Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (99612)	3/27/2013 10:09:01 PM
From: Maurice Winn	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218014

How is it racist to use the word Indians? Do you mean they should be fine-tooth combed into their various little tepee units? Yes, different families do have those differences: <NW of here is a tribe of Sioux Indians that were adopted by the Canadian government for their service to the British Empire fighting the Americans in the war of 1812. NE is a tribe of Swampy Cree and due north is a tribe of Dene and east is a Metis settlement which is Cree/French. All groups have distinct histories, identities and languages > The Winns are different from the Smiths who are not the same as the Jones and all are unlike the Ponokees and, odd though it might seem, each individual within those micro tribes are unique. It is not racist to define bundles of people based on various variables. It is quite obvious that "Indians" referred to people descended from those who arrived from Asia 10,000 years ago [more or less]. It's not a racist term. It's a definitional term. It's also politically incorrect and of course racist to call them "Swampy Cree". They should correctly be called "Wetland Cree". You should not really leave that definition so wide either because the "Dry Wetland Cree" are a different ethnicity from the "Wet Wetland Cree". Who are you including in "we" white man? <At least we can't take the blame for introducing them to alcohol, > I don't take the blame for anything I personally did not do. For example I certainly don't think my taxes should go to Obama because he has got a lot of melanin in his skin from his father who was from Kenya [and was not a slave and neither was Obama Junior and neither were their Kenyan ancestors - who were slave users and sellers more than likely]. Some people think descendants of USA slaves should get money from taxpayers. I think said descendants should pay a fee to the USA government for having had the extreme good fortune to have had their ancestors sold to Americans. The money paid for the original slaves should be refunded. With interest! Mqurice