How come no one is talking about the Immigration/Border situation?

[Oceanside]

I'm not sure what it has to with this thread, but when when I was around 17 I met a kid named Ace Muhammed. I brought him home for dinner and he stayed for a week. My Mom loved him becuase he insisted on doing the dishes and cleaning up even though he gently lectured her about the dangers of smoking.

He was a really cool kid and would clean his sparkling white Adidas every night. He was a teenage Muslim drifter, and I hated to see him go. That was 38 years ago, I'm pretty sure he affected me more than I ever affected him.

comedy gold

[ChazWood]

comedy gold

Dude, it's great that Bando is open with his feelings. That's healthy, man, and kinda beautiful.

[7Seconds]

The first tune I ever learned to play on a Geetar was "Wish You Were Here", I was 11-12 and had no clue who "Pink Floyd" was. I bought every tape and I wasn't even a fan, it's just my geetar teacher gave me a list of tunes he could teach me. While listening to "The Wall" for the first I realized, HOLY $HIT I've heard everyone of these in dads car as a little bugger.

I think the first riff I ever learned was Smoke on the Water actually, although I know the first song I ever learned was Sloop John B. And then the entire Ramones first album.

Also "Smoke On the Water" lsiten to the lyrics, it's all about Frank Zappa and Mothers palying in Switerland and a nut shot a flair onto the stage and burned it down, the the hall was on the waterfront, hence "Smoke on the Water". Frank lost all his equipment in the fire, then a within a year after that he was pushed off stage 15' into an orchestra pit, got fuked up pretty bad from it.

To be fair you kinda have to read between the lines:

We all came out to Montreux
On the Lake Geneva shoreline
To make records with a mobile
We didn't have much time
Frank Zappa and the Mothers
Were at the best place around
But some stupid with a flare gun
Burned the place to the ground

It is very cryptic. But some have suggested that the lyrics mean that the band went to Montreux on the Lake Geneva shoreline to make records with a mobile and that they didn't have much time. You might also guess that Frank Zappa and the Mothers were playing at the best place around when some stupid with a flare gun burned the place to the ground.

But most of that is conjuncture.

[7Seconds]

Dude, it's great that Bando is open with his feelings. That's healthy, man, and kinda beautiful.

I really do appreciate your positive outlook on pretty much everything. Something I need to work on.

[ChazWood]

I really do appreciate your positive outlook on pretty much everything. Something I need to work on.

Thanks brother, I'm trying to contribute something in exchange for the insight and inspiration gained here. Even if the lulz are often generated at my expense.

A simple, happy dude once told me: "life's what you make it", and while it's easy to be cynical and bitter, part of me still believes it's true.

[LWW]

To be fair you kinda have to read between the lines:



It is very cryptic. But some have suggested that the lyrics mean that the band went to Montreux on the Lake Geneva shoreline to make records with a mobile and that they didn't have much time. You might also guess that Frank Zappa and the Mothers were playing at the best place around when some stupid with a flare gun burned the place to the ground.

But most of that is conjuncture.

I have listened to that show, the one that burned down, it was damn good, very good intro. Frank had the best intros ever in concert music history, you'd get a dynamic experience of improvising for up to 20 minutes, then he'd introduce the band members as say "it's time to start the show".

When he got pushed off stage was the end of the old style Mothers and the short run of "floe and Eddie" (those guys from the Turtles) and probably one of the best drummers he ever had named Dunbar (Journey). A whole new band was formed and the music did change too, some say this new era of the Mothers was his most talented. George Duke was around for the later 1971 Floe and Eddie shows though.

[7Seconds]

Thanks brother, I'm trying to contribute something in exchange for the insight and inspiration gained here. Even if the lulz are often generated at my expense.

A simple, happy dude once told me: "life's what you make it", and while it's easy to be cynical and bitter, part of me still believes it's true.

When I was little my grandpa told me life is a plain boring sandbox so you can sit there and sh*t in the sand or you can make some castles and enjoy yourself. Pretty good advice.

I have listened to that show, the one that burned down, it was damn good, very good intro. Frank had the best intros ever in concert music history, you'd get a dynamic experience of improvising for up to 20 minutes, then he'd introduce the band members as say "it's time to start the show".

When he got pushed off stage was the end of the old style Mothers and the short run of "floe and Eddie" (those guys from the Turtles) and probably one of the best drummers he ever had named Dunbar (Journey). A whole new band was formed and the music did change too, some say this new era of the Mothers was his most talented. George Duke was around for the later 1971 Floe and Eddie shows though.

You inspired me to put on some Zappa tonight. Got to love when Sneaky Pete glides into his steel solo on It Just Might Be a One-Shot deal. That moment is a very unique one in the catalogue of Zappa. I have yet to hear another like it.

[LWW]

You inspired me to put on some Zappa tonight. Got to love when Sneaky Pete glides into his steel solo on It Just Might Be a One-Shot deal. That moment is a very unique one in the catalogue of Zappa. I have yet to hear another like it.

Waka Jawaka is an album I’ve only heard a few times, I look forward to a revisit of it. It’s excellent and that’s most I can remember, the track Waka Jawaka is the only one on that release i can hum in my head by memory as I’ve heard it live several other times.

[Bando]

When I was little my grandpa told me life is a plain boring sandbox so you can sit there and sh*t in the sand or you can make some castles and enjoy yourself. Pretty good advice.

What's his username, will rep.

When I was little my grampa snuck me into his bedroom becuase in his closet he had a FM radio and my Granma didn't want one in the house. We sat and listened to the far awayst thing we could find.

[mtpockets]

Hope they do a little Easter something for those young ones being held at the border.

[7Seconds]

But according to your philosophy, the Europeans' need for free movement supersedes the Native Americans' need to preserve their culture.

As I said last night the issue is the empty lands or ownership justification that is given not an idea that Native American culture was lost.


The popular US perception that Native Americans lost their land "because they didn't understand the concept of ownership” is a problem with how we were taught. Not only did Native Americans have their own varied notions of private (and public) property, transfer of ownership, etc., but they also had their own history of treaties, exchanges, resettlements & conquests of American lands long before the Europeans arrived.

In actuality it was the Europeans who refused to recognize Native American sovereignty, title and property rights. It came to be called the "discovery doctrine," and it was spelled out by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823, by which point it was already a long-established principle & practice in law, going back to the first colonies.

Add to that the modern conception of the Native Americans is of post contact, when most indigenous societies had been massively screwed up, mostly from the population crash.

I've heard the expression that the natives we think of are post apocalyptic survivors of the previous societies. Especially for the mid west and east coast where by the time settlers came, entire generations have lived and died in the shadow of dead cities.

New England was incredibly densely populated (we know this from eyewitness accounts from traders, fisherman, hunters, etc. who visited the region before the area was decimated by disease) from basically the top of Maine down to the Carolinas.

Then in the Southeast we've got what's been called the Missisippian culture (also known as Mound Builders), with the largest city of Cahokia having up to 40,000 people living there. That's larger than the population of Rome in 1200 AD, larger than the population of London, and almost as big as Venice--there may have been several hundred mounds in the Southeast and Midwest. The sheer number of people required to move that much earth points to a high population density, even if they're not all congregated in large cities.

Even with the population collapse, Mexico city was larger than London when the Spanish came. But we don't think of the farmers of Mexico or Arizona, or the mound builders when we speak of the natives. We think of plains tribes riding horses and hunting buffalo.

And that’s the issue, people think of them being neolithic hunters rather than being farmers and builders with infrastructure and vast cities and complex works.





Like most things there is no black and white answer. These arguments are usually ignorant ramblings against equally (or more so) ignorant ramblings in service of the "noble savage" myth. It's like you have kids that see things in black and white and naturally think the "us" (in the US, this is basically and typically...the US and its precursor colonies) is the good guy of the story.

Then we learn a bit more, we learn of the virtual genocide of Native Americans and instead of using this opportunity to maybe realize things aren't black and white, we just change who the good guy is: now it's the Native Americans and their noble savage aura.

