Real World Event Discussions
Long hot summer ... of riots
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 18:10
VIEWED: 35026
PAGE 15 of 52
Saturday, July 4, 2020 1:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Your point is taken, but the comments made in the House were specifically about Blacks, and, as I read it, how they're entitled to extra-special compensation from the US government because of its ... I don't know what. Failure to end slavery? Failure to provide equal Constitutional rights to Blacks? Failure to put muscle behind those equal rights for Blacks?
As for First Nations, I would be happy if the US government started addressing all those many treaties it broke, and belatedly made good on them ... or at least provided equal-value compensation of some type. That would be a Nunavut moment here is the US. (But sadly, I don't expect any of that here - not even a tiny bit.)
I understand that was referenced was about Blacks. In my opinion failure to put muscle behind those rights.
A blanket statement made about your 15th Amendment made me look up those facts Kiki.
You can use American Indian or Native American, which ever you are comfortable with. First Nations is only used in Canada or Indigenous Peoples. Though that phrase is probably used down there in higher education settings.
No, it won't happen. Too many broken treaties and spilt blood. Also no will to bring us to the table when the talk is about racism. We're still out of sight out of mind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, July 4, 2020 2:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Your point is taken, but the comments made in the House were specifically about Blacks, and, as I read it, how they're entitled to extra-special compensation from the US government because of its ... I don't know what. Failure to end slavery? Failure to provide equal Constitutional rights to Blacks? Failure to put muscle behind those equal rights for Blacks?
As for First Nations, I would be happy if the US government started addressing all those many treaties it broke, and belatedly made good on them ... or at least provided equal-value compensation of some type. That would be a Nunavut moment here is the US. (But sadly, I don't expect any of that here - not even a tiny bit.)
Quote:I'm wondering what leads you to that conclusion. As far as I can tell, the only entity that worked to make equal rights a reality was the federal government. I believe the individual states were the reason for a lot of unequal treatment, with Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, anti-miscegenation laws etc.
Originally posted by Brenda:
I understand that was referenced was about Blacks. In my opinion failure to put muscle behind those rights.
Quote:(I've read or heard First Nations a lot, though I seriously don't remember when or where. Maybe it was the decade+ of listening to CBC radio out of Toronto. It comes to mind about equally with Native American.)
A blanket statement made about your 15th Amendment made me look up those facts Kiki.
You can use American Indian or Native American, which ever you are comfortable with. First Nations is only used in Canada or Indigenous Peoples. Though that phrase is probably used down there in higher education settings.
Anyway, I've read enough to know that tribal lands aren't considered entirely a part of the US - there's some kind of jurisdictional barriers. And that originally tribal lands were considered like a foreign government, which is why the agreements were treaties, a thing used between countries. But the legal complications are something I've never understood. I've tried now and again to unscramble it over questions like - how can the US force an oil pipeline through tribal lands if the tribe is against it? I still don't understand the complications.
Anyway, just of interest, Black MALES got the right to vote in 1870. Women, though citizens, couldn't vote until 1920. And Native Americans became both citizens and got the right to vote in 1924.
Quote:I'm not sure about Canada, but I feel that minority rights here are about dividing and setting one against the other, rather than trying to fulfill the promise of equality for all.
No, it won't happen. Too many broken treaties and spilt blood. Also no will to bring us to the table when the talk is about racism. We're still out of sight out of mind.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, July 4, 2020 8:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Y'all watching Trump?
He's killing it.
That's a little preview of what stumbling, bumbling, senile old Biden is going to have to go up against soon.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
lol @ Legacy Media coverage.
The usual suspects found Trump's speech last night to be racist as usual.
Keep on red pilling everyone, idiots.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, July 5, 2020 3:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Your point is taken, but the comments made in the House were specifically about Blacks, and, as I read it, how they're entitled to extra-special compensation from the US government because of its ... I don't know what. Failure to end slavery? Failure to provide equal Constitutional rights to Blacks? Failure to put muscle behind those equal rights for Blacks?
As for First Nations, I would be happy if the US government started addressing all those many treaties it broke, and belatedly made good on them ... or at least provided equal-value compensation of some type. That would be a Nunavut moment here is the US. (But sadly, I don't expect any of that here - not even a tiny bit.)
Quote:I'm wondering what leads you to that conclusion. As far as I can tell, the only entity that worked to make equal rights a reality was the federal government. I believe the individual states were the reason for a lot of unequal treatment, with Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, anti-miscegenation laws etc.
Originally posted by Brenda:
I understand that was referenced was about Blacks. In my opinion failure to put muscle behind those rights.
Quote:(I've read or heard First Nations a lot, though I seriously don't remember when or where. Maybe it was the decade+ of listening to CBC radio out of Toronto. It comes to mind about equally with Native American.)
A blanket statement made about your 15th Amendment made me look up those facts Kiki.
You can use American Indian or Native American, which ever you are comfortable with. First Nations is only used in Canada or Indigenous Peoples. Though that phrase is probably used down there in higher education settings.
Anyway, I've read enough to know that tribal lands aren't considered entirely a part of the US - there's some kind of jurisdictional barriers. And that originally tribal lands were considered like a foreign government, which is why the agreements were treaties, a thing used between countries. But the legal complications are something I've never understood. I've tried now and again to unscramble it over questions like - how can the US force an oil pipeline through tribal lands if the tribe is against it? I still don't understand the complications.
Anyway, just of interest, Black MALES got the right to vote in 1870. Women, though citizens, couldn't vote until 1920. And Native Americans became both citizens and got the right to vote in 1924.
Quote:I'm not sure about Canada, but I feel that minority rights here are about dividing and setting one against the other, rather than trying to fulfill the promise of equality for all.
No, it won't happen. Too many broken treaties and spilt blood. Also no will to bring us to the table when the talk is about racism. We're still out of sight out of mind.
I'm sorry for this post but I can't separate all that out without making a hash of it. So apologies before hand.
My understanding of the Jim Crow laws is not good and I didn't realize that each state did this on their own.
First Nations came into being used in Canada over 30years ago. Just shortly after Native American came into being used in the US.
The barrier on tribal lands is that we are considered sovereign nations on American soil. We had to be declared nations for the treaty process. The American Federal government can consult but still go through with projects on reservation land because the land is still owned by the Federal government, the land was only given to us by treaty. Tribes don't own the land they live. So, the American Federal government can do as they please.
Tribes go to court down there and up in Canada to stop projects like pipe lines. But unless a court sides with the tribes, the government wins. There are things like that happening up here in Canada right now.
Don't worry, I feel the same way about minority rights down there. Everyone is being pitte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, July 5, 2020 4:00 AM
Hey Brenda - as long as you could read my post, I'm good!
And your reply came through very well!
Anyway, I really appreciate you getting back to me. 
And you've helped my understanding along quite a bit.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, July 5, 2020 9:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Hey Brenda - as long as you could read my post, I'm good!
And your reply came through very well!
Anyway, I really appreciate you getting back to me.
Understanding your post not a problem. But I have a problem with getting the quoting right here.
Glad you could understand me too.
Always glad to be of service in helping understanding along.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, July 9, 2020 11:27 PM
Quote:Well, RapKnight fairly well nailed it, concisely, at the beginning of this thread.
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:There IS no reason. The targets are those who won in 2016. The deranged hyper far Left demand power, and this is the only way they can get it.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What is the real cause? What are the real targets?
Shut the country down. Destroy the world's best economy. GIVE people money to do nothing, and then invent a cause to get angry over.
Add in Soros paid for goons to organize riots... The ' fun ' has already gone on too long.
Serious use of force needs to be put in play here. China and France went after legitimate protesters with far more force than the these animals have seen.
Time for the boot to fall on the ants.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, July 9, 2020 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Yes, but what about the other roughly 999 people killed by cops every year? This isn't the first outrageous killing by police. And while those other killings sparked protests and even riots in their cities (Ferguson, BTW the whole "Hands up don't shoot" was fake) they didn't spread across the world.
SIGNY: I see this as "move and countermove".
They tried spying on Trump, targeting his campaign and smearing him for three years with a breathless hysterical RUSSIA!COLLUSION!DOSSIER! campaign of nonsense, which didn't work.
Now all of the secret testimony is revealing a series of deliberate lies and illegal actions by some in our spook agencies, blessed by Obama himself.
But they also used the "Russia hacked our election" lie to censor social media to save us from the scary, if nonexistent, Russian bots.
Along the way, they tried "Trump is a racist" because he openly tried to control ILLEGAL immigration (meanwhile printing photos of kids in cages taken during the Obama reign) and "Kavanaugh is a rapist", pushing the narrative of poor Christine Blasey Ford, who apparently couldn't remember which was her right foot and which was her left foot.
When that didn't catch fire, they thumped "Ukrainegate" "quid pro quo" allegation which was entirely unsupported by the telephone transcript, and then trotted out a series of biased, pre-rehearsed puppets whose testimony added not one shred of evidence to the story, in a transparently piece of hollow political theater called "sham impeachment".
Not even Trump's handling of the Covid-19 crisis shook his approval rating, and when he signed an Executive Order removing the liability shield from social media CLEARLY acting in an editorial fashion (long overdue IMHO) ...
... Riots and looting ensued across the nation and even into Europe (Europe??? WTF?) indicating that there was not only national but international coordination (because why would an American event cause Germans to "spontaneously" protest in an overabundance of outrage?), which had the M$M "explaining" and excusing the violence and pillaging and, once again blaming everything on Trump
Oh, and "mail in ballots"? Just as bad as e-voting when it comes to election fraud.
IMHO there are no coincidences in this game. With Trumps' executive order, social media, the M$M, and Soros-funded groups are going to pull out all the stops to get Trump and elect Joe Biden (or whoever the DNC inserts in Biden's place) and based on their recent history of fakery there are no limits to their lying and event-creation and America-destruction in their desire to pull off a color revolution here in the USA.
