as for nican tlaca civilizations thats a modern construct aztecs were not mayans and incas were not hopewell they were all native americans but each had there own kind of culture and seprate history.
true. but we were connected in various ways. we did all all just spring up and grow into these beautiful societies all separated! we were linked through trade, common culture, common origins, etc. "Nican Tlaca" was a term used by our own people in the 1500s to distinguish all indigenous peoples from the europeans, showing that we acknowledged our commonality.
Hey bro, If you don't mind I was wondering if I can use your words as a quote of knowledge. Can I? :)
""Nican Tlaca" was a term used by our own people in the 1500's to distinguish all indigenous people from the Europeans, showing that we acknowledged our commonality."
There is a chinese guy on here called "HimalayanHigari" who believes in the bering strait migration and using it to claim Natives as part of the Asian Civilisation even though Native and Asian had diffrent mathematics (Base 10-Asian vs Base 20-Native American) and differnt arcthitecture.
all human beings have the same origins, does that mean this guy can claim european, african, and nican tlaca civilizations as well? no, of course not. its like when europeans use their psudeo theories of them being "here first." even if it were true, the concept of "european" wasnt even established then, their identity is bound to their land. just like this guy is asian, not nican tlaca.
And what about the land bought from natives? Does the Mexica Movement want that back to? They cannot call that "theirs".
Moreherpies? Come on, that is just lame. Though I guess it is better then MoreKKKrabs (since I have to be racist by arguing with you!) Seriously, what is with you dorks and changing names?
moreherpies, wether or not they promised to is irrelavant. they did. i am not here to cater to your stupid questions, any intelligent person would not have asked that in the first place. all i can say is that i am glad your stupidity is limited to youtube and not to the real world.
No, it isn't irrelevant, he stated that it happened and I asked. I know you wont answer my questions, you aren't really good at that. And yeah they did annex the land, that is how it worked back then. The natives did the same things to themselves. Just because the US did it on a larger scale and usually won seems to make it worse.
Sorry, but historians and history kind of agrees with me. Your dumb group goes little beyond the internet (getting into fights with rednecks doesn't accomplish much).
to repeat, i am very thankful no one in the real world has to put up with your stupidity. no one intelligent agrees with you. i am not here to play 20 questions with youtube screenames. if you have to keep pretending you know what you are talking about, fine, its quite amusing. ill keep educating and liberating my people.
Sorry, but I was right with pretty much everything I stated, and most historians do actually agree with me. You're the one that fucking believed that Africans and Chinese were in the Americas before Europeans.
And again, you're organization isn't making a difference anymore than the Minutemen are. Whatever it is they do that is. You're an internet group, but if you want to think you are educating or liberating people (the former being funnier), then go ahead. It doesn't effect anything.
moreherpies, perhaps you havent heard about the march in phoenix az against sheriff joe that had 3to 5 thousand people that mexica movement was apart of? perhaps you are not aware of the books published by mm? perhaps you havnt heard of the many lectures MM does at various schools in LA and southern california? or the countless community actions mm is part of?
and now we are back to the fact that i am thankful your stupidity stays here, and MM makes the news, the newspapers, and continues to educate and liberate.
many native speakers for along time fought with the government to have native names and not fake cristian (spanish) names in latin america, names that were imposed by the catholic church of the state. we are like blacks in U.S, like mohamud ali changed his name because he feels more african its normal, there nothing wrong with trying to regain something you've lost in the past. and i don't blame them, spanish names are gay, aztec names kick ass, they're long though, but cool.
I never said they couldn't change their names. Just said they shouldn't if they don't want to. I don't think my name has all that much to do with my ancestors, but I don't want to change it.
But you don't want us to. You want us to stay ignorant, keep our white names, our bleached hair, our fake blue eyes, keep hoping our children will be light skinned. You are in a position that your ancestors would be proud of, on our land, with our resources, etc. we are not. our ancestors never wanted us to be poor ignorant, ashamed, and enslaved to white people, like you advocate
The document is excellent but the video quality is so poor!
... all colonization histories makes me angry, must of them the spanish and english because those are history of, human brutality & stupidity, abuse upon noble kinds destroying sacred cultures!
Yeah, I don't see any real accomplishments. Just some misunderstood MLK comments, and some plain wrong information. It also seems to be rather anti white. There are a bunch of pictures of protesting, but those aren't accomplishments, just a bunch of people with crude signs yelling loud and pretending to be intellectuals.
There is the thing about Disney, but I can't find any information about that other than from the website.
So they possibly stopped a movie because they didn't want a Spaniard in it, and they protested Steven Spielberg because they thought "The Road to El Dorado" was somehow genocidal.
If you think that is fighting white supremacy, then great job!
i think there is one on the spanish channel called viva los ninos that is racist. tell you what, read a book on the history of nican tlaca people, then compare it the the road to el dorado, and see what dignity the film does to our history.
you would also do well to read the article written by Olin Tezcatlipoca concerning the historical inaccuracy and racism of the roal to el dorado
My memory is a bit fuzzy, but weren't the natives portrayed as living in a civilized society made of gold? And weren't the Spaniards swindlers? And in the end don't they save the city from Cortes finding it? Also, they never get any gold from the city in the end.
It doesn't make them look evil or immoral, except for the one antagonist.
It then goes to claim some embarrassing statistics about the Spanish invasion, and says that the movie is somehow sexist, which is even more embarrassing.
must be a bit too fuzzy. the spanish were portrayed as the "good guys," happy go lucky fun loving innocent party boys. this is far from the ugly truth, they were theives, rapists, murderers, the trash of europe on our continent. like they had any part in saving any of us. they wanted only to exploit. they have our gold, our wealth, our land, our resources, and then they think they can make a movie pretending it never happened.
First off, they weren't the Spanish military, they were two swindler con artists (which is negative). They, along with the natives, save the city from the lone betrayer and the Spanish Conquistadors.
You seem to be saying that all Spaniards are evil and should be portrayed as such.
they were portrayed as good hearted, happy go lucky, party boys. good guys at heart. this does NOT hold any historical verisimilitude. the spanish were genocidal monsters, they never "saved" us, and never would a venerable betray us. this is a disgrace to history. imagine if like what Olin said, it was a cartoon about nazis and jews? would you justify that as well? just because it is fantasy? the jewish community wouldnt mind?
But they (the characters) had nothing to do with the Spanish conquistadors, so portraying two regular Spanish guys as non "genocidal monsters" shouldn't be insulting to regular people. In fact, it is insulting to others (particularly Spanish people) to say otherwise.
Once again, the invading Spaniards are antagonists in the movie, it is the title characters (along with the villagers) that stop them from reaching and destroying the town.
the point is that it holds NO historical verisimilitude, not that you would know anything about that, obviously you are not well read. the film glosses over the historical reality that the spanish did kill and enslave us, why would anyone make a fictional movie where they are anything but that? notice there is no major motion picture with a nazi minority being sympathetic towards jews! or saving a jewish town! make a childrens cartoon like that, then come talk to me
Uh, it is fictional, hardly any of it was supposed to be based on fact. From how you are writing, I am more read than you (or at least less paranoid and racist) The film wasn't about the Spanish invading (well, part of it was, and that was portrayed negatively).
Actually there are films where Germans save Jews from being killed, that really happened.
And comparing Nazis to Spanish civilians is racist.
so could i make a movie where some nazis are worshipped as gods by the jews, a rabbi is an enemy of the people who only wants to slaughter and kill, and have a jewish girl become the nazis helper and bedmate and be allowed to make it with no opposition simply because it is fiction? is exposing racism racist? is telling what the spanish did to my people racist?
the europeans who invaded our continent(not ALL europeans) commited evil acts against humannity, that is a fact. why portray them as anything but what they were, savage, murderous, and greedy? would it be okay to portray a nazi as noble, heroic character in a children's cartoon? the jewish community wouldnt think so! of course you are more concerned with a positive portrayal of white people than you are with us. that is why you "seem" to be okay with portraying savages as noble
So if a movie took place in Nazi Germany, and not all German characters were Jew hating monsters, then it would be insulting? Speaking of which, wasn't there a movie with two German friends traveling through Tibet and stuff, something with the Dali Llama? Since they are the fun loving, adventurous "party boys", then I guess that would make that film racist!
Or if a movie took place in Jim Crow era south, and not all white characters were Klan members or lynchers, would that be racist?
why? 6 million jews were killed. 70-100 million nican tlaca were killed. hitler got the idea of concentration camps from the indian schools. the only difference is that we were hit harder. the jews have their own nation now as the deserve, and have a strong sense of identity. we lack both.
Six million Jews were intentionally killed. About 90% of that "70-100 million" were killed by diseases. Where did you read that Hitler get the idea of concentration camps (which really weren't from regular internment camps other than they were trying to kill the people there) from Indian schools? Because I cannot find that. And comparing the schools to camps whose purpose was to kill its internees is wrong in a lot of places.
read American Holocaust. biological warfare was used. to kill us. read mein kampf. and also, more nican tlaca were killed in the indian schools and missions than were jews killed in the work (not death) camps. you have to read books to get real information.
No, the Spanish, or the US Army (assuming you probably believe they did) never gave out smallpox blankets, they were epidemics, they weren't intentionally spread. Ward Churchill's story is wrong.
Could you give me the direct quote from Mein Kampf, I don't own the book.
As for the missions, you cannot compare them to Nazi camps, I will quote a passage from an essay by historian Guenter Lewy
"But right away we are in highly debatable territory. It is true that the cramped quarters of the missions, with their poor ventilation and bad sanitation, encouraged the spread of disease. But it is demonstrably untrue that, like the Nazis, the missionaries were unconcerned with the welfare of their native converts. (cont)
No matter how difficult the conditions under which the Indians labored—obligatory work, often inadequate food and medical care, corporal punishment—their experience bore no comparison with the fate of the Jews in the ghettos. The missionaries had a poor understanding of the causes of the diseases that afflicted their charges, and medically there was little they could do for them.
By contrast, the Nazis knew exactly what was happening in the ghettos, and quite deliberately deprived the inmates of both food and medicine; unlike in Stannards "furnaces of death," the deaths that occurred there were meant to occur."
im sure if they nazis were immune to a disease, but it killed many jews, they would have used it. comparing the nazis just to the keepers of the missionaries is narrow. the point is genocide was commited by both people.
But the Europeans didn't use bio warfare. Even if some certain Europeans did take delight in the epidemics, it does not count as a genocide. A pretty sick person, yes, but genocide, no.
No, comparing the missionaries to the Nazis is not narrow, again, the missionaries were never intentionally trying to kill the natives, the Nazis were.
other cultures came to our lands and then guess what? they traded with us and left? why didnt the europeans who came here did that? because they were greedy, and wanted to steal our land and its wealth. if it was a weapon the harnessed, then it is certainly a genocide.
Wow, you actually believe that the Chinese and Africans discovered the Americas? You do know that is pseudo history and no modern professional historians believe that crap.
okay smartass. lets assume for the sake of argument that they never came here. the chinese did explore other lands other than their own, such as africa, and yet there is no record of slavery, genocide, etc of the chinese to the africans. while for the europeans, there is.
Don't see how you saw my comments as smartass, but what I said was true, that guy isn't a professional historian and real historians do not agree with him.
No, the Chinese didn't commit slavery in Africa (though they did have slavery, I think), however the Mid Easterners did. In fact, the Arab slave trade is older than the European one.
and NO! i certainly dont believe the chinese nor africans discovered Cemanahuac. because the Nican Tlaca were here first. yep, believe it or not, we discoverd our own land, and other cultures explored as well.
europeans who came here did things comparable to the nazis, such as massacres, burnings, and did things such as destroy our libraries and outlawing teaching our culture and history, not just the missionaries, but they were genocidal, just look up the definition.
i have not said that during wwii and during colonization that the jews had it better. all i said was the current state for the jews compared to us is better. i dont think you can compare genocide except in terms of quantity. we had terrible things done against us as well. just watch the video above
Yes, the natives did have terrible things done against you, such as what happened in California. But saying the entire thing was a genocide, and there was a complete program by the US, or the other powers to wipe out the continent is incorrect.
The Germans, more specifically Hitler and the Nazis, on the other hand, were trying to rid the continent of Jews and others.
offering money for scalps, and relocating people from said group qualifies as genocide. read the whole thing dumbass. they killed us, straight up. think of cholula, wounded knee, etc.
They only offered money to the scalps of the Indians they were at war with, at the policy was changed to only include men (which then of course was people older than 15, but still). The Europeans also gave money to there native allies that did the same thing.
And also, there are reports that the Europeans paid there native allies to scalp other Europeans they were at war with. And of course, the natives scalped European civilians and enemy native civilians as well. Also, the natives seldom took prisoners and did take part in torture So no, dumbass, that wouldn't be genocide. And if so, then the natives would be just as guilty.
Wounded Knee occurred when the US Army was disarming the natives. Something of a struggle occurred which led to the massacre. It was not planned or ordered by the government or the higher ups, and after the event there were court inquiries and controversy. And after, some civilians were allowed to leave the encampment and the surviving warriors were spared and the wounded given medical aid.
And even if the soldiers did have a plan to kill all of them, even those that surrendered, it wouldn't make the US expansion a genocide anymore than the unordered massacres of German and Italian civilians and POWs would make the WWII a genocide.
do you expect us to be thankful and not recognize wounded knee as a slaughter? chief bigfoot and his wife came out of their tipee making the peace gesture. they were already disarmed. read voices of wounded knee
No, they weren't all disarmed. A native named "Black Coyote" refused to give up his weapon. After a shot rang, the soldiers began firing, fearing resistance.
I am not saying it wasn't tragic, but it is incorrect to say it was a planned extermination.
did you also know that he was deaf? and that the band had agreed to stop fighting? and again that bigfoot gave the peace signal?
i am saying that it is only ONE example of genocide. the phrase "the only good indian is a dead indian" was adapted. not to mention the various policies that have wordings like "kill them all" read american holocaust and see the canary effect.
Okay, but it still was not planned by the Army or the government for the massacre to take place. And I doubt the soldiers knew he was deaf.
That phrase did "more to harm straight thinking about Indian-white relations than any number of Sand Creeks or Wounded Knees." In no way was Sherman saying that all natives should be killed. It was a racist statement, but the same were said about the Japanese (and I am sure Germans as well) during WWII. That doesn't make it a genocide.
oh they didnt know? oh...i guess that makes it okay then! NOT
i am not sure what you mean here, i think "the only good indian is a dead indian" is pretty straight forward. perhaps other were not advocating total destruction, but then again it is in whole or in part. im not surprised you defend it either
Again, they said that about the Japanese. They were not advocating genocide against the Japanese. Sherman was saying he didn't trust the Indians. Racist yes, but saying he wants all Indians dead, no.
And even if that was what he meant and he really wanted to, that wouldn't mean anything. The government or the army still never ordered mass killings.
No, it isn't. Again, it wasn't and order. Lastly, that isn't even the correct quote. He really said "the only good Indians I ever saw were dead", which he said after a conference with natives in which on native leader said he was a "good Indian". He was really just saying that he didn't like Indians and thought they were untrustworthy, blah blah. It is a racist statement, but it definitely doesn't prove genocide anymore than the one about the Japanese.
oh so now you guess? could i guess that they were a bunch of white supremacist assholes who didnt give a shit about our well being.
nope. so sterilization, forcing us onto reservations, kidnaping our kids, openly advocating killing us, offering money for our scalps, actually killing us, giving us smallpox blankets, is not genocide? then what is?
Okay, by guess, I meant probably. When a group surrenders it is usual for the other force to take the surrendering sides weapons. Don't see why you think it was weird.
They weren't forced onto reservations, they could of stayed and assimilated, I already explained how the money for scalps thing wasn't genocide and that the US didn't give out smallpox blankets (no matter what Ward Churchill says), and for the last time Sherman wasn't advocating killing all the natives.
And again, you ignored the same statement on the Japanese. Was WWII a genocide because they said that? Were the Americans advocating Japanese extermination? Based on you logic, you would think so.
The japanese and chinese were the same race so they could kills each other and still not be genocide since they have the same beleifs and customs and apearances just different languages. European vs natives is genocide becuase of different apeaeraces and beleifs
They are different ethnic groups, so yeah, it could be. And there are differences in there beliefs, customs, and culture. It is kind of sad that you think otherwise.
Though I wasn't saying that, I was disproving Goyathalay's theory that only Europeans invaded and killed people, which is not only wrong, it is racist.
the countless policies of lawful killings, sterilizations, kidnappings of children, hate crimes, cultural castration, and other mental and bodily harms over 500+ years qualifies as genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide
because the soldiers took the guns away and the Lakota's ( my ancestors on one side) were defenseless-and the soldiers were angry because they were there some 14 years after 1876 when the Lakota's;s and cheyenne wiped out Custer the 7th calvary wanted to have revenge-wounded knee is sacred ground and the US DID send people there
youre damn right we did! they invaded us! even to this day many traditional tribes still are untrustworthy of outsiders because they have only experienced rape, torture, etc for 500+ years! the europeans did much more to us, and we are still affected by that, whereas they are rich and in power
Actually, the some of the native tribes used the same tactics against other natives before the Europeans arrived. And no, this was not in response to "500 years of [blarg]". In fact, the Pequot tribe's system of warfare was so bad, its rival tribes allied themselves with the Puritan colonists.
and the dutch colonists used pequot heads as kickballs. who are you to tell us how bad we were? were we worse than the europeans? did we go to africa, australia, and colonize? did we rape, enslave, kill steal, culturally castrate as much as the europeans? NO
and i am saying that the europeans were MUCH more brutal. and they ignore it and tell us how dishonorable we are, so they have rights to our land. like what you have been doing.
Not really, the Europeans just were on a larger scale. The natives killed civilians, and tortured prisoners.
And you cannot say the Europeans were the only ones that killed many, look at the Mongols, they killed millions. The highest estimate is 60 million, the lowest 30. This is over centuries but still. And this actual killing, not epidemics.
No, it doesn't. Taking land does not mean genocide, that is how all civilizations were like back then, the natives did the same thing. And during the war in which they paid for scalps, the natives were just as brutal in the way they fought, they attacked civilians as well. In fact, it was because the way they fought which made the colonists have such bounties.
did you expect us to fight any less brutally? they invaded our lands! how would you defend your home if i broke in? they relocated our children, sterilized us, killed us, caused us serious bodily and mental harm, and forced us into conditions which caused us injury and death
No, they used the same tactics against rival tribes. It wasn't just in response to Europeans, they weren't copying the Europeans if that is what you are saying.
i did say it. and you didnt respond to the entire comment. yes we did. who were the europeans to come and start telling us we are so bad? who are they to steal our lands, rape, enslave us? isnt all of that worse than anything we have done?
So you are saying they copied European tactics even though you seem to agree they have been doing it for years? So which is it? Either way, the second one is correct.
Worse in the sense that the colonists did it on a larger scale.
worse in the sense that what europeans have done is much worse than anything any other culture has done. not just "colonists" so what right do they have to tell us they didnt commit genocide, that they didnt steal our lands? that they still profit from our destruction?
Again, the Mongols killed millions. The Japanese killed millions of other Asians during WWII, and they were also brutal to the Allied POWs. Even more so than the Germans (to the Western ones that is).
wait a sec! i missed this! "for the most part?" how is that so? care to explain? or will you dodge this question like you dodged those other questions i posed?
Some things happened that could be called genocide, such as the campaigns in California in the 1800s. However these were mostly done by unorganized settlers and not ordered by the US government. I was saying you cannot say the genocide was the intent of those involved in the colonialism/expansion, or that the governments planned to exterminate the natives (like the Nazis).
And what questions have I dodged? I find this ironic, you have not answered all my questions.
so what exactly are you saying? that genocide only occurs in certain battles? im sorry i dont know what that is in response to. but i have said time and again that the definition of genocide is met by what europeans did.
i thought i had adressed them all. how wwii will relate more than what you dodged im curious to see. go ahead and list them
Yeah, that is what I am saying. You cannot call the whole thing a genocide, the US government, not any other had a plan to exterminate the natives. However, in California, settlers (not under the control of the US army) did take part in massacres of civilians (which were condemned by government officials, mostly in the East). But you cannot condemn an entire society because of those.
I compared the massacres of German POWs and Italian civilians to Wounded Knee and asked if they were genocide.
all i said that more people will killed in the missionaries and schools combined that in the work camps. i dont see how any of this quote has anything to do with that.
again, what was said had nothing to do with what happened at the missionaries nor the schools. your quote does not disprove that more died in the missionaries and schools than in the work camps
they were aware of what they were doing. how could they not? they knew they had the pox, they knew the natives were suceptible to it. if you had aids, and started fucking people, would you not start to realize they got it as well? neither do i. i shall try to find it for you.
Well, the way diseases traveled wasn't entirely know by the average European until later. Plus, once it started, it couldn't really be stopped.
And the US did have an Indian vaccination program. It was unsuccessful at first, but eventually had an effect. The Spanish also had vaccination programs in there colonies, but not specifically to natives (probably because the population was so mixed by then).
why did they feel the need to keep coming in contact with us and spreading their disease and killing us and assimilating us and feeling they were superior and deserved our continent. other cultures came, traded, and left. couldnt be stopped. what a cop-out. if they gave a shit they would have let us be and left when they knew they werent wanted. and they would not have killed and enslavevd, culturally castraded etc, us.
No, I have. One, it was to end a siege (the fort had civilians, which the natives would have killed). And Amhearst came to that idea because he was so disgusted by the tactics the natives used. Second, it is unknown if the attacks even were successful, there was already smallpox outbreaks in the area.
And of course, Amhearst only suggested it, he really had nothing to do with the actual hand out, which was possibly done by William Trent.
morekrabs knows only the slanted, white supremacist view of amerikkkan history. of course the crimes committed on this land to our people were minimal to the point of nonexistence, not worth discussing, even worth defending, because morekrabs supports the thought process that says white people do no wrong. he will defend racism to his hearts content. he has made countless accounts just to continue to comment me. its laughable. its best not to waste time on people like him
first of all, the germans had nothing to do with the tibetans. the germans commited genocide against the jews. nice try. if it ignores the historical reality! if it portrays a rabbi as a murderous maniac! if it has little correct portrayal of jews! if it has the germans being worshipped and welcomed by the jews! if a jewish woman offers herself and her help to the germans! or if all of that applied to the jim crow movie with whites and africans, then YES! IT WOULD ABSOLUTLEY BE RACIST!
did you not see what else i wrote, or just ignore it? what makes trted racist is not just that. way to ignore what i say. "so could i make a movie where some nazis/germans are worshipped as gods by the jews, a rabbi is an enemy of the people who only wants to slaughter and kill, and have a jewish girl become the nazis/germans helper and bedmate and be allowed to make it with no opposition simply because it is fiction? "
and then the priest, the one who should have been portryaed as a noble character that understood the theology of our creator, was portyrayed as a pagan savage, a person obsessed with killing and blood. that is exactly how the spanish justified killing us, they said we were savage, unholy, heathen, obsessed with blood, killing, etc. this demonstrates the ongoing total misrepresentation of our heritage. embarrasing? more like shameful!
and sexism plays a part as well; the common stereotype of nican tlaca women being toys for the europeans. the girl just throws herself at the two europeans, offering them her body.
but im sure you have the rights of my people at heart, that you have researched this topic of history as much as i and Mexica Movement has, know exactly what you are talking about, and are a fine authority on what is appropriate in films as far as racism goes. NOT! let us decide for ourselves how we should be seen!
I don't recall her throwing herself and offering her body to the title characters.
Well, I don't think I have researched a cartoon movie as much of you guys. Just hate it when people try to find racism in everything in the media. And again, the fictional city is portrayed as a rich utopia made out of gold. Don't think that is negative
exactly. dont pretend you give a shit about racism, you obviously think you are entittled to deciding whats best for a people you know nothing about. oh you hate it do you? of course, because there is absolutley never any racism in the media, is there? you would rather ignore it and let racism endure. you reek of bullshit.
The point being it is kind of lame that an organization spends so much time on a cartoon. I never said there isn't racism in the media, but stupid people always try to find it where they is clearly none. Really, type in almost any show or movie with racism next to it and there will be someone who sincerely believes there was some kind of conspiracy. When something like "Birth of a Nation" comes along, then would be a good time to do something.
like i said, you are in no position to say what is racist for us. after 500 years of poverty, shame, ignorance, and slavery, you could at least sympathize with us. but no, "its a kids movie, its not racist!" where is racism then? just in that movie? only overt racism exists? everyone knows that is racist, why not expose covert racism?
Expose covert racism, but only if you have a good argument. Look at "Passion of the Christ" that movie is probably anti Semitic in some ways. The Jews are mostly portrayed stereotypically and the director is probably anti Jew. Just because two of the main characters are both Spanish and not evil doesn't make a movie racist.
why do you say probably? i sympathize with the jewish community who call it racist. ha! well perhaps you should read all of the other things that make the road to el dorado racist, compare to historical fact, (which you claim to know) and then tell me it isnt racist. granted, when/if you list all of those things explain them and still say it is not racist, you might as well come out and say YOU are racist yourself. which you wont you will hide of course.
Because I haven't actually seen it, only read about it.
What gross and insulting inaccuracies does the movie have?
You are comparing all Spanish people, or at least the ones that lived in the 16th Century, (whether you know it or not) to Nazis, which is about the same as calling all Germans Nazis, etc. And you are calling me racist?
tell you what, see it, so that when i tell you, you can know what the hell im talking about! our people are something dreamed up by whoever made it, it says we worshipped the spanish as gods, and that our priests and venerables were bloodthirsty people, and that we were superstitious, and that we were generally simple-minded people. and now you are going to reply and say things defending a movie's historical inaccuracies that you havent seen. ughhh.
Well, the worshiping thing is taken from a legend (or possibly fact) that Cortes was welcomed by Montezuma. It is also not entirely original. By "bloodthirsty", you are probably referring to human sacrifice; hate to break it to you, but human sacrificing did take place. The bad priest dude, and the good chief guy both find out that the protagonists aren't gods, so they aren't all foolish.
The priest is the only bad native, the rest are all kind and caring people. The two Spaniards are swindlers for the first half of the movie and the other main antagonist is Cortes, a Spaniard, who wants to kill everyone.
first of all, the Nican Tlaca had no "gods" find me a primary source where there is a word equivalant to the word "god(s)" he was welcomed, but not as a god, and as soon as they could they were driven out! he wanted to kill everyone in the city. where is that in history? when did our priests want to kill every civilian? the war captives were sacrificed, and they went willingly, bound by honor. great. so two of us are smart, one of which is evil, but the rest are dumb and ignorant. awesome
Well, I never said the "Nican Tlaca" had gods. But they did have a religion and they did have deities, which were pretty much gods, and labeled as so. Labeling them as polytheists wouldn't be incorrect.
Not just the war captives were sacrificed, regular citizens were sacrificed, as were children.
As for the evil priest and the gullible people, if you really want to believe that the people that the writers had the intent to make the natives look inferior to Spanish, then whatever.
now you say we had gods. find me a primary source (codex) where there is a word translatable to "god" there is none. we had a completley different theology than europeans. what you are calling gods to us were actually metaphorical manifestations of Ometeotl, the universe in balance. and of course, your guess is as good as mine on human sacrifice. most of the sources are not from us, but from the spanish who said the same thing about the jews when they were terrorizing them.
Still, there were deities, and are usually referred to as gods. And they were treated as gods, people worshiped them, built statues, and gave sacrifices.
Yeah, most were Spanish documents, but not entirely. You yourself said there was sacrifice. And unlike the Jews or whatever you at talking about, there is actual archeological evidence which shows they had human sacrifices, including children (which no matter what you say, is not "honorable").
no no, silly. we had no such thing. we knew that every manifestation (not god) was one with the universe. ever heard of the inquisition? the spanish said the jews were pagan, ate babies, etc. ever heard of the roman colleseum? where people were sacrificed for the sake of entertainment. and i no u will dodge this question as well: why is so much stress put on our sacrifices and so little on europeans'?
Yeah, you did. You had deities, and that was a religion. It wasn't any smarter than any other if that is what you are trying to say.
I only brought up the human sacrifice thing because you were saying they didn't have it (on civilians at least, you cannot deny you were implying it), and were offended that human sacrifice was in "El Dorado".
i wont deny you took it that way. no, what offended me was the portrayal of a priest who is obsessed with it, and wanted everyone dead. that offended me.
was the spanish inquisition or the roman games or the witch hunts or the various other human rights violations any more honorable? when columbus and his men would smash infants against rocks, was that honorable? again, who are you to say what is honorable, when you ignore the beam of dishonor right in front of you!
No, they weren't honorable. I never said that. You were the one that said it was honorable for the warriors to be sacrificed so I said that just in case you said the same thing the sacrifices of regular citizens and children.
"if you really want to believe that the people that the writers had the intent to make the natives look inferior to Spanish, then whatever" WOW what a solid argument! you got me there! yep, that proves historical accuracy was in this film! NOT. i win. you cannot disprove that they had historical accuracy in mind, but then again, "whatever"
Uh, what proof show that they were trying to be historically accurate? You don't win at all. The writers/creators have stated that it wasn't to be taken as historically accurate. And, of course, none of the events or characters (besides Cortes coming) took place or existed, the city was fictional and loosely based on a fake city. You really think the writers thought that the pre Columbian priests were evil and wanted to kill everyone or whatever that guy wanted to do?
They probably thought it was as historically accurate and based on fact as much as Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas thought "Indiana Jones" was.
Even so, that wasn't an argument, that was a "you can be paranoid and believe the writers were anti Mexican and wanted to make a movie because of that, but I and most people will still view your opinions the same way as the people that think video games are racist (GTA, that new Resident Evil)"
ANSWER ME THIS THEN, DONT DODGE IT LIKE YOU DID ALL OF MY OTHER COMMENTS! would a movie where germans were worshipped by jews, a rabbi wants to KILL HIS OWN PEOPLE, the jews are portrayed however the hell the writers want, lets say, as greedy people with big noses, and there is a jewish girl helping the germans and being their toy. IF I MADE THAT MOVIE, WOULD IT BE FACED WITH NO OPPOSITION BY THE JEWISH COMMUNITY?
I didn't dodge the stupid Nazi/rabbi/Holocaust movie scenario. I said that comparing the two main characters to Nazis in the Holocaust isn't correct. Therefore your analogy is totally wrong.
Though, yeah, that would be offensive if you really wanted to know.
i apoligize if i did not see something. these comments are not in order and it is becoming confusing. we could exchange messages or comments and that might be easier as a formerly offered?
olmec toltec zapote mayan aztec that it,
VINCEV1980 1 year ago
as for nican tlaca civilizations thats a modern construct aztecs were not mayans and incas were not hopewell they were all native americans but each had there own kind of culture and seprate history.
princecharming161 2 years ago
true. but we were connected in various ways. we did all all just spring up and grow into these beautiful societies all separated! we were linked through trade, common culture, common origins, etc. "Nican Tlaca" was a term used by our own people in the 1500s to distinguish all indigenous peoples from the europeans, showing that we acknowledged our commonality.
Goyathalay 2 years ago 2
Hey bro, If you don't mind I was wondering if I can use your words as a quote of knowledge. Can I? :)
""Nican Tlaca" was a term used by our own people in the 1500's to distinguish all indigenous people from the Europeans, showing that we acknowledged our commonality."
AnahuacNicanTlaca 2 years ago
yes, but do not quote me. the quote is from Mexica Movement. all of this knowledge i spread comes from them. :)
Goyathalay 2 years ago
Ok Thanks. :)
AnahuacNicanTlaca 2 years ago
There is a chinese guy on here called "HimalayanHigari" who believes in the bering strait migration and using it to claim Natives as part of the Asian Civilisation even though Native and Asian had diffrent mathematics (Base 10-Asian vs Base 20-Native American) and differnt arcthitecture.
SPS148669 2 years ago
all human beings have the same origins, does that mean this guy can claim european, african, and nican tlaca civilizations as well? no, of course not. its like when europeans use their psudeo theories of them being "here first." even if it were true, the concept of "european" wasnt even established then, their identity is bound to their land. just like this guy is asian, not nican tlaca.
Goyathalay 2 years ago
asians are more closely related to native americans were not talking about whites and blacks who are seperated by like 40,000 years.
princecharming161 2 years ago 4
Morekrabs is unschooled in the TRUTH!
Tokilimah 2 years ago
They only one they haven't broken is when they promised to steal our homes,,,
Anaris10 2 years ago
When did the US promise to steal their homes?
MoreKrabs 2 years ago
haha
a better question would be...when did white people not promise to steal our homes?
they are dishonorable, but at least they keep their promises
good one, moreherpies
Goyathalay 2 years ago
No, that didn't answer the question.
And by "they", who are you referring to?
And what about the land bought from natives? Does the Mexica Movement want that back to? They cannot call that "theirs".
Moreherpies? Come on, that is just lame. Though I guess it is better then MoreKKKrabs (since I have to be racist by arguing with you!) Seriously, what is with you dorks and changing names?
MoreKrabs 2 years ago
moreherpies, wether or not they promised to is irrelavant. they did. i am not here to cater to your stupid questions, any intelligent person would not have asked that in the first place. all i can say is that i am glad your stupidity is limited to youtube and not to the real world.
Goyathalay 2 years ago
No, it isn't irrelevant, he stated that it happened and I asked. I know you wont answer my questions, you aren't really good at that. And yeah they did annex the land, that is how it worked back then. The natives did the same things to themselves. Just because the US did it on a larger scale and usually won seems to make it worse.
Sorry, but historians and history kind of agrees with me. Your dumb group goes little beyond the internet (getting into fights with rednecks doesn't accomplish much).
MoreKrabs 2 years ago
to repeat, i am very thankful no one in the real world has to put up with your stupidity. no one intelligent agrees with you. i am not here to play 20 questions with youtube screenames. if you have to keep pretending you know what you are talking about, fine, its quite amusing. ill keep educating and liberating my people.
Goyathalay 2 years ago
Sorry, but I was right with pretty much everything I stated, and most historians do actually agree with me. You're the one that fucking believed that Africans and Chinese were in the Americas before Europeans.
And again, you're organization isn't making a difference anymore than the Minutemen are. Whatever it is they do that is. You're an internet group, but if you want to think you are educating or liberating people (the former being funnier), then go ahead. It doesn't effect anything.
MoreKrabs 2 years ago
moreherpies, perhaps you havent heard about the march in phoenix az against sheriff joe that had 3to 5 thousand people that mexica movement was apart of? perhaps you are not aware of the books published by mm? perhaps you havnt heard of the many lectures MM does at various schools in LA and southern california? or the countless community actions mm is part of?
Goyathalay 2 years ago
You were PART of a march. Publishing a book or giving a lecture also doesn't make much of a difference either.
MoreKrabs 2 years ago
and now we are back to the fact that i am thankful your stupidity stays here, and MM makes the news, the newspapers, and continues to educate and liberate.
Goyathalay 2 years ago
Fox News and conservative newspapers also don't really count.
And again, you were wrong in most of the things we argued about.
MoreKrabs 2 years ago
many native speakers for along time fought with the government to have native names and not fake cristian (spanish) names in latin america, names that were imposed by the catholic church of the state. we are like blacks in U.S, like mohamud ali changed his name because he feels more african its normal, there nothing wrong with trying to regain something you've lost in the past. and i don't blame them, spanish names are gay, aztec names kick ass, they're long though, but cool.
fragolegirl2002 2 years ago
I never said they couldn't change their names. Just said they shouldn't if they don't want to. I don't think my name has all that much to do with my ancestors, but I don't want to change it.
MoreKrabs 2 years ago
But you don't want us to. You want us to stay ignorant, keep our white names, our bleached hair, our fake blue eyes, keep hoping our children will be light skinned. You are in a position that your ancestors would be proud of, on our land, with our resources, etc. we are not. our ancestors never wanted us to be poor ignorant, ashamed, and enslaved to white people, like you advocate
Goyathalay 2 years ago
No, I didn't say that, but if you want to keep on thinking that to make you feel better, go ahead.
MoreKrabs2 2 years ago
The document is excellent but the video quality is so poor!
... all colonization histories makes me angry, must of them the spanish and english because those are history of, human brutality & stupidity, abuse upon noble kinds destroying sacred cultures!
hominidae7sp 3 years ago
Sorry about the quality, i know it sucks. Indeed, we all must activley fight against it.
The best way to fight White Supremacy and colonialism is through the Mexica Movement
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Really? What has the Mexica Movement accomplished in fighting "colonialism"?
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
see the website for a full list of credentials
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Yeah, I don't see any real accomplishments. Just some misunderstood MLK comments, and some plain wrong information. It also seems to be rather anti white. There are a bunch of pictures of protesting, but those aren't accomplishments, just a bunch of people with crude signs yelling loud and pretending to be intellectuals.
There is the thing about Disney, but I can't find any information about that other than from the website.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
scroll down and click on the link that says "our credentials"
Goyathalay 3 years ago
So they possibly stopped a movie because they didn't want a Spaniard in it, and they protested Steven Spielberg because they thought "The Road to El Dorado" was somehow genocidal.
If you think that is fighting white supremacy, then great job!
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
thank you
Goyathalay 3 years ago
That was sarcasm. If you think "The Road to El Dorado" was promoting genocide than you're a moron.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
it promotes racism, which was used to justify genocide.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
How does it? Seriously, what things do you not find racist? This is actually quite funny, what other present day cartoons do you find racist?
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
i think there is one on the spanish channel called viva los ninos that is racist. tell you what, read a book on the history of nican tlaca people, then compare it the the road to el dorado, and see what dignity the film does to our history.
you would also do well to read the article written by Olin Tezcatlipoca concerning the historical inaccuracy and racism of the roal to el dorado
Goyathalay 3 years ago
My memory is a bit fuzzy, but weren't the natives portrayed as living in a civilized society made of gold? And weren't the Spaniards swindlers? And in the end don't they save the city from Cortes finding it? Also, they never get any gold from the city in the end.
It doesn't make them look evil or immoral, except for the one antagonist.
It then goes to claim some embarrassing statistics about the Spanish invasion, and says that the movie is somehow sexist, which is even more embarrassing.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
must be a bit too fuzzy. the spanish were portrayed as the "good guys," happy go lucky fun loving innocent party boys. this is far from the ugly truth, they were theives, rapists, murderers, the trash of europe on our continent. like they had any part in saving any of us. they wanted only to exploit. they have our gold, our wealth, our land, our resources, and then they think they can make a movie pretending it never happened.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
First off, they weren't the Spanish military, they were two swindler con artists (which is negative). They, along with the natives, save the city from the lone betrayer and the Spanish Conquistadors.
You seem to be saying that all Spaniards are evil and should be portrayed as such.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
they were portrayed as good hearted, happy go lucky, party boys. good guys at heart. this does NOT hold any historical verisimilitude. the spanish were genocidal monsters, they never "saved" us, and never would a venerable betray us. this is a disgrace to history. imagine if like what Olin said, it was a cartoon about nazis and jews? would you justify that as well? just because it is fantasy? the jewish community wouldnt mind?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
But they (the characters) had nothing to do with the Spanish conquistadors, so portraying two regular Spanish guys as non "genocidal monsters" shouldn't be insulting to regular people. In fact, it is insulting to others (particularly Spanish people) to say otherwise.
Once again, the invading Spaniards are antagonists in the movie, it is the title characters (along with the villagers) that stop them from reaching and destroying the town.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
the point is that it holds NO historical verisimilitude, not that you would know anything about that, obviously you are not well read. the film glosses over the historical reality that the spanish did kill and enslave us, why would anyone make a fictional movie where they are anything but that? notice there is no major motion picture with a nazi minority being sympathetic towards jews! or saving a jewish town! make a childrens cartoon like that, then come talk to me
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Uh, it is fictional, hardly any of it was supposed to be based on fact. From how you are writing, I am more read than you (or at least less paranoid and racist) The film wasn't about the Spanish invading (well, part of it was, and that was portrayed negatively).
Actually there are films where Germans save Jews from being killed, that really happened.
And comparing Nazis to Spanish civilians is racist.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
so could i make a movie where some nazis are worshipped as gods by the jews, a rabbi is an enemy of the people who only wants to slaughter and kill, and have a jewish girl become the nazis helper and bedmate and be allowed to make it with no opposition simply because it is fiction? is exposing racism racist? is telling what the spanish did to my people racist?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Again, you are comparing Nazis to regular Spaniards.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
the europeans who invaded our continent(not ALL europeans) commited evil acts against humannity, that is a fact. why portray them as anything but what they were, savage, murderous, and greedy? would it be okay to portray a nazi as noble, heroic character in a children's cartoon? the jewish community wouldnt think so! of course you are more concerned with a positive portrayal of white people than you are with us. that is why you "seem" to be okay with portraying savages as noble
Goyathalay 3 years ago
So if a movie took place in Nazi Germany, and not all German characters were Jew hating monsters, then it would be insulting? Speaking of which, wasn't there a movie with two German friends traveling through Tibet and stuff, something with the Dali Llama? Since they are the fun loving, adventurous "party boys", then I guess that would make that film racist!
Or if a movie took place in Jim Crow era south, and not all white characters were Klan members or lynchers, would that be racist?
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
And of course, comparing the European colonization to the Nazis and the Jews would be mostly incorrect.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
why? 6 million jews were killed. 70-100 million nican tlaca were killed. hitler got the idea of concentration camps from the indian schools. the only difference is that we were hit harder. the jews have their own nation now as the deserve, and have a strong sense of identity. we lack both.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Six million Jews were intentionally killed. About 90% of that "70-100 million" were killed by diseases. Where did you read that Hitler get the idea of concentration camps (which really weren't from regular internment camps other than they were trying to kill the people there) from Indian schools? Because I cannot find that. And comparing the schools to camps whose purpose was to kill its internees is wrong in a lot of places.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
read American Holocaust. biological warfare was used. to kill us. read mein kampf. and also, more nican tlaca were killed in the indian schools and missions than were jews killed in the work (not death) camps. you have to read books to get real information.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
No, the Spanish, or the US Army (assuming you probably believe they did) never gave out smallpox blankets, they were epidemics, they weren't intentionally spread. Ward Churchill's story is wrong.
Could you give me the direct quote from Mein Kampf, I don't own the book.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
As for the missions, you cannot compare them to Nazi camps, I will quote a passage from an essay by historian Guenter Lewy
"But right away we are in highly debatable territory. It is true that the cramped quarters of the missions, with their poor ventilation and bad sanitation, encouraged the spread of disease. But it is demonstrably untrue that, like the Nazis, the missionaries were unconcerned with the welfare of their native converts. (cont)
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
No matter how difficult the conditions under which the Indians labored—obligatory work, often inadequate food and medical care, corporal punishment—their experience bore no comparison with the fate of the Jews in the ghettos. The missionaries had a poor understanding of the causes of the diseases that afflicted their charges, and medically there was little they could do for them.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
By contrast, the Nazis knew exactly what was happening in the ghettos, and quite deliberately deprived the inmates of both food and medicine; unlike in Stannards "furnaces of death," the deaths that occurred there were meant to occur."
Could of paraphrased it, but no.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
im sure if they nazis were immune to a disease, but it killed many jews, they would have used it. comparing the nazis just to the keepers of the missionaries is narrow. the point is genocide was commited by both people.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
But the Europeans didn't use bio warfare. Even if some certain Europeans did take delight in the epidemics, it does not count as a genocide. A pretty sick person, yes, but genocide, no.
No, comparing the missionaries to the Nazis is not narrow, again, the missionaries were never intentionally trying to kill the natives, the Nazis were.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
other cultures came to our lands and then guess what? they traded with us and left? why didnt the europeans who came here did that? because they were greedy, and wanted to steal our land and its wealth. if it was a weapon the harnessed, then it is certainly a genocide.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
What other cultures came to your land?
No, annexing land isn't genocide. It was the norm back then, for all civilizations.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
it wasnt for the chinese who came here! or the africans! but its not the norm now right? so why are the europeans still here?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Wow, you actually believe that the Chinese and Africans discovered the Americas? You do know that is pseudo history and no modern professional historians believe that crap.
Really, that is just sad.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
im sure you are an expert
Goyathalay 3 years ago
No, but the people that call is pseudo history are. And more than you apparently.
Seriously, the guy that said the Chinese came to America was a submarine commander, not a historian. No one actually took it seriously.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
ill believe you when you are an author of a book
Goyathalay 3 years ago
So you believe a pseudo historian but you don't believe actual real professional historians that say that he is bullshit? That is just sad.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
okay smartass. lets assume for the sake of argument that they never came here. the chinese did explore other lands other than their own, such as africa, and yet there is no record of slavery, genocide, etc of the chinese to the africans. while for the europeans, there is.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Don't see how you saw my comments as smartass, but what I said was true, that guy isn't a professional historian and real historians do not agree with him.
No, the Chinese didn't commit slavery in Africa (though they did have slavery, I think), however the Mid Easterners did. In fact, the Arab slave trade is older than the European one.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
and NO! i certainly dont believe the chinese nor africans discovered Cemanahuac. because the Nican Tlaca were here first. yep, believe it or not, we discoverd our own land, and other cultures explored as well.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
You knew what I was saying.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
europeans who came here did things comparable to the nazis, such as massacres, burnings, and did things such as destroy our libraries and outlawing teaching our culture and history, not just the missionaries, but they were genocidal, just look up the definition.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
i have not said that during wwii and during colonization that the jews had it better. all i said was the current state for the jews compared to us is better. i dont think you can compare genocide except in terms of quantity. we had terrible things done against us as well. just watch the video above
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Yes, the natives did have terrible things done against you, such as what happened in California. But saying the entire thing was a genocide, and there was a complete program by the US, or the other powers to wipe out the continent is incorrect.
The Germans, more specifically Hitler and the Nazis, on the other hand, were trying to rid the continent of Jews and others.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
go find the definition of genocide as stated by the UN. then tell me it wasnt genocide. the answer is of course it was.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"
No, for the most part it wasn't. The US never had an Indian extermination program, nor did anyone else.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
offering money for scalps, and relocating people from said group qualifies as genocide. read the whole thing dumbass. they killed us, straight up. think of cholula, wounded knee, etc.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Comment removed
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
They only offered money to the scalps of the Indians they were at war with, at the policy was changed to only include men (which then of course was people older than 15, but still). The Europeans also gave money to there native allies that did the same thing.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
And also, there are reports that the Europeans paid there native allies to scalp other Europeans they were at war with. And of course, the natives scalped European civilians and enemy native civilians as well. Also, the natives seldom took prisoners and did take part in torture So no, dumbass, that wouldn't be genocide. And if so, then the natives would be just as guilty.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
Wounded Knee occurred when the US Army was disarming the natives. Something of a struggle occurred which led to the massacre. It was not planned or ordered by the government or the higher ups, and after the event there were court inquiries and controversy. And after, some civilians were allowed to leave the encampment and the surviving warriors were spared and the wounded given medical aid.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
And even if the soldiers did have a plan to kill all of them, even those that surrendered, it wouldn't make the US expansion a genocide anymore than the unordered massacres of German and Italian civilians and POWs would make the WWII a genocide.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
do you expect us to be thankful and not recognize wounded knee as a slaughter? chief bigfoot and his wife came out of their tipee making the peace gesture. they were already disarmed. read voices of wounded knee
Goyathalay 3 years ago
No, they weren't all disarmed. A native named "Black Coyote" refused to give up his weapon. After a shot rang, the soldiers began firing, fearing resistance.
I am not saying it wasn't tragic, but it is incorrect to say it was a planned extermination.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
did you also know that he was deaf? and that the band had agreed to stop fighting? and again that bigfoot gave the peace signal?
i am saying that it is only ONE example of genocide. the phrase "the only good indian is a dead indian" was adapted. not to mention the various policies that have wordings like "kill them all" read american holocaust and see the canary effect.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Okay, but it still was not planned by the Army or the government for the massacre to take place. And I doubt the soldiers knew he was deaf.
That phrase did "more to harm straight thinking about Indian-white relations than any number of Sand Creeks or Wounded Knees." In no way was Sherman saying that all natives should be killed. It was a racist statement, but the same were said about the Japanese (and I am sure Germans as well) during WWII. That doesn't make it a genocide.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
oh they didnt know? oh...i guess that makes it okay then! NOT
i am not sure what you mean here, i think "the only good indian is a dead indian" is pretty straight forward. perhaps other were not advocating total destruction, but then again it is in whole or in part. im not surprised you defend it either
Goyathalay 3 years ago
It takes away the excuse that he was deaf.
Again, they said that about the Japanese. They were not advocating genocide against the Japanese. Sherman was saying he didn't trust the Indians. Racist yes, but saying he wants all Indians dead, no.
And even if that was what he meant and he really wanted to, that wouldn't mean anything. The government or the army still never ordered mass killings.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
well he couldnt hear them, you see. and why couldnt they have some guns to hunt like they wanted?
they said what about the japenese? that the only good ones are dead ones? i dont see how that disproves genocide was commited against us.
so explain to me again how "the only good indian is a dead indian" doesnt mean that there he wants in whole or in part indians to be killed?
so a general says it, and thats not good enough?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Well, I cannot answer that, guess they wanted complete disarming of a once hostile force.
Yes, they did. It proves that Sherman's quote does not prove, nor is evidence for genocide. Seriously, you couldn't put that together?
Because it wasn't an order. Of course he wanted Indians dead, the US was at war with some tribes. That does not make it a genocide at all.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
No, it isn't. Again, it wasn't and order. Lastly, that isn't even the correct quote. He really said "the only good Indians I ever saw were dead", which he said after a conference with natives in which on native leader said he was a "good Indian". He was really just saying that he didn't like Indians and thought they were untrustworthy, blah blah. It is a racist statement, but it definitely doesn't prove genocide anymore than the one about the Japanese.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
oh so now you guess? could i guess that they were a bunch of white supremacist assholes who didnt give a shit about our well being.
nope. so sterilization, forcing us onto reservations, kidnaping our kids, openly advocating killing us, offering money for our scalps, actually killing us, giving us smallpox blankets, is not genocide? then what is?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Okay, by guess, I meant probably. When a group surrenders it is usual for the other force to take the surrendering sides weapons. Don't see why you think it was weird.
They weren't forced onto reservations, they could of stayed and assimilated, I already explained how the money for scalps thing wasn't genocide and that the US didn't give out smallpox blankets (no matter what Ward Churchill says), and for the last time Sherman wasn't advocating killing all the natives.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
And again, you ignored the same statement on the Japanese. Was WWII a genocide because they said that? Were the Americans advocating Japanese extermination? Based on you logic, you would think so.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
The japanese and chinese were the same race so they could kills each other and still not be genocide since they have the same beleifs and customs and apearances just different languages. European vs natives is genocide becuase of different apeaeraces and beleifs
SPS148669 3 years ago
They are different ethnic groups, so yeah, it could be. And there are differences in there beliefs, customs, and culture. It is kind of sad that you think otherwise.
Though I wasn't saying that, I was disproving Goyathalay's theory that only Europeans invaded and killed people, which is not only wrong, it is racist.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
You clearly know nothing about the history of wounded knee
SubcomandateMarcos 2 years ago
Yes, I do know about Wounded Knee. That cannot be labeled as a genocide, the US government, or even the soldiers involved did not plan it.
MoreKrabs2 2 years ago
the countless policies of lawful killings, sterilizations, kidnappings of children, hate crimes, cultural castration, and other mental and bodily harms over 500+ years qualifies as genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide
Goyathalay 2 years ago
actually it can
because the soldiers took the guns away and the Lakota's ( my ancestors on one side) were defenseless-and the soldiers were angry because they were there some 14 years after 1876 when the Lakota's;s and cheyenne wiped out Custer the 7th calvary wanted to have revenge-wounded knee is sacred ground and the US DID send people there
hawkandpanther 2 years ago
Actually it started in a struggle to disarmed on of them.
TvMountIntoOurHouse 2 years ago
just as guilty? did we try to destroy the europeans culture? did we kill 95 % of them? why did they survive in the first place? because we helped.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Actually the natives were trying to get rid of the Europeans in some of the wars. They attacked civilian forts and tortured POWs.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
youre damn right we did! they invaded us! even to this day many traditional tribes still are untrustworthy of outsiders because they have only experienced rape, torture, etc for 500+ years! the europeans did much more to us, and we are still affected by that, whereas they are rich and in power
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Actually, the some of the native tribes used the same tactics against other natives before the Europeans arrived. And no, this was not in response to "500 years of [blarg]". In fact, the Pequot tribe's system of warfare was so bad, its rival tribes allied themselves with the Puritan colonists.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
and the dutch colonists used pequot heads as kickballs. who are you to tell us how bad we were? were we worse than the europeans? did we go to africa, australia, and colonize? did we rape, enslave, kill steal, culturally castrate as much as the europeans? NO
Goyathalay 3 years ago
No, but their tactics were just as brutal. That is all I was saying.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
and i am saying that the europeans were MUCH more brutal. and they ignore it and tell us how dishonorable we are, so they have rights to our land. like what you have been doing.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Not really, the Europeans just were on a larger scale. The natives killed civilians, and tortured prisoners.
And you cannot say the Europeans were the only ones that killed many, look at the Mongols, they killed millions. The highest estimate is 60 million, the lowest 30. This is over centuries but still. And this actual killing, not epidemics.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
they were at war with us because they wanted our lands. it qualifies as genocide
Goyathalay 3 years ago
No, it doesn't. Taking land does not mean genocide, that is how all civilizations were like back then, the natives did the same thing. And during the war in which they paid for scalps, the natives were just as brutal in the way they fought, they attacked civilians as well. In fact, it was because the way they fought which made the colonists have such bounties.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
did you expect us to fight any less brutally? they invaded our lands! how would you defend your home if i broke in? they relocated our children, sterilized us, killed us, caused us serious bodily and mental harm, and forced us into conditions which caused us injury and death
Goyathalay 3 years ago
No, they used the same tactics against rival tribes. It wasn't just in response to Europeans, they weren't copying the Europeans if that is what you are saying.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
i did say it. and you didnt respond to the entire comment. yes we did. who were the europeans to come and start telling us we are so bad? who are they to steal our lands, rape, enslave us? isnt all of that worse than anything we have done?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
So you are saying they copied European tactics even though you seem to agree they have been doing it for years? So which is it? Either way, the second one is correct.
Worse in the sense that the colonists did it on a larger scale.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
did not*
worse in the sense that what europeans have done is much worse than anything any other culture has done. not just "colonists" so what right do they have to tell us they didnt commit genocide, that they didnt steal our lands? that they still profit from our destruction?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Again, the Mongols killed millions. The Japanese killed millions of other Asians during WWII, and they were also brutal to the Allied POWs. Even more so than the Germans (to the Western ones that is).
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
wait a sec! i missed this! "for the most part?" how is that so? care to explain? or will you dodge this question like you dodged those other questions i posed?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Some things happened that could be called genocide, such as the campaigns in California in the 1800s. However these were mostly done by unorganized settlers and not ordered by the US government. I was saying you cannot say the genocide was the intent of those involved in the colonialism/expansion, or that the governments planned to exterminate the natives (like the Nazis).
And what questions have I dodged? I find this ironic, you have not answered all my questions.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
could be? could be? what does that mean? is the definition not strong enough? is it subjective? mostly done? how so? youtube the canary effect.
well lets see them. ive gone over pretty much every comment.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Okay, they would. By that I meant only specific battles and campaigns by settlers (not federal troops), such as those in California.
You never answered my comments about WWII.
And what comments have I dodged?
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
so what exactly are you saying? that genocide only occurs in certain battles? im sorry i dont know what that is in response to. but i have said time and again that the definition of genocide is met by what europeans did.
i thought i had adressed them all. how wwii will relate more than what you dodged im curious to see. go ahead and list them
i have listed them in "" below
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Yeah, that is what I am saying. You cannot call the whole thing a genocide, the US government, not any other had a plan to exterminate the natives. However, in California, settlers (not under the control of the US army) did take part in massacres of civilians (which were condemned by government officials, mostly in the East). But you cannot condemn an entire society because of those.
I compared the massacres of German POWs and Italian civilians to Wounded Knee and asked if they were genocide.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
"and i no u will dodge this question as well: why is so much stress put on our sacrifices and so little on europeans'?"
"ever heard of the inquisition? the spanish said the jews were pagan, ate babies, etc. ever heard of the roman colleseum?"
Goyathalay 3 years ago
"and that the band had agreed to stop fighting? and again that bigfoot gave the peace signal?
"
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Bigfoot had nothing to do with how it started, it was when they were disarming the other natives.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
all i said that more people will killed in the missionaries and schools combined that in the work camps. i dont see how any of this quote has anything to do with that.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
You compared the missions to the camps, and brought up David Stannard, so yeah, it does.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
again, what was said had nothing to do with what happened at the missionaries nor the schools. your quote does not disprove that more died in the missionaries and schools than in the work camps
Goyathalay 3 years ago
they were aware of what they were doing. how could they not? they knew they had the pox, they knew the natives were suceptible to it. if you had aids, and started fucking people, would you not start to realize they got it as well? neither do i. i shall try to find it for you.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Well, the way diseases traveled wasn't entirely know by the average European until later. Plus, once it started, it couldn't really be stopped.
And the US did have an Indian vaccination program. It was unsuccessful at first, but eventually had an effect. The Spanish also had vaccination programs in there colonies, but not specifically to natives (probably because the population was so mixed by then).
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
why did they feel the need to keep coming in contact with us and spreading their disease and killing us and assimilating us and feeling they were superior and deserved our continent. other cultures came, traded, and left. couldnt be stopped. what a cop-out. if they gave a shit they would have let us be and left when they knew they werent wanted. and they would not have killed and enslavevd, culturally castraded etc, us.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Again you know nothing about American history or you haven't read the documents of Geoffery Amhurst being responsible for the smallpox blankets.
SubcomandateMarcos 2 years ago
No, I have. One, it was to end a siege (the fort had civilians, which the natives would have killed). And Amhearst came to that idea because he was so disgusted by the tactics the natives used. Second, it is unknown if the attacks even were successful, there was already smallpox outbreaks in the area.
And of course, Amhearst only suggested it, he really had nothing to do with the actual hand out, which was possibly done by William Trent.
MoreKrabs2 2 years ago
Subcomandante Marcos
morekrabs knows only the slanted, white supremacist view of amerikkkan history. of course the crimes committed on this land to our people were minimal to the point of nonexistence, not worth discussing, even worth defending, because morekrabs supports the thought process that says white people do no wrong. he will defend racism to his hearts content. he has made countless accounts just to continue to comment me. its laughable. its best not to waste time on people like him
Goyathalay 2 years ago
first of all, the germans had nothing to do with the tibetans. the germans commited genocide against the jews. nice try. if it ignores the historical reality! if it portrays a rabbi as a murderous maniac! if it has little correct portrayal of jews! if it has the germans being worshipped and welcomed by the jews! if a jewish woman offers herself and her help to the germans! or if all of that applied to the jim crow movie with whites and africans, then YES! IT WOULD ABSOLUTLEY BE RACIST!
Goyathalay 3 years ago
But the Germans are still non racists are fun loving and adventurous. By your logic, they shouldn't be whatsoever.
"El Dorado" wasn't based on history, it doesn't ignore anything. The Spanish are still invading.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
did you not see what else i wrote, or just ignore it? what makes trted racist is not just that. way to ignore what i say. "so could i make a movie where some nazis/germans are worshipped as gods by the jews, a rabbi is an enemy of the people who only wants to slaughter and kill, and have a jewish girl become the nazis/germans helper and bedmate and be allowed to make it with no opposition simply because it is fiction? "
Goyathalay 3 years ago
and then the priest, the one who should have been portryaed as a noble character that understood the theology of our creator, was portyrayed as a pagan savage, a person obsessed with killing and blood. that is exactly how the spanish justified killing us, they said we were savage, unholy, heathen, obsessed with blood, killing, etc. this demonstrates the ongoing total misrepresentation of our heritage. embarrasing? more like shameful!