Then we learn a bit more and realize that it wasn't that cut-and-dry: Native Americans did engage in war, did believe in land ownership, etc. We could again use this as an opportunity to realize that black and white is ridiculous, but no, we just change who the good guy is again.

So we just keep changing who the heroes and villains of the story are, instead of realizing that this story doesn't have such things.

[eomrat]

Like most things there is no black and white answer. .

What is the question?

[7Seconds]

What is the question?

Poor wording on my part. The idea of settlement, conquest, genocide, etc. is not black or white. Although going by the UN legal definition of genocide it certainly was.

[mtpockets]

There are more than 20,000 unaccompanied migrant children in US custody, according to the latest government data, marking a new high as the Biden administration announces a string of sites to accommodate kids.

As of Tuesday, there were 4,228 unaccompanied children in the custody of Customs and Border Protection, an agency not generally prepared to care for children for prolonged periods, and 16,045 children in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees a shelter network.

[7Seconds]

OK, I wasn’t going to do this but pockets bumped the thread and I am bored.

The idea that Indigenous people had no concept of land ownership is a myth. Some Native peoples had different ideas than Europeans about how land ownership functioned, but this myth does not come from that fact alone. Instead, the idea that Natives didn't really own their land is a very intentional one of colonialism, and it starts with a policy called the Doctrine of Discovery.

The Doctrine of Discovery was a legal principle in Europe established primarily by the Pope. However, it was also respected and utilized by Protestant nations. The Doctrine of Disocvery laid out a legal method (from the European point of view) of claiming Indigenous lands. Under this framework, the first Europeans to 'discover' a land automatically obtain exclusive right to own that land. Indigenous inhabitants automatically lose the full ownership of their lands after first discovery and also lose the right to free trade (being supposed to rely instead on Europeans as middle men) and international diplomacy. This applied not just to the people who the Europeans first met, but to anyone who lived in contiguous territories - for example, if the Europeans 'discovered' the mouth of the river, their rights under the Doctrine of Discovery applied to all the lands drained by that river.

There were several criteria Europeans could apply to determine that the previous occupants of a land were not capable of asserting land ownership under the Doctrine of Discovery. Non-Christians did not have the right to land ownership nor did anyone using or governing the land in a fashion that European legal systems recognised. See the Catch-22 there? The European legal systems didn't recognise Indigenous land ownership as having any meaningful permanence because the European legal system had decided it wasn't worth recognising. Any land they didn't deem already owned (so, all Indigenous land) was legally terra nullius, or land that belonged to no one and was free for the taking. As you can see, this game was rigged from the start.

The US Supreme Court has upheld elements of the Doctrine of Discovery many times over the years. In Johnson v. M'Intosh, the court confirmed that 'first discovery' automatically transferred some sovereign and property rights to Euro-Americans. US presidents have invoked the Doctrine of Discovery, such as Thomas Jefferson telling Lewis and Clark to use its principles to claim all the land they found on their expedition. The Doctrine of Discovery was at the forefront of the development of Manifest Destiny, the belief that Americans were ordained by God to take the entire continent. They understood the Doctrine as a legally sound justification for their continued expansion into Native lands in the West. John O'Sullivan, the first journalist to use the phrase "Manifest Destiny", cited the Doctrine as "black-letter international law". Even in the 1930s the US, England and Germany were still operating this way in the Pacific.

Clearly, Euro-American history has a lot invested in devaluing Native systems of land ownership. It's built into the legal fabric of the United States.

Don’t be mad, I don’t claim to have the answers, I just like the discussion.

[eomrat]

OK, I wasn’t going to do this but pockets bumped the thread and I am bored.

The idea that Indigenous people had no concept of land ownership is a myth. Some Native peoples had different ideas than Europeans about how land ownership functioned, but this myth does not come from that fact alone. Instead, the idea that Natives didn't really own their land is a very intentional one of colonialism, and it starts with a policy called the Doctrine of Discovery.

