Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

441

Has anyone else had to sit through a Zoom meeting that started with something called a "land statement"? I just did. The person running it is based in LA. There was a whole spiel about how they're "standing on the ground" in Los Angeles. (Which was stupid - they were sitting in a chair) and LA is home to the most indigenous people in the US.

This MUST mean they're counting mestizos as indigenous, because there are almost no Tongva people, actually pre-Columbus inhabitants of SoCal, left alive. They almost all died out and the rest mostly assimilated and intermarried. So they're not only letting spics claim some kind of general brown people oppression. They also want us to treat Mexican groups the same way we treat Native Americans.

Call me crazy, Native Americans get some privileges because the US gov't fucked them over for so long and lied in treaties. Mexican indigenous groups can't claim that. Why would we fucking make a statement about how great and special and important they are before what amounts to a work training?

Why are all of these retarded faggots in charge?

Has anyone else had to sit through a Zoom meeting that started with something called a "land statement"? I just did. The person running it is based in LA. There was a whole spiel about how they're "standing on the ground" in Los Angeles. (Which was stupid - they were sitting in a chair) and LA is home to the most indigenous people in the US. This MUST mean they're counting mestizos as indigenous, because there are almost no Tongva people, actually pre-Columbus inhabitants of SoCal, left alive. They almost all died out and the rest mostly assimilated and intermarried. So they're not only letting spics claim some kind of general brown people oppression. They also want us to treat Mexican groups the same way we treat Native Americans. Call me crazy, Native Americans get some privileges because the US gov't fucked them over for so long and lied in treaties. Mexican indigenous groups can't claim that. Why would we fucking make a statement about how great and special and important they are before what amounts to a work training? Why are all of these retarded faggots in charge?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (7).
[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Well there are some groups like the Mixtec that aren't really that mixed. Mexico does have Indians even now.

Also: it's not all rape? In Canada and the US a lot of early fur traders formed families with native women. It was very hard to get European women, especially from good families & with good reputations, to go all the way from the UK or France to the New World. Also, some chiefs were willing to form alliances and what better way than to essentially marry your daughter off to one of the newcomers. Now they're family, they're incentivized to get along with you.

I don't know as much about the South American context. Of course there was rape, there's always some rape, right? It's the human condition that some people do that. But there also had to be some real family-style relationships happening. Because again, no women were going to be really eager to go far away from their family, catch a tropical disease and die in childbirth without so much as a priest around to give them last rites. Women tend to look much more for stability than for adventure.

That's what disturbs me about the whole discourse lately. It's all REEEE I'M A VICTIM. And this is like white people claiming a bunch of people who don't even exist anymore (tribes from SoCal) are still there and still important. If they don't have that group they'll reclassify someone else into it, just to get their SJW fix. It's fucking bizarre.

[–] • 1 pt

The French and Spanish (Catholics) intermarried with the AmerInd. Not only for the reason you mention, but because it was not forbidden piously. The English however did not and it was considered a taboo. During this era, the 7th Commandment was understood to mean 'not to racially adulterate'. The interpretation can be easily verified.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

The British definitely formed families with them and typically went back home to formally marry a white girl after several years. There's a famous case in Canada where the son of a white guy brought a case against his Dad. IIRC they made him pay support to his former common law wife.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

That's not what I said though. I said it was it was considered taboo by the English. This was due to their religious mores. There were indeed instances of intermarriage, but these English were chiefly ostracized within the community. Contrarily, with both the French and Spanish, it was far more prevalent. Both these countries were heavily influenced by Catholicism, which teaches the 'Universal man' doctrine. This was not prevalent in England and several other northern European nations.

[–] • 0 pt

I thought we were talking about mexico