Midnight Owl

Native American understandings

85 posts in this topic

I see no correlation between Bigfoot and American Indians.

 

With that said, I definitely see the injustices done to the American Indian, even to this day. In a way? They are still POW's in a war they lost. Hostile tribes are often shoved onto the same reservation or adjoining ones. Most tribes do not reside in ancestoral home lands. And through treaty after treaty their reservations have been whittled down to nothing.

 

A example is the northern Cheyenne and Crow in SE Montana. The Crow acted as scouts for the US cavalry and the Cheyenne fought with the Sioux against the Crow and US. 

 

I dont agree with some modern Indian practices like gill netting or shooting 10 deer when you only need 2.

 

But ultimately they were here first, and I do respect that. I also respect their right to their own culture and beliefs. And they were an amazing people to start in the Stone Age and within a couple of hundred years advance to the space age. It has only been a little over 100 years since Ishi walked out of the forest. Amazing!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Yuchi1 said:

W,

 

The Europeans "won" because they had better technology (guns) and the biological edge (immunity to the diseases they deployed upon NA's) however, their historical behavior certainly illustrated they were not better human beings. Instead, they were just more technologically advanced predators and as such should not be surprised when they are eventually conquered and supplanted. 

 

The continuing march of tribal sovereignty in this country as well as the same for Aboriginal rights in Australia indicates this process is taking more of a legal path instead of military force option as the Europeans originally chose.

 

You know that you're at the end of your rope when your argument is they were "better human beings". 

7 hours ago, norseman said:

I see no correlation between Bigfoot and American Indians.

 

Would Kathy Strain agree with your assessment?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

W,

 

Nowhere did I say NA's were "better human beings", rather the Europeans were worse human beings by virtue of how they dealt with people possessing less technology. Just as professional persons are held to a higher standard of accountability than lay persons, so should those with more advanced technology be so held. That's Human Rights 101.

 

N,

 

IMO, the correlation of treatment for NA's (historically) and Sasquatch (today) has a parallel that is clearly evident. 

 

What are you going to say/do when after forensic examination of the body you brought in (with a bullet hole in it) reveals the "human DNA contamination" excuse is not really contamination after all? Dr. Ketchum's work and words would then prove prophetic and "bite" quite a few people in their smug arses,

 

Food for thought.

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never bring a sasquatch in with a bullet hole in it. I don't believe in the Kill Club approach.

 

Nor would I ever share a picture or video or other evidence I had as I would prefer sasquatches remain undiscovered.

 

If I were a betting man, and I'm not, I would bet that we will eventually learn that a sasquatch has it's own unique hair and their DNA is entirely, or almost entirely, human.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

If I were a betting man, and I'm not, I would bet that we will eventually learn that a sasquatch has it's own unique hair and their DNA is entirely, or almost entirely, human.

 

You may have already won your bet, wiiawiwb. If you were a betting man that is ;)

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

You know that you're at the end of your rope when your argument is they were "better human beings". 

 

Would Kathy Strain agree with your assessment?

 

Look at the atrocities committed by the Comanche, not just against whites but other tribes as well. Cruelty is a trait that doesn't follow ethnicity. Were Northern Europeans treated well by invading Romans, Huns and Mongols? No of course not. Both sides of the same coin.

 

Kathy? What I'm saying is that I see no correlation in how Europeans treated American Indians and Bigfoot. Bigfoot is a creature that lives in the forests of North America we cannot even find. And not a entity we could wage war with directly, trade with, negotiate with or sign treaties as we did with Indians. It acts more like an animal than a tribe of Indians no matter what it is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N,

 

Negotiating with NA tribes as sovereign nations (Treaty of Fort Laramie, Black Hills, et al) and then breaking them via belligerent action (the convenient discovery of gold in the Black Hills via Custer's "expedition"), is a basic tenet of tort liability (civil law) and human rights violations (criminal law) and where the pattern of Bad Faith dealings by the Europeans is firmly established in history and should not be forgotten or worse, swept under the academic rug for purposes of expediency.

 

As higher primates with the capacity for abstract thought, deductive reasoning and opposable thumbs, we are nonetheless still "animals". Given the fact Sasquatch has apparently chosen to refrain from interaction with us is compelling evidence they too possess the attributes described above.

 

When/if DNA and other forms of forensic evidence do conclude "they" are basically another form/tribe of "us", people like Ketchum will be vindicated and those opposed to her findings will look extremely foolish, if not worse.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yuchi1 said:

When/if DNA and other forms of forensic evidence do conclude "they" are basically another form/tribe of "us", people like Ketchum will be vindicated and those opposed to her findings will look extremely foolish, if not worse.

 

Maybe the underlined is better worded as, "Should DNA and other forms of forensic evidence"......? Yes, it's semantics but semantics do have a way of playing a large part sometimes, no?

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not oppose Ketchum because she thinks Sasquatch are human hybrids.

 

I will accept a legit DNA study and results no matter what they say.

 

Without a doubt Bigfoot will be related to us, the question then becomes how close?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually a very good question. It is because there have been some past indications that even with the odd looking hair folks have reported the creature's actions and general physique is much closer to Human than gorilla. I tell ya, Norseman, if this being turns out to be as close to us as some folks say then the fact that it has been able to survive on little if any technology for this long and still elude us? It just makes for a danged remarkable capacity for managing it's life. If I turns out to be close to us and the lid comes off that it exists? well, I can't even imagine that day for our own species. Mind blowing just to think about it which is what I try to wrap my mind around every time I watch a stabilized version of the PGF. 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites