Yvsa

D

DPris

Joined
Nov 27, 2003
Messages
1,317
Pardon my obtusity, I can infer what it refers to but don't know the actual words.
What does NDN stand for?
Denis
 
Yup. DT has it right, but he's also an ndn, on the short side of the family I might add.;) ;) :D :footinmou

DT is probably taller then me with the shrinkage I've experienced, but I was always on the short side for being of the ancestory I spring from.:rolleyes: :footinmou ;)
 
Yvsa said:
Yup. DT has it right, but he's also an ndn, on the short side of the family I might add.;) ;) :D :footinmou

DT is probably taller then me with the shrinkage I've experienced, but I was always on the short side for being of the ancestory I spring from.:rolleyes: :footinmou ;)
Click to expand...
I don't know Apache Is in my blood yet I am tall for a apache
5'8"
 
I knew what it meant, just thought it was a new abbreviation for words I hadn't heard yet.
Thanks.
Denis
 
In Yvsa's case, it might also be Native Dominant Nephew :-)
 
I am so tired of the term "Native American" applied to the descendents of the aboriginal Americans. Everyone born in this country is a "Native American". And, we are all descendents of immigrants. The difference between the general populance and the Indians is that they came here earlier. Instead of "Native Americans" they should really be called "Early Immigrants".
 
Obtusely stated, but history would back this statement, BA-A. For instance, every country has been a 'melting pot' of sorts.

The Celts were not the natives of Britain, but were preceeded by the tribe/civilization that built stuff like Stonehenge thousands of years B4 the Celts enter the pic. I'm sure someone was there 6000 years ago when the monument builders showed up to hang.

The Mounds in Indiana (Mounds State Park, outside of Muncie, IN) were buit around the year 0, and were not built by descendents of the NDNs that lived there 1000 years ago, or even 300 years ago. Yet there is no record of their legacy (other then mounds and potsherds) anywhere. They're just gone, or absorbed into the population of the next wave.

Everyone born here is an American. "Native American" is reserved for the NDNs, as they were running the show here when the next recorded waves of folk appeared on the shore. It also designates more than genetics, we're talking culture, religion, society, etc. Also, native tribal infighting hardly consitutes an invasion/colinization on the scale that Europe undertook coming here. Mebbe in a thou years even the old waves of colonists (us) will come to be known as "native americans," when waves of whomever come a knockin'.

Keith
 
The idea that we ndns immigrated here is from the same sort of thinking as the Manifest Destiny. Total BS!!!!:rolleyes: :p
 
Interesting stuff, Yvsa. Guess it depends on if you prefer the theory that all humans came from one original human strain in the fertile crescent or the Subcontinent (or Africa), over the 'multiple originating points' theory.

I was merely applying my knowledge of human migrations as studied in Europe, India, and Africa as models for the Americas as well. Perhaps an incorrect re-application.

The stone axe head I found in a field in Indiana would suggest that the NDNs enjoyed and refined stone-age tech in a relatively isolated fashion for a long long time, with little or no outside influence.


Keith
 
What's interesting is after humanity spread out from Mesopotamia that like the story of the great flood, that was retained and is a part of all the traditions that sprang from wherever the people ended up. It's amazing that when all the people spread out from that one place that so many of the customs and stories remained even to this day.

Also interesting to me is in such a short period of time how many societies embraced monotheisim.
 
hollowdweller said:
Also interesting to me is in such a short period of time how many societies embraced monotheisim.
Click to expand...

Embraced or forced into? Guess it depends on which end of the spear/gun you stand on....or pokie stick :D

In a historical sense is it easier & cheaper to worship one god versus a pantheon? Do away with mulitiple animal sacrifices for multiple dieties and you've got surplus cash now laying around. (I kinda simplified the process but you get my meaning)

Christianity brings in the tithe.....nice little way around the animal sacrifices and puts a few quid in the church's pocket at the same time.

Monotheisim in the Roman world was a convenient political tool of the day.......What was that old quote "The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman nor empircal in nature".....
 
don't agree on the same "One" per se, leading one to think polytheism may have some stong points, like broader acceptance of ideas and religion.

the crux is religious tolerance. Polytheism by its very nature is accepting of other gods and goddesses, and thus the ocean dwellers shared their gods with the mountain dwellers, an vice-versa. Thus the pantheon developed. In cases where one god is tolerated and none others, they are more likely to deny the existance of others.

Even in the 10 commandments, the christian god says "THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME." Now, if you're truly the one true god, and there are no other true gods or goddesses, why would you have to say this? The phrase actually implies that there ARE other gods, but that this God is not tolerant of them and neither should his followers. Add in a bit about preaching the good word to the rest of the world, and You've laid the foundation for Jihad`and all sorts of god-wars.

Keith
 
fenryr said:
Embraced or forced into? Guess it depends on which end of the spear/gun you stand on....or pokie stick :D

In a historical sense is it easier & cheaper to worship one god versus a pantheon? Do away with mulitiple animal sacrifices for multiple dieties and you've got surplus cash now laying around. (I kinda simplified the process but you get my meaning)

Christianity brings in the tithe.....nice little way around the animal sacrifices and puts a few quid in the church's pocket at the same time.

Monotheisim in the Roman world was a convenient political tool of the day.......What was that old quote "The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman nor empircal in nature".....
Click to expand...

I was thinking about the fact that Shankara was arguing that all of the various gods and demi gods were all manifestations of Bramin in India about the same time that the unknown authors of the Corpus Hermeticum in Egypt were pushing that there was only one god the Demiurge.
 
Well, the pagan Romans had the state paying some of the feasting and sacrificing costs, as the Romans had no separation of church and state.

Christians were to be pious and poor, and did not sacrifice to the state gods, and ignored the pagan teachings. Emperor Lucian took this to mean that they did not want Roman school texts, which were essentially filled with pagan learnings, did not want state dispensation because they were pious.

The Christians really freaked the Roman pagans out, and they kept hoping they'd just go away (when Lucian refused to perform the obligatory massacre of christians, then christians rebelled and ran amok, pissed that they had been cheated out of their martyrdom--no pleasing some folks!).

So it did seem cheaper...until the christians burned the library of Alexandria, which pretty much began the dark ages and assisted in the the fall of Rome.

In modern times, most churches (mono or poly) are the same secularly, and can get tax-exempt status from the Govt. so neither is really cheaper.

Keith
 
Yvsa said:
... with the shrinkage I've experienced...
Click to expand...
That's what you get for bein' so daggum horn-y all the time, Yvsa!

:eek:


:footinmou :footinmou
 
Gee, if I got all that from just asking what NDN stands for, you think I could get any mileage out of Evolution vs Creationism?
Denis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top