>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Lawdeedaw, I agree. Like I said, early US was plagued with problems, but most of those were hold overs from the colonies (e.g., slavery). And even the Framers knew slavery wasn't harmonious with liberalism. It was tolerated to gain the support of the Southern colonies lest they lose their revolution.
I could go on and on about the early atrocities of the US, especially the trail of tears initiated by the very first Democratic President, Jackson. @NetRunner hates it when I throw facts like that in his face.
I think the problem you have whenever you try to toss out historical examples is that you don't know enough about history to use them appropriately. For example, Andrew Jackson was a classical liberal. And Southern.
More generally, the Democratic party of the 19th century had a platform very near and dear to your heart. Small government, state's rights, against government funded infrastructure, against national debt, against the national bank, in favor of the gold standard (they were against paper money, even!), against economic regulation, against economic protectionism, etc.
Yes, they saw the ownership of people as legitimate, but so do plenty of libertarians. Seems like such a small disagreement when you look at the full policy platform of the 19th century Democrats.


But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.

He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."

Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

>> ^Sagemind:
Georgia law actually is remarkably clear on this point; law enforcement agencies must report civil seizures to local governing bodies every year. Unfortunately, many law enforcement agencies, including those sued by IJ, simply choose to ignore this mandate.

I know a lot of people like to believe in the stability of a representational government, but it's not without its glaring flaws, especially when we ask this very basic question: Who polices the police?

The correct answer should be "the people", but how? We want to empower the police to be the strongest domestic force, but what happens when they refuse to follow the law? How're the people supposed to police that? Oversight only does so much. And if the police are the best and most armed, then what'll make them listen to the people?

Harken back at the very first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, for proof of this abuse of power. He pushed the Indian Removal Act through Congress which removed all Native Americans east of the Mississippi River. The Cherokee fought this all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Jackson response was something along the lines of, "The courts made their decision, let's see them enforce it!"

What followed was the Trail of Tears. That's all three of the branches of this checks-and-balances representational government failing justice completely. And this is partly why all forms of human government are corruptible. No one polices the government. It's impossible.

Hitler : Catholicism :: Ward Churchill : Cherokee Indians

What about us Cherokee/Irish/German folks? Should we stay or should we go? We walked the trail of tears, helped build the railroads, and murdered the Jews. I'm so confused, I think I'll go get drunk.

>> ^enoch:
>> ^TerryF:
Can you imagine how beautiful and pristine America would look if the white man would have never waged genocide against the Native Americans and stolen their lands. Yet now you all contribute to destroy this land and then rage against a nation that is merely reclaiming its long lost identity and lands. Can you say hypocrite?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And here's a thought - never bring a rock to a gun fight. Better yet, don't throw rocks at a man with a gun.

soooooo.....
your point is colonialism is a good thing?nation building can only happen with genocidal extermination?
america would have never got the bump without slavery..should we have kept that also?
should i build a time machine and go warn the cherokee and apache nations?
rage against a nation that is merely reclaiming its long lost identity?
so the palestinians were only keeping the bed warm for almost 2000 years?
OR..or....
central asian jews formerly known as kazhars traded assistance during WW1 to britain who promised these non-european jews a portion of palestine.look up sept 11th 1922 amended balfour declaration.britains blood soaked gift to the world.
good lord man...
your lack of knowledge is staggering.you actually managed to regurgitate almost every pertinent piece of propaganda in your comment.
well done.


I agree. As the saying goes...you should learn from history and not repeat its mistakes. History should never be used in anyway to justify a means to an end. Especially when we have hindsight (bias).

>> ^TerryF:
Can you imagine how beautiful and pristine America would look if the white man would have never waged genocide against the Native Americans and stolen their lands. Yet now you all contribute to destroy this land and then rage against a nation that is merely reclaiming its long lost identity and lands. Can you say hypocrite?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And here's a thought - never bring a rock to a gun fight. Better yet, don't throw rocks at a man with a gun.


soooooo.....
your point is colonialism is a good thing?nation building can only happen with genocidal extermination?
america would have never got the bump without slavery..should we have kept that also?
should i build a time machine and go warn the cherokee and apache nations?
rage against a nation that is merely reclaiming its long lost identity?
so the palestinians were only keeping the bed warm for almost 2000 years?
OR..or....
central asian jews formerly known as kazhars traded assistance during WW1 to britain who promised these non-european jews a portion of palestine.look up sept 11th 1922 amended balfour declaration.britains blood soaked gift to the world.
good lord man...
your lack of knowledge is staggering.you actually managed to regurgitate almost every pertinent piece of propaganda in your comment.
well done.

Fuck you and your controversy category... I'll rape your Cherokee grandfather in front of your wife with my daughter's baby rattle while I force you to listen to Ludwig Von, then combine your tears with my girlfriend's tears, who I just punched in the cunt (because she didn't wear her Islam face thingy); then, I'll mix it with poo and agent orange, and sell it as anti-AIDS medicine in Africa. All proceeds, that aren't converted to carbon credits and WoW gold, will go to the Catholic church and Fred Phelps' God Hates Fags site. I'll write about it prison and dedicate it to the memory of Hitler, weapons of mass destruction, and all the fans of the Twilight series. P.S. Before I have sex with your grandfather, I will tear out the foetus of a pregnant Hindu priestess, fuck that foetus, then use its stim cells to increase the length of my cock -- which will be ramming into a cow after this all happens. Then I'll eat the cow. Then I'll accept JESUS CHRIST as my personal savious, kill myself and have my remains fed to Pepperridge Farm chickens.

See ya in Heaven, bitch nigga.

>> ^blankfist:
I'm a white guy, but I have enough Cherokee in me (...)

And don't we all know exactly where in you this Cherokee part is?

I'm 1/8th Cherokee. You have to be 1/16th or greater for the Federal government to recognize you, so I could be taking some of those sweet, sweet gub'ment handouts if I could prove it, which I cannot because when my great grandmother married a white man she was removed from the Cherokee register. I seriously am about as Native American as I am an astronaut, so it would be silly for me to take any Federal money.

@Payback. It's not Quebec. I'm pretty sure their tribal band is near Edmonton, Alberta Canada.

@KnivesOut. You're so smart. You have a firm grasp on "logical" things. I marvel at your mental prowess. Reparations for dead people is EXACTLY like disaster relief for the living. You nailed it. Bravo.

From what I have seen, many of the Cherokee could pass as white. In fact, on a visit to the Native American museum in the smithsonian, I was struck at how many tribal groups have a significant amount of members who could easily pass for white.

Why wouldn't they accept you? Was it because you were not on the Dawes Roll?: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7231&context=expresso

I'm a white guy, but I have enough Cherokee in me to be classified as Native American if the tribes would accept me. Which they won't. My girlfriend is mostly Native American, and her tribe won't even recognize her.

But, I look really white. Cracker white. Drywall white. I can tan like the dickens, but then it just turns back to pale honkey white as fast as the day is short.

The life on reservations is no picnic. My gf's nephews and her sister-in-law live on a Canadian reservation, and it's abject poverty. It's not that they don't have money, it's that they tend to value education as a lower priority and alcoholism and drug abuse is rampant. Theft is huge up there, too. None of her nephews can have nice things without them being stolen. Also, with the alcoholism and drug use there's a decent amount of violence. Also, the Canadians around the reservations tend to treat the Native Americans as lesser beings. My gf, who is American and part white and black and East Indian and everything else under the sun (but mostly Native American), experienced the Canadian racism first hand. Most of the local white vendors would be extremely rude to her because they assumed she was from the local tribe.

Now comes the part where I put my Libertarian hat on and sound like a complete racist. I disagree with reparations or any special funding given to the Native Americans by tax dollars. Hey, at least I'm consistent. The reason I believe this is because none of the people paying into the taxes are responsible for running the Natives off their land. It would make as much sense as us holding the entire Democratic party responsible for paying reparations because their party founder signed the Indian Removal Act which lead to the Trail of Tears (fact!). NetRunner had nothing to do with his party's racist founder, so it wouldn't be fair to blame NetRunner, right?

In order to make amends the people directly victimized and the people directly responsible for victimizing them would need to be held accountable. But, they're all dead. Now, let the comment downvotes begin.

Confucius, everything is subjective. I just wanted to say that in my opinion, the original statement by cherokee was racist.

I understand that there are racist connotations to "redneck" (that's why I said as much in my last comment) but in my opinion it has way more to do with class.

As to the root of the word, I was just talking about the literal term and what it means. One who works outside...

In the sun...

And gets sunburned...

On their neck...

Cause' they work outside...

In the sun.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^EndAll:
At least his use of the term was accurate.. so is calling a white southerner a 'redneck' racist?

No, It's classist. And it's offensive to some people as it's a term that denotes poverty more than anything else.
Cholo is definitely a racist term but like everything else, it needs context. I fully believe that in the context used above by "cherokee", yes, it was racist.
Someone once told me that you should never pull a gun unless you're going to use it. I'm going to remember that.


Back to the Racism debate.....

Before you say yes or not to this you have to ask yourself what defines race. Is it skin color, religion ethnicity or what else? If a Chinese-American began slinging the word Redneck around then it would most definitely be a racist use of the word. You also have to to remember that technically the definition (in short form) of a redneck is a poor WHITE southerner. WHITE/caucasian is a core element of the definition and therefore the epithet Redneck is based on race and a derogatory use of it would have to be, in some applications at least, racist. Your statement Ryjkyj that Redneck is classist merely shows that you are most likely from the white middle-class (thats not an insult or anything just an observation). otherwise you would think differently of the word.

In the same sense the word nigger isn't solely based on race either. There are numerous elements that go into making the word including elements of class. The connotationsthat comes along with using the word in a derogatory sense encompass multiple elements inclouding those of class just the same as the word Redneck.

Ryj, you also said:

'"Rednecks" is primarily a term used to describe poor white people. Although it can apply to any race, the root of the term is basically: "the ones who work outside".'


How is the root of the word redneck, "those who work outside?" Are you trying to say that the word reflects the creation of the "other" within society by those in power or the majority? If so it isnt necessarily "those who work outside" but instead it would be those who dont fit into the established norm (whatever that might be) and in this sense the word redneck or any other potentially racist term would reflect attempts at assimiliation by society or instead attempts at identifying and establishing distance to those who dont fit.

Cholos are a certain type of gang member, usually associated with but not limited to male Hispanics. I knew lots of white, black, Asian, and female "cholos" in my youth.

IMHO, it's acceptable to wish ill against a class of people if that class is specifically grouped together based on their willingness to commit crimes and injury against innocent people and not based on their ethnicity or gender.

You may strongly disagree with cherokee's passionate sentiment and that's completely fine, but it's not necessarily race that's fueling their fire. Anyway, that's just this reporter's opinion.

>> ^EndAll:

At least his use of the term was accurate.. so is calling a white southerner a 'redneck' racist?


No, It's classist. And it's offensive to some people as it's a term that denotes poverty more than anything else.

Cholo is definitely a racist term but like everything else, it needs context. I fully believe that in the context used above by "cherokee", yes, it was racist.

Someone once told me that you should never pull a gun unless you're going to use it. I'm going to remember that.