The Doctrine of Discovery was a legal principle in Europe established primarily by the Pope. However, it was also respected and utilized by Protestant nations. The Doctrine of Disocvery laid out a legal method (from the European point of view) of claiming Indigenous lands. Under this framework, the first Europeans to 'discover' a land automatically obtain exclusive right to own that land. Indigenous inhabitants automatically lose the full ownership of their lands after first discovery and also lose the right to free trade (being supposed to rely instead on Europeans as middle men) and international diplomacy. This applied not just to the people who the Europeans first met, but to anyone who lived in contiguous territories - for example, if the Europeans 'discovered' the mouth of the river, their rights under the Doctrine of Discovery applied to all the lands drained by that river.

There were several criteria Europeans could apply to determine that the previous occupants of a land were not capable of asserting land ownership under the Doctrine of Discovery. Non-Christians did not have the right to land ownership nor did anyone using or governing the land in a fashion that European legal systems recognised. See the Catch-22 there? The European legal systems didn't recognise Indigenous land ownership as having any meaningful permanence because the European legal system had decided it wasn't worth recognising. Any land they didn't deem already owned (so, all Indigenous land) was legally terra nullius, or land that belonged to no one and was free for the taking. As you can see, this game was rigged from the start.

The US Supreme Court has upheld elements of the Doctrine of Discovery many times over the years. In Johnson v. M'Intosh, the court confirmed that 'first discovery' automatically transferred some sovereign and property rights to Euro-Americans. US presidents have invoked the Doctrine of Discovery, such as Thomas Jefferson telling Lewis and Clark to use its principles to claim all the land they found on their expedition. The Doctrine of Discovery was at the forefront of the development of Manifest Destiny, the belief that Americans were ordained by God to take the entire continent. They understood the Doctrine as a legally sound justification for their continued expansion into Native lands in the West. John O'Sullivan, the first journalist to use the phrase "Manifest Destiny", cited the Doctrine as "black-letter international law". Even in the 1930s the US, England and Germany were still operating this way in the Pacific.

Clearly, Euro-American history has a lot invested in devaluing Native systems of land ownership. It's built into the legal fabric of the United States.

Don’t be mad, I don’t claim to have the answers, I just like the discussion.

There we go. I knew there was more.


on spread....

[LWW]

There are more than 20,000 unaccompanied migrant children in US custody, according to the latest government data, marking a new high as the Biden administration announces a string of sites to accommodate kids.

As of Tuesday, there were 4,228 unaccompanied children in the custody of Customs and Border Protection, an agency not generally prepared to care for children for prolonged periods, and 16,045 children in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees a shelter network.

We don’t need to send back, Send them off to Canada!

[Bando]

There are more than 20,000 unaccompanied migrant children in US custody, according to the latest government data, marking a new high as the Biden administration announces a string of sites to accommodate kids.

There are 1.2 million couples in the US looking to adopt. If we could eliminate the government forms, Karen and Steve would probably drive cross country to rescue these scamps.

[mtpockets]

There are 1.2 million couples in the US looking to adopt. If we could eliminate the government forms, Karen and Steve would probably drive cross country to rescue these scamps.

Good point Bando

[eomrat]

Good point Bando

This happens way more than reported. I lived in El Paso for 4 years and finding dead migrants was pretty routine. Mostly children and elderly folks, or people that got injured and then left behind.

[mtpockets]

This happens way more than reported. I lived in El Paso for 4 years and finding dead migrants was pretty routine. Mostly children and elderly folks, or people that got injured and then left behind.

Sad AF

[eomrat]

Sad AF

Heartbreaking.



People before Politics.

This documentary is the reality for a lot of the folks that come here. I recommend it for anyone who has any soul left and is still capable of forming new opinions. So, like 5 of you or so.



https://www.amazon.com/Which-Way-Hom.../dp/B017UJC3RG

[LWW]

I recommend it for anyone who has any soul left and is still capable of forming new opinions. So, like 5 of you or so.

I would totally support tax breaks for families who adopt these kids.

Of course Dems would cry that, "they should be with their natural parents".

It still won't make Bando a good guy, he still seems like a creep to me