View Full Version : "We" stole the Indian's land.... Oh really ?


Cazzo
10-03-08, 06:54 PM
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.:rolleyes:
And there's only 1 documented case (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/smallpox.htm) of 2 small pox laden blanets given to an Indian tribe.
All these tragedies happened before any of us ("we") were born.

S.A.M.
10-03-08, 06:57 PM
I think the fact that they were put on reservations in their own land is a good sign.

What would you think of new immigrants who did that to you? The exact same thing?

Cazzo
10-03-08, 07:01 PM
I think the fact that they were put on reservations in their own land is a good sign.

What would you think of new immigrants who did that to you? The exact same thing?

Of course, but that's not the point of this thread.
This thread is about the blame game, where some people assert that "we" NOW are responsible for what happened to the Indians over 100 years ago; which is obviously FALSE since "we" didn't exist back then.

S.A.M.
10-03-08, 07:05 PM
Let me put it this way. If the Chinese decided to move to the US, make the official language, dress, food, law, society, culture, political system Chinese, took away all your resources, land and money, put you in little patches of land where you could do everything under their watchful eye, what would you do?

CheskiChips
10-03-08, 07:22 PM
Let me put it this way. If the Chinese decided to move to the US, make the official language, dress, food, law, society, culture, political system Chinese, took away all your resources, land and money, put you in little patches of land where you could do everything under their watchful eye, what would you do?

The Confederates tried that, it didn't work.

Just so know you know; the original people in the south were very much unrelated to the people in the North in the early days.

S.A.M.
10-03-08, 07:25 PM
Like you moving to Israel? :rolleyes:

CheskiChips
10-03-08, 07:27 PM
Like you moving to Israel? :rolleyes:

No, that one worked.

S.A.M.
10-03-08, 07:28 PM
It did? Wow, when did that happen? Is that why you are learning a language that was dead for 2000 years? :rolleyes:

CheskiChips
10-03-08, 07:30 PM
It did? Wow, when did that happen? Is that why you are learning a language that was dead for 2000 years? :rolleyes:

It was dead for 2000 years, luckily Jews are really good at CPR.

S.A.M.
10-03-08, 07:32 PM
No they are really bad at facing reality. Its why the native Americans will have assimilated after 2000 years and Jews will have become Middle Eastern terrorists holding on to "their" land.

CheskiChips
10-03-08, 07:33 PM
No they are really bad at facing reality. Its why the native Americans will have assimilated after 2000 years and Jews will have become Middle Eastern terrorists holding on to "their" land.

From now on when you say something so silly; I am going to just refer you to my name sake.

Refer to Ezekiel.

S.A.M.
10-03-08, 07:39 PM
Its not silly, the native Americans lived for thousands of years in the US and yet in another few hundred years, they will have become a part of the population, notwithstanding idiots who think they owe them nothing. Jews were immigrants to Canaan and have been clinging to a fantasy for 2000 years, thats a LOOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG time to be a people who refuse to assimilate. So I doubt another 2000 years will make much difference.

From Holocaust survivors they have graduated to occupation and terrorism. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/3128224/Jewish-terrorism-threatens-Israel.html) Before long they will become despised once more for the same reason as always: they want to be separate from others. It does not work in places like the Middle East, where anyone who behaves like a foreigner is considered an outcaste. But apparently the Zionists have a deep ideological fanaticism for that land, so they will not share it or give it up or move out. Which means they will sit on their nuclear bombs and keep terrorising their neighbours.

Now compare that to the native Americans.

Simon Anders
10-03-08, 07:45 PM
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.:rolleyes:
And there's only 1 documented case (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/smallpox.htm) of 2 small pox laden blanets given to an Indian tribe.
All these tragedies happened before any of us ("we") were born.
Sort of like all the people who got angry at the French for not being positive about the Gulf war and all these Americans ran around saying 'we saved your asses in WW2'.

S.A.M.
10-03-08, 07:53 PM
Fourth Geneva Convention: the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

kmguru
10-03-08, 07:56 PM
In another 100 years when America becomes the sattelite of China, do you think Israel will be like American Indians in a reservation?

S.A.M.
10-03-08, 07:57 PM
By that time, all the sane Jews will have run off and the fanatics will be blowing themselves up. Like in Masada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada

Whats up with the native Americans anyway? Whats holding them back? Is it drugs or alcohol?

CheskiChips
10-03-08, 08:06 PM
By that time, all the sane Jews will have run off and the fanatics will be blowing themselves up. Like in Masada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada

Whats up with the native Americans anyway? Whats holding them back? Is it drugs or alcohol?

It's mainly diabetes, poor schools, illness, and depression. I live next to 3 different reservations. They keep VERY isolated, they don't speak to white people. They even speak their native tongues.

S.A.M.
10-03-08, 08:08 PM
With that combination, they probably have a higher incidence of suicide as well. Whats preventing their assimilation?

kmguru
10-03-08, 08:08 PM
Actually smart native americans have already blended in to the society long ago. Those who married to the whites, their offspring is usually smart (as you know Bell Curve says Chinese race is smarter than whites) and hence blend in very well.

The dumb ones struggle in reservations. That is the short answer....

S.A.M.
10-03-08, 08:11 PM
Its usually the smart ones who rebel and the dumb ones who want no trouble.

Simon Anders
10-03-08, 08:37 PM
His short answer was rather pathetic.
But yours is an oversimplification.
And both strategies worked for NA's and both failed. With the vast % of both failing.

Read-Only
10-03-08, 09:06 PM
This thread has totally degenerated and moved away from the original thought which, by the way, is totally correct.

Attempting to blame the people alive today for having taken the land is equally as stupid as blaming every living German for the Holocaust or blaming all living Caucasians for the slavery of the Blacks over a hundred years ago.

No one alive today (with the exception of a VERY few Germans) had anything to do with those events. But, knowing how stupid some people can be, I've no doubt there will be some in the 23rd century who will be blaming living Americans (and others) for the 21st century invasion of the Middle East. :shrug:

Vkothii
10-03-08, 09:45 PM
How stupid is it to blame your ancestors for something, and hold that up as an excuse for not addressing the obvious disparities that the 'something' caused to an entire race of people?

How intelligent is it to blame the pioneers and plantation owners, for the repression of Africans who were kidnapped and imprisoned, forced to work as slaves, and so on?
How stupid is it to believe that since it happened 'ages ago' there's nothing to be done now?
The problems of the past stay in the past? How dumb is that?

Simon Anders
10-03-08, 09:56 PM
And given the amount of apologists for those ancestors -

it was inevitable, guns, germs steel, theory, uh, so it was ok

or

they had to make way for a superior civilization (ie. one that destroys others)
- one could, instead of blaming the NAs who are bitter and use the construction in the thread title, blame the apologists for still not getting it.

Vkothii
10-03-08, 09:57 PM
For not getting how proud they should all be about conquering some place, and disenfranchising the natives, you mean?

Simon Anders
10-03-08, 09:59 PM
For not getting how proud they should all be about conquering some place, and disenfranchising the natives, you mean?
well, for thinking that, actually.

CutsieMarie89
10-03-08, 10:00 PM
I think by we most people are referring to "the Americans". It is true that Americans forced Native Americans off of their land. It's wrong to place blame on the current Americans living today for what happened becaue it obviously wasn't their fault. But it's a how do you say an "editorial We" (correct me if I'm wrong because I don't know. Language is not my strong point). Like when people say we when referring to a group that they are a part of, but may or may not actually mean themselves personally. Like if I said we resisdents of California voted against parental permission for abortions of minors... I am a resident of California, but I didn't vote on that proposition (as I was still a minor myself at the time).

Read-Only
10-03-08, 10:01 PM
How stupid is it to blame your ancestors for something, and hold that up as an excuse for not addressing the obvious disparities that the 'something' caused to an entire race of people?

How intelligent is it to blame the pioneers and plantation owners, for the repression of Africans who were kidnapped and imprisoned, forced to work as slaves, and so on?
How stupid is it to believe that since it happened 'ages ago' there's nothing to be done now?
The problems of the past stay in the past? How dumb is that?

Actually, it's VERY stupid to do so when things happened so long ago. Just how long do you suppose the guilt should continue? And what should we - the ones that had NOTHING to do with the original crimes - be required to pay to correct for the wrongs done by others, eh?

If your own father stole money in a bank roberry 50 years ago, just how much responsibility do you as his child bear for that (even though you shared in the benefits of that money)??????

Simon Anders
10-03-08, 10:07 PM
Actually, it's VERY stupid to do so when things happened so long ago. Just how long do you suppose the guilt should continue? And what should we - the ones that had NOTHING to do with the original crimes - be required to pay to correct for the wrongs done by others, eh?

If your own father stole money in a bank roberry 50 years ago, just how much responsibility do you as his child bear for that (even though you shared in the benefits of that money)??????
The same would of course be true for pride. But americans often take pride in things like the Boston Tea Party or the Revolutionary war and the texts written by 'their forefathers'. They take pride in the Pilgrims and revel in myths of this country that begin back when the incredibly unjust treatment of the NAs was just beginning. Somehow this country myth gets tucked into the personal self myth.

If you are going to identify with the pride of people you are not, then shame must also be a part of the identification, given what these early Americans did.

Vkothii
10-03-08, 10:11 PM
what should we - the ones that had NOTHING to do with the original crimes - be required to pay to correct for the wrongs done by others, eh?How invalid is an argument that compares a social crime like theft by a single individual, to theft by an entire social group?
The first is 'wrong' because society says theft is wrong; the second is 'right' because society says it has 'every right' to steal collectively.

How long ago is "very long ago"? The effects have disappeared from view over the horizon of history? We can now blame the natives for their own problems, since they don't want to 'assimilate'? They would rather sit around and get drunk, beat each other up and end up in jail?
What's wrong with these people, for god's sake?

Surely, as you suggest, it's just a question of how much money we should give them. We can all feel less guilty at least, or having handed over some money, we then have more justification for blaming the disenfranchised natives for their own sorry plight.
It's not like they don't have a culture anymore, it's not as if we tried to destroy it or anything; what's their problem?

What's wrong with that idea? Money always fixes everything.

/sarcasm

Read-Only
10-03-08, 10:20 PM
The same would of course be true for pride. But americans often take pride in things like the Boston Tea Party or the Revolutionary war and the texts written by 'their forefathers'. They take pride in the Pilgrims and revel in myths of this country that begin back when the incredibly unjust treatment of the NAs was just beginning. Somehow this country myth gets tucked into the personal self myth.

If you are going to identify with the pride of people you are not, then shame must also be a part of the identification, given what these early Americans did.

All of that is nothing more than just an attempt at distraction and trying to confuse the issue. I see no point in such false pride OR shame.

I'll also let you in on a little secret: I'm a card-carrying certified member of the Cherokee Nation and along with a few dozen others of us that I know, take no pride in our "heritage" as Amerinds or our other distant "heritage" as Welsh, Brits, Scotts, Spaniards or whatever. All of that is SO far back as to be meaningless today.

Simon Anders
10-03-08, 10:27 PM
All of that is nothing more than just an attempt at distraction and trying to confuse the issue. I see no point in such false pride OR shame. REally? I see this all over the place. People identifying with the acts of 'their' forefathers.

And it can be seen in the frenzy of Francophobia, as I mentioned above, where people were screaming about how the French would be speaking German if it wasn't for us. And while I am sure there were a few WW2 vets in the bunch, most of those people had nothing to do with liberating France.


I'll also let you in on a little secret: I'm a card-carrying certified member of the Cherokee Nation and along with a few dozen others of us that I know, take no pride in our "heritage" as Amerinds or our other distant "heritage" as Welsh, Brits, Scotts, Spaniards or whatever. All of that is SO far back as to be meaningless today. Apart from being anecdotal evidence this is beside the point. Many Americans do take precisely the kind of pride I mentioned in my other post. This self/country myth pride could use some counterbalancing. What you and your friends do and don't do is simply what you and your friends do and don't do.

Read-Only
10-03-08, 10:35 PM
REally? I see this all over the place. People identifying with the acts of 'their' forefathers.

And it can be seen in the frenzy of Francophobia, as I mentioned above, where people were screaming about how the French would be speaking German if it wasn't for us. And while I am sure there were a few WW2 vets in the bunch, most of those people had nothing to do with liberating France.

Apart from being anecdotal evidence this is beside the point. Many Americans do take precisely the kind of pride I mentioned in my other post. This self/country myth pride could use some counterbalancing. What you and your friends do and don't do is simply what you and your friends do and don't do.

Oh, really?

And I see you have carefully ignored and refused to reply to the question I asked you about your father having robbed a bank... Do you bear any responsibility for that or not????

Simon Anders
10-03-08, 10:48 PM
Oh, really?

And I see you have carefully ignored and refused to reply to the question I asked you about your father having robbed a bank... Do you bear any responsibility for that or not????
Actually you asked the other guy.

It's a bad analogy. Better if my father embezzled money from a group of families in a town. If I was living in a house built on land my father bought with their families' money and in a house built with their families' money, I can see where they might eye it as their property.

Going back to the identification.
I was taught in social studies that manifest destiny was correct. It was our country and a good thing we took possession of it - we being Europeans and members of the Judao-Christian tradition.
The teacher's use of the plural pronoun was constant...

'We spread into the new territories..."

There was one teacher I had in the 7th grade who used an alternative textbook that made the issue more complex.

Read-Only
10-03-08, 11:02 PM
It's a bad analogy. Better if my father embezzled money from a group of families in a town. If I was living in a house built on land my father bought with their families' money and in a house built with their families' money, I can see where they might eye it as their property.

Going back to the identification.
I was taught in social studies that manifest destiny was correct. It was our country and a good thing we took possession of it - we being Europeans and members of the Judao-Christian tradition.
The teacher's use of the plural pronoun was constant...

'We spread into the new territories..."

There was one teacher I had in the 7th grade who used an alternative textbook that made the issue more complex.

There are all kinds of things that are being taught. What you wind up accepting is up to you.

However, you'll always have a GREAT deal of difficulty trying to get most people - including me - to accept any degree of responsibility for something done 100 or 200 or a thousand years ago by individuals who are long dead.

And once you start back down that idiotic path, there's no logical stopping point. You might as well say we are ALL (today) responsible for everything bad that's happened in the past million years. It makes just that much sense.

pjdude1219
10-03-08, 11:27 PM
It's mainly diabetes, poor schools, illness, and depression. I live next to 3 different reservations. They keep VERY isolated, they don't speak to white people. They even speak their native tongues.

They have a very good reason not to trust the us government and white people.

iceaura
10-04-08, 01:14 AM
Attempting to blame the people alive today for having taken the land is equally as stupid as blaming every living German for the Holocaust or blaming all living Caucasians for the slavery of the Blacks over a hundred years ago. The latest round of lawsuits over land and resource grabbing from Red tribes by Whites of various agency is still in the courts, and references crimes committed in the late 1900s - within the current generation.

The earlier ones form a continuous chain of criminal behavior reaching back from 2006 (Abramoff) to the late 1600s, without skipping a single decade in that span of time.

It's not ancient history - a lot of this stuff is still within its statute of limitations, a lot of it is on legal paper in perfectly valid and enforceable treaties etc.

The racial oppression of blacks by whites was overt, even statutory, within the personal memories of people as young as Obama. It remains present and influential today, and yes the people responsible for it and the people benefiting from it are reasonably liable for doing something about it.

Read-Only
10-04-08, 06:52 AM
The racial oppression of blacks by whites was overt, even statutory, within the personal memories of people as young as Obama. It remains present and influential today, and yes the people responsible for it and the people benefiting from it are reasonably liable for doing something about it.

That is an issue TOTALLY separate from the old one of slavery.

cosmictraveler
10-04-08, 07:32 AM
so the current Indians never owned all of America.

But their for fathers sure did. That is like saying that if your great grandfather owned a property in the 1800's and then passed that property down to his next of kin and they passed it down to theirs, then that property would have always remained in the family wouldn't it? Same holds true for the Native Americans, for they were the ones who were here when the Europeans came over and stole their lands away from them with lies, alcohol and beads telling them they had treaties that allowed whites to live on their lands but could never own it. Still today not one of those treaties has ever been upheld when the Native Americans went to court to validate them, why is that?

Simon Anders
10-04-08, 08:01 AM
There are all kinds of things that are being taught. What you wind up accepting is up to you.

However, you'll always have a GREAT deal of difficulty trying to get most people - including me - to accept any degree of responsibility for something done 100 or 200 or a thousand years ago by individuals who are long dead.

And once you start back down that idiotic path, there's no logical stopping point. You might as well say we are ALL (today) responsible for everything bad that's happened in the past million years. It makes just that much sense.
I haven't made that case. I do think that as long as people think of themselves as that 'we' that shaped the nation then they need to think of themselves as part of that 'we' that did other things that they should not be proud of.

This kind of mythmaking is very common and I think a more realistic look at that 'we' would have some excellent effects on how other countries view us and how groups within the US view current events and this mythmaking.

I am not saying that a card carrying Cherokee such as yourself should have the right to occupy some white guy's aparment in Bryson, North Carolina.

I do think that this one-sided we-ness is damaging and needs to meet its other side in statement like 'we stole....' etc.

Repeated use of the second person plural pronouns about all the citizens of a nation leads to idiocies like 'they hate our freedom'
and and a bunch of other idiocies based on a false sense of unity, rose colored glasses and lies.

Read-Only
10-04-08, 08:37 AM
I haven't made that case. I do think that as long as people think of themselves as that 'we' that shaped the nation then they need to think of themselves as part of that 'we' that did other things that they should not be proud of.

Now THAT I can agree with. But "not being proud of" and accepting blame and responsibility for those things isn't the same thing at all.


I am not saying that a card carrying Cherokee such as yourself should have the right to occupy some white guy's aparment in Bryson, North Carolina.

And I agree with that also. One of the main reasons I brought that up in the first place is something I forgot to mention. It doesn't give me or my kids the right to take someone's home but it DOES grant us the ability to claim a free college education, among other things, as "reparations" of deeds done in the past. And neither I nor any card-carrying Amerind I know feel that we are owed any such special treatment. We've all chosen to pay for those things ourselves - just as you do. It's a matter of principle with us - just as not accepting the blame for what others have done is also a matter of principle.

Orleander
10-04-08, 08:45 AM
I think the fact that they were put on reservations in their own land is a good sign....

Yeah, that shouldn't have been done. They should have been absorbed into the invading culture and it all called good. Its what the conquering armies of Europe and Asia did.

I'm curious, do the people of Asia and Europe (such as descendants of the Franks, Gauls, Huns, Persians) all want reparation or does that only happen here in the US?

MacGyver1968
10-04-08, 08:49 AM
I think the French have to pay reparations...you know....just cause they're French. :) j/k

So I wonder if we are thiefs here in Texas, since we "stole" the land from the Mexicans, who in turn, had "stolen" it from NA. I guess we pay reparations to the Mexicans, who then have to pay the NA. We actually worked out a more direct system..we drive 60 miles north and spend millions in NA casinos on the Oklahoma border....it eliminates alot of the paperwork. :)

Orleander
10-04-08, 08:51 AM
Why do we continue to send the Native population a gvmt check? How are we helping them by doing that?

cosmictraveler
10-04-08, 08:56 AM
Why do we continue to send the Native population a gvmt check? How are we helping them by doing that?

Because they can't get work because many of them have been relocated to distant areas , far from the cities that they might get work in. Only about 5 percent of the tribes have cassino's on their lands because those tribes are within easy access of major cities. If you figured up how much all of the land would cost to repay them for it then you understand why the Native Americans are being given a little scrap of money, a few billion , per year for all tribes.

Orleander
10-04-08, 09:00 AM
repay them for what? Losing the land to an invading population?

cosmictraveler
10-04-08, 09:04 AM
repay them for what? Losing the land to an invading population?

Because they cannot get work outside of their resettlement areas.

Orleander
10-04-08, 09:08 AM
LOL, bullshit. That's like saying black people can't get work outside of a ghetto

Cazzo
10-04-08, 11:08 AM
Because they cannot get work outside of their resettlement areas.

One could argue a couple things about this :
#1. Who forces them to stay on reservations ? If anything, Indians have MORE rights than white Americans because of "Affirmative Action". If they got shot-down applying for a job outside a reservation, they could claim "racial discrimination"....

#2. If Indians were so "in touch" with "Mother Earth" as some claim before the Europeans came; why would they need jobs outside of a reservation when they could support themselves off "Mother Earth" on the reservation ?
Not to mention all the government programs and funding for reservations, and many have casinos....

SkinWalker
10-04-08, 01:22 PM
One could also point out that Native Americans have fewer opportunities on the reservation or to leave the reservation. Couple that with traditionalist beliefs that some natives have and there becomes a feedback system in which the reservation prevents people from leaving the reseravation.

The plain fact is that there are only so many people who will be able to take advantage of opportunities to leave due to educational grants and scholarships (there are many, but there are many more native kids that could potentially use them). There are also many natives who remember very well the marginalization that occurred to them as children on the reservation -being told they couldn't have certain opportunities at all or that they couldn't have them unless they gave up traditions and replaced them with Christianity and "civilization," etc.

To the second point, the "reservations" are typically the results of the worst land available since the lands that recent ancestors of Native Americans are the resource-rich areas occupied by those of largely European ancestry. Being "in touch" with the earth can only go so far in a desert of limited resources and biodiversity. That's not to say that all Native reservations are this way, but many -probably most- certainly are.

This isn't to say that modern American society (people largely of European ancestry) should be held fully accountable for the actions of our ancesters. But I think it is true that we can be mindful of the segregation, genocide, and forced migration and resettlement imposed upon them when we consider what opportunities should be afforded them and how.

By and large, I think modern American society holds Native America in high regard. A whole genre of art surrounds Native America, we've always used geographic placenames that are Native American, etc.

Cazzo
10-04-08, 02:49 PM
This isn't to say that modern American society (people largely of European ancestry) should be held fully accountable for the actions of our ancesters. But I think it is true that we can be mindful of the segregation, genocide, and forced migration and resettlement imposed upon them when we consider what opportunities should be afforded them and how.


What genocide ?????
I've never heard of any conserted effort by Europeans hundreds of years ago to deliberately try exterminating the Indians. :rolleyes:
Yes, unfortunately some germs hitched a ride from Europe to the Americas with the explorers and wiped out most of the Indians. Those explorers didn't deliberately try getting the Indians sick, much less did they even know what a germ was back then.;)

CutsieMarie89
10-04-08, 03:17 PM
What genocide ?????
I've never heard of any conserted effort by Europeans hundreds of years ago to deliberately try exterminating the Indians. :rolleyes:
Yes, unfortunately some germs hitched a ride from Europe to the Americas with the explorers and wiped out most of the Indians. Those explorers didn't deliberately try getting the Indians sick, much less did they even know what a germ was back then.;)

It wasn't exactly genocide I think a war was declared against the Native Americans and it wasn't the Europeans that did it it was Americans. Andrew Jackson I believe, he was not a fan of the native tribes. The whole Trail of Tears thing was his doing I think it's been a while since I was in AP US History. Jackson forced either 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 6 tribes out west. The Natives living in Florida the Seminoles I think, wouldn't leave without a fight and were the only tribe that put up a sufficient resistance to the American military. It was similar to how the slave traders would heard Africans that they had captured. A whole lot of them didn't survive the journey, the young the weak, the old most of them died.
I however don't understand anything about reservations or the bylaws involved. So I hold no opinion on that matter.

cosmictraveler
10-04-08, 04:10 PM
LOL, bullshit. That's like saying black people can't get work outside of a ghetto

The problem is that many resettlement areas are 50 to 100 miles away from any city that could give them work which meant they would have to travel that far just to look for work unlike people living in a ghetto who actually live within the city itself. There wasn't any educational opportunities for many NA to get a good schooling on their reservations either which also inhibited them from joining the workforce.

cosmictraveler
10-04-08, 04:17 PM
One could argue a couple things about this :
#1. Who forces them to stay on reservations ? If anything, Indians have MORE rights than white Americans because of "Affirmative Action". If they got shot-down applying for a job outside a reservation, they could claim "racial discrimination"....

#2. If Indians were so "in touch" with "Mother Earth" as some claim before the Europeans came; why would they need jobs outside of a reservation when they could support themselves off "Mother Earth" on the reservation ?
Not to mention all the government programs and funding for reservations, and many have casinos....

1. They had no real education on their reservations so they didn't get the schooling they needed to compete in todays society.

2. The resettlement reservations are usually located in desolate, isolated, poor land, little water to grow crops because the white people took all of the good lands for themselves and gave the Native Americans shit to live on.Only 5 percent of all reservations have casino's on them, or didn't you know that. Again that is because most of the reservations are located 50 to 100 miles away from any major cities so therefore no one would travel that far to gamble.

Orleander
10-04-08, 04:20 PM
The problem is that many resettlement areas are 50 to 100 miles away from any city that could give them work which meant they would have to travel that far just to look for work unlike people living in a ghetto who actually live within the city itself. There wasn't any educational opportunities for many NA to get a good schooling on their reservations either which also inhibited them from joining the workforce.

Native Americans have their own scholarship programs set up for the kids to get off the reservation. Few take advantage of it. My college roommate was one of the few that did. She got her degree and went back to the reservation to help. She quit.
Its hard to help people who won't look to the future and continue to dwell on the past. How can you better your life when you live with "should woulda coulda"
And if there are no jobs, why are so many illegal immigrants coming here?

iceaura
10-04-08, 04:40 PM
That is an issue TOTALLY separate from the old one of slavery. Of course. Which makes your repeated introduction of slavery into every discussion of this matter a strawman argument.

What is owed to the red tribes is - at minimum - enforcement of the legal, signed, valid treaties currently having the status of law in the US, and the equal, fair enforcement of all other applicable laws etc.

What is owed to black people is equality under the law, which would include enforcement of liability for racially targeted injuries inflicted by socially dominant groups as well as elimination of institutionalized discrimination on the basis of race.

Now how to actually deliver on these promises and meet these obligations is another matter. But the basic situation is not deniable.

And if there are no jobs, why are so many illegal immigrants coming here? There are jobs for those willing to accept inferior status and unequal treatment and substandard wages and poor working conditions etc, in return for the privilege of getting one of them.

Should citizens have to do that?

cosmictraveler
10-04-08, 04:44 PM
Native Americans have their own scholarship programs set up for the kids to get off the reservation. Few take advantage of it. My college roommate was one of the few that did. She got her degree and went back to the reservation to help. She quit.

Its hard to help people who won't look to the future and continue to dwell on the past. How can you better your life when you live with "should woulda coulda"

And if there are no jobs, why are so many illegal immigrants coming here?

Tell that to the Amish.

I never said there weren't any jobs I said that their location was far away from the city so they couldn't get to a job very easy. When there's no school on a reservation it makes it hard to educate NA. Without an education you don't get much work.

Simon Anders
10-04-08, 04:46 PM
One could argue a couple things about this :
#1. Who forces them to stay on reservations ? If anything, Indians have MORE rights than white Americans because of "Affirmative Action". If they got shot-down applying for a job outside a reservation, they could claim "racial discrimination"....You're mixing issues in this some, but in any case a white person can also claim racial discrimination. IOW if a white person applies to a job in a predominantly ___________ (fill in the non-white race) workplace and is turned down and can show that race was a factor they too can go to court. It happens less because, well, I'll let you connect the dots.


#2. If Indians were so "in touch" with "Mother Earth" as some claim before the Europeans came; why would they need jobs outside of a reservation when they could support themselves off "Mother Earth" on the reservation ?
Not to mention all the government programs and funding for reservations, and many have casinos....
This is a poor proof. Are you really suggesting that what you say above shows they were not intimately connected to the land?

Orleander
10-04-08, 04:50 PM
Tell that to the Amish.

I never said there weren't any jobs I said that their location was far away from the city so they couldn't get to a job very easy. When there's no school on a reservation it makes it hard to educate NA. Without an education you don't get much work.

I grew up near Pine Ridge reservation, went to a school with many many Native American kids, had a Santee-Sioux roommate in college and have a Lakota Sioux step-mom.

To compare the Amish to Native Americans in ludicrous. :rolleyes: Native Americans get a free ride in college. Care to guess how many take advantage of it??

Simon Anders
10-04-08, 04:57 PM
Now THAT I can agree with. But "not being proud of" and accepting blame and responsibility for those things isn't the same thing at all. It depends partially what you find in your soul searching. If you still think that manifest destiny was right and it was correct that 'we' took that land and one finds one is a racist, then you can accept blame. As far as responsibility, not directly. But anyone who rooted for Hitler is on a par with those who knew about the Holocaust and silently or indirectly supported it.


And I agree with that also. One of the main reasons I brought that up in the first place is something I forgot to mention. It doesn't give me or my kids the right to take someone's home but it DOES grant us the ability to claim a free college education, among other things, as "reparations" of deeds done in the past. And neither I nor any card-carrying Amerind I know feel that we are owed any such special treatment. We've all chosen to pay for those things ourselves - just as you do.
I did. But a lot of families that put their kids through college did it with tainted money. The Shell execs who put their kids through college have done it on the backs of other indigenous people, for example.

The way Natives have been treated did not end 100 years ago. Many have been treated like shit because of their race and because of their culture - those that chose to keep it - right up into the present. I cannot begrudge Natives who do take the gov. up on free college. If their parents are middle class, well that's odd. And honestly I'd prefer it if the law was class based, rather than race based. But the whole issue of these free educations is not high on my list of national problems.

Right now 'my' government is bailing out the superrich, because, possibly if it doesn't many not so superrich will get hurt. I believe 'my' government went to war because of its intimate ties with those companies that have made the most money off these wars. And many of the superrich ARE NOT WORKING.

So much as I admire your attitude, the free educations seem like drops in the bucket of handouts going on daily in the billions and trillions. Handouts necessitated by people who put their extra wealth 'needs' on a par with the basic well being of other people. IOW people who share qualities with those who understood what they were doing to the Native Americans, understood that they were stealing and felt entitled to it because they were better.

This pattern has not stopped. Not for a second.

Read-Only
10-04-08, 05:15 PM
On to the lighter side of things. We Amerinds (a term most of us like better than "Native Americans) also have a sense of humor and frequently tell jokes about ourselves. It's an old one, but one of my favorites is:

A good many years ago, a young man left the reservation to get a degree in electrical engineering. Simply as a matter of course, he also learned some everyday practical things about electricity as well.

Upon returing after graduation, he was asked if he could install lights in the communal women's bathroom because they often needed to go there after dark.

So he did. And went down in Indian history as being the first ever individual to wire a head for a reservation.:D

GeoffP
10-04-08, 05:32 PM
All too often you here some people stating that "we" (Americans) "stole" the land from American Indians.

Cazzo, our society has a responsibility to these people.

If you don't know that, you're a freak.

Cazzo
10-05-08, 07:53 AM
Cazzo, our society has a responsibility to these people.

If you don't know that, you're a freak.

I don't know, I think it's kinda freakish when someone thinks "we" owe something to some people "we" didn't do anything to. Someone else did it that's DEAD now.
By your "logic", perhaps we should do DNA tests of EVERY person on the planet, find out what tribal groups may have been in the past from any part of the world, then have the appropriate country their tribe was in pay them life-long welfare......:rolleyes:
Maybe by your "logic" we should throw all the Europeans in jail because more than likely their ancestors killed off the Neanderthals....:rolleyes:

GeoffP
10-05-08, 09:59 PM
We have an opportunity here to help a people the state of which we are responsible for.

How about not fucking it up and helping for a change?

pjdude1219
10-05-08, 10:36 PM
We must acknowledge the debts our ancestors have accrued.

iceaura
10-05-08, 11:46 PM
The abuse and illegalities and denial of equal protection under the law, by the dominant societal group in the US to the blacks and reds as identified classes of people, is not ancient history. A lot of it is ongoing violation of state and federal law. A lot of it has not even run out the statute of limitations for misdemeanor offense. A lot of it is residue of abuses personally inflicted on living people, some not that old.

