Planned border wall blocks Tiguas from sacred grounds

[BS Hater]

Bikerknight wrote:

BS Hater,
It is quite possible that you do not understand or are discounting the nature and origin of law within a free society. Regardless of whether or not you agree with a particular law, most of the legal "thou shalt nots" did not originate in western legal traditions as means of protecting people from themselves.

I never attacked the source of this drug policy. I would say that is all but irrelevant. Knowing the past is important, but having the vision for the future probably more so, but at least as much. If these laws are not working, let's put our noggins to work and do something better. Ideally, that's how government is supposed to adapt.

Bikerknight wrote:

Now that we have devolved to the point where the taxpayer knows he will be required to pick up the tab for cleaning up the personal messes people make of their lives, we have a justified role to play. Sadly, even we who ought to be disinterested now have a stake in limiting the likely price tag of the group life insurance policy we are taking out on the worthless and weak among us.

I think you just argued in my favor. I don't accept this devolution as a hopeless end.

Bikerknight wrote:

As for your proposed solutions, you are welcome to your opinion, but you have just gone back on yourself by suggesting that the laws we should repeal only egg people on while the laws you intend to create will be respected and have the intended effect; despite th fact that the laws we now have are uneffective.

Sounds like flawed logic to me.'if this is not working, why try something else'? Well, as far as I can tell, the reason is fear of change. IMO, the slower the change, the more painful the turnaround will be if things keep going the way they are.

Bikerknight wrote:

In truth, we began to lose the drug war the instant we tried to villify the pusher/supplier and understand the addict.
Peace Out.

I agree. Although regardless of whether someone believes that it's a lost war or not, it will never be a "won" war.

[NewEagle]

Bikerknight wrote:

All of you who propose and counterpropose about legalizing and taxing the drug trade are really dreaming. Not only is this an overly simplistic perception of the problem, but there are some pretty good reasons for outlawing some of these drugs. Drug addiction is not something most parents wish for their newborns as they gaze upon them in their cradles during the first week at home.
The second issue is that nowhere in our society do you see government (state, local, or federal), backing its way out of our lives in favor of trusting to the responsibility that comes hand in hand with liberty. In other words, the same legislators who are now sending policemen to step up their invasion of your personal driving safety choices (seatbelt or no seatbelt) are not likely to legalize drugs, the taxable value of which would be very low indeed.
Oh, and neoCONs,
This is not about land the Tiguas own, it is about access to the river for religious observances. Trust me, give these cigar store indians their casino back and they will never even remember they had a religion.

Well, I stand corrected. Texas has one, somewhat smart, bigot.

[NewEagle]

phu q wrote:

these 1/256 injuns are actually illegals. i heard they sell crack too. take them all to the pilgrims pride plant and make them cut chickens

Nope, tell no sign of intelligence from this one.

[Bikerknight]

BS Hater,
You said words to the effect that outlawing drug use and trafficking only romanticizes the actions and makes rebellious persons more likely to try their luck or defy the law. Then you proposed new, harsher penalties against driving while screwed up on whatever, and stated that you were pretty sure that would fix everything.
The flawed logic is yours, my friend.
Trying to reduce all of this down to "if this is not working why try something else?" is more than a little disingenuous, don't you think.

[BS Hater]

Bikerknight wrote:

BS Hater,
You said words to the effect that outlawing drug use and trafficking only romanticizes the actions and makes rebellious persons more likely to try their luck or defy the law. Then you proposed new, harsher penalties against driving while screwed up on whatever, and stated that you were pretty sure that would fix everything.
The flawed logic is yours, my friend.
Trying to reduce all of this down to "if this is not working why try something else?" is more than a little disingenuous, don't you think.

It's not too important. Maybe we misunderstood each other, maybe not. Either way, my whole argument in a nutshell is that something about it needs to change. I said I was "all but completely convinced", only a fool would be certain. Yes, I will admit I trust a change in drug laws to the effect of punishing more harshly the related crimes, as opposed to the substance possessions, would have a positive effect compared to what we have now. Keep in mind that charging somebody for causing harm due to negligence can be a very open ended deal. Also, I don't think I ever said that the appeal of the illegal factor is the "only" thing the ban does. If I did, I didn't mean to, but I don't think I did. What I believe is that it contributes to it.

[Bikerknight]

NewEagle,

These people have lived here, sometimes more and sometimes less as a people for over three hundred years. They came here with the Spaniards as the Peublo revolt swept them from modern day New Mexico. They have been here since, knowing they could not return to their homelands because they had betrayed their neighboring clans by siding with the Spaniards. I think, among you Plains NAs, they would be called "hangs around the forts". There is, in fact, nothing here that could have original sacredness to them because they left that behind in NM. They claim the land they claim on the basis of a land grant from the Spanish King. They have lived here since the 18th Century in the shadows of Spanish Catholic Mission Churches, speaking Spanish, baptising their children as Catholics, and relying primarily on the protection of the Missionaries when times were rough and governments changed hands.
Doesn't make a convincing case for a people with its own language, culture, and borders. It was in this context that I called them "Cigar Store Indians". I am neither a bigot, nor am I ashamed of this characterization of them. I bear them no ill will, but neither do I reserve any respect for them as a people. As individuals... that's determined one at a time.

[NewEagle]

Bikerknight,
First, I'm not Plains, my people are from the southeast.
Second, what the heck is "original sacredness"? And just who do you think should get to label what is or is not sacred in native spirituality? Is it majority rules? Christian vs. non-Christian? Rock, paper, scissors?
From what I understand, all the Tiguas are asking for is to be allowed to worship where they want to worship. Can you imagine what would happen if a developer wanted to tear a church down (through eminent domain) and build a shopping center? Church members would go nuts! And I bet the public and local government wouldn't allow it either. BUT because it is a bunch of Indians, who cares, right?
Besides, a fence will not stop the flow of illegals. As long as there is a reason for them to come here (jobs, healthcare...) they will find a way up, over, around, under, through...no fence will stop they. Only heavy fines and jail time for those who hire them will stop the illegals from crossing the border.

Bikerknight wrote:

They have lived here since the 18th Century in the shadows of Spanish Catholic Mission Churches, speaking Spanish, baptising their children as Catholics, and relying primarily on the protection of the Missionaries when times were rough and governments changed hands.
Doesn't make a convincing case for a people with its own language, culture, and borders. It was in this context that I called them "Cigar Store Indians". I am neither a bigot, nor am I ashamed of this characterization of them. I bear them no ill will, but neither do I reserve any respect for them as a people. As individuals... that's determined one at a time.

What doesn't make a convincing case? Doing whatever it takes to make sure your people survive at the hands of their invaders doesn't count for anything? So they did what they did to survive. They were told to assimilate or died. Well, guess what? They're still here and I know that just that fact alone pisses some people off. Deal with it. You may not be a bigot but your words show signs of hostilities.

I was taught to give everyone my respect. It is up to the individual whether they continue to receive it or not.

[Bikerknight]

NewEagle,
As to choice of place of worship, buy the land for the worship site and it is yours, subordinate, of course to the local, state and federal governments' right of eminent domain. The right of eminent domain is in fact what is at question here. The border fence is likely to be the only story any of us have read related to eminent domain in which the right is being used according to its original intent.
Oh, it the "THE FENCE WILL NOT STOP ILLEGALS" defense.
not alone, of course. Any military training will tell you that for an obstacle to be effective, it must be overwatched (best method is by fire, but there are others). Obviously, there are other measures that must be taken and I have discussed them elsewhere. If the fence won't stop illegals, why are the Sierra weenies insisting that birds won't be able to nest anymore because of it. You guys just make no sense. If it won't work, you should be happy- the Tiguas will be able to go worship the filthy water whenever they wish.
As to giving respect: if you continue to truly respect people (or a people) who have proven to your satisfaction that they do not deserve it, then you ruly are either a better man than I or a dupe.
As for any hostility, when they had there illegal gambling operation running, they set their lawyers to work trying to regain mineral rights to lands they had never controlled, done nothing to develop, and represented huge investments on behalf of others for centuries. None of it included rights that were mine, but since we were all told so emphatically that NAs never believed anyone could own the land, I thought that was just a bit too much.

[NewEagle]

Bikerknight,

Don’t you like to assume a lot? First, you assume that I’m from a Plains tribe when I’m Chahta. Then you assume that I’m a man when I’m a woman. You do like to jump to conclusions, don’t you? Or is it you’re so closed minded other possibilities don’t occur to you?

You want a fence? Build a fence...but allow the Tiguas access to where they want to do their ceremonies, it’s called a GATE. And the people who watch over such things are called GUARDS. In other words, there is a solution, if you are willing and want one. Everything I’m hearing from everyone is that they don’t give a crap.

The Tiguas are not forcing you to participant in their ceremonies, why the snotty comment about “worship the filthy water”? It seems you can be intolerant, also.

Bikerknight wrote:

As to giving respect: if you continue to truly respect people (or a people) who have proven to your satisfaction that they do not deserve it, then you ruly are either a better man than I or a dupe.

Yes, I guess I would have to say I am a better “man” than you. Example, I am not a Christian yet I have respect for the Christian people in general, even though I have witness and experience some of the most foulest of human behavior from a few of them. I realize there is good and bad in every group. To condemn a people (as a whole) on the actions of a few is absurd.

If you don’t like how Indians do things then just remember who made those rules. And remember just who we have been watching and learning from.

Well, it seems I have come full circle. I’m right back to thinking that Texas just might have bigger than average bigots...

[skz]

die idiots wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot one thing though, they are not sterile. They also come here to create people with citizenship rights which they often don't have the income to properly raise. A steady supply of gang members, taggers and other bottom feeding lame brains with full rights is the last thing we need. That is the most important argument against illegal immigration that some people seem to miss. It's a socio-economic issue. It is also spitting in the face of the people throughout the world who go through the proper process to live in this country. How do illegal immigrants feel about wiping their ass with the efforts of those people? They don't give a damn, of course.

all the best taggers have been either white or black

Europeans stole the land. Their afraid its coming back around again.

[Bikerknight]

NewEagle,
Have you seen the water in the Rio Grande? It is filthy. Trust me, I used to hunt dove down there- you could get me to wade into that river if you threw chets of gold into it.

The purpose of the great wailing about the Tigua's ceremonial needs and all of the other objections was not to find solutions, but to insist that the fence that is mandated by federal law not be built because of local priorities. I believe gates had been mentioned on the forum. No problem with gates, but that was not the demanded solution.

Believe it or not, I thought about the "better man" comment before I wrote it; it is just an expression, get over it and yourself.

And because it seems you cannot figure it out; there is a huge difference between "condemning" and entire people and deciding that you will not participate in the near worship of a failed society.

Whatever else you want to say about orginal causes, extenuating circumstances, or mitigating factors, when you see themin their current state, you realize tha they are nothing more than another population willing to live on the government dole. That is not noble, it is not brave; it is weak. There may well be many very interesting and talented individuals among them, but as a people, they have run their course.

Your own bigotry is not difficult to sniff out either. It must be nice to have many choices as to on whom you can blame all of your problems; being a white male with no homosexual tendencies, I can't get away with that.