"We" stole the Indian's land.... Oh really ?

I know we had a problematic history, but that doesn't mean that settling America was wrong.

Sort of like forcing a woman to marry the man who raped her?

[edit]
The systematic destruction of the Indians in America (what were left, anyway) constitute nothing less than genocide. Americans have had a long tradition of breaking treaties with Indians whenever it is convenient, and then shooting any whingers. From the first Dutch colony at New York up until what, the 1900's?

Andrew Jackson ran on what was essentially an anti-Indian platform. The Colonizers found it convenient to consider the Red Man not a Man, but something more like an animal that was in the way of progress. Something to be shot, trapped, hunted- the way one removes wolves or bears.
 
Last edited:
....There is no American alive who has not benefited from the persecution of the Indians and their progeny have a right to demand justice for it.

I think that could be said for every civilization on the planet. Everyone has benefited from a conquered people.

Have you ever been to a reservation and seen how its governed and maintained??
 
[As European immigrants moved west in a legitimate search for space, land, resources, and riches, they found few Natives living there.
I disagree with many things you wrote but I'll focus here. There was a systematic displacement and killing of natives. Treaties were CONSTANTLY broken. The army was used repeatedly in forced relocations, massacres and wars against the various tribes. Often no recognition was given at all for tribes that had lived in certain locations for long periods before the white settlers. Whites devastated food sources - the buffalo - and moved into key areas whether for sustanence or spiritually for the natives.
What was done to the Natives was far worse than what England was doing to the 13 colonies and yet the Revolutionary war is seen as a sacred act by what became Americans. How much more so if the Natives could have pushed back the Europeans.

But the settling of America was inevitable.
so the Chinese invent a superweapon and need land for their people. Their start colonizing California and move East taking the best houses and land from Americans. And then they say it is inevitable. They have a need, they have the power.
 
There is no American alive who has not benefited from the persecution of the Indians and their progeny have a right to demand justice for it.
perhaps you will take it as petty, but native americans who are american citizens do not fit this category. At least, many of them do not. I also think the case gets very complicated with afro-americans and your rule does not hold. Current immigrants and the very poor also do not fit with what you say.

I do not think it is petty pointing this out because your wording makes it seem like NAs are not Americans and further I think oversimplifications, whether unconsciously or consciously intented to or not, make resolution less likely and conflict more likely.
 
I disagree. If you were poor in India, it would mean this:

poverty_india11.jpg


Does it mean this in America?
 
I disagree. If you were poor in India, it would mean this:

poverty_india11.jpg


Does it mean this in America?
You'll have to lay out more of an argument. I get tired of chasing ghosts with the atheists and their questions and you and your questions.

I've made things to easy.
 
Those who define themselves as poor in the US do so relatively. They have no idea what poverty is.
 
Wow. I've seen men with no clothes begging on the streets of my home city. I'll be sure to let them know. God knows what happens to the women in similar situations. And somehow I find myself perhaps expected to respond to a comparison between the very poor - as I put it above - in the US and the very poor in India. If it weren't you I would wonder if you were confusing Native Americans and Indians, since it is you it seems like a rhetorical shift, and not a justified one in the context of thread or the point I was making, and one I don't have the patience to chew on.

It's not your fault especially SAM. But I've been working too hard here. I see people come at tangents and toss out questions and whizzing by things without remarking - I know you agree, often, with things you don't comment on. Perhaps I could have as a header to each of my posts....

I am now assuming you agreed with Point A: _____________ and Point C: since these were not commented on.

And then go on to the bulk of my response to what you did comment on or ask me about.

I think I have to treat sciforums more like one of those county fair things where you get three shots at targets and you either win the stuff animals or you miss or maybe the guy behind the counter moved the target with a foot lever
and whatever the case move on.

I know, irony.

Look out.....
 
Don't worry, you'll learn. You can read my ancient beginner posts for inspiration :D

I haven't seen the level of poverty in the US that I have seen in India. Could you tell me where people are living in the US with no access to food, shelter or clothing?

My point is or was rather that all Americans have an opportunity that would not have existed without the annihilation of the native American way of life. Thats all inclusive. Its not restricted to those who lived 400 years ago or those who live now.
 
I'm sure they are more upset at one culture trying to change them more than anything. To look down on the hunting and gathering as inferior behaviors. Yes those tragedies did happen before us now and we are not responsible. But we should have quiet sentiment to not wish to to occur on them.

All too often you here some people stating that "we" (Americans) "stole" the land from American Indians.

Seeing how it was Europeans that no longer exist that took over America, is it fair to say "we", today, stole their (the Indians who no longer exist) land ?

Likewise, the "Native Americans" that live on reservations in America today are just as "native" as anyone else born in the Americas; so the current Indians never owned all of America.

So how is it "we" stole their land ?
If "we" stole their land, then you could say that about ANY country on the face of the planet; as conquests and borders have been changing around the world for perhaps 100,000 years or more.

Additionally, people claim "we" committed "genocide" on Indians in the Americas. First of all, most were killed by diseases carrying a ride to the Americas from explorers.....hardly a "deliberate" "genocide"; those explorers didn't even know what a disease was.
 
Last edited:
They have a very good reason not to trust the us government and white people.

GAIN THE INDIANS CO-OPERATION - It is much easier to steal someone's human rights if you can do it with his OWN co-operation. So..:

1. Make him a non-person. Human rights are for people. Convince Indians their ancestors were savages, that they were pagan, that Indians were drunkards. Make them wards of the government. Make a legal distinction, as in the Indian Act, between Indians and persons. Write history books that tell half the story.

2. Convince the Indian that he should be patient, that these things take time. Tell him that we are making progress, and that progress takes time.

3. Make him believe that things are being done for his own good. Tell him you're sure that after he has experienced your laws and actions that he will realise how good they have been. Tell the Indian he has to take a little of the bad in order to enjoy the benefits you are conferring on him.

4. Get some Indian people to do the dirty work. There are always those who will act for you to the disadvantage of their own people. Just give them a little honor and praise. This is generally the function of band councils, chiefs, and advisory councils: they have little legal power, but can handle the tough decisions such as welfare, allocation of housing etc.

5. Consult the Indian, but do not act on the basis of what you hear. Tell the Indian he has a voice and go through the motions of listening. Then interpret what you have heard to suit your own needs.

6. Insist that the Indian "GOES THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS." Make the channels and the procedures so difficult that he won't bother to do anything. When he discovers what the proper channels are and becomes proficient at the procedures, change them.

7. Make the Indian believe that you are working hard for him, putting in much overtime and at a great sacrifice, and imply that he should be appreciative. This is the ultimate in skills in stealing human rights; when you obtain the thanks of your victim.

8. Allow a few individuals to "MAKE THE GRADE" and then point to them as examples. Say that the 'HARDWORKERS" AND THE "GOOD" Indians have made it, and that therefore it is a person's own fault if he doesn't succeed.

9. Appeal to the Indian's sense of fairness, and tell him that even though things are pretty bad it is not right for him to make strong protests. Keep the argument going on his form of protest and avoid talking about the real issue. refuse to deal with him while he is protesting. Take all the fire out of his efforts.

10. Encourage the Indian to take his case to court. This is very expensive, takes lots of time and energy and is very safe because laws are stacked against him. The court's ruling will defeat the Indian's cause, but makes him think he has obtained justice.

11. Make the Indian believe that things could be worse, and that instead of complaining about the loss of human rights, to be grateful for the rights we do have. In fact, convince him that to attempt to regain a right he has lost is likely to jepordize the rights that he still has.

12. Set yourself up as the protector of the Indian's human rights, and then you can choose to act only on those violations you wish to act upon. By getting successful on a few minor violations of human rights, you can point to these as examples of your devotion to his cause. The burglar who is also the doorman is the perfect combination.

13. Pretend that the reason for the loss of human rights is for some other reason that the person is an Indian. Tell him some of your best friends are Indians, and that his loss of rights is because of his housekeeping, his drinking, his clothing.

14. Make the situation more complicated than is necessary. Tell the Indian you will have to take a survey to find out how many other Indians are being discriminating against. Hire a group of professors to make a year-long research project.

15. Insist on unanimity. Let the Indian know that when all the Indians in Canada can make up their minds about just what they want as a group, then you will act. Play one group's special situation against another group's wishes.

16. Select very limited alternatives, neither of which has much merit, and then tell the Indian that indeed he has a choice. Ask, for instance, if he could or would rather have council elections in June or December, instead of asking if he wants them at all.

17. Convince the Indian that the leaders who are the most beneficial and powerful are dangerous and not to be trusted. Or simply lock them up on some charge like driving with no lights. Or refuse to listen to the real leaders and spend much time with the weak ones. Keep the people split from their leaders by sowing rumour. Attempt to get the best leaders into high paying jobs where they have to keep quiet to keep their paycheck coming in.

18. Speak of the common good. Tell the Indian that you can't consider yourselves when there is a whole nation to think of. Tell him that he can't think only of himself. For instance, in regard to hunting rights, tell him we have to think of all the hunters, or the sporting good industry.

19. Remove rights so gradually that people don't realize what has happened until it is too late. Again, in regard to hunting rights, first restrict the geographical area where hunting is permitted, then cut the season to certain times of the year, then cut the limits down gradually, then insist on licensing, and then Indians will be on the same grounds as white sportsmen.

20. Rely on some reason and logic (your reason and logic) instead of rightness and morality. Give thousands of reasons for things, but do not get trapped into arguments about what is right.

21. Hold a conference on HUMAN RIGHTS, have everyone blow off steam and tension, and go home feeling things are well in hand.

(Twenty-One Ways to 'Scalp' An Indian-Jerry Gambill)


hahahaha?

the national day of mourning


Some ask us: Will you ever stop protesting? Some day we will stop protesting: We will stop protesting when the merchants of Plymouth are no longer making millions of dollars off the blood of our slaughtered ancestors. We will stop protesting when we can act as sovereign nations on our own land without the interference of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and what Sitting Bull called the "favorite ration chiefs." When corporations stop polluting our mother, the earth. When racism has been eradicated. When the oppression of Two-Spirited people is a thing of the past. We will stop protesting when homeless people have homes and no child goes to bed hungry. When police brutality no longer exists in communities of color. We will stop protesting when Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu Jamal and the Puerto Rican independentistas and all the political prisoners are free.

Until then, the struggle will continue.

Today, we will correct some history and do so in a country that continues to glorify butchers such as Christopher Columbus, glorifies slave-owning presidents such as Washington and Jefferson and even carves their faces into the sacred Black Hills of the Lakota. (moonanum james)


encore!
bravo!
fuck whitey!
 
i went to the poorhouse once
drove there with my tv and microwave
they gave me govt cheese and a cot

food stamps for a dub?
 
I beg to differ, as laws have come and gone since then, not to mention the Americas have been sliding more towards Socialism since then. But that's a different topic for a different thread.

But, from a legal perspective, the law says that the U.S. today and the U.S. back then are the same entity, despite practical changes that have occurred. Were it mnot the same legal entity, then treaties would be void, because the old treaties were signed by "someone else." The same if true of the Constitution. If the United States now is not legally the same as the United States in 1787, why would we be bound by that?

Like I've asked before, and nobody (who's claiming that "we" today are responsible for what others long ago did) has answered; should we hold Europeans TODAY responsible for the Europeans 100,000+ years ago responsible for the demise of the Neanderthals ? :shrug:

It seems obvious to me that the rule would have to be worked one of two ways (i) that we use "blanket blame" and, at most, force those responsible to apologize for their (or their ancestors) misdeeds or (ii) that complainants be required to establish a reasonable causal relationship between the culpable generations ancestral population and the harm caused to the complainants' ancestors. In the case of (ii) where you can show cause, you might go a step further and make a showing of the damages caused by the ancient slight, and in doing that make a basic claim for damages to be paid (though from any practical perspective, establishing damages is an impossibility more than a generation or two away from the harm, it's like trying to unbake a cake because you want your eggs back)

In the case of blanket blame, why not blame Europeans for the deaths of the neanderthals. Make the Europeans apologise to the dead. Who cares? In the case of establishing a causal connection, you'd have to show which group of Europeans did what. It is not clear that Europeans were responsible for the extinction of the neanderthals to startwith, or that we "killed them" as opposed to simple been better at catching game than they were. There's even an off chance still that we interbred with them, and that they were absorbed rather than killed off. The lack of a proveable harm being done to them makes it hard to point the finger at the wrongdoers.

That said, the United States did make treaty after treaty with the native americans, all broken. We did drive them west, and every time we found something good on their land, we drove them off it. If they got angry and fought back, we often took that as license to massively retaliate without concern for the fact that we may have started it.

I have no issue with sayng that what happened to them was a travesty and that early European-descended Amnericans were either by and large unjust or represented in their government by men who were by and large unjust. On many levels, further, I do feel a kinship with those early Americans. When I think of the accomplishments of early America I do think of "our" revolution, "our" first President, Washington, "our" westward expansion, "our" Civil War, "our" part in WWII, "our" landing on the Moon, etc. Does any American seriously think of George Washington as "their" or "someone else's" first President? He was the first president of some country which definitely was not the United States of America???

Shirking away when it comes to the bad deeds would be intellectually dishonest. I shouldn't be able to cherry pick history to decide which legacies I want and which I prefer to think of as committed by others.
 
Back
Top