The treaty fight over Mille Lacs fishing by tribal reds is still a live issue in Minnesota - a denial of treaty rights that was just ended by a court decision a few years ago, after being formal State policy for decades. The BIA mineral rights money swindle is in the courts right now.

Obama can probably remember formal redlining; his Chicago pastor Wright spent a youth under Jim Crow including the military, and was a middle aged man when white mobs in Chicago were beating black youths to death for trespassing in white neighborhoods - blacks being crowded into Third World style slums (cardboard walls, no running water, etc) in Chicago at the time.

This stuff is modern, pertinent, and critical.

Roman
10-06-08, 12:01 AM
With that combination, they probably have a higher incidence of suicide as well. Whats preventing their assimilation?

That's a good question.
In Alaska, I'd say it's mainly due to their inability. Many of them are raised in isolated, rural communities. Isolated as in no way in or out except by plane. Even with subsidies so they can heat their houses, run their TVs, and drink soda, there is still a large skill set they need to survive there. Avoiding frostbite, how to shoot & skin a caribou, knowing how to follow a game trails, drying salmon in your backyard, spending August picking blueberries Being raised in a town of 100 where everyone talks slow and slurred, and maybe your great-grandma doesn't know English. You still may where mukluks, the traditional fur & hide snowboots of Native Alaskans.

And all this as a matter of fact. Not a conscious effort to hang on to culture, but the fact that your environment necessitates it. It makes life easier. Nevermind that the dominant culture that you're exposed to in all media, from literary masterpieces, kindergarten primers, not to mention TV & radio, is practically the antithesis of the culture you're raised. That traditional values of your people- honoring the old, being a good hunter, sharing- are subverted or actively contradicted by what's blaring on the boob tube.

There a people stuck between two worlds, and the whites certainly regard them as non-whites. They come from different experiences. Many of them don't even know how to shop when they first arrive in a big city (though neither Anchorage not Fairbanks are truly big cities).

They're like immigrants who don't want to immigrate. It's a forced conversion, largely. The drugs and alcohol are subsequent to having an irrelevant history and no future.

John99
10-06-08, 12:08 AM
This stuff is modern, pertinent, and critical.

And what are you doing financially to help?

What are the new immigrants who came to U.S within the last year doing to help?

Are they just as responsible as you?

Did you Iceaura personally benefit? Then you better give everything you have up.

Asguard
10-06-08, 01:52 AM
John99 does your country celibrate the war or independence? The civil war? WW1+2

you cant only own the good, you have to own the bad as a country as well

Asguard
10-06-08, 02:02 AM
its no different from the former australian goverment trying to claim that "they wernt responcable" for the fact that aborigional culture is almost extint because of former goverments authorising aborigional children being abducted from there families and yet trying to "own" the ANZAC tradition.

John99
10-06-08, 02:10 AM
Asguard, you do realize that no government is a living entity. They are made up of individual people. Who do you hold responsible for decisions made hundreds of years ago? Do we hold responsible a poor kid who's parents struggle to send him to school and get does good in school and becomes a politician in 2022? His family may have been recent immigrants come from Africa or any other country for that matter?

Asguard
10-06-08, 02:18 AM
Umm, when you sue the goverment you arnt suing the PM. You are suing the GOVERMENT of such and such a contry.

I suggest you read the apology speach by kevin rudd. It didnt say "I kevin rudd apologise for ...". It said "as PM i am sorry, as leader of the goverment of the commonwealth of australia i am sorry, as the leader of the parliment i am sorry". Ie it was on behalf of the institution of PM&C, The goverment, and the parliment for what previous parliments have done, NOT on behalf of himself

John99
10-06-08, 02:27 AM
What does that have to do with a law suit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZAC_Day

Asguard
10-06-08, 02:30 AM
well actually there has been a law suit against the SA goverment over the stolen generation which the aborigional man won and the goverment was forced to pay compensation, Marbo is another great case to look at (it would be famious enough to apear on wikipedia if you want to look)

Dont know what the point of linking to a website on ANZAC day has to do with the price of fish though

Orleander
10-06-08, 05:39 AM
I'm a big fan of 'put up or shut up'. If Native Americans ever want to sue, I say go for it. Considering none that were 're-educated' are still alive while those in Australia are, I don't think they have a chance in hell.

S.A.M.
10-06-08, 12:09 PM
I'm a big fan of 'put up or shut up'. If Native Americans ever want to sue, I say go for it. Considering none that were 're-educated' are still alive while those in Australia are, I don't think they have a chance in hell.

Like a white woman once told me: the reason she is in Stanford and her parent was in Yale and his parent was in Harvard or whatever is a trickle down effect from slavery. 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.

GeoffP
10-06-08, 12:15 PM
Hey does the same apply for the Copts, Sam?

I know, I know: broken record, eh? :D

S.A.M.
10-06-08, 12:15 PM
The Copts? You mean the ones who were persecuted under the Western church and lived only in Muslim countries? I dunno, you think the Vatican will pay?

Pandaemoni
10-06-08, 12:18 PM
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.

There likely have only been "borders" (and "states") since the rise of agriculture. Hunter gatherer societies generally do not have land ownership (many argue they did not have property rights in any sense that we'd understand the term). So the limit on changing borders is likely 8000 B.C. was the outside edge of nationbuilding.

