Prof. Peter D'Errico makes an outstanding point of substantive differentiation. 'Inclusion' is a first cousin to 'collaboration' (double entendre that it is) in the smoke-filled clutter of contemporary 'progressive' rhetoric. Self-determination is the fact of the matter and also gets to the very heart of the fundamental values at play.
i completely agree with this article; thinking about this subjects often, another, perhaps a tag off the original sentiment, that citizens do not have treaties with their own governments...the tell-tale evidence will be to what extent does the the observance of treaty, treaty protocol, and the constitutional mandates affirming treaties with Indian Country manifest. To date treaties and the subject thereof is never a topic of discussion, nor promise by the government. There is no prerogative to treaty implementation other than implementation...over 800 treaties with Indian Country between the u.s. and canada, and to date, not one is enforced by each colonial settler nation state....the next chapter in this historical soap opera, is what would life look like if those treaties were/is the relationship....
Thanks, Peter, excellent distinctions made and they can help anyone to review one's actions so as to see if they are actually helping or hindering the supposed cause. I remember a teacher in a theater class in college saying you have to keep asking yourself as the character, "What's my motivation?"... as it helps makes the acting authentic. And i think that's applicable to daily life.
I live in Woodbury, CT And it doesn't get any more colonial than here...and this is an activity they are offering at my daughter's school. Here is a link...curious if it's the same John Marshall. https://www.glebehousemuseum.org/marshall-children
Reading Steven's book...super curious your thoughts. I'm not finished but my sense is that while some of the voices really wanted good things...that too many were naive enough to believe the treaties were made in good faith, and I tend to agree with those I cannot stand that they probably were made mostly in expediency without honor, while harboring the sentiments of the original DOCD...however, if anyone tries to pass a pan-global treaty selling out US sovereignty, I would suggest one of two approaches: either refuse to find ourselves obligated until all prior treaties to all are honored, starting with the native peoples and nations - including the descendents of those who no longer qualify as nations because of fowl play and dishonorable, unchristian behavior MEASURED BY THE LAW JESUS SAID SUMS THEM UP: love the lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Alternative, anyone who identifies as a Christian could go up to the Swiss alps, ogle those fellows who gather to plan world events and control our responses to them, and let them know, we claim their assets, their person and will allow them to be live as occupants in peaceful lands so long as they begin to follow the invitation of Jesus to live as he did, with sincerity.
I spiraled around Harvard Indigenous voices and also found the US military.... and in the heart literally driving Jung's Native encounter, I found he stayed at the Columbus and was funded by Rockefellers and I want to know, what do the voices with no connections to oppressor bodies...whose voices are entirely sovereign, have to say!
Why are we not as prone to critique assimilation as "appropriation" when already what has been appropriated is aggressively and sometimes in sneaky ways, assimilated. I see the exact same dynamic in KH VP, in terms of representation substituting for real change.
Prof. Peter D'Errico makes an outstanding point of substantive differentiation. 'Inclusion' is a first cousin to 'collaboration' (double entendre that it is) in the smoke-filled clutter of contemporary 'progressive' rhetoric. Self-determination is the fact of the matter and also gets to the very heart of the fundamental values at play.
i completely agree with this article; thinking about this subjects often, another, perhaps a tag off the original sentiment, that citizens do not have treaties with their own governments...the tell-tale evidence will be to what extent does the the observance of treaty, treaty protocol, and the constitutional mandates affirming treaties with Indian Country manifest. To date treaties and the subject thereof is never a topic of discussion, nor promise by the government. There is no prerogative to treaty implementation other than implementation...over 800 treaties with Indian Country between the u.s. and canada, and to date, not one is enforced by each colonial settler nation state....the next chapter in this historical soap opera, is what would life look like if those treaties were/is the relationship....
all the words for devour
that an empire has-
to count
would take an hour
Yes, thx, had seen that post!
Thanks, Peter, excellent distinctions made and they can help anyone to review one's actions so as to see if they are actually helping or hindering the supposed cause. I remember a teacher in a theater class in college saying you have to keep asking yourself as the character, "What's my motivation?"... as it helps makes the acting authentic. And i think that's applicable to daily life.
I live in Woodbury, CT And it doesn't get any more colonial than here...and this is an activity they are offering at my daughter's school. Here is a link...curious if it's the same John Marshall. https://www.glebehousemuseum.org/marshall-children
Reading Steven's book...super curious your thoughts. I'm not finished but my sense is that while some of the voices really wanted good things...that too many were naive enough to believe the treaties were made in good faith, and I tend to agree with those I cannot stand that they probably were made mostly in expediency without honor, while harboring the sentiments of the original DOCD...however, if anyone tries to pass a pan-global treaty selling out US sovereignty, I would suggest one of two approaches: either refuse to find ourselves obligated until all prior treaties to all are honored, starting with the native peoples and nations - including the descendents of those who no longer qualify as nations because of fowl play and dishonorable, unchristian behavior MEASURED BY THE LAW JESUS SAID SUMS THEM UP: love the lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Alternative, anyone who identifies as a Christian could go up to the Swiss alps, ogle those fellows who gather to plan world events and control our responses to them, and let them know, we claim their assets, their person and will allow them to be live as occupants in peaceful lands so long as they begin to follow the invitation of Jesus to live as he did, with sincerity.
I spiraled around Harvard Indigenous voices and also found the US military.... and in the heart literally driving Jung's Native encounter, I found he stayed at the Columbus and was funded by Rockefellers and I want to know, what do the voices with no connections to oppressor bodies...whose voices are entirely sovereign, have to say!
Why are we not as prone to critique assimilation as "appropriation" when already what has been appropriated is aggressively and sometimes in sneaky ways, assimilated. I see the exact same dynamic in KH VP, in terms of representation substituting for real change.