Is anyone else still slightly creeped out by the Japanese?

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 21:47
VIEWED: 25231
PAGE 6 of 20

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:
And since NA is my home and I am an American Indian, I can't count how many times I have heard, "That's all in the past and you have to move on" Ugh!

---

I am curious of your viewpoint, which I ask when I find Native Americans who seem to understand things.

Can you agree that certain Given situations existed:
1. Native American Tribes/Nations were effectively slaughtering each other, exterminating whole societies, prior to White Men showing up. That is, Whites were not instrumental or inventive in introducing this to the realities of the Tribal life.
2. Native Americans did not have words or understandings of "land" or "land ownership" or even clear language for any "ownership" as the Whites assumed they did.
3. Native Americans lack of written history, unfamiliarity with the concepts and pitfalls of written history. (I'm not sure if there were any Tribes which had written history, or a written language, prior to introduction by Whites)


Do you feel most of the poor relations and/or atrocities between White Men and Native Americans were do to:
1. Evil White Men - solely, or almost exclusively this.
2. Very poor communications between Whites and Natives.
3. Religious missionary work.
4. An overwhelming mountain of new information, technology, concepts, languages, threats, combining to hamper the adequate response or discussion among the Native Tribes.


Thanks in advance for your response. Often, it seems each "side" blames the other for breaking the treaties, "Indian giving", "land theft", and forced migration to "reservations" and such; and I wonder how much of it was truly evil and greed, and how much was monumental gaps in communication.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

I keep seeing mentions like this and I am no longer certain that the context and slang is understood.

---

I'm sorry I dont know what you are referring to here. What slang? Context?

Quote:

---

For any civilization or society which desires to survive, waiting until the actual land upon which the home is built (the "homestead") is tactically and strategically very stupid and extremely short-sighted.
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon Territory of Hawaii at Pearl Harbor, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming invaders?
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and White House or Congress, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming infiltrators?
When pursuing a peace or combat campaign in the barrens of the Middle East, would it make better sense to find the most valuable piece of land, or most useful piece of land, and try to defend it, or to find a vacant spot in the desert and dig in a defensive position, from which planning can sprout from, and greatly effective skirmishes can be controlled from?

You may be making snide remarks, or you might actually understand the wisdom, I'm not sure. If you were interested, thought I would help by pointing out the higher level of military opertions which you might have been making snark on.

---

I'm not making snide remarks and I'm not actually taking a position here. It was an observation of how the military functions and why 'following orders' is a necessary part of its function.

Basically you have to be trained to be in circumstances that most untrained people would flee or be unable to function.

As for the rest of the topic, I suppose I tend to see things in more greys than black and white than many people. That being said, I dont think all things are equal in war. There are definetely behaviours that are more atrocious than others, but the very act of declaring war (or not declaring and waging armed conflict) means that you will be killing in order to achieve your goals. Each society tends to 'pretty up' the unpaletable by making it a rightous conflict or a 'necessary to preserve our way of life'...and sometimes it is, but often, mostly, it's about control of resources or spheres of influence or both.

In most wars, if the young men and women who were on the front line really thought about it and the reasons they were doing it, they'd pretty much 'fuck this, I'm outa here' but then again armies have long been made up of the poorest, with least or no choice led by the most powerful.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
[
Must agree. Not only as directed at kpo, but also many others with the same viewpoints.
As a reference, have you always been on the same continent/island, or have you lived on other countries for periods?

---

Lived mostly in this remote neck of the world, but also in UK for 6 years. You?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I keep seeing mentions like this and I am no longer certain that the context and slang is understood.

---

I'm sorry I dont know what you are referring to here. What slang? Context?

---

"When we take up arms, it is not usually because the homestead is under attack"
As a strictly technical statement, I have seen this or similar often here, and usually let it slide.
Some might see "homestead" being used as slang, some might see it as reflecting context, some might think of it by strict definition. Is it meant to represent "the land our Family's home is built upon" or generically "the Home Land of our nation, the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave" or something in between?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

For any civilization or society which desires to survive, waiting until the actual land upon which the home is built (the "homestead") is tactically and strategically very stupid and extremely short-sighted.
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon Territory of Hawaii at Pearl Harbor, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming invaders?
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and White House or Congress, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming infiltrators?
When pursuing a peace or combat campaign in the barrens of the Middle East, would it make better sense to find the most valuable piece of land, or most useful piece of land, and try to defend it, or to find a vacant spot in the desert and dig in a defensive position, from which planning can sprout from, and greatly effective skirmishes can be controlled from?