Goyathalay 3 years ago
I was saying the numbers were more embarrassing. The Spanish killed 23 million of them?
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
and sexism plays a part as well; the common stereotype of nican tlaca women being toys for the europeans. the girl just throws herself at the two europeans, offering them her body.
but im sure you have the rights of my people at heart, that you have researched this topic of history as much as i and Mexica Movement has, know exactly what you are talking about, and are a fine authority on what is appropriate in films as far as racism goes. NOT! let us decide for ourselves how we should be seen!
Goyathalay 3 years ago
I don't recall her throwing herself and offering her body to the title characters.
Well, I don't think I have researched a cartoon movie as much of you guys. Just hate it when people try to find racism in everything in the media. And again, the fictional city is portrayed as a rich utopia made out of gold. Don't think that is negative
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
she does. she is the whore character.
exactly. dont pretend you give a shit about racism, you obviously think you are entittled to deciding whats best for a people you know nothing about. oh you hate it do you? of course, because there is absolutley never any racism in the media, is there? you would rather ignore it and let racism endure. you reek of bullshit.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
No, she doesn't, it was kids movie.
The point being it is kind of lame that an organization spends so much time on a cartoon. I never said there isn't racism in the media, but stupid people always try to find it where they is clearly none. Really, type in almost any show or movie with racism next to it and there will be someone who sincerely believes there was some kind of conspiracy. When something like "Birth of a Nation" comes along, then would be a good time to do something.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
like i said, you are in no position to say what is racist for us. after 500 years of poverty, shame, ignorance, and slavery, you could at least sympathize with us. but no, "its a kids movie, its not racist!" where is racism then? just in that movie? only overt racism exists? everyone knows that is racist, why not expose covert racism?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Expose covert racism, but only if you have a good argument. Look at "Passion of the Christ" that movie is probably anti Semitic in some ways. The Jews are mostly portrayed stereotypically and the director is probably anti Jew. Just because two of the main characters are both Spanish and not evil doesn't make a movie racist.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
why do you say probably? i sympathize with the jewish community who call it racist. ha! well perhaps you should read all of the other things that make the road to el dorado racist, compare to historical fact, (which you claim to know) and then tell me it isnt racist. granted, when/if you list all of those things explain them and still say it is not racist, you might as well come out and say YOU are racist yourself. which you wont you will hide of course.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Because I haven't actually seen it, only read about it.
What gross and insulting inaccuracies does the movie have?
You are comparing all Spanish people, or at least the ones that lived in the 16th Century, (whether you know it or not) to Nazis, which is about the same as calling all Germans Nazis, etc. And you are calling me racist?
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
.....you sir are a retard.
tell you what, see it, so that when i tell you, you can know what the hell im talking about! our people are something dreamed up by whoever made it, it says we worshipped the spanish as gods, and that our priests and venerables were bloodthirsty people, and that we were superstitious, and that we were generally simple-minded people. and now you are going to reply and say things defending a movie's historical inaccuracies that you havent seen. ughhh.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
(sigh) I was referring to the "Passion", not "El Dorado". Idiot.
Your calling a cartoon racist, you aren't that smart either.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
Well, the worshiping thing is taken from a legend (or possibly fact) that Cortes was welcomed by Montezuma. It is also not entirely original. By "bloodthirsty", you are probably referring to human sacrifice; hate to break it to you, but human sacrificing did take place. The bad priest dude, and the good chief guy both find out that the protagonists aren't gods, so they aren't all foolish.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
The priest is the only bad native, the rest are all kind and caring people. The two Spaniards are swindlers for the first half of the movie and the other main antagonist is Cortes, a Spaniard, who wants to kill everyone.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
first of all, the Nican Tlaca had no "gods" find me a primary source where there is a word equivalant to the word "god(s)" he was welcomed, but not as a god, and as soon as they could they were driven out! he wanted to kill everyone in the city. where is that in history? when did our priests want to kill every civilian? the war captives were sacrificed, and they went willingly, bound by honor. great. so two of us are smart, one of which is evil, but the rest are dumb and ignorant. awesome
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Well, I never said the "Nican Tlaca" had gods. But they did have a religion and they did have deities, which were pretty much gods, and labeled as so. Labeling them as polytheists wouldn't be incorrect.
Not just the war captives were sacrificed, regular citizens were sacrificed, as were children.
As for the evil priest and the gullible people, if you really want to believe that the people that the writers had the intent to make the natives look inferior to Spanish, then whatever.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
now you say we had gods. find me a primary source (codex) where there is a word translatable to "god" there is none. we had a completley different theology than europeans. what you are calling gods to us were actually metaphorical manifestations of Ometeotl, the universe in balance. and of course, your guess is as good as mine on human sacrifice. most of the sources are not from us, but from the spanish who said the same thing about the jews when they were terrorizing them.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Still, there were deities, and are usually referred to as gods. And they were treated as gods, people worshiped them, built statues, and gave sacrifices.
Yeah, most were Spanish documents, but not entirely. You yourself said there was sacrifice. And unlike the Jews or whatever you at talking about, there is actual archeological evidence which shows they had human sacrifices, including children (which no matter what you say, is not "honorable").
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
no no, silly. we had no such thing. we knew that every manifestation (not god) was one with the universe. ever heard of the inquisition? the spanish said the jews were pagan, ate babies, etc. ever heard of the roman colleseum? where people were sacrificed for the sake of entertainment. and i no u will dodge this question as well: why is so much stress put on our sacrifices and so little on europeans'?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Yeah, you did. You had deities, and that was a religion. It wasn't any smarter than any other if that is what you are trying to say.
I only brought up the human sacrifice thing because you were saying they didn't have it (on civilians at least, you cannot deny you were implying it), and were offended that human sacrifice was in "El Dorado".
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
i wont deny you took it that way. no, what offended me was the portrayal of a priest who is obsessed with it, and wanted everyone dead. that offended me.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
No, you were trying to say they didn't have sacrifices. You compared the evidence of them to anti Jewish legends in the Medieval era.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
maybe you havent noticed, but i replied to all the recent comments on ur channel. it was much easier
Goyathalay 3 years ago
How so? At least way you can directly reply to the comments without constantly copying and pasting.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
eh ya no ive lost interest talking to you. i said everything i needed to say. these internet fights only go so far.
Goyathalay 3 years ago
was the spanish inquisition or the roman games or the witch hunts or the various other human rights violations any more honorable? when columbus and his men would smash infants against rocks, was that honorable? again, who are you to say what is honorable, when you ignore the beam of dishonor right in front of you!
Goyathalay 3 years ago
No, they weren't honorable. I never said that. You were the one that said it was honorable for the warriors to be sacrificed so I said that just in case you said the same thing the sacrifices of regular citizens and children.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
"if you really want to believe that the people that the writers had the intent to make the natives look inferior to Spanish, then whatever" WOW what a solid argument! you got me there! yep, that proves historical accuracy was in this film! NOT. i win. you cannot disprove that they had historical accuracy in mind, but then again, "whatever"
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Uh, what proof show that they were trying to be historically accurate? You don't win at all. The writers/creators have stated that it wasn't to be taken as historically accurate. And, of course, none of the events or characters (besides Cortes coming) took place or existed, the city was fictional and loosely based on a fake city. You really think the writers thought that the pre Columbian priests were evil and wanted to kill everyone or whatever that guy wanted to do?
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
They probably thought it was as historically accurate and based on fact as much as Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas thought "Indiana Jones" was.
Even so, that wasn't an argument, that was a "you can be paranoid and believe the writers were anti Mexican and wanted to make a movie because of that, but I and most people will still view your opinions the same way as the people that think video games are racist (GTA, that new Resident Evil)"
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
ANSWER ME THIS THEN, DONT DODGE IT LIKE YOU DID ALL OF MY OTHER COMMENTS! would a movie where germans were worshipped by jews, a rabbi wants to KILL HIS OWN PEOPLE, the jews are portrayed however the hell the writers want, lets say, as greedy people with big noses, and there is a jewish girl helping the germans and being their toy. IF I MADE THAT MOVIE, WOULD IT BE FACED WITH NO OPPOSITION BY THE JEWISH COMMUNITY?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
I didn't dodge the stupid Nazi/rabbi/Holocaust movie scenario. I said that comparing the two main characters to Nazis in the Holocaust isn't correct. Therefore your analogy is totally wrong.
Though, yeah, that would be offensive if you really wanted to know.
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
Then how is it not offensive to nican tlaca if a film does the same to them?
Goyathalay 3 years ago
Did you not read my last comment?
MoreKrabs 3 years ago
i apoligize if i did not see something. these comments are not in order and it is becoming confusing. we could exchange messages or comments and that might be easier as a formerly offered?
Goyathalay 3 years ago