Divided We Fall...

P. , yes the original structure. All MEN were created equal and yet Jefferson owned slaves. I guess the slaves did not consist of men. As women did not have the vote, they were also not equal. Then there were those pesky Indians who were not considered human. We started in a divided system that has become increasingly divided with time. We have not been to the point where UNITED WE STAND, because we are divided on so many levels.

E., the system is fucked up and I will say so in plain English. Engaging here in dialogue may or may not open people to see the two evils and perchance think to remove what is and start again. The Declaration of Independence clearly states so. My notes are in brackets.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (This should read humans.) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (This does NOT say god as NOT ALL people believe in the same god and NOT ALL people, myself included, believe in god.) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty (If we have true liberty, business owners who choose to have smoking within THEIR establishment, should be allowed. The government should not dictate such. It is also none of the government's business what a woman does with HER body in regard to abortion. Where is the liberty for gay people to marry? Religion is at the base of two of these issues and it SHOULDN'T be. Somewhere along the line, "their Creator" turned into GOD and it is in politics, law, and currency.) and the pursuit of Happiness (In this case happiness means property and should be noted as such as it is misleading. Property does not equate to happiness.).--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (humans), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (There is much we do not consent to, however, since when do the people count? The corporations count; you don't. Money talks.), --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it (It should be abolished.), and to institute new Government (Yes!), laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness (Again, this should not come down to property.). Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable (The masses are more disposed to suffer.), than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed (People are happy in their misery.). But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism (It is coming in case you can't see it.), it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (Indeed!) ~ Arachne ~ September 8, 2012 in the PM

Walking against the current: A Dialogue

Him quoting a source:  We have uncovered that Amerindians do not relate with any other worldwide population, according to their HLA genetic profile. The study of chromosome Y haplogroups also supports the uniqueness of Amerindians.
 
Him: The Calico Dig Site in California seems to place us here 100,000 years ago as our pre-evolved form: Homo-erectus. This flies in the face of the Africa based evolution and supposes we were always here and in fact evolved here.  Also, the distribution of haplogroups in Asia are not consistent with the Bering Straight hypothesis. The lack of language and cultural similarities also presents a problem with the "out of Asia" notion. Alright, now find out the mitochondrial past of native Americans. Keeping in mind the fossilized human footprints found that date back 50,000 years and the Calico Dig Site which shows artifacts dating back 100,000 years. 

Me:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosome_haplogroups_by_populations

Also:  Haplogroup Y is a descendant of haplogroup N9.

Distribution

Haplogroup Y has been found in approximately 66% of Nivkhs and approximately 20% of Ainus.[2][3][4][5] However, this haplogroup also has been found in approximately 2% of Koreans,[3] and in South Siberian and Central Asian populations with an average frequency of 1%.[6][7] It is also fairly common among indigenous peoples of Kamchatka and the Malay Archipelago.
Its subclade Y2 has been observed in 40% of a large pool of samples from Nias in western Indonesia.[8]

Subclades

Tree

This phylogenetic tree of haplogroup Y subclades is based on the paper by Mannis van Oven and Manfred Kayser Updated comprehensive phylogenetic tree of global human mitochondrial DNA variation[1] and subsequent published research.

Y
Y1
Y1a
Y1b
Y2

Him:  With the thin blanketing of that particular haplogroup in Asia you must assume that the haploid came from here and spread to there. It really seems the only logical answer. Also, if the peoples from those regions came here then the language and culture should at least be similar. However, there are no similarities.  Especially when it comes to the evidence that predates the Asian Migration theory.  It basically says "You have no right to be here or anywhere else for that matter. This land is the property of Europeans now. Assimilate or die."

Me:  Does it matter where it came from? We are one with each other as well all bleed red. If you would like, I can research this further.

Him:  It matters because the invaders would like nothing more than to justify their actions.

Me:  I don't see anyone pointing a gun and telling anyone what to do. Where you would like to see division, I would like to see union based on the principle that we are all human first and foremost. Just be...

Him:  You don’t need an actual gun, you just need indoctrination on the scale that has been produced by America. Little by little, through blood quantum and other stipulations of the Indian Act we are being taken out of the equation. So, if this is your "unity" then you can keep it.

