We are a Teenager of the Meena Tribe, and we proud of our culture and we respect our "samaj". We have some questions.
1.Why we don't know about our history?
2.Why Our Tribe was treated as a criminal Tribe?
3.Why some People hate Us (specially, when they know that we are From ST ).
4.Why our parents don't give freedom whether it is Boy/Girl ( As compared to other Guys).
Thanks to God for giving us the best Parents. But, why they don't want their children as an Owner of the Company, As a Musician
Can i ask u a question, do you think about You’re self/Us? Did you know who are we? Who create and Why ? Who is Our Ancient Ancestors? Who create the God to establish the universe, Because God also Human, and he lives with Ancient Human, our holy text explain about god.
. So its obvious that someone else, created The God? . And please don't think that I am opposing The God, I am also Said the same thing that, who was The God of Ancient Ancestor's God?
Menes, also spelled Mena, Meni, or Min, (flourished c. 2925 bce), legendary first king of unified Egypt, who, according to tradition, joined Upper and Lower Egypt in a single centralized monarchy.
Under the reign of Viswamitra, first king of the Dynasty of Soma -Vanga, in consequence of a battle which lasted five days, Manu -Vina, heir of the ancient kings, being abandoned by the Brahmans , emigrated with all his companions, passing through Arya , and the countries of Barria, till he came to the shores of Masra [Cairo].” (History of India, by Collouca-Batta). Unquestionably this Manu-Vina and Menes , the first Egyptian King, are identical.Arya , is Eran (Persia ); Barria, is Arabia, and Masra, was the name of Cairo, which to this day is called,Masr, Musr, and Misro. Phœnician history names Maser as one of the ancestors of Hermes .”
The identity of Menes is the subject of ongoing debate, although mainstream Egyptological consensus identifies Menes with the Naqada III ruler Narmer[2][3][4][9] (most likely) or First Dynasty pharaoh Hor-Aha.[10] Both pharaohs are credited with the unification of Egypt to different degrees by various authorities.
Narmer and Menes
Two Horus names of Hor-Aha (left) and a name of Menes (right) in hieroglyphs. Main article: Narmer Ivory tablet of Menes
The ivory label mentioning Hor-Aha along with the mn sign.
Reconstructed tablet.
The almost complete absence of any mention of Menes in the archaeological record[5] and the comparative wealth of evidence of Narmer, a protodynastic figure credited by posterity and in the archaeological record with a firm claim[3] to the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, has given rise to a theory identifying Menes with Narmer.
The chief archaeological reference to Menes is an ivory label from Nagada which shows the royal Horus-nameAha (the pharaoh Hor-Aha) next to a building, within which is the royal nebty-namemn,[15] generally taken to be Menes.[5][a] From this, various theories on the nature of the building (a funerary booth or a shrine), the meaning of the word mn (a name or the verb endures) and the relationship between Hor-Aha and Menes (as one person or as successive pharaohs) have arisen.[2]
The Turin and Abydos king lists, generally accepted to be correct,[2] list the nesu-bit-names of the pharaohs, not their Horus-names,[3] and are vital to the potential reconciliation of the various records: the nesu-bit-names of the king lists, the Horus-names of the archaeological record and the number of pharaohs in Dynasty I according to Manetho and other historical sources.[3]
Flinders Petrie first attempted this task,[3] associating Iti with Djer as the third pharaoh of Dynasty I, Teti (Turin) (or another Iti (Abydos)) with Hor-Aha as second pharaoh, and Menes (a nebty-name) with Narmer (a Horus-name) as first pharaoh of Dynasty I.[2][3] Lloyd (1994) finds this succession "extremely probable",[3] and Cervelló-Autuori (2003) categorically states that "Menes is Narmer and the First Dynasty begins with him".[4] However, Seidlmayer (2004) states that it is "a fairly safe inference" that Menes was Hor-Aha.[10]
Reconstruction of the Narmer-Menes Seal impression from Abydos
Naqada Label reconstruction Garstang 1905, p. 62, fig3
Although highly interrelated, the questions of "who was Menes?" and "who unified Egypt?" are actually two separate issues. Narmer is often credited with the unification of Egypt by means of the conquest of Lower Egypt by Upper Egypt. While Menes is traditionally considered the first king of Ancient Egypt, Narmer has been identified by the majority of Egyptologists as the same person as Menes. Although vigorously debated (Hor-Aha, Narmer's successor, is the primary alternative identified as Menes by many authorities), the predominant opinion is that Narmer was Menes.[b]
The issue is confusing because "Narmer" is a Horus name while "Menes" is a Sedge and Bee name (personal or birth name). All of the King Lists which began to appear in the New Kingdom era list the personal names of the kings, and almost all begin with Menes, or begin with divine and/or semi-divine rulers, with Menes as the first "human king". The difficulty is aligning the contemporary archaeological evidence which lists Horus Names with the King Lists that list personal names.
Two documents have been put forward as proof either that Narmer was Menes or alternatively Hor-Aha was Menes. The first is the "Naqada Label" which shows a serekh of Hor-Aha next to an enclosure inside of which are symbols that have been interpreted by some scholars as the name "Menes". The second is the seal impression from Abydos that alternates between a serekh of Narmer and the chessboard symbol, "mn", which is interpreted as an abbreviation of Menes. Arguments have been made with regard to each of these documents in favour of Narmer or Hor-Aha being Menes, but in neither case, are the arguments conclusive.[c]
The second document, the seal impression from Abydos, shows the serekh of Narmer alternating with the gameboard sign (mn) sign, together with its phonetic compliment, the n sign, which is always shown when the full name of Menes is written, again representing the name “Menes”. At first glance, this would seem to be strong evidence that Narmer was Menes.[27] However, based on an analysis of other early First Dynasty seal impressions, which contain the name of one or more princes, the seal impression has been interpreted by other scholars as showing the name of a prince of Narmer named Menes, hence Menes was Narmer's successor, Hor-Aha, and thus Hor-Aha was Menes.[28] This was refuted by Cervelló-Autuori 2005, pp. 42–45; but opinions still vary, and the seal impression cannot be said to definitively support either theory.[29]
Two necropolis sealings, found in 1985 and 1991 in Abydos, in or near the tombs of Den[30] and Qa'a,[31] show Narmer as the first king on each list, followed by Hor-Aha. The Qa'a sealing lists all eight of the kings of what scholars now call the First Dynasty in the correct order, starting with Narmer. These necropolis sealings are strong evidence that Narmer was the first king of the First Dynasty—hence is the same person as Menes.[32]
IT is CLEARLY written in UNIVERSITY BOOKS..that Meenas(Mina/Matsya/Mena/Minout) is a aboriginal community means a tribal community.The Meena kingdom was known as Matsya kingdom in sanskrit was mentioned in the RIG VEDA.They decent from Lord Matsya/Meen or Meenesh and worships Lord Shiva.Also Matsya purana is the oldest puranas of India.The tribals religion is Aadim Dharma. Bhils and Minas are the oldest tribes of Rajasthan(India) since INDUS CIVILIZATION.Till 1400BC they ruled the land which is now called rajasthan,they were humbeled by the adventurous aryans but regained control and lived peacefully. Due to their war like characteristics they were Bhils and Minas were included in Agnivanshikshatriyas(written in University book Rajasthan ka itihas),They were respected by Hunas,Kusans etc. Bhils and minas are poor agriculturist people of rajasthan.Only 2%of the mina tribe are graduate so far.According to news published in THE TIMES OF INDIA news paper dated 31august2010 even after 17years only 7%seats are filled of OBC(other backward classes of India) out of 27%seats reservation;Moreover only 2% of ST/SC are in class 1 jobs.In India for Equality there is a strong need of OBC/SC/ST reservation in billion dollor Corporate world and Private Sector.Then only the deprived and backward classes(more than 70%people/majority of poor people) will be able to compete higher and forward classes.There is a strong need of extending reservation policy in all sphers and jobs for equality among our people.Being a good human let us try for the wellbeing of crores of People..Thanks.
...
The 67.7 million people belonging to "Scheduled Tribes" in India are generally considered to be 'Adivasis', literally meaning 'indigenous people' or 'original inhabitants', though the term 'Scheduled Tribes'
I see you have removed the section about the Scheduled Tribe status of Meenas in India. Please note that "Scheduled Tribe" is a constitutional term for socially undermined groups. The term is kosher in public discourse and is not derogotary. Meenas are the most widely known Scheduled Tribe of Rajasthan. Not to allow this fact to be documented in a clear manner in the wikipedia article makes it totally inauthentic with no reflection of the real world. If you want this article to have any semblance of crediblity , you need to restore that section (with spelling corrections, of course). All the references from reliable sources were provided there
.
.
HISTORY OF STs The epic of Mahabharata refers to the death of Krishna at the hands of a Bhil Jaratha. In the ancient scriptures, considered to be sacred by the upper castes, various terms are used depicting Adivasis as almost non-humans. The epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata, the Puranas, Samhitas and other so-called 'sacred books' refer to Adivasis as Rakshasa (demons), Vanara (monkeys), Jambuvan (boar men), Naga (serpents), Bhusundi Kaka (crow), Garuda (King of Eagles) etc. In medieval India, they were called derogatorily as Kolla, Villa, Kirata, Nishada, and those who surrendered or were subjugated were termed as Dasa (slave) and those who refused to accept the bondage of slavery were termed as Dasyu (a hostile robber).
Ekalavya, one of their archers was so skillful that the hero of the Aryans, Arjuna, could not stand before him. But they assaulted him, cutting his thumb and destroying his ability to fight - and then fashioned a story in which he accepted Drona as his Guru and surrendered his thumb as an offering to the master! The renowned writer Maheshwata Devi points out that Adivasis predated Hinduism and Aryanism, that Shiva was not an Aryan god and that in the 8th century, the tribal forest goddess or harvest goddess was absorbed and adapted as Siva's wife. Goddess Kali, the goddess of hunters, has definitely had a tribal origin.
The invasion of Adivasi territories, which for the most part commenced during the colonial period, intensified in the post-colonial period. Most of the Adivasi territories were claimed by the state. Over 10 million Adivasis have been displaced to make way for development projects such as dams, mining, industries, roads, protected areas etc. Though most of the dams (over 3000) are located in Adivasi areas, only 19.9% (1980-81) of Adivasi land holdings are irrigated as compared to 45.9% of all holdings of the general population. India produces as many as 52 principal, 3 fuel, 11 metallic, 38 non-metallic and a number of minor minerals.
Of these 45 major minerals (coal, iron ore, magnetite, manganese, bauxite, graphite, limestone, dolomite, uranium etc) are found in Adivasi areas contributing some 56% of the national total mineral earnings in terms of value. Of the 4,175 working mines reported by the Indian Bureau of Mines in 1991-92, approximately 3500 could be assumed to be in Adivasi areas. Income to the government from forests rose from Rs.5.6 million in 1869-70 to more than Rs.13 billions in the 1970s. The bulk of the nation's productive wealth lay in the Adivasi territories. Yet the Adivasi has been driven out, marginalised and robbed of dignity by the very process of 'national development'.
EVERYTHING THAT IS WRITTEN IS RIGHT: Meenas are warrior tribe of Rajasthan ennough clue has been given by someone above so there is no need to further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshjagarawal24 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Indian Territory, originally “all of that part of the United States west of the Mississippi, and not within the States of Missouri and Louisiana, or the Territory of Arkansas.” Never an organized territory, it was soon restricted to the present state of Oklahoma, excepting the panhandle and Greer county. source
Where was the Indian territory located?
A region conceived as "the Indian country" was specified in 1825 as all the land lying west of the Mississippi. Eventually, the Indian country or the Indian Territory would encompass the present states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and part of Iowa. source
The Trail of Tears, one of the darkest moments in US history — and we rarely talk about it
The largest act of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the United States government began in 1830, when Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law, which gave him the power to negotiate the removal of Native American tribes in the South to land west of the Mississippi. Of course, those negotiations were corrupt and rife with coercion. Take, for example, the removal of the Cherokee, which was conducted via a treaty never approved by leaders of the Cherokee nation and resulted in, according to a missionary doctor who accompanied the Cherokee during removal, about 4,000 deaths, or one-fifth of the Cherokee population. Later scholarship suggested the numbers could be even higher than that.
–Dylan Matthews
America's indigenous population today is sparse and largely lives in areas we forced them into
This map of indigenous population density today shows the effects of not just the initial disease-driven depopulation of North America in the wake of European settlement in the 15th to 18th centuries, but also the long effort of the US government in the 19th century to remove Native Americans from their homes and place them in reservations of its choosing. The Cherokees of Georgia are gone, having been forced to relocate to eastern Oklahoma. A handful of counties in the upper Plains states, Arizona, and New Mexico have large or majority native populations. Alaska natives are still a majority in a number of counties. But in most of the country — especially in the South, Midwest, and Northeast — Native Americans make up a vanishingly small percentage of the population.
–Dylan Matthews
Interactive Time-Lapse Map Shows How the U.S. Took More Than 1.5 Billion Acres From Native Americans
The Vault is Slate's history blog. Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter @slatevault, and find us on Tumblr. Find out more about what this space is all about here.
This interactive map, produced by University of Georgia historian Claudio Saunt to accompany his new book West of the Revolution: An Uncommon History of 1776, offers a time-lapse vision of the transfer of Indian land between 1776 and 1887. As blue “Indian homelands” disappear, small red areas appear, indicating the establishment of reservations. (Above is a GIF of the map's time-lapse display; visit the map's page to play with its features.)
The project’s source data is a set of maps produced in 1899 by the Bureau of American Ethnology. The B.A.E. was a research unit of the Smithsonian that published and collected anthropological, archaeological, and linguistic research on the culture of North American Indians, as the nineteenth century drew to a close.
While the time-lapse function is the most visually impressive aspect of this interactive, the “source map” option (available on the map's site) offers a deep level of detail. By selecting a source map, and then zooming in to the state you’ve selected, you can see details of the map used to generate that section of the interactive. A pop-up box tells you which Native nation was resident on the land, and the date of the treaty or executive order that transferred the area to the government, as well as offering external links to descriptions of the treaty and of the tract of land.
In the site’s “About” section (reachable by clicking on the question mark), Saunt is careful to point out that the westward-moving boundaries could sometimes be vague. Asked for an example, he pointed me to the 1791 treaty with the Cherokee that ceded the land where present-day Knoxville, Tenn. stands. The treaty's language pointed to landmarks like "the mouth of Duck river," a broad approach that left a lot of room for creative implementation. When dealing with semi-nomadic tribes, Saunt added, negotiators sometimes designated a small reservation, "rather than spelling out the boundaries of the cession."
This vagueness benefited the government’s purposes in crafting treaties and executive orders. “Greater legality and more precision,” Saunt argues, “would have made it impossible to seize so much land in so short a time.”