Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Censorship in the classroom.....

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    If you've seen the movie and remember the scene where the Sioux came upon the hundreds of slaughtered and skinned buffalo...you'd KNOW why I want to show it. THAT scene makes one FEEL what the Sioux must have felt...DESPAIR.

    As for MY school's media materials....what my library has is what teachers BUY and donate to it. We still have FILMSTRIPS...but no projectors.

    Do I show videos INSTEAD of teaching? NO! What I TRY to do is broaden my student's horizons...instead of keeping them 'locked up' in someone's 'fantasyland'.

    BTW...the ONE parent complained because HE didn't think the movie was appropriate.

    [ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: shooter1201 ]
    "When you guys get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a *****."
    -Commanding General, 1st Marine Division

    Comment


    • #17
      Mike Sullivan,

      Uh, allow me to rephrase: I use the term PC on this board just to mean I'm a basic nice guy...however, although 54 now, I assure you I remain the butt-kickin, name-takin, run-the-unit-into-the-ground SOB that trained over 100 MP type soldiers in Special Reaction Team (SRT) skills.

      And while I feel it important to suspend my political activities in view of the war America is now facing, my agenda remains clear:

      1. Disband the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
      2. 100% soverignity for all first nations.
      3. Separation from US Government control.

      That should clear that up

      And now back to Censorship

      Jim Burnes

      Comment


      • #18
        I think that student should be excused from seeing the movie. when we watched movies, or read books, poems, saw plays...it was the discussion afterward that we learned from...everyone's opinions on what it all meant.

        i think we need to appreciate our teachers more. sometimes i feel that people think ALL of them are bad. i'm sure police officers know what it feels like to be not treated as individuals, but to be grouped together because of a few bad apples.
        "You did what you knew how to do...and when you knew better, you did better." ~~Maya Angelou

        Comment


        • #19
          The Searchers is probably one of the greatest films of the 20th century. Yes, I do see western films of the fifties as racist and some are down right offensive in viewpoint, towards Native Americans.As a social commentary of how the American settlers treated the Native people, this film when viewed in context does do that very well....In the end Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) is shown as the real savage, with no place in society!!!!

          The reason I suggested the Searchers, was because being a fifties movie:

          "If you've seen the movie and remember the scene where the Sioux came upon the hundreds of slaughtered and skinned buffalo...you'd KNOW why I want to show it. THAT scene makes one FEEL what the Sioux must have felt...DESPAIR."-Shooter

          It shows the DESPAIR, since it was the fifties it's a lot less PC, therfore a lot easier to discuss.Basically them same message as Dances, but parents would find it easier to digest.

          Smoke Signals, was a good film and would be a good classroom discussion, but parents would probably react like you where trying show them, KIDS.......

          Koenig
          #||||
          "I think the mistake a lot of us make is thinking the state appointed psychiatrist is our "friend."

          Comment


          • #20
            "2. 100% soverignity for all first nations.
            3. Separation from US Government control."


            Would you be renouncing your US citizenship?
            If you want to be soverign, making your own laws and governing yourself, and have no US govt. control, it sounds to me like you would have no use for it.

            Comment


            • #21
              I preface this post, with the comment that although these are the actions I strive for, they are set aside, until such time as America has dealt with the war against the terrorists. That comes first.

              Because American Indians hold dual citizenship with both the American government and their individual nations, with the same oversight responsibilites there is no need to renounce US citizenship.

              America would deal with the nations on a State Department level, not the interior (which covers protection of animals and real estate). The Department of Interior has a clear track record of abuse, and mismanagement of indian trust lands, resources, funds and record keeping; that system does not work and can be safely put aside without harming American interests.

              Because our borders lie inside the larger of American borders, and we are original citizens of this land (that is, we've got no where else to go!), the existing laws and regulations of the American federal government would continue in force. The officials of the nations would be the ones to enforce such however. Each nation would have to have mutual support aggreements with its neighbors, just as all nations now do (and as indian reservations have now).

              There is so much to this question of soverignity, it would be breath taking to begin. But it can be accomplished, without damage to American interests nor to the well being of the American indian nations.

              This would not be a movement of secession, but of a separation of governments which would serve to protect (my) our culture(s) from disappearing. Our sacred sites on what land is left would be protected.

              Lastly, such a movement would not be trying to revert to what was, the level of technology would remain of course, and even advance at a level equal to all other nations. The responibility to serve in the American military would remain, as would the need to tax, etc. In this way, the existance of the separate nations would be no different and would be as vibrant as the small nations found in Europe which depend in part on their larger neighbors for mutual support and infrastructure.

              Jim Burnes

              Comment


              • #22
                "there is no need to renounce US citizenship."

                I never said there was a need. I asked WHY you would want to retain both.

                "the existing laws and regulations of the American federal government would continue in force."

                How would you keep US laws but be soverign? Isn't that self-defeating?

                "The officials of the nations would be the ones to enforce such however."

                Why?

                I don't understand this. It sounds to me like you want the benefits of being a US citizens and US protections, while also being an independent country. The classic cake and eat it too scenario.

                It sounds much like the situation in Puerto Rico, which I strongly disapprove of. People with US passports that don't have to pay the same taxes, yet get the same services from the Federal govt. People with US passports, but fielding their own Olympic team. Yet they are still subject to US law and not only as administered by Puerto Rican authorities.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Vote SPARKY for Supreme Ruler.

                  I'll straighten ALL of this out. Trust me!
                  -Sparky

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    As a teacher, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't! re: movies/videos used to reinforce the learning concept.
                    We have strict guidelines as to what we can show, more for copyright protection than anything. On the safe side, I do not show 'movies' such as the one mentioned - it's not like you can't pick the same one up from a video store, or can see it on tv!. I teach special education where integration into the mainstream classroom is encouraged, and what the teacher in that classroom plans is his/her responsibilty. Parental consent is usually done here. I won't speak for other teachers, other than myself on that one.

                    There will always be one parent who objects to a situation, such as this one, and I have made alternate arrangements for that student, such as being with another class at that time. Easily enough done, with support from administration.
                    Bare butts, religious beliefs, personal values, etc., you name it, there will always be a situtation will always 'offend' someone. That liability matter we all hear about so much these days, no matter what profession!
                    What some parents seem to forget though, is that some of us teachers are also parents. Just my 2 cents.
                    "Time goes by so fast, people go in and out of your life. You must never miss the opportunity to tell these people how much they mean to you."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Niteshift:
                      "2. 100% soverignity for all first nations.
                      3. Separation from US Government control."


                      Would you be renouncing your US citizenship?
                      If you want to be soverign, making your own laws and governing yourself, and have no US govt. control, it sounds to me like you would have no use for it.
                      Nite I think you are taking Jim's comments totally out of context. Let me ask you this?

                      Are individual states soverign and separate from the US Government? Some things yes...other no, however they have the power to make and enforce their own laws. No on seems to see anything wrong with that...what's the difference if the First Nations want to do the same?
                      Play And Stay Safe...Wear Your Vest!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I'm not taking anything out of context, I'm asking questions.

                        He wants a total lack of US govt. control. No state has that.

                        If I violate a federal law, the FBI or whatever federal agency has that law in their purview will investigate, arrest and put me on trial. I will not be investigated, arrested and tried only by Floridians or whites. That is different from what I'm understanding Jim to say.

                        Also, soverignty is not as simple as you're making it sound. The chief of one of the tribes here in Florida flies his private plane into the US, from South America, and lands on the reservation without having to go through Customs like you and I would. Why? Because he is the head of their Nation. I find this to be wrong, especially for the purposes he's doing it for.

                        Let's not forget when the Seminole tribe decided to shut down I-95 until tool booths were built in response to their being denied permission to build casinos.

                        Or a not uncommon practice around here of buying a vehicle and taking it onto the reservation, then stopping payment. Repo men can't come on the reservation without permission and none have ever been given permission.

                        I'm asking questions, much of it based on what I've already seen. I've seen problems with the idea of a soverign nation. I understand that all tribes do not work the way some around here have and I'm willing to listen, but I want to hear real answers too. Real answers to specific questions. I want to know if I'm simply seeing it wrong or being sold a bill of goods.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Niteshift:
                          I'm asking questions, much of it based on what I've already seen. I've seen problems with the idea of a soverign nation. I understand that all tribes do not work the way some around here have and I'm willing to listen, but I want to hear real answers too. Real answers to specific questions. I want to know if I'm simply seeing it wrong or being sold a bill of goods.
                          \

                          Actually, Niteshift has not taken it out of context, I really mean to see the nations separate from Federal government.

                          Using the nation close to you, their chief has been tossed out by the tribal council for various infractions. Those planes and trips were his political demise. The absurdity of the refusual to honor purchase contracts is a reflection on those people only. That is not honorable. They also will not honor mutual support agreements to enforce laws. That's them.

                          I am Cherokee, up here, I know for a fact all law enforcement agencies support each other and back each other up...no foolishness. Our problems with rights, water ways and tax codes are worked out in court rooms. Tribal police and Marshals work closely with all other agencies; No egos involved. Same with the Keetowah and the Qualla Boundary Cheorkee in NC. We are a soverign nation of original people and are comfortable with the responsibilities that come with that status.

                          I (and all other NA) are not in a position to renounce one citizenship over another. Politically, it would be wrong. Although my forefathers never asked to become citizens, the law was passed making them so, em masse in 1924. Up til then, individual indian could become citizens if they gave up their culture. But even during that time (1790 to about 1865),we were driven off lands, forced out of our Christian churches and our newspapers and schools closed. Now, we are citizens and living in lands that do not belong to us. Even the reservation was somehow, through politics disbanded in 1907 when OK became a state. Yet we remain a contributing force within America.

                          Yes, American federal laws and statues would remain in place (because of the huge amount of case law in existance), the Major Crimes Act would remain. But the enforcement action would be overseen by the first nations who reside within that nations borders. Legal questions would be worked out between the states and /or Federal government (exactly what happens now between states and federal).

                          Please keep in mind, as I do, that we existed prior to the founding of America. We did not need to overthrow English rule, the European settlers did.

                          By clear international law, we are still soverign. Congress can't disband countries, which existed prior to America, the Senate is the only arm that can deal with us by treaty, and treaties do not expire of old age if either party upholds it side.

                          Call me a madman But this is such a complex goal, so scary that I get called many names, by other American Indians I must say, it does sound bad to declare this position. But it is time to start the process.

                          Jim Burnes

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            "The absurdity of the refusual to honor purchase contracts is a reflection on those people only."

                            And I'm certainly not saying that all tribes would do that, but I have to guess realisticly that there will be more than one of them too.

                            "But the enforcement action would be overseen by the first nations who reside within that nations borders. Legal questions would be worked out between the states and /or Federal government (exactly what happens now between states and federal)."

                            I'd like to know why? Blacks have no expectation that only blacks will handle enforcement against them etc. Why is your case different?

                            Walk me through this Jim. Would you be required to pay income tax? Will your courts fall under the US Supreme Court as the state courts do?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by NorthernProtector:


                              ...what's the difference if the First Nations want to do the same?

                              Northern Protector,

                              Thanks for that! America sees us a little differently, and are a little uncomfortable with histoy. This is not like Burnt Church, but the prospect of confrontation is always just hovering about.

                              Jim Burnes

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Niteshift:
                                [i

                                I'd like to know why? Blacks have no expectation that only blacks will handle enforcement against them etc. Why is your case different?

                                Walk me through this Jim. Would you be required to pay income tax? Will your courts fall under the US Supreme Court as the state courts do?

                                Our case is different in a most fundamental way: We are the original people on this land. Our societies were set thousands of years prior to 1492 (and 1776).

                                All other ethnic groups, races, whatever, came from somewhere else. In the case of Black Americans, they can't legally claim to be soverign to this landmass, in that they originate elsewhere. They, and all other American citizens have no option to make claims in that regard.

                                (ok, beat me with a stick Niteshift, but that's the awful truth that Americans can't accept )

                                If it makes the readers of this post feel better, plenty of other indians "beat me with a stick" too.

                                As to taxs, people who live within a nations borders will pay tax, just as it is done now. If I buy gas in TX, I am assessed a tax. But I live in OK, so I am subject to property tax here. My income tax would however be collected by the nation to whom I belong, if I lived there.

                                Roadways, waterways, rail and air routes; upkeep and rights of way would be the responsibility of the nations.

                                We maintain our own now. The process is in some ways now in effect, without the acknowledgement, which I guess would cause a political mess.

                                Our present court systems is good, the US Supreme court would deal directly with the Nations Supreme court.

                                The nations would have to ditch the IRA inspired tribal councils, which were a rubber stamp for America interests. But the replacement would be in the best interests of the people.

                                See? I am not advocating seccession, because we were not a part of America, being forced in via an historically corrupt doctrine of discovery, of which no indian nation was consulted. Having always been apart from America (and reminded of that every God#### opportunity for 503 years) no matter how white or how Christian we became, I am simply stating that the time has come to make the separation official.

                                Have I made this matter more clear? or muddled it up?

                                Jim Burnes

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4595 users online. 315 members and 4280 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X