You may be making snide remarks, or you might actually understand the wisdom, I'm not sure. If you were interested, thought I would help by pointing out the higher level of military opertions which you might have been making snark on.

---

I'm not making snide remarks and I'm not actually taking a position here. It was an observation of how the military functions and why 'following orders' is a necessary part of its function.

Basically you have to be trained to be in circumstances that most untrained people would flee or be unable to function.

---

Military theater is not the sole purview of this team trait. Firefighters are trained to go in the opposite direction as those fleeing the fire - I do not often see the ungrateful minimizing their efforts, values, morals, or guiding principles. EMTs see much gory injuries, yet are trained to ignore the horrors and treat with life-saving measures. Training is a must in many jobs.

Quote:

---

As for the rest of the topic, I suppose I tend to see things in more greys than black and white than many people. That being said, I dont think all things are equal in war. There are definetely behaviours that are more atrocious than others, but the very act of declaring war (or not declaring and waging armed conflict) means that you will be killing in order to achieve your goals. Each society tends to 'pretty up' the unpaletable by making it a rightous conflict or a 'necessary to preserve our way of life'...and sometimes it is, but often, mostly, it's about control of resources or spheres of influence or both.

In most wars, if the young men and women who were on the front line really thought about it and the reasons they were doing it, they'd pretty much 'fuck this, I'm outa here' but then again armies have long been made up of the poorest, with least or no choice led by the most powerful.

---

This sounds highly snide or snarky of you, I don't see why you would think it wasn't. I do think that Pat Tillman thought long and hard about his decisions, as well as his wife, and it does not behoove you to belitt

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Due to weird editing, I need to quote this and edit it just to be able to read it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:
And since NA is my home and I am an American Indian, I can't count how many times I have heard, "That's all in the past and you have to move on" Ugh!

---

I am curious of your viewpoint, which I ask when I find Native Americans who seem to understand things.

Can you agree that certain Given situations existed:
1. Native American Tribes/Nations were effectively slaughtering each other, exterminating whole societies, prior to White Men showing up. That is, Whites were not instrumental or inventive in introducing this to the realities of the Tribal life.
2. Native Americans did not have words or understandings of "land" or "land ownership" or even clear language for any "ownership" as the Whites assumed they did.
3. Native Americans lack of written history, unfamiliarity with the concepts and pitfalls of written history. (I'm not sure if there were any Tribes which had written history, or a written language, prior to introduction by Whites)

---

I'll take a stab at answering you.But you must remember that though I think of myself as an American Indian, I must state that I am not pure blood. My understandings have come from my family and looking at the history critically.
1. There was fighting here amongst the tribes but not complete destruction of tribes to my knowledge. The White Man did however introduce scalping to America.
2. We knew the land as we lived on it but "land ownership" was not known to us. Tribes had territories that they moved around for hunting purposes especially when you speak of the prairie tribes like the Dakota, Cheyenne and such.
3. Most histories were oral and they said we have been here since the beginning of time. Time for us meant the movement of the seasons and days. Not hours, minutes and seconds. History meant births, deaths and maybe major battles, like the Little Big Horn. There are petroglyphs scattered around North America where certain are carved in stone. Though the meanings have been lost to time.

Quote:

---

Do you feel most of the poor relations and/or atrocities between White Men and Native Americans were do to:
1. Evil White Men - solely, or almost exclusively this.
2. Very poor communications between Whites and Natives.
3. Religious missionary work.
4. An overwhelming mountain of new information, technology, concepts, languages, threats, combining to hamper the adequate response or discussion among the Native Tribes.

---

1.This is a hard one to deal with. I would love to say yes it was all the White Man's fault, my rational side won't let me.
2. Poor communication and lack of understanding probably on both sides but this one I will lay at the White Man's door.
3. Don't get me started on this one. Yes, the missionaries played heavily into it. Lazy Indians, heathens. We must convert them to our God, and our way of doing things. Groundwork for destruction of cultures and families that are trying to rebuild to this day. My own have first hand knowledge of the residential school system in the US. This one is all the White Man.
4.There would have been much discussion between Dakota, Cheyenne and mine before the Little Big Horn and it was successful. There would have been a hiercharchy there. Tecumseh tried to gather a coalition in the east to deal with the White Man but he couldn't get the tribes to stop long enough to see the threat.

Quote:

---

Thanks in advance for your response. Often, it seems each "side" blames the other for breaking the treaties, "Indian giving", "land theft", and forced migration to "reservations" and such; and I wonder how much of it was truly evil and greed, and how much was monumental gaps in communication.

---

You're welcome. My feelings are that most of the treaties broken

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME