Comment

Comment by S.F. Zeigler on May 5, 2011 at 6:41pm

The Secotans were one of eight groups of Native Americans dominant in the Carolina sound region, between 1584 and 1590, with which English colonizers had varying degrees of contact. Other local groups included the Aquascogoc, Chowanoke, Chesapeake, Dasamongueponke, Weapemeoc, Moratuc, Ponouike, Neusiok, and Mangoak, and all resided along the banks of the Albemarle and Pamlico sounds.

Comment by S.F. Zeigler on May 5, 2011 at 6:31pm

I'm of Secotan ancestry and I am an Atheist. Now that I've gotten that off my shoulders lets party. aloha -Z

Comment by Kevin Ray Smith on March 19, 2011 at 4:05am

@ Blade of the Bunny, that is one of the reasons that I started this group. I have met many other NDNs that are atheists but many are reluctant to be open about it. I have Cherokee and Fox in my blood and it is always nice to meet others NDNs who are atheists as well. It is also nice to meet those who love NDNs(hope ya don't mind if I use that). I am happy to see that this group is growing.

Comment by TNT666 on March 7, 2011 at 4:04am

I'd like to see the definition of Thanksgiving reclaimed. I like the non-pilgrim aspects of it, the land an fertility and harvest aspects.

Comment by Jedi Wanderer on March 7, 2011 at 12:33am

@Hanna: Geez we're probably related. I was born in Houston. But probably everyone there has some Cherokee in their blood. I guess that's one way to destroy a people - breeding them out.

Comment by Blade Of The Bunny on February 24, 2011 at 8:57pm

I'm pleased this group exists. I'm what's considered full blood, comprised of five known tribes. Choctaw, Hupa, Chickasaw, Yurok, and Chimariko. 

 

I did a google search sometime back for NDNs and atheist and nothing came up so I'm glad to no longer be "the only one."

 

I look forward to seeing the group grow and see what discussions arise from this.

Comment by Jim DePaulo on February 2, 2011 at 9:01pm

Frog said, "
"I like the Canadian approach, with their 'First Nations.' "
How about the "Founding People" or "Founding Nations"?
@ Jack, You are right about the paucity of information in American history covering the indigenous nations.
What is taught is a crude caricature fostered by the entertainment industry's plot themes of “good guys – bad guys” conflict (guess who gets to be the bad guys). Unfortunately most history teachers have little or no knowledge of the histories and cultures that evolved over 12,000+ years before the Euro – trash showed up.
The best book I've read on pre-Columbian history is 1491 by Charles Mann, it's well written and extremely well documented and it's material that one certainly never heard in their American history classes.

Comment by TNT666 on January 25, 2011 at 3:33pm

Well, until I get a genetic trace on my blood I can't be sure, but most of us with "Acadien" ancestry have some Mi'kmaq genes. I too like the distinction of First Nations. The word 'native' is so vague and not much more inspiring than 'indian' or 'savage' or 'indigenous'. Now that I live in a circumpolar region, where we hold circumpolar athletic competitions, I am always fascinated by the strong linkages between all these Inuit people who speak nearly the same language and practice similar sports and look so alike, beyond such vast international borders. Whitehorse, where I live presently, is at the extreme Southern limits of Dene peoples, which are also culturally distinct from other First Nations.

 

My roommate last year was guy born in Carcross, but his mother was an alcoholic and he was removed from his family and adopted by an Albertan Family and raised as a dark white kid who knew nothing of his past. He only finally met his biological family a couple of years ago. It's not always easy tho, to associate back to a different culture, when you're raised in a totally middle class "white bread" Christian family.

Comment by Jack Ryan on January 24, 2011 at 2:56pm

@Wanderer

Most of the native nations of Europe were assimilated long before the Vikings discovered Amerika. Almost 60% of the europeans descent from former germanic tribes like the Francs, Saxons, Angles, Lombards, Geats, or the very Vikings. The Vikings lived more in the southern parts of Scandinavia while the Sámi inhabit the arctic and sub-arctic regions. If Europe would have been conquered within a short period of time, the people been banished and pened up in reservations or even killed in mass like what's been done in Amerika, it would be well known I'm sure. In fact that's the case. Maybe barely known in the US, but it's history subject matter in schools here. The Roman Empire called the germanic peoples barbarians and savages. Maybe the movie Gladiator rings a bell?

 

If you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_people

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples

 

 

@The ]3ig ]3lue Frog

I like the Canadian approach, with their "First Nations." - me too

Comment by The Big Blue Frog on January 24, 2011 at 10:39am

Jack brings up a good point. Maybe we could change the name of the group to "Indigenous Peoples" or something like that?

 

I know that some American Indians do not like the term "Native Americans any more than "American Indians." Some actually prefer the latter, feeling that it has a historical context that is more positive than "native" which conjures images of bare-breasted savages.

 

I like the Canadian approach, with their "First Nations."

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page