Indigenous

 100% I understand the meaning and history behind International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples.

However. The name. It sounds like it is celebrating the indigenous people of the world, or in other words Earth.

Like the 

    indigenous people of North America are the Native Americans

    indigenous people of Australia are the Aborigines

Doing a basic google search of the word indigenous, google summarized Merriam-Webster's online dictionary definition to be: born or native to a specific place.  

Well than, who are the indigenous people of the world? The native people born on Earth? Well, to me the name International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples is celebrating humans; Earthlings, if you will. Us. Everyone.

No, I am an educated person and I know that is NOT what the United Nations meant when they proclaimed International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples in 1994. 

This is exactly what I thought the definition meant: someone who was born in a specific place. I always thought it was weird that people could say they were native to a specific state, saying they were born there, they didn't migrate to a new state. For example I don't live in the state I was born in, but my children and my husband were. So they can say they are native to [the state]. But they can't say they are native to America.

Others have explained to me that it means that it also means that your ancestors lived there, dating back a long time. Well, how long? How far back? No real answer because I have ancestors dating back over 400 years. Does that count? No. Well how long? No one has been able to answer. I'm not stupid, I know what it means to call someone indigenous but it still brings many questions because I really want to know how far back you have to go because if you look at world history, some country is always conquering some other country and historical records are not always available dating that far back. We clump all the various tribes of the United States one category: Native Americans. But even those Native American tribes of Arizona admit they weren't the first people in that area. The Hohokam were there before they were. Those early cultures referred to them as the Hohokam meaning, "those who have gone" or "those who have vanished." They didn't know who they were but they knew they were there before. And yet we clump them together with all of the Native Americans. 

Now, I decided not to take google at face value and decided to see what Merriam-Webster actually said. "of, relating to, or descended from the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized." Okay that makes sense, I guess. But what does it actually mean to colonize a place? If you look at ancient world history, people were nomads until they stopped and started settling in developments and learned agriculture and husbandry. Is that technically colonization?

I decided to look that up too. Meriam-Webster's online dictionary says it means "to take control of (a people or area) especially as an extension of state power : to claim (someone or something) as a colony."

Okay, we are getting close and yet not.

So to take control over an area, that would explain the ancient world's people settling down into settlements. But they weren't taking control of another people. Not until countries started forming, then they started taking over other areas but in early ancient history we don't call that colonization, we call the war, especially when they were trying to extend their state power. Ancient Rome was not the first one to do this, however they were one of the most successful in the fact of how much they were able to take control. But in 2026 are they referred to colonizers? I don't think so and yet according to that definition, they did.

So we talk about indigenous people all the time but what about the middle east where ancient world history claims history begins (people started settling down - stopped being nomads). In a Google search Google AI says there is not singe indigenous group, because the people there have been there for a millennia; major groups living with smaller indigenous communities. So you have to live there for 1000 years? So in the year 2600 indigenous won't really matter in North America? Somehow I don't think so. I would like to think that we would have evolved to be a more united people on this planet but somehow I don't think that will happen necessarily.

Now let's look at American history, which is relatively new. These "colonizers" who came to the "new world" in the 1600 were not coming to expand their state power. They were coming to escape persecution or oppression. Sure, some people were trying to colonize, some who actually started the colonies but the people who moved there were mostly trying to find a freedom they couldn't enjoy in their country of birth... native country?.... 

Oooh. This leaves too more questions. What does colony mean and what does native mean?

Again Meriam-Webster says a colony is, "an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control." So again, that doesn't describe my ancestors who moved to Jamestown over 400 years ago. They came to the colony to escape oppression or to start a new life. Not because they wanted to maintain control over another people. 

Now, that I am finished with my tangent. Let's look at the difference between native and indigenous. So I suppose that is the true confusion that I have. I am not indigenous to America but I am native to America and yet I can not be called Native American. The Native Americans are not indigenous either because technically someone was here before them but then went a way: Hohokam. So were does that leave me and the word native.

Meriam-Webster says native means to belong to a particular place by birth or belonging to or associated with by birth or living or growing naturally in a particular region. It also states that it is often referred to as an original or indigenous people. So herein lies the problem. I want to use the word native as it is intended to be used. I am native to [this state], I am native to the USA, I am native to Earth. But I can't use the word to describe myself native to this country because it's implied definition is indigenous. When my ancestors came to this country over 400 years ago there were inhabitants already living here. And to be honest, not all of my ancestors came here to escape. One came to escape oppression, one came to start a new life, and one indeed came to extend foreign control in behalf of the monarchy but I think it probably also was partially to escape that monarchy control as well. But that is only 3 of the ones I know of from over 400 years ago. There may be more that I still have not learned about yet.

