Was Chakotay a stereotype?

[Gov Kodos]

Sure, but it keeps turning out like a buggered up slinky.

[teacake]

Not a buggered up slinky Gov Kodos, a non-conformist slinky.

It's all in how you market your reality to yourself.

[Guy Gardener]

Gov Kodos wrote:

---

Sure, but it keeps turning out like a buggered up slinky.

A regular standard sized slinkly?

Wow.

You are packing a lot of sausage.

(How can you be sure which end is the bunghole?)

[teya]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

Rob claimed off camera that Chakotay was a native South American Indian, which is not to be confused with all the Spaniards who claim that they're natives.

But then if he is a member of the "Rubber tree people" Tribe, which he is, that makes a lot of sense.

Where in North America do you find a quantity of Rubber trees?

No bloody where.

Rubber Trees are tropical.

teacake wrote:

---

I think there were some visuals which would point them to South America but I don't recall what (other then the definitely not North American foliage). Which makes the rubbing together with two sticks thing even more dumb as that is not a South American stereotype. I think it ended up a grab bag of cliches to which the word indian was attached.

"Tattoo" places Chakotay's heritage firmly in Central America.

Which is part of North America.

Which has a subtropical climate.

Where there are palm trees & rubber plants.

Hell, there are even native palm trees in California, which is not tropical or subtropical.

Meanwhile, I'll let my Mayan friends know that they aren't real Indians because Australians don't think they are and therefore they are not. They're really Spaniards. Guy decreed that, even though it's painfully obvious that he has no clue as to the demographics of Mexico, Central & South America.

[Guy Gardener]

You remember Cortez? I didn't say that South American Indians ain't Indians, I said that the conquistadors who got off the boat from Spain 500 years ago to rape and pillage south America are not Indians nor are their descendants as indigenous as they claim they are after ONLY 500 years.

If your beef is "Rob claimed" well then that's just because whatever he said off camera as a private citizen is not canon, because whatever "Rob claims" the writer/producers could have made an episode that contradicted his claims at any point in the series run.

If Rob wanted to do more than "claim" then he should have written an episode about Chakotay like Bob did about the Doctor. It's not impossible to be heard when you're that close to the heart of the matter.

I checked with Google on Tropical plants and the Rubber tree. Outside of a greenhouse the website I breezed through claimed that they weren't native to or happy if some idiot tries to plant them in North America.

[teya]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

You remember Cortez? I didn't say that South American Indians ain't Indians, I said that the conquistadors who got off the boat from Spain 500 years ago to rape and pillage south America are not Indians nor are their descendants as indigenous as they claim they are after ONLY 500 years.

Most indigenous in the Americas have some degree of white ancestry.

So, since you're making yourself the arbiter of this, how would you define an Indian? Is it by bloodline? By being raised in that culture?

By your comments, I'm not indigenous--even though I am recognized as such by both the US government & my tribal government.

Sorry, dude. You do not have the right to determine that for someone else, simply because they don't fit your romantic stereotypical notions.

[Guy Gardener]

Dear god woman can you read?

THE SPANISH!

FROM SPAIN!

That's the only people I said weren't Indians.

Because they're Spanish.

FROM SPAIN!

[teya]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

Dear god woman can you read?

THE SPANISH!

FROM SPAIN!

That's the only people I said weren't Indians.

Because they're Spanish.

FROM SPAIN!

Dear God Man! Do you understand?! Can you read?!

How do you determine which people, 500 years after the Spanish invaded, and after 500 years of intermarriage, are indigenous and which aren't? Come on! You can tell me what the secret is!

The story is no different in North America than in South America. Just different white invaders.

From you:

nor are their descendants as indigenous as they claim they are after ONLY 500 years

[teacake]

Welp I forgot all about central america. I plead uhh... dumbness.

Also I'm reading all this "Dear GOD MAN" "DEAR god WOMAN" talk in McCoy's voice.

[Gov Kodos]

One could ask how a plank of wood is supposed to be a stereotype, I suppose? Whatever nonsense was offered was standing amidst a forest of blandness for the bulk of the series.

