#we are the original non-indigenous Americans

[thevitalportal]

Additional information and Perspective

American History TV: Chapters from Our Nation's Past

Highlights for Saturday on C‑SPAN2 include a commemoration of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Sixty years ago, LBJ made its passage his top priority, saying "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long." This Saturday also features the launch of a nine-part series Historic Presidential Elections, with the first episode focused on the Election of 1800: a rematch between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Narratives of the Civil Rights Movement

Lectures in History

Watch: 8 am/pm & 11 am/pm

[reasonsforhope]

"The Yurok will be the first Tribal nation to co-manage land with the National Park Service under a historic memorandum of understanding signed on Tuesday [March 19, 2024] by the tribe, Redwood national and state parks, and the non-profit Save the Redwoods League, according to news reports.

The Yurok tribe has seen a wave of successes in recent years, successfully campaigning for the removal of a series of dams on the Klamath River, where salmon once ran up to their territory, and with the signing of a new memorandum of understanding, the Yurok are set to reclaim more of what was theirs.

Save the Redwoods League bought a property containing these remarkable trees in 2013, and began working with the tribe to restore it, planting 50,000 native plants in the process. The location was within lands the Yurok once owned but were taken during the Gold Rush period.

Centuries passed, and by the time it was purchased it had been used as a lumber operation for 50 years, and the nearby Prairie Creek where the Yurok once harvested salmon had been buried.

Currently located on the fringe of Redwoods National and State Parks which receive over 1 million visitors every year and is a UNESCO Natural Heritage Site, the property has been renamed ‘O Rew, a Yurok word for the area.

“Today we acknowledge and celebrate the opportunity to return Indigenous guardianship to ‘O Rew and reimagine how millions of visitors from around the world experience the redwoods,” said Sam Hodder, president and CEO of Save the Redwoods League.

Having restored Prarie Creek and filled it with chinook and coho salmon, red-legged frogs, northwestern salamanders, waterfowl, and other species, the tribe has said they will build a traditional village site to showcase their culture, including redwood-plank huts, a sweat house, and a museum to contain many of the tribal artifacts they’ve recovered from museum collections.

Believing the giant trees sacred, they only use fallen trees to build their lodges.

“As the original stewards of this land, we look forward to working together with the Redwood national and state parks to manage it,” said Rosie Clayburn, the tribe’s cultural resources director.

It will add an additional mile of trails to the park system, and connect them with popular redwood groves as well as new interactive exhibits.

“This is a first-of-its-kind arrangement, where Tribal land is co-stewarded with a national park as its gateway to millions of visitors. This action will deepen the relationship between Tribes and the National Park Service,” said Redwoods National Park Superintendent Steve Mietz, adding that it would “heal the land while healing the relationships among all the people who inhabit this magnificent forest.”"

-via Good News Network, March 25, 2024

[boreal-sea]

So from what I've seen there are four main excuses American leftist non-Jews use to deny indigeneity for diaspora Jews.

Most of them agree Jews were indigenous 2,000 years ago, but some think the Jews who were forced out of Israel during the past 2,000 years have "lost" their indigeneity in some way. In other words, they don't think diaspora Jews have a right to claim indigeneity to the Jewish homeland.

Some of them think that converts and/or external marriages have "diluted" diaspora Jewish bloodlines too much, and diaspora Jews are now a "different race" or "different ethnicity" from the "original Jews". They may even consider some diaspora Jews to be "white", which means they think those Jews definitely can't claim indigeneity.

Some of them think the fact that diaspora Jews absorbed parts of other cultures means they are no longer the "same kind of Jews" that originally came from the region, and this means they have changed too much to be considered the same culture, and thus they cannot return to their homeland.

Some just think "too much time has passed". It doesn't matter that diaspora Jews didn't choose to leave, nor does it matter that people prevented them from returning until very recently. Time is time, and too much time has passed. Indigeneity gone.

Finally, I have seen some argue that birthplace or citizenship is what matters. They say, "you can't be indigenous to a place you weren't born in". I've seen some claim that being born as a citizen of a country or becoming a citizen of a country erases any prior ethnic, cultural, national, indigenous, or religious ties they and their family may have had. For example, they think Jews born in America are American, and have zero right to say they have any ties to anywhere else.

Basically, for whatever reason, they don't think diaspora Jews are "native Jews" anymore, and thus they don't belong in their homeland.

...

I wonder though.

Do they know the difference between an ethnicity and a race? Do they know what an ethnoreligion is? Do they know how Jews view converts?

Do they think certain Jewish ethnic groups get to have a claim to indigeneity while others don't? Why do they think that as a non-Jew they get to have any say in that?

If they think the indigeneity of diaspora Jews has "expired" due to how long Jews have been living in the diaspora, do they think the indigeneity of ALL displaced indigenous peoples can "expire", or does this rule only apply to Jews?

If they believe indigeneity expires, when does it expire? After 200 years? What about 500 years? 1000?

If a colonized country with a displaced indigenous population waits long enough, will it be OK to tell those displaced people, "Sorry, you've been gone from the parts of the continent you were originally from for too long. Even though it wasn't your choice to leave, and even though we have prevented you from returning, you have no right to claim that as your homeland anymore". Is that acceptable?

When does a population living in a forced diaspora have no right to return home?

[fatehbaz]

Headline by: Ryan Burns. “Ground Has Been Broken on Klamath River Restoration, the World’s Largest-Ever Dam-Removal Project.” Lost Coast Outpost. 23 March 2023.

---

The world’s largest dam removal in history is slated for 2023. Led by Indigenous tribes in partnership with organizations, lawyers, scientists and activists, the project will remove four dams, clearing the way for the lower Klamath River to flow freely for the first time in more than a century.

Headline and italicized text excerpt by: Malia Russ. “The Science of Saving Salmon as Klamath Dams Come Down.” UC Davis - Blogs - Climate. 24 February 2023.

---

Headline by: Jackson Guilfoil. “Klamath dam removals, habitat restoration, begins.” The Mercury News. 25 March 2023.

---

Headline by: Kale Williams. “‘The salmon are coming home’: Work begins on Klamath River dam removal.” KGW8. 27 March 2023.

---

Iron Gate is a sinuous, skinny reservoir tucked into the folds of the Siskiyou Mountains. Draining it will expose about 900 acres of wet mud. “It’s our job to make sure it’s revegetated. We want that to be revegetated with a healthy native plant ecosystem,” says Joshua Chenoweth, Senior Riparian Ecologist for the Yurok Tribe who is leading the replanting effort. [...] Last fall, they seeded the strip with a mix of native grasses and flowering plants; now, they’re installing young shrubs and trees: buckbrush, serviceberry, and Oregon ash, along with the Klamath plum. Collectively, these plants will create a “wall of green,” taking up space that would have otherwise been overrun by non-native plants [...]. The revegetation of the Klamath River has been called the largest river restoration project in American history. Collecting, propagating, and growing enough seeds and plants to populate the reservoir footprints -- approximately 2,200 acres in all -- is a staggering task. [...] Their planting design includes 96 different species: culturally significant plants like yampah and lomatium, important pollinator species like milkweed, and tens of thousands of oak trees. [...] What will a restored, wild Klamath River look like? Imagine it. Stand at the Wanaka Springs boat launch and picture Iron Gate reservoir drained. The river has found its channel at the base of its original canyon. Willows flank the banks. Much of the reservoir footprint is flush with upland vegetation -- oak copses; thickets of buckbrush and Klamath plum; blooming rose and lupine.

---

Headline, images, captions, screenshot, and italicized text excerpt from: Juliet Grable. “After the dams: Restoring the Klamath River will take billions of native seeds.” Jefferson Public Radio. 13 March 2023.

[ask-nyc-boroughs]

Early Appalachian frontiersman Alfred in buckskin circa 1790- 1810s. I’m trying to figure out how to paint like NC Wyeth digitally (so lol the background is Wyeth’s).

Gonna ramble a bit about my nor’easter au and Alfred below the cut

Following the American Revolution, Alfred is immediately sent out to squash any rebellions (like whiskey rebellion) and to partake in wars against Indigenous nations like the Cherokee. I’ll save a discussion about the Cherokee wars for another time because that’ll take a long time to explain + I’m still working on my Cherokee oc and I need to understand Cherokee history and perspective more before I go forward with talking about this topic.

Now the many of the east coast states are older than Alfred, and they mostly supported him during the revolution because they thought he’d be easy to control given at the time of the revolution he wasn’t tied down as any colony or city. However, he was a New Englander and very obviously so

He was once Plymouth colony and he grew up alongside his cousin Henry/Massachusetts, but by the time the revolution occurred, his status was unclear and he was simply living with his cousin (who’s his earliest and most fierce supporter) .

These states operated like countries and part of why the had the revolution was to continue to self-govern and maintain their regional cultures. It’s also part of why the federal government initially was rather weak. Given Alfred’s closeness to his cousin, and his very staunch New England identity, I think the states would be hesitant over a strong New England national control. And so I think they especially Jennie/NY & Rich/Virginia encouraged Alfred to leave his cousin for a while, and partake in military campaigns (+ he was good at battle).

Also Alfred was like 14, and I don’t think he’s ever been the type to sit down and do paperwork. Honestly he was always a bad student, who was far more interested in the outdoors, horses, sailing and hunting. While he won the war, and he was fine with being head of state, he still didn’t 1) have confidence in himself to make non-military related decisions 2) he just wasn’t mentally ready to take on the responsibilities and was fine deferring it to his states like Jennie, Rich, or Henry to figure out matters that weren’t military related. He was irresponsible and it would come back to bite him in the ass during the Civil War.

Alfred on a personal level it was probably good for him to get away from his overly critical cousin who can be overbearing, but also so he would get more experience to deeply get to know his states.

Also Alfred, growing up in New England, he was a little ball of rage as a kid and he has a difficult time managing his emotions. He wasn’t exactly the personable seemingly fun loving Alfred of the present. Not that he couldn’t crack a joke, but ok I’m not from New England, but in the northeast I find we’re rather cynical, un-filtered and sarcastic and tbh kind of asssholes in the way we have fun and in our humor. That’s how he was, which is like fine unless you’re trying to appeal to the rest of the nation lol which he would have to

I think his time spent in Appalachia and the south did help him learn more about his other states especially Maisie/ North Carolina. But also helped him learn more how to let go some of this intense New England rage, and how to better control his emotions. But also let loose in a way that isn’t so dark and cynical. Also I think this helped him slowly learn how to speak with less of a New England specific accent

He was also able to observe states like Rich and Carl/ South Carolina and gain an understanding of how being able to control your emotions, can help control your image and how others perceive you. So these are the origins of how he slowly began to shape and become at least in public this overly friendly happy go lucky Alfred.

I’ll save a discussion about his interactions with the Appalachian states more explicitly another time I’m just tired😴 fr rn

[genericpuff]

Hello, brazilian anon here! So I have been following criticisms of LO for a while now, and Psyche and Eros caught my attention in special, because their relationship is legit a racist trope commonly applied to indigenous people: Woman of color is put in a arranged marriage or pressured into marrying a guy from her village/tribe but "falls in love" with a white dude who "saves" her from her abusive and "uncivilized" family. Think of Disney's Pocahontas. This trope is commonly used to dehumanize non-european/anglo-saxon cultures and portray them as barbaric, and is rooted in colonialism and its direct heir, imperialism, as a means for colonizers to justify and sugarcoat raping and forcing women of color to marry them. So not a good look for Rachel.

OH YEAH IT IS

(you just opened Pandora's Box by mentioning Pocahontas around me LMAO)

It's even more egregious when you consider how Rachel changed the original myth from Psyche undergoing trials on her own to her ... being turned into a nymph servant for Aphrodite. Like huh. Is that really your final draft, Rachel? Have you thought this through?

I made a very spicy post about this like a year and a half ago and honestly I think it's still worth talking about because it's incredibly telling that Psyche had her entire story uprooted and replaced with a version where she's transformed into a non-POC character to disguise herself as a servant to a woman who's already racist towards nymphs. It's got that issue of "take the black character and transform them into an animal/other being that isn't black so that we don't have to have a black character onscreen for more than 10 minutes."

And yeah, you can tell how much Rachel is absentmindedly taking from Disney without challenging what those stories were portraying or asking deeper questions to get to the heart of their messaging. Pocahontas is rightfully panned for being a very white-washed version of a story that was written in the blood shed by Native Americans at the hands of colonizers. "Pocahontas" herself, even, was not some independent native woman who fell in love with the "one good white guy" on the boat, she was a teenage girl, whose life was spared but made worse when she was forced to travel overseas to be used as a prop to justify their continued actions in murdering and colonizing the "savages" overseas; she was then forced into marriage and had to carry the children of her captors, all while being treated as an exotic spectacle by the people around her who would undoubtedly kill her at the first sign of disobedience.

Her name was Matoaka. Her life and story is not something that should be romanticized. It's a tragedy and much of what instigated it is still alive and well today. She only lived to be 21.

I don't know if Rachel intentionally referenced or ripped off Pocahontas in Lore Olympus the same way she clearly has with Hercules and Beauty and the Beast. But it's incredibly telling in how she treats the racial divide between nymphs and gods and how she's twisted the Eros x Psyche myth into what it is that even if she did watch Pocahontas, she probably never realized how problematic it is at its core in the way that it's told.

In the original myth, Psyche is a woman who's meant to represent the fickleness of vanity - the loneliness it can make one feel to be admired and not truly loved, and the destruction that can be brought about in jealousy - and her pursuit in finding genuine love in Eros, a journey she travels alone, thematically with the rest of the story.

In Lore Olympus, she's an illiterate woman of color whose only purpose is to be Eros' wife, robbed of all agency so that she can be a trophy for him to earn, a test for him to pass. It's boring and really icky when you really peel back the layers of it with Psyche's character design in mind. Even when she finally does get more agency in her task to bring down Apollo - or at the very least, keep an eye on him - it's still at the behest of Zeus who gives her immortality not as a reward for overcoming the trials she set out to pass, but so she can be his errand boy. So once again she's not capable of doing anything motivated by her own best interests (especially when she already knows how dangerous Apollo is, why is she the one who has to follow this guy around?)

So yeah, no, not a good look at all LMAO

[communistkenobi]

Obviously art does not rest on methods, media, or the amount of effort a person exerted in making it, but I think AI art is yet another way that capitalism is changing the form and function of art (separating artworks from their original meaning on a different and even larger scale) and given that it is made by exploiting workers (the original artists and the people they pay pennies to sort through it to remove disturbing images) it makes people feel yet more powerless in the face of corporations so there is a big negative reaction to it. This negative reaction may not be articulated in the way you want but I think it's very understandable that people have reactionary feelings about large scale corporate exploitation.

just for the record before I respond, I am replying to this ask in good faith just as you are asking in good faith, I’m not angry at you and many of these questions I’m asking are rhetorical, for the purposes of reflection. So please no slapfighting in the notes, thank you!

First: I’m not disputing exploitation. in fact privileging AI as uniquely exploitative handwaves away the massive amount of exploitation that artists already endure and have endured for a very long time, as well as the horrific amounts of labour exploitation involved in mass producing the ‘tools of the trade’ so to speak.

But this is, again, a non-sequitur to my argument, which is that art produced under exploitative, destructive, “lazy” or politically repugnant conditions is still art. MCU films are art regardless of the fact that they are 3-hour long informercials for the American empire and require massive labour exploitation from CGI animators, actors, film set workers, and everything else: advertisements are art: AI art is art. Horrifying, trite, unoriginal, bad, socially destructive, maybe all of those things are true and we can talk about the merits of those claims (I certainly have strong opinions about them), but what is politically gained from saying bad, unoriginal, horrifying, or trite art isn’t art? Whose definitions are we using here, and if those definitions should be universalised, what does it mean for artists who are only unoriginal, only bad, only whatever else?

I return to my original example: are children not qualified to be artists if they only make “bad” art? I used to trace movie stills from Harry Potter photo books as a child because I loved the characters - am I a fraud for doing so? Am I given grace for my incompetence and “theft” on the basis of me “still learning how to do real art”? When does this grace period end? If we argue that only struggle can produce art, what level of struggle? Struggle for whom? Drawing isn’t difficult for me because I was taught how to hold a pencil, read, write, and draw by a western industrial publicly-funded primary school by a teacher paid with public tax dollars, supplemented with help every night from my mother and father, two married cishet middle class people in a mostly stable (if miserable and verbally abusive) marriage - all of which is resting atop stolen indigenous land. Under what historical conditions can arguments for artistic struggle be made? When we argue for struggle(/hard work/whatever) as the basis of art we are pre-supposing a universal subject whose struggle is globally standardized and calculable - which in all of these discussions on here is (implicitly, though sometimes explicitly) a white able-bodied settler living in a western state who benefits from universal primary education that teaches them the foundational skills of how to make art. You can probably add university educated to that too, given how many of these arguments seem to be swarmed by undergraduate students.

Arguing that there needs to be some threshold for method, labour, intent, or message for art to ‘actually be art’ is politically reactionary and is what I am responding to. It requires transcendental claims about the Artist as a unique labourer set apart from and superior to all others, one whose skills are universalised and whose intent is always observable and present in their work. So if people want to talk about exploitation they should talk about exploitation, not the definition of art. It’s not my fault people can’t stay on topic!

[out-of-the-forest-i-come]

Feminist Non-Fiction Recs

Because feminism isn't only about your own voice and your own rights, but about the liberation of all women, it's important to uplift the voices of women who are rarely heard. To honour this international day of Women's Rights, here are some recommendations for non-fiction feminist theory books centered on women of colour.

Please note that this is a non-exhaustive list, and that some very important works might not figure on it. Take it as inspiration, not as a binding list of works to have read, and remember that this is only the surface of women of colour's writings on feminism.

all of bell hooks' books, but I would recommend "Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism" to start with intersectional feminism

There Is No Hierarchy of Oppression; by Audre Lorde

Sister Outsider; by Audre Lorde (all of Audre Lorde, actually)

Hood Feminism; by Mikki Kendall

White Tears, Brown Scars; by Ruby Hamad

Mediocre; Ijeoma Oluo

We Should All Be Feminists; by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

This Bridge Called My Back; an anthology edited by Cherríe Moraga and Gloria E. Anzaldúa

Bad Feminist; by Roxane Gay

I Am Malala; by Malala Yousafzai

Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment; by Patricia Hill Collins

Arab & Arab American Feminisms: Gender, Violence, & Belonging; an anthology edited by Rabab Abduhaldi, Evelyn Alsultany and Nadine Naber

Making Space for Indigenous Feminism; an anthology edited by Joyce Green

Beyond Veiled Clichés: The Real Lives of Arab Women; by Amal Awad

The Trouble with White Women: A Counterhistory of Feminism; by Kyla Schuller

A Decolonial Feminism; Françoise Vergès

Eloquent Rage: A Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower; by Brittney Cooper

Women, Race, & Class; by Angela Y. Davis

These books really only scrape the surface of an intersectional approach of feminism focused on race, and if you want to discover more works, I would recommend looking at intersectional feminism and decolonial feminism. Also, if you're not a native English speaker or if you speak fluently multiple languages, I recommend looking for feminist books originally written in other languages that may not have been translated to English, as they offer a perspective that is not so American-centered, which I feel is the case in too much of today's feminism.

[greatqueenanna]

I occasionally come across posts that claim that Frozen 2 is racist. One example being is Iduna herself, how she was retconned to be indigenous despite her white presenting self. Another is a video I saw on TikTok saying how they had her marry Aganrr aka her colonizer (even though I sincerely doubt Agnarr would follow what Runeard tried to do her people). And another time I saw a Youtube comment saying how the Northuldra are not Saami but Native Americans cosplaying as Saami.

I've said this before, but I'll reiterate my main viewpoints when it comes to this topic because the response was back in 2022, so might as well refresh it.

My viewpoint on this topic is this -

If you are not Sámi, then I don't think it is appropriate to speak on how well the representation was done. We should let the Sámi voice their own opinions, and not try to interject our own biases or talk over them. This goes for both negative and positive comments.

I understand where people are coming from here. All they want is to make sure that a group of people are being represented well and respected. They want to be sure that Disney is not just trying to cash in on a half-assed job at representation at the expense of a group that was often marginalized, discriminated against, and colonized.

However, I do think that when we try to defend on behalf of others, we often create problems that were not considered one in the first place, due to our own biases. What do I mean?

I often bring @hb-pickle's post (linked below), where she emailed Professor Veli-Pekka Lehtola, one of the people on the Sámi Advisory group that helped work on F2. He gave incredible insight on the development of F2, and was very happy with the work they did and the treatment they received.

He mentions within his response three main concerns they had during development.

That Yelena was a villain at first.

That the Northuldran attire was at first even more vague than it is now, and looked more like a non-specific arctic attire.

That the Reindeers were running in a circle at the end, as this was not realistic.

You can read the original response to see more details on these and how the team navigated them.

Out of these three issues - not one of them is about Iduna saving and marrying her 'colonizer', or about Iduna presenting white. These issues are things that are brought up mostly by western audiences. Thus, western audiences are creating a problem , and thus speaking over the group they are trying to protect.

In fact, even the film team did this to some extent. With the second issue that I mentioned above, the film team explained to the advisors that the reason they did not want to specifically represent Sami clothing and colors with the Northuldra, is because they did not want to 'culturally appropriate' them.

Thus, the team was making a decision on what the Sami should consider offensive, much like how western audiences are doing the same with Iduna's character.

I would advise seeking out Sami opinions. I have linked some articles below that you can check out.

“Reindeer are better than people:” Indigenous Representation in Disney’s Frozen

Disney's 'Frozen 2' thrills Sámi people in northern Europe

The last link is from a tumblr blog that is now closed. However, you can get a little bit of info from this user before the read more, unless someone has their full article somewhere.

[neechees]

This isn't supposed to be a gotcha, I'm genuinely asking because my dad keeps using this as an argument when I try to explain land back stuff to him. And I'm hoping you can help give tips on how to explain it to him.

We're European, and as you probably know there's people here who are anti-immigrant / anti-refugee bc they're racist and want it to be only Europeans. My dad thankfully isn't *that* bad, but his argument is "well if indigenous ppl deserve their land back, even despite all the non-natives who moved there bc they had to, then don't the anti-immigrant EU ppl have the right to kick out the immigrants even if they fled to here as refugees?"

It's so gross and i don't blame you if you don't want to engage with it/answer this anon. I just am like trying to figure out how to answer him and of all the progressive issues I explain to my dad this is the one I'm least familiar with. So how do I explain to him why it doesn't really apply to indigenous Europeans?

I can't tell what you mean when you say "Indigenous Europeans", because Indigenous is a racialized and political category of people that have been affected and racialized by colonialism in a specific way, "Indigenous" doesn't just mean "x group of people who originally come from x area". Because you haven't specific a specific Indigenous Nation (for example, Saami), I'm going to assume you just mean that you are White Europeans who are not Indigenous. You'll have to explain that to him as well. This is also important, because I know many racist Europeans will co-opt Indigeneity in order to promote White Supremacist ideas like creating an ethnostate, and what your dad has suggested, is the definition of that. Secondly, tell him (even if you ARE Indigenous,) Indigenous people, as the same with anyone else, being xenophobic and racist towards immigrants is still bad and unacceptable, we don't get a free pass to be bigoted towards different groups of people and use "landback" as an excuse. Landback goes hand in hand with decolonizing, and you can't do that while perpetrating settler-colonial ideology and bigotry.

I don't know how many times we have to say this, but Landback does not inherently have to do with deporting anybody who isn't "Indigenous", and does not have anything to do with trying to create an ethnostate, the core goals of Landback is neither of those things. You have to emphasize this to him.

Landback has to do with sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples because as it is, we're being oppressed by the White governments that are occupying us. We are stripped of multiple rights while in our own homes. What your dad has suggested about White Europeans having the "right" to deport immigrants is already a reality, White Europeans already have privilege and power over immigrants, and many immigrants already ARE being deported and mistreated by those governments. There are race riots targeting immigrants happening in the U.K for goodness sake!

Landback is centered ideas of decolonizing and dismantling White Supremacy: Your dad's presented idea of mass deportation of any person who isn't ehtnically/racially European or is an (immigrant to there) from the country you reside in is based on White Supremacy. The category "immigrant" itself is very racialized, because when White North Americans or Europeans talk about deporting "immigrants" from the country, typically they're talking about Brown and Black people & people who aren't Christian, and I've never heard a White Canadian complain about a White French immigrant and suggest we deport them, or hear a White American complain about deporting the Irish.

As an example, trying to kick everyone else out of Turtle Island (or anywhere) for one thing would be WAAAAY too much of a hassle to even attempt, too expensive, and useless. Plus, if there was a mass exodus (for lack of a better word) of people via planes, vehicles, and ships all at once or even over time, that would have a big negative impact on the environment, which kind of goes against why people want Landback in the first place (to take care of the land and environment, we care about it). It's counterproductive to several of the goals of Landback.

So to recap, deporting any people who are not "Indigenous" or originally from one area is not the goal, your dad has made a false equivalency because 1

that's not what we want in the first place, Landback has nothing inherently to do with deporting anyone who isn't originally from a specific area or creating an ethnostate, and

trying to do it would be useless and going AGAINST the goals and principles of Landback and what is wanted

part of Landback is undoing racism and White Supremacy, and what he's suggested is promoting those things (White Supremacy and racism)

[c-vs-paganism]

Samhain just passed and it has once again amazed me how different cultures can be and how people within one culture dont necessarily interact with norms and traditions in the same way.

Samhain is traditionally celtic, although its been spread around the larger pagan communities for a good while, so obviously we have to take into consideration how non-pantheon specific pagans and non-celtic pagans have added to the common modern practices and beliefs. We also have to take into consideration of how the internet and the mysticization (ik ik i cant think of a better term) of paganism have played on how people view popular holidays like samhain, yule, and ostara. A lot of what we consider the typical "witchy" traditions have very little to no actual historical record or tradition, and were instead made introduced into the social culture of paganism, which we can see on platforms like tiktok. That's not to say that those new practices are less significant than historical ones, bc imo we are our own religion: we define whats important to us and base our practices off if those feelings and beliefs.

That being said, however, I think it's also important to recognize when we're making traditional practices out to be stuff their not, taking from closed cultures (*cough cough* white americans using indigenous practices *cough cough*) and when theres influence of colonization and cultural appropriation. Im indigenous and its a HUGE point that rubs me the wrong way when i see people using items or pieces of tradition that they (knowingly or unknowingly) have taken from a closed practice. Stop and do your research. ABOUT. EVERYTHING. Sorry if it's too much work or it slows you down but its so important.

Even for open practices: do your research. If you are using traditions and practices from somewhere and you dont know where it comes from there is still the potential for appropriation.

I personally urge all pagans to research every little thing. Why do certain herbs have these properties? Where does this practice come from? Just because something is available to you or you can kind of make stuff up along the way doesn't mean you should.

All this in mind, ive noticed Samhain has been merged with the modern idea of Halloween (dont give me a history lesson guys, ik the origins of halloween: im talking about commercialization) and i personally find it enjoyable. I grew up trick-or-treating, the decor is fun, etc. I know yall are bored atp but all of this was leading up to this question:

How did yall, as pagans, celebrate the past few days (if you celebrated at all)?

Im mainly just curious to see how social cultural norms in paganism span through the different sections and beliefs of the people i can reach on the internet.

[matan4il]

It's very interesting that anti-Zionists claim to be "anti-colonial" given the arguments I routinely see them use against Jews. For years, I've seen them use full scale blood quantum arguments, for one. Most recently, now that we're fully in "Jesus was a Palestinian" season again, I saw a famous economist claim that "Jesus is genetically closer to Palestinians, (particularly Christians) than to Israelis (0 connection to most groups)," which is false to begin with.

Personally, I'm very sensitive to this kind of argument because I'm a ger. These people go after Jews like us very hard because to them we have the wrong DNA and thus undermine Jewish indigeneity, peoplehood, and history. Even if they concede the genetic evidence of born Jews' ancestral origins, they still point at gerim and any of our descendants as the "fake Jews" who don't belong… anywhere, actually. We don't belong in Israel because we're "foreign interlopers," and we don't belong outside of Israel because we had the gall to become Jews.

It's one type of antisemitism I can't seem to numb myself toward.

Hi Nonnie! Thank you for the ask, and my apologies about how long it's taking me to reply these days. Real life is not currently kind... :(

Okay, I had to roll my eyes so hard at that propaganda lie about Jesus. (found the economist in question, love it when someone who is living as a colonizer on stolen Native American land, has the audacity to goysplain a Jewish man to Jews, who support Jewish native rights. There really is no end to how much Jews just don't count to such people, is there?)

And it really is remarkable how many things he could get wrong in just that one part of his tweet...

Jesus was not a Palestinian, he was a Jew.

If you traveled back in time, and wanted to ask him about being Palestinian, you wouldn't be able to speak to Jesus in Arabic, which is the language of the Palestinians as Arabs, you would have to speak to him in either Hebrew or Aramaic (which is so close to ancient Hebrew, that I can speak some Aramaic simply by virtue of being a native Hebrew speaker) for him to understand you. Because he was a Jew.

If you did speak to Jesus in Hebrew or Aramaic, and asked him about being Palestinian, he wouldn't know what you're talking about, because the Romans would only rename the land Provincia Syria Palaestina in 136 AD, over 100 years after his death. Calling Jesus Palestinian is like saying that Chief Powhatan (probably best known as Pocahontas' father) was a Virginian, just because he was born and lived on territory that would later become Virginia. It's anachronistic, blatantly untrue, and totally imposing colonialist inventions on native people.

To the best of my knowledge NO ONE has dug up Jesus' DNA to compare it to ANY group. This is how you can tell that when he gets to that part, this guy is just blatantly making propaganda up.

Israelis are not one group, but Israeli Jews do test close to other Middle Eastern groups, and closest to other Jewish groups from around the world.

I guess, why settle for one bit of bullshit, when you can go for five?

I find it so interesting that you used the term "blood quantum." For non-Americans, who may not know it, here's a short introduction:

A person's Blood Quantum is the fraction of their ancestors, out of their total ancestors, who are documented as full-blood Native Americans. The blood quantum policy was first implemented by the federal government within tribes to limit native citizenship. However, since 1934, tribes were granted the authority/ability to create their own enrollment qualifications.

I find it interesting, because I keep thinking Jews and First Nations have so much in common, as native peoples. I remember coming across at least two different stories of people being adopted into Native American tribes. Obviously, each first nation has its own rules about it, before and after the colonization of America, but the point is... there is room for someone to become a member of the tribe, not based on blood. Most of the time, membership of the tribe IS based on ancestry, but it isn't limited to that. Some people come and live with the tribe, adopt its customs and way of life, emerge themselves in the values and heritage, embrace its spiritual beliefs, become a member of this community, and then they are adopted in. It's the same with Jews. Most of us are born Jewish, some of us choose to live this lifestyle, embrace the customs, beliefs and culture, go to synagogue, get to know the community, and eventually adopt and are adopted by it. That's the thing. Converting to Judaism isn't just changing your belief system. It's joining a tribe, and changing one's identity through this process of mutual adoption. Converts to Judaism don't take away ANYTHING from the native rights of Jews. On the contrary, this process of conversion is so different to when someone moves from one religion to another (think of how much simpler baptism is, to the long journey of converting to Judaism), precisely because Judaism isn't just a religion, unlike Christianity and Islam. It is an entire, intricate identity that combines multiple aspects, as all ancient, native identities do.

And in this context, think of Americans who are mostly of European descent, and have nothing to do with Native American culture, or way of life, but they can point to having an "exotic" great great great grandfather, who was a Native American chief. From what I've gathered, they would not be considered members of the tribe by most Native American nations. But the person who lives with the tribe, and shares its ways and its fate? That person is recognized as such by the tribe members.

Jews are the same. We are not native just because our ancestors are from Israel. We are also native, because we are the people who have preserved that Israelite identity. We have carried its torch, and passed it on along the generations, and we have shared our light with those, who chose to stand with us, to share our ways, our fate, and the consequences of the horrible hatred aimed at us.

I love you, my fellow tribe member. Thank you for sharing the light, and the burden, together! *sending so much love* xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[skaianbruja]

"Divineggtion":

This is something I created with the help of my mutual @coquette-lunalovemystique as a non-appropriative alternative to "modern" egg cleansing

For those you who do not understand why "modern" egg cleansing" is appropriative: It is true that various cultures throughout history have used eggs for cleansing and divination, including in Europe. However, "modern" egg cleansing does not have roots in any European practices. Instead, it is appropriation of limpia con huevo, which comes from curanderismo — an initiatory Latin American traditional medicinal practice — and is believed to have ultimately originated from Indigenous peoples and/or enslaved Africans in what is now Mexico. Furthermore, not only is curanderismo initiatory (and no, contrary to what wannabe "shamans" claim, you cannot become a curandero by taking a 12-weeks $4,000 online course), it is still ridiculed, demonized, and even criminalized* in the US

"Divineggtion" is a method of egg cleansing, which while similar to and inspired by limpia con huevo, is not straight up cultural appropriation. The major difference between "divineggtion" and the appropriative "modern" egg cleansing is that "divineggtion" does not involve rubbing the egg on oneself or reading the whites or yolk

How to perform "divineggtion":

What you will need:

An egg

Somewhere to dispose of the whites and yolk. "Divineggtion" does not involve reading the whites or yolk

Steps:

1) Grab the egg and hold it in your hand(s) and visualize it absorbing all negativities from you. Do not rub it on yourself

2) After the egg has become "heavy" with whatever negativities is absorbed from you, crack the egg open and immediately dispose of the whites and yolk. How you dispose of them is up to you, but I'd recommend against eating them

3) Read the shell. Now this part we haven't quite worked out yet. However, one idea is to interpret crack patterns:

4: Dispose of the eggshell. Follow up with either a second cleansing (if needed) or protective measures

And that's how you perform "divineggtion!"

Another non-appropriative alternative to limpia con huevo is this:

I call it "egg showering"

*The criminalization of curanderismo comes mainly in the form of criminalizing traditional medicinal plants

[alpaca-clouds]

Some thoughts on Nocturne

Okay, we finally have a trailer and some actual information on the show, I think it is kinda fun to speculate, right? And just have some thoughts. No, scratch that: Actually I got a lot of thoughts. Even though barely anything is confirmed.

Firstly: Yeah, let's face it, it does not look like there is a ton of plot tonna survive from the two games inspiring it. Which undoubtedly will once again leave the game fans angry. But even though I enjoyed the heck out of Symphony of the Night (still gotta play Rondo full), I still think it is kinda a good thing. Because most Castlevania games are fairly light on story. Which - I said this before - is okay. It is totally okay for a videogame to be like: "Slay big monster." But if you want to translate it into a more narrative focused medium, you gotta change stuff.

I was originally kinda sceptical about the entire French Revolution thing for two reasons. 1) Well, technically I doubt that the French Revolution is still gonna happen after how the first series ended. But that might just be me. 2) Western Media, but American Media especially sucks when it comes to portrayels of the French Revolution as it usually goes back to the "There were good people on both sides!" kinda outlook, that does not really get the revolution and everything that was going on.

Funnily enough the thing that made me a bit more optimistic on this point is just them making Annette Black and from what I gather from that preview article released two days someone who has escaped slavery. I mean, game!Annette is just the usual passive kinda woman for the most part. And this is... definitely more interesting than that.

Especially given there is also another detail that nobody seems to acknowledge: Outside of showrunner Clive Bradley, all the episode writers (Temi Oh, Testament and Zodwa Nyoni) are Black. Which kinda seems like a very conscious choice. And given that the French Revolution does not get the credit it deserves as an abolition movement and something that definitely also helped to lead to the Haitain Revolution, I start to get my hopes up that they are gonna actually work with that aspect of the (hi)story.

One thing that is also interesting to me - though also kinda iffy - is the thing with Orlox and Richter's mother.