So bottom line, I am indigenous to the world but can't claim I am indigenous. I am native to American but can't claim I am native American (notice I did not put a capital on native). And most importantly the name International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples implies something different than what it means. I believe in respecting and honoring the culture of the people who were here before. I also believe in understanding the definitions of words 😂

What is a Woman?

It seems so silly that this is a huge debate. Once again it is a polarized topic. A bunch of siths believing, "If you aren't with me, you're against me." I don't believe it is so black and white. Let me explain. 

First of all, there is nothing wrong with finding some common ground. That is how we come to an agreement. That is how we can learn from and understand each other. 

One side says, a woman is anyone with XX chromosomes. 

The other side says, a woman is anyone who says they are a woman. It is a social construct.

Yes! 100% a woman is a human being with XX chromosomes. Perhaps we should use the word female, to be more specific.

Here is where the controversy lies, which no one really seems to want to talk about.

Gender roles are what is really what the real controversy is all about.

The social construct is what our society has decided what is appropriate for women and what is appropriate for men. Before I go into that, let's talk about biology a bit. Just the simple basic biology everyone SHOULD have learned by high school.

Females can give birth.

Males are naturally stronger than women, they have a larger lung capacity.

In the mouth of babes, "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina." (Thank you Kindergarten Cop).

Most everything else has nothing to do with that. 

Whether or not you like to wear dresses, make up, or high heels does not determine whether or not you are a woman. Whether or not you prefer your nails or hair long or short, doesn't determine your gender. 

So you have one side that has a very clear definition of a female (woman) because it is absolutely based on true biology. Then you have the other side that looks at the complexity of a woman's role and can't really define what a woman is because women are all unique and different and have their own passions. You can't say a woman wears dresses because some women don't like wearing dresses. You can't say they are mothers because some can't have children. 

Here's an example of what I am talking about. 

What is dinner?

Clear answer: A meal you have at the end of the day.

Subjective answer: Pizza

But here is the problem. Pizza can also be lunch, or even breakfast. So, not all pizzas are dinners. Likewise, not all dinners are pizza. However, if I were to tell you we were going to have pizza for dinner, that would be a correct answer because dinner is the meal you have at the end of the day and pizza will be our last meal of the day. We have people on one side clearly defining what dinner is and other people trying to describe all the different types of diners you can have and it is impossible to define all of them into a clear distinct answer. Try describing, pizza, pasta, chicken, hamburgers, and the hundreds of other possible things you could have for dinner into one statement. It is challenging and therefore they are stumped. So they say something like, "Dinner is what you have for dinner." 

Here's another example. 

If I were to ask you, what type of meal pancakes are, most people would say it is breakfast. However, some people have pancakes for dinner. That doesn't change the fact that pancakes are a breakfast food. It just means that sometimes we like to have breakfast food for dinner. And the fact that pancakes is a breakfast food is a social thing. There is not hard science as to why cereal is for breakfast, sandwiches for lunch, and pasta for dinner. It is how our society has evolved. 

So just because a person likes to wear a dress or makeup, that does not automatically make that person a woman. No more than eating pancakes for dinner makes pancakes dinner food.

It's gender roles, stereotypes, and opinions that we are really debating. That makes it difficult because there is no real answer to what all women like, enjoy, and do. Just like there is no way to describe all the different dinner possibilities into one statement. I hope I was able to explain that clearly. 

The real problem is what society is doing to the role of a man. That is a topic for another post.

A little kindness never hurt anyone.

So I was talking to my preteen about her friend's YouTube short video about how we need people to not be homophobic and the comments got very controversial. Then her friend asked why it is a bad thing to want to support homosexuals.

So here's the thing. Technically homophobic means you are AFRAID of homosexuality. Just because someone doesn't believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, that doesn't mean that person is AFRAID of homosexuals. 

Look at it this way:

If you choose not to drink alcohol (for whatever reason) that doesn't mean you are AFRAID of people who do. It also doesn't mean you can't be friends with people who do.

If you choose not to smoke cigarettes (for whatever reason) that doesn't mean you are AFRAID of people who do. It doesn't mean you can't be friends with people who do.

If you don't believe in God (for whatever reason) that doesn't mean you are AFRAID of people who do. It doesn't mean you can't be friends with people who do.

Society has turned the word homophobic into describing people who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. They have lumped them into the category of people who have an unnational fear of homosexuality and with people who discriminate against people who are homosexual. That is simply not fair. 

It is okay to like or love a person who does not have the same moral standards as you do. We have turned into a polarized society. We have turned into a society of siths where the motto is, "If you aren't with me, you're against me." It is possible to be friends with someone who has different beliefs or lifestyle than you do. In fact it makes the world a better place when you can talk to someone about their experiences in life. It helps you gain a different perspective of life and a better understanding of the world and people around you. 

We need to stop being so close minded. We need to be open to hear the ideas and views of others. We need to stop being so offended. We need to listen to each other. We need to agree to disagree. Sometimes we can't convince another person to see things the way we see them but maybe we can help them understand why we see things the way we do. A little kindness never hurt anyone.

Back to Basics ABC 123: Shape Quiz

Back to Basics ABC 123: Shape Quiz: Shape Quiz This is a very simple yet effective quiz on shapes. It shows 10 shapes. Students have to name the shape and tell how many sides a...

Snow White

So a while ago I wrote a post about The Little Mermaid but I never finished writing it and so it is in my drafts. Eventually, I will finish it.

Today I want to write about Snow White. I am a huge Disney fan, or at least I was a huge Disney fan. They're live action remakes and their lack of being able to produce new wholesome content is turning me off from them. 

When Walt Disney was alive he had high values and held his employees to those same high standards. The Walt Disney Company today is disrespecting Walt Disney's legacy.

So I, like so many others, am extremely disappointed with the negative comments made toward the 1937 Disney Classic, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. There are so many times I just want to say, "The Prince was not a stalker" and "The seven dwarves did not live in a cave."

Many people have already spoken about this topic. I don't need to repeat what has already been said. 

What I want to talk about is the Daily Wire's version of Snow White that they are making. "Snow White and the Evil Queen." One of the things they have claimed is that they are sticking to the original content from the Brothers Grim. This made me realize I had never read the original. But in reality, I think I did, decades ago. But it was worth reading again because I couldn't remember the exact story.

I found the story online and read it. To be honest, I laughed when I read the story. First of all, I thought the original Disney classic Snow White and the Seven Dwarves did a very good job adapting the original story making the necessary changes and keeping true to the story. Due to the fact the movie was intended to be a family movie, I am so glad that Disney omitted the part where the queen eats what she thinks is the lungs and liver of Snow White.

When the Daily Wire says they are keeping true to the original text, I'm not sure I really believe that. Will they include the part where the queen eats what she thinks is Snow White's lungs and liver? They say they are including, "true love" in their movie but the "love story" is a love at first sight and marrying right away type of movie. Given the fact it was written in the early 1800s most people didn't really marry for love - it was more for status and political alliances and such. Don't get me wrong, people did marry for love, but for many, many years that was the exception, not the rule (i.e. Fiddler on the Roof) - especially for the ruling class - and men of high ranking usually married whom ever they liked and solely based on their wealth, they were rarely turned down - the women wanted to be well provided for (i.e. Pride and Prejudice).

If a movie was made today following the text exactly, it wouldn't be a classic. The prince doesn't awaken Snow White with loves true kiss. Nope, the poisoned piece of apple gets dislodged in her throat and she was revived. 

Now we all know the quote about how the "original" was written in 1937 and that the prince was a "stalker." Well, the original was in 1812/1819 and that prince is more of a stalker than the 1937 Disney version, especially the 1812 version - the 1819 version was toned down a bit... a bit.

Anyway, I am all about the prince saving the princess and love's first kiss and living happily ever after. No, that it is not real life. It is pure fantasy. But isn't that why we go to the movies? To leave the real world for a bit and experience a bit of fantasy? 

That's what I want. . . Where's my Mr. Darcy? I'll even settle for a Colonel Brandon. Most women want to be swept off their feet. (okay not those so called "feminists" but those who embrace their femininity do - you can read my article about femininity for more info about that.)

Back to Basics ABC 123: 1st Grade Lessons for Common Core Writing Standards

Back to Basics ABC 123: 1st Grade Lessons for Common Core Writing Standards:   1st Grade Lessons for Common Core Writing Standards This is one of writing lessons on my teacher pays teacher page.  It has activities for...

Great Books Worth Reading: The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

Great Books Worth Reading: The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins: Spoiler alert. . . read at you own risk, however I won't give major plot lines away. I read the whole Hunger Game series.  I read th...