[Guy Gardener]

teya wrote:

---

Dear God Man! Do you understand?! Can you read?!

How do you determine which people, 500 years after the Spanish invaded, and after 500 years of intermarriage, are indigenous and which aren't? Come on! You can tell me what the secret is!

The story is no different in North America than in South America. Just different white invaders.

From you:

Your argument is 5 hundred years of interbreeding?

the Merchant of freaking Venice?

Apart from the mass serial rape in the beginning, until recently, such crossovers would be rare, a boink sure, but marriage ratified by church and state?

No one can prove what happened 500 years ago so it's a question of personal preference that a seeming Latino may chose to claim that he has a little Incan blood in him or her, but really with no obvious proof, isn't he or she just a little bit of poseur if they know there's no proof?

Alternatively I'm assuming (yes I'm making an ass of you and me.) that most of the Latino's living in South America don't think of themselves as Indians, don't want to be Indians or even are not Indians.

Besides, after the massrape that intertwined the races and pacified a few not so sturdy civilizations, Spain flat out spent 300 years sending still thousands upon thousands of more non-rapists to colonize as much of America as they could.

So yes, it's pretty obvious because of history that most South American Indians have Latino or Caucasian blood in them, be it obvious or not, but the other way around as suggested above is not so endemic because racism used to keep everyone separated.

[teya]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

Your argument is 5 hundred years of interbreeding?

the Merchant of freaking Venice?

Apart from the mass serial rape in the beginning, until recently, such crossovers would be rare, a boink sure, but marriage ratified by church and state?

No one can prove what happened 500 years ago so it's a question of personal preference that a seeming Latino may chose to claim that he has a little Incan blood in him or her, but really with no obvious proof, isn't he or she just a little bit of poseur if they know there's no proof?

Alternatively I'm assuming (yes I'm making an ass of you and me.) that most of the Latino's living in South America don't think of themselves as Indians, don't want to be Indians or even are not Indians.

Besides, after the massrape that intertwined the races and pacified a few not so sturdy civilizations, Spain flat out spent 300 years sending still thousands upon thousands of more non-rapists to colonize as much of America as they could.

So yes, it's pretty obvious because of history that most South American Indians have Latino or Caucasian blood in them, be it obvious or not, but the other way around as suggested above is not so endemic because racism used to keep everyone separated.

I have a suggestion.

How about you do some reading on the demographics of Mexico, Central & South America, and then get back to me? You might have to do quite a bit of research because each country has a different history & their racial politics vary.

But, right now, you're ignorant on the subject & I'm not pursuing this further.

If you'd like to keep proclaiming who's an Indian and who isn't, be my guest. You still haven't explained what gives you the right.

Do you treat your own indigenous with the same contempt?

[Guy Gardener]

Only when they're really Australian.

[teacake]

Last time I looked the people flow was going the other direction.

[Guy Gardener]

This is a question of semantics.

These are the terms from the 19th century to determine ethnicity in Mexico.

Indios (full blooded natives)

Criollo (full European born in Americas)

Mulato (Spanish and African),

mestizo (Spanish and native),

Negro (full African),

Peninsulare (full Spanish born in Spain).

Obviously I was being too vague by saying that the Spanish from Spain were not Indians when I should have said that the Criollo were not Indians, or whatever the modern day equivalent of that word might be, since it's probably most certainly offensive now.

I never meant the Spanish with a little bit of Indian blood are not Indians, I clearly meant and said that the Spanish with no Indian blood are not Indians, and that was pretty damn obvious and you still decided to bully me as usual. How was I to know that there are no Spanish without Indian blood in South America any more? It's not a very publicized genocide.

I looked at the numbers on wikipedia and google, and it seems that the intermarrying and interbreeding was quite righteous and entrenched, and almost everyone is obviously to any one but me, to be a mixture of Spanish and Indian and it would be quite difficult to find a Criollo whose parents hadn't just arrived by plane from Spain in the last 20 years.

I'm sorry. I apologise. I was wrong and you were right about the interbreeding.

But you were still being obstinate for no reason about the Criollos.