Iffy because it makes Richter join the ranks of Castlevania protagonists at least partly inspired by the death of a woman. What is it with this franchise and that fucking refrigirating warehouse filled with women?! I mean, Jesus, you people are aware that man can actually be inspired to do stuff for other reasons than a woman dying, right?!

But... We also know that Orlox does not seem to be the main antagonist, but apparently is someone who ends up making uneasy allies with Richter and Co., which kinda makes me hope that there is actually gonna be a bit more nuance to this than it appears at first glance.

Orlox says in the trailer that Richter's mom killed someone very dear to him (honestly, if this is gonna be another refrigerated woman, I am gonna flip a fucking table, though I guess I also do not want buried gays) and a part of me kinda hopes that it might go into the direction I brought up concerning my Belmont family headcanon with this discussing the idea of "killing all vampires is kinda bad, too".

Another thing about Orlox is, too, that he is not white. I read him as Black originally, but given that he is voiced by Zahn McClarnon, who is indigenous, I am gonna assume Orlox here is of Indigenous heritage. Which is gonna make for an interesting storybeat, given that in the series so far we had non-white vampires, yes, but... none of them had much in terms of story, let alone even voicelines.

Especially given another thing...

Given from what we see in the trailer, there definitely is gonna be a theme of "nobility = vampires" going on here. We can only guess about how much of it being like actual: "Oh, yeah, all nobles are vampires!" But there are definitely gonna be some vampires nobles opposed to the revolution. That seems to be pretty clear.

Aaaaaand... that makes me wonder, whether or not there is actually gonna be some commentary about the different ranks within vampire society.

Let me explain: All vampires with voicelines (or, heck, NAMES) within the original Castlevania series were nobles of some sort. It was what in other franchises would be called Vampire Lords. Well, with the exception of Ratko, that is, who explicitly is a soldier. Most of the vampire soldiers are just faceless characters with the same four designs repeating over and over. They are just the canon fodder who dies, when the heroes need their action scenes. But... That always made me wonder what vampire society actually looked like for these people.

And given the time this is now set in... and that Orlox is apparently indigenous... I kinda doubt that he is a vampire lord, given the times. If we have the vampire nobility being actual nobility... They gotta be racist, right?

Maybe I am just conjecturing too much here. But... That would actually make for an interesting idea.

Also, also... In the original show there is not a single Black or Arabian vampire. Which is also... interesting. Just saying.

We also know that the main antagonist seems to be Erzsebet Báthory (rather than Shaft or Dracula, though obviously this could also be the trailer trying to mislead us).

Fun Fact: Did you know that there is two vampires in the Castlevania games based on historical serial killers, who these days are both presumed to have been innocent? (Bathory and de Rais.)

This is something where I am super interested to see, where they are going to go with the character. Because there definitely is this historical assumption these days that she might have been innocent - and man would that make for a more interesting character than her being actually just a child murderer.

We so far see too little of her to really speculate much. But I definitely find it interesting that they have chosen her as the antagonist.

Also... There is this whole thing of Vampire Messiah and all of that going on and blocking out the sun and what not. And I kinda do wonder if anyone is gonna go like: "Uhm, yeah, without a sun we cannot grow shit and everyone is gonna starve, including vampires!"

Other more short form thoughts:

We see this night creature apparently saving Annette from a vampire or other night creature. What's up with that? Or is it even a night creature? We definitely see night creatures in that big eclipse scene, but there issomething else that might be going on here. Because...

Admittedly, the one vampire I have trouble placing in my theory is this one. She does seem to be on the side of Bathory in this based on everything we see in the trailer. From all I can find, she does not have a name as far as I could find. But she does fight Annette and all of that. And she definitely is Black, making me wonder what her story is.

BUUUUUT... If you look at her full design in the scene where she is fighting Annette, she looks remarkably like the night creature saving Annette in the above screenshot. So...

We see those masked figures in the trailer, with the clear implication that they are vampires. And last night (well, European night that is) someone on one of the servers was like: "Hey, is the blond masked guy Alucard with short hair?" And I originally brushed it off. But... I also think now they might be right, because he has normal ears and not poity vampire ears. And that is only something we saw in Alucard so far (not that we see a ton of his ears - which made me to always assume for my fics he has pointy ears, but I crossreferenced the models and yeah, no, Alucard has normal ears). So, either this is Alucard... or some other dhampir. Probably not a full-blooded vampire though.

In this one shot of what seems to be Annette using her magic, we see that she has a Fleur-de-lis either painted, tattooed or branded on her right hand. And I gotta wonder what is up with that. Given that she is a freed/runaway slave, I do wonder whether she has some ties to the royal family in one way or another?

We do see Maria summon what clearly looks like Byakku. And I am wondering how they are gonna go about Maria's powerset. Because it is another thing were the games do not have a ton of story happening. She summons beasts that are strictly linked to East Asian mythology, even though she is not from East Asia because of... reasons. I certainly hope she is gotta get more of a reason to do so here. (Especially given her entire Ninja-thing in Symphony, that made about as much sense lol Please note: I love game!Maria. It is just kinda a hilarious "Japanese games will do this" thing to me.)

We do not see a ton of Tera using magic in the trailer. Buuuuut in this scene she uses ice magic and definitely uses the same hand sign for it Sypha uses. She also vaguely has the same color scheme (blue and black) as the speakers do. And the same blue eyes like Sypha. Is she related to the speakers somehow? (And given the role that the Romani people also kinda had in terms of the revolution: Will we just stick with the speakers taking over the roles of Sinti and Roma?)

What is going on in this scene?

I mean, we definitely see Richter using magic in the trailer (which still makes a ton of sense to me, given he is gonna be as much of a descendent of Sypha as he is of Trevor). But this... does kinda seem as if he might have something more than just normal magic going on there.

Also: I just adore that half of the trailer Richter is crying. Someone hug this poor boy.

Finally: I sure hope it will keep up the gay levels of the series so far xD

[sophieinwonderland]

Stop Posting Hate and Disinformation in Endogenic Tags!

Does it? Are you sure? Because that's a really bold way to start off a post in a community with a lot of people who have PTSD!

But even bolder is this claim:

I would ask for the source for this, but I already know it.

Now, to be fair, there is a lot of wiggle room where some can argue semantics of what an "alter" is.

Luckily, today we aren't arguing semantics, as they made it clear in a comment that they don't believe endogenic systems are experiencing any sort of plurality! Yay!

Now, back to their claims... it's true that most evidence of any forms of consciousness in psychology is based on believing people's personal experiences.

Psychology is distinct from neuroscience in this way. Hopefully, we can get neurological evidence too. Stanford University was conducting an fMRI study into tulpamancers. But that study isn't complete yet.

But it is worth noting that practically every researcher who has looked into endogenic and non-disordered plurality do believe it's a real phenomena.

As mentioned above, Stanford University has invested anywhere from tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars into a neurological study of tulpamancers.

The ICD-11 by the World Health Organization states that you can have multiple "distinct personality states" without a disorder.

The creators of the theory of structural dissociation have said that hypnosis and spiritual mediumship may create "self-conscious dissociated parts of the personality."

Transgender Mental Health by Eric Yarbrough has an entire chapter discussing plurality, including acknowledging non-disordered and endogenic plurality. Eric Yarbrough is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and this book was published by APA Publishing.

And these are but a few.

Psychiatrists and psychologists overwhelming support the existence of endogenic plurality.

Is there any reason for the human brain to just randomly decide to be a singlet?

Why do the 80-billion neurons in the human brain just decide to be one person? Why is a singlet treated as inherently the default for humanity?

Total side tangent, but not all alters fit neatly into the ANP/EP dichotomy. The thing that defines an ANP is not simply being dissociated from the trauma, but trying to continue on with normal life and avoid it. Hence, being "apparently normal."

Many alters though, just don't fit into that as described. I would argue that a non-traumagenic alter who never fronts isn't really an ANP according to the Theory of Structural Dissociation.

Yup. That's why I'm responding to this. Your post is nothing but misinformation.

Most words have etymology in other cultures. Hurricane, for example, comes from an indigenous religion that referred to storm gods. This is a natural process as cultures interact.

For the record, "tulpamancy" IS created headmates. The term "tulpamancy" is purely Western, with the -mancy suffix originating in Latin. And whether you like it or not, the ongoing studies into tulpamancy will be into this Western practice, not the Tibetan sprul pa from which it draws its etymology.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

Although if you have a single credible source proving that endogenic plurality can't exist, you're welcome to show me.

You: "Stay out of DID/OSDD spaces" Also You: *Tags post as "#endogenic" and "#endogenic systems"*

Anyway, as always, anti-endos coming into endogenic tags means the response goes to anti-endo tags. If anti-endos do not like me posting in their tags, please take a moment to explain to @frenzyborderlines why crosstagging into our spaces is bad (and incredibly hypocritical from someone telling endogenic systems to stay out of CDD spaces) so I won't need to do this again.

[djuvlipen]

Difference between "Romani"/"Roma" and "Romanian"

I decided to make this post because a lot of people get Romanians and Roma mixed up. It's something that's pretty common, even among Europeans who are more familiar with Roma than Americans are.

"Romanian" comes from latin "romanus", meaning "Roman", inhabitant of the city of Rome (Italy). Romanians are a white people indigenous to (Eastern) Europe living in Romania.

"Roma" (noun) and "Romani" (adjective) mean "people" in Romani language. It probably comes from Sanskrit "ḍoma", which refers to a traveling caste of musicians. Roma are a South Asian diaspora that traveled through the MENA region for about two centuries before arriving in Europe in the Middle Ages.

Many people get Romanian and Romani confused because of the following reasons:

the names are similar: this is true but coincidental, as "Romanian" comes from Latin and "Romani" comes from Sanskrit, and both words have very different meanings

Romania has the largest Romani community in Europe: this is true. The reason is that, upon entering Europe in the Middle Ages, the Roma that arrived in Romania were enslaved and couldn't move out of the country. The slavery of Roma in Romania lasted 500 years. After it ended, in the mid. 19th century, the majority of those Roma remained in Romania, though a few of them migrated to America and to Western Europe.

TL;DR

The Romanians are indigenous to Europe. The Roma are indigenous to India.

Romanians are usually Orthodox Christians. Roma can be of any religion, typically converting to the dominant religion of the region we settled in.

Romanian culture (singular) is a unique culture that was influenced by its proximity to Slavic, Greek, Hungarian, German cultures. Romani cultures (plural) are of South Asian origin and were shaped over the centuries by our travelling through the Middle East and Europe.

Romanians live in Romania. Roma don't have a particular country.

The reason many Roma live in Romania is because Romania has a long history of anti-Romani racism and slavery.

Romanians often suffer from xenophobia when living abroad because they are (white) Eastern Europeans. Roma suffer from racism and xenophobia: we are a brown people whose cultures are very identifiable as non-European. As such, we have suffered and still suffer segregation, police brutality, ghettoization, slavery, pogroms, slaughters, discrimination in the workplace and in education. Anti-Romani racism is still the most widespread form of racism in all European countries to this day.

The majority of Roma, especially those living in Eastern Europe, ie around 2/3rds of Roma, are visibly brown, because of our mixed ancestry (South Asian + MENA), though some groups can be lighter due to interracial marriages with white people. It's the case of the British Roma, in particular.

Our traditions, culture and belief system evolved with us from India through the Middle East to Europe. It is thus pretty recognizable as "non-European" and has been used to identify us as "others/foreigners" over the centuries. FYI, there is not one single and unique Romani culture, because cultural beliefs and practices, as well as religion and Romani language dialect can vary a lot between each Romani group. To make it more intelligible, I invite you to think of the larger Romani diaspora as one race that is composed of a manifold of Romani ethnic groups.

Romanian

Romani (adjective) / Roma (noun)

(I have more of these in my "Roma" tag)

Roma =/= Romanian. Romanians are European while Roma are a South Asian diaspora. While Romanians do suffer xenophobia when living in Western Europe and America, anti-Romani sentiment is a type of racism widespread in all of Europe and America. It's particularly important to know the difference between Roma and Romanian, as Romania has a very long history of racism against Roma: slavery, segregation, ghettos, genocide.