Yanno, I'm pretty pissed at Trump about some things and I was seriously thinking of not voting this election, but the more I see this crap going on, the more I just want to poke my finger in the eyes of the useful idiots and "woke" crowd who're unknowingly doing toe bidding of their overlords and masters.
Sheesh, people are stupid.
KIKI: I agree that there's been a global conspiracy of tptb to get Trump. And the more they tried, the more obvious it became. And I'm sure there still is that group of people with their same agenda.
But I'm not sure you've seen the video, which was gruesome enough to piss ANYBODY off with the least bit of empathy. People are RIGHTFULLY, RIGHTEOUSLY pissed off. There's no need to invoke some kind of fakery about that.Quote:"Never let a good crisis go to waste" Antifa, for one. They are loosely organized but have groups in every major and medium-sized
As for your idea that this is ALL orchestrated - there's no 'what' without a 'how'. How does this happen? How does a shadow group cause protests and riots to spring up in thousands if not tens of thousands of cities and towns across the US?NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, July 9, 2020 11:45 PM
Quote:In America, I believe all Native Tribes who chose to remain are defined as Sovereign Nations - at least all of the ones in Wisconsin that I know of seem to be.
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:Your 15th Amendment did nothing for me and mine KIKI. That was written in 1870.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
"The American Government Still Owes A Debt": Reparations Bill Gaining Steam In House
The American GOVERNMENT still owes a debt? Would that be the government that freed the slaves (13th amendment)? Wrote full rights into the Constitution (14th amendment)? Guaranteed former slaves and people of any 'race' full voting rights (15th amendment)? Integrated schools? Passed and enforced the Voting Rights Act to make sure that the theoretical right to vote was an actual one?
You mean after freeing slaves and enshrining the rights of all 'races', THAT American government 'owes' Blacks something? What more could it possibly have done?
Sigh.
People without a clue.
And, yeah, go for it, Nancy. And watch the dems dwindle into nothingness.
Native Americans could have citizenship and voting rights in 1887 with the DAWES ACT but that said that we had to give up our tribal claims. No more Crow, Cheyenne, Lakota, Apache, Hopi, Zuni, Mandan, Shoshoni, Chickasaw, Cherokee or any other tribe you can name in the US.
Native Americans weren't granted citizenship until 1924 with the Citizenship Act which then granted us voting rights.
In 1870, just following the Civil War, I don't think U.S. Citizens were allowed to have Dual Citizenship. Citizens had their Citizenship status from their State - there was no Federal Citizenship at that time. The Union was concerned about Seditionists, Confederates, and other malcontents wandering around causing trouble within the Reunited States, and Citizens who insisted loyalty to a separate Sovereign Nation swere not allowed, as I recall. Native Americans were provided their own choice, to freely choose to become a member of a State (which were still being formed back then), or to remain a subject of one of the Sovereign Nations - but not both. This wasn't against Natives, it was applied to everybody equally, as I understand.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, July 9, 2020 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:In America, I believe all Native Tribes who chose to remain are defined as Sovereign Nations - at least all of the ones in Wisconsin that I know of seem to be.
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:Your 15th Amendment did nothing for me and mine KIKI. That was written in 1870.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
"The American Government Still Owes A Debt": Reparations Bill Gaining Steam In House
The American GOVERNMENT still owes a debt? Would that be the government that freed the slaves (13th amendment)? Wrote full rights into the Constitution (14th amendment)? Guaranteed former slaves and people of any 'race' full voting rights (15th amendment)? Integrated schools? Passed and enforced the Voting Rights Act to make sure that the theoretical right to vote was an actual one?
You mean after freeing slaves and enshrining the rights of all 'races', THAT American government 'owes' Blacks something? What more could it possibly have done?
Sigh.
People without a clue.
And, yeah, go for it, Nancy. And watch the dems dwindle into nothingness.
Native Americans could have citizenship and voting rights in 1887 with the DAWES ACT but that said that we had to give up our tribal claims. No more Crow, Cheyenne, Lakota, Apache, Hopi, Zuni, Mandan, Shoshoni, Chickasaw, Cherokee or any other tribe you can name in the US.
Native Americans weren't granted citizenship until 1924 with the Citizenship Act which then granted us voting rights.
In 1870, just following the Civil War, I don't think U.S. Citizens were allowed to have Dual Citizenship. Citizens had their Citizenship status from their State - there was no Federal Citizenship at that time. The Union was concerned about Seditionists, Confederates, and other malcontents wandering around causing trouble within the Reunited States, and Citizens who insisted loyalty to a separate Sovereign Nation swere not allowed, as I recall. Native Americans were provided their own choice, to freely choose to become a member of a State (which were still being formed back then), or to remain a subject of one of the Sovereign Nations - but not both. This wasn't against Natives, it was applied to everybody equally, as I understand.
All tribes anywhere in the US, I think are considered Sovereign Nations to my understanding. Doesn't matter the state.
I can't see it that way. That time was also the beginning of the reservation system. So to me the DAWES ACT is and or was just one more way to strip us of our identity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME