is only the immediate group holds humanity, all others are "enemies" or even more denigrative appellations]. The Navajo, who identified themselves as "real people" or the Dine coined the term Anasazi which really means "ancient enemies" for the ancestral Pueblos. So whatever you might think along these lines,  "dehumanizing" the opponent or rival has a very old tradition among all "people".

Edited by drgonzaga - 12-Jun-2009 at 15:25

Originally posted by Carcharodon Maybe finger pointing has no real meaning but still one just have to admit the fact that Europeans invaded other peoples land. Then one can always discuss which European nation was worst in that endeavour or which methods were used, or what the speed or chronology of the process (or processes) where. When adressing such topic it is rather irrelevant what the Amerinds called themselves or called each other. To adress those things in this particular context is just a smoke screen.

Originally posted by drgonzaga   Imagine if someone on the Altiplano began an agitation against those Chilean robbers of the Atacama--if your conscience twitches about all of this land robbery let us hold forth on Tacna and Arica.  ..

Originally posted by Carcharodon ...  To discuss Native Americans conflicts with each other is not especially relevant since the taking of their land was still an (or several) invasion. The European incursions will not be morally justified just because the native populations engaged in conflicts, like most other people on earth has done now and then.   It´s not about victimizing anyone, it´s just about calling things with their right names.

Mapuches are my Amerindians, Bolivians are citizens of another republic. One that fooled around with us and found the Mapuche warrior tradition falling on theirs heads.

What I meant was regardless if Native Americans had fought each others since eternity Europeans had no right to go there in the first place and start to interfere in their lives and cultures. That the Europeans after their arrival started to meddle in the internal affairs of the indigenous and started to play the game of divide and conquer is another matter.

Originally posted by Carcharodon What I meant was regardless if Native Americans had fought each others since eternity Europeans had no right to go there in the first place and start to interfere in their lives and cultures. That the Europeans after their arrival started to meddle in the internal affairs of the indigenous and started to play the game of divide and conquer is another matter.

Originally posted by Carcharodon   It seems that this discussion has strayed far away from the original topic of this thread.