Me:  Despite what is written by someone else, does it take away from who you are? It only does IF you allow it. Just BE!

Him:  How does one just BE in a society that demands conformity without ultimately leading to a huge revolution in which you are sure to fail due to the overwhelming odds stacked against you by the established order? Remember, we live in a world ruled by religious thought. As such, our own spirituality is drowned out and in some cases killed off. Think residential schools, etc. There can be no just being, not under these circumstances. In order to be as you wish to be you need to be free from this oppression. That takes a serious conflict, not by assimilation.

Me:  What is it to be? Do you conform? Odds? Yes. Religion? Yes. Our own spirituality, if we have any, is our own even if morphed by such devises as indoctrination. Are you BEING right now? The world is full of oppression because the masses have allowed the few to control them. It is a matter of allowance at this point.

Him:   Even if you have chosen to walk against the current, you still do so with like-minded people. That is conformity in and of itself. The odds stacked against you are the sheer number of people pulling you back into the perceived "norm", whether they do so by force or by the indoctrination of your base support (family). The world is full of oppression that people often don't feel, because they feel it was always as it is. That is their "being". The very thing you wish to break from. So again I ask you, how does one just be in a society that is itself just being (in the sense they are unaware of their oppression or simply don't care)?

Me:  Walking against the current would mean walking away from the status quo. If you are with like minded individuals walking upstream, you do so freely and knowingly because you are aware. The odds are always stacked against those who stray from the norm, however, how does one change the norm if one does not go against it? The perceived norm is based on whose perception? It is yours or someone else’s? Can you be forced to perceive or do you just perceive? Are you SELF or are you your family? Is your family made up of individuals who are SELVES perceiving as well? The world is full of oppression and people are aware of it as they experience it. Perhaps those that do not feel oppressed are not oppressed or they have become so used to their condition, they choose to be comfortable in their discomfort. The only way for a person who is comfortable in their discomfort is to become more discomforted to the point it is not comfortable and awareness is then had. The society, in its being, is comprised of individuals. Those individuals ARE. They are beings BEING, however, they are either Joe Norm Conform or Pierre Aware.

Him:  Your perceptions are dictated by the input you have received.  That is instrumentality.

Me:  To perceive is to attain awareness or understanding of <whatever>. One may become aware through senses. What sense will be made of senses is a matter of perception and subjectivity. ~ Arachne ~ 9/6/12 @ 9:14 p.m.

Definition of PERCEPTION 1 a : a result of perceiving : observation (see perceive) b : a mental image : concept 2 obsolete : consciousness 3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience 4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : appreciation b : a capacity for comprehension

Mountain Man?

I don't know who is behind this site, but I have a few words. As I choose not to have TV reception, I happened to catch a glimpse, on someone else’s set, of what seemed natural living by a man named Eustace Conway. However, like with all things, I must question the picture. My logic lead me to believe that History Channel show, in which Mr. Conway plays himself, is a so called "reality TV" show. This being the case, you lead me to question the reality of it all. What is reality? View this as a philosophical question if you must. How real is real? IF an individual is living off the land, how might the land be providing internet access or telephone reception? It is possible that the phone is cellular in nature AND it is possible that he receives e-mail via the cell. Then again, the Turtle Island website mentions a computer. Beyond selling wood and teaching for profit, is the man Eustace Conway paid by History Channel to "perform" for them? I ask this because some things do not add up. I am not Smith nor are you O'Brien trying to have me see four when there are only three (*Orwell). Concerning the doe, feeding eight people for the winter is not possible based on the weight of the meat. My ex-husband used to hunt moose and that fed a few families for the winter, but there was about 800 lbs. of meat. So, what is the reality of it all?

*O'Brien, now Smith's inquisitor, tortures Winston with electroshock, showing him how, through controlled manipulation of perception (e.g.: seeing whatever number of fingers held up that the Party demands one should see, whatever the "apparent" reality, i.e. 2+2=5), Winston can "cure" himself of his 'insanity'... Wikipedia  ~ Arachne 9/5/12 @ 8:32 p.m.