As for how "we" stole "their" land, you are right that one can draw a distinction between what "we" did to "them" and what "our culture" did to "their culture." One does not have to distinguish between them, as it seems pretty clear in context, but one can.

By the same token, if you were to make that distinction, then you would have to object to anyone who suggested "we" won the Revolutionary War, "we" adopted a Constitution or even that "our" culture is worth defending (since most of what is "our" culture is a holdover from prior generations, and the culture of any future generation will not be "ours" even if it is identical to our current culture...it will be "theirs" (whomever "they" may be, so any changes that occur in the future are not "ours" to worry about)). We will also have to give up saying "We saved your butts in WWII" to Europeans, since most of the "we" in that statement are people who are not dead or very elderly...the young punks repeating it certainly did jack towards that end.

It is really just a question of semantics. When does "we" include ancestors and when does it not? I can fault liberals for being too quick to ascribe crimes of ancestors to the modern generation, and one can fault conservatives to quick to ascribe the good deeds of prior generations to current ones.

GeoffP
10-06-08, 12:25 PM
The Copts? You mean the ones who were persecuted under the Western church and lived only in Muslim countries where they were persecuted to the point of extinction? I dunno, you think Riyadhwill pay?

Corrected.

S.A.M.
10-06-08, 12:57 PM
Please do not change my quotes and still write my name in the quotation. You work in academia, you should know better than that. At least there are still Copts around in the ME, where are the peoples of the West?

They at least have the luxury of moving to where the Christians have persecuted the natives enough to get all their land and resources and completely marginalised the natives. Now that Christians have become advanced enough to accept pluralistic outlooks, that is.

draqon
10-06-08, 01:03 PM
exactly Cazzo...Americans just gracefully accepted land from the Europeans who gracefully took the gift from Indians. Likewise...Russia will gracefully accept the gift of land from Georgia of Georgia and the rest.

Cazzo
10-06-08, 02:30 PM
exactly Cazzo...Americans just gracefully accepted land from the Europeans who gracefully took the gift from Indians. Likewise...Russia will gracefully accept the gift of land from Georgia of Georgia and the rest.

Poor analogy since what's happening in Georgia NOW affects the people LIVING there NOW. People in America TODAY DIDN'T EXIST when OTHER DEAD people were screwing over the Indians.

Should we hold Europeans accountable for the probable elimination of Neanderthals 100,000+ years ago because of the humans that moved in ?
Should we hold muslims accountable for their ancestor's massive slave trades :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
"Historians say the Arab slave trade began in the 7th century and lasted more than a millennium.[26][27] Arab traders brought Africans across the Indian Ocean from present-day Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, western Ethiopia and elsewhere in East Africa to present-day Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey and other parts of the Middle East [28] and South Asia (mainly Pakistan and India). Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the New World, Arabs supplied African slaves to the Muslim world, which at its peak stretched over three continents from the Atlantic (Morocco, Spain) to India and eastern China."

Of course not.......

I think peoples attacks on the US for what people did long ago, is based a lot on politics.

S.A.M.
10-06-08, 02:36 PM
Native Americans are not affected today by the loss of their lands?

Cazzo
10-06-08, 02:42 PM
Native Americans are not affected today by the loss of their lands?

EVERYONE born in America is a "Native American"...:rolleyes:
And NO Indian living today has "lost" lands....:rolleyes:

iceaura
10-06-08, 02:43 PM
I'm a big fan of 'put up or shut up'. If Native Americans ever want to sue, I say go for it. And as soon as the casino money enabled the hiring of non-government lawyers, they did.

So they have their treaty rights back on Mille Lacs, among other gains.

There's a huge case slogging through the courts right now, has been for years, over the BIA swindles of mineral rights and payments. So far I think the last three Secretaries of the Interior have been each threatened by the judge involved, for withholding evidence. The last one I heard of was threatened with personal jail time for contempt of court. At one time the US Federal government was claiming that it could not produce the subpeonaed records, after years of stalling, because during the delay they had become contaminated with rodent feces, and represented a health risk. I don't know the current status.

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 you underestimate the matter. The Chippewa dispossessed the Sioux, The Iroquois and others in the Confederation launched formal war against the Cherokee, some other tribes, the Scotch Irish, and others they wished to dispossess (welcoming the French tribe as allies) and lost, were dispossessed themselves instead; the Cherokee held black and red and white slaves both captured and purchased; the Pawnee were at war with everyone and welcomed the English as allies; and so forth.

The Scotch Irish tribe won, essentially, and then sold out (or got rolled) into the United Colony States. As a tribe, they would have as large a claim against the US imperial impositions as the Pawnee or Crow have (although probably less than the Cherokee).

That's the initial dispossession, from which the benefits derive. The subsequent persecution did not benefit very many people, and who owes whom for that would be impossible to trace, except that the legally abused have claims under the law. Those claims are in court, some of them anyway, and that's the place for them.

Cazzo
10-06-08, 02:45 PM
What do you think of this SAM ? :
Should we hold muslims accountable for their ancestor's massive slave trades :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
"Historians say the Arab slave trade began in the 7th century and lasted more than a millennium.[26][27] Arab traders brought Africans across the Indian Ocean from present-day Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, western Ethiopia and elsewhere in East Africa to present-day Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey and other parts of the Middle East [28] and South Asia (mainly Pakistan and India). Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the New World, Arabs supplied African slaves to the Muslim world, which at its peak stretched over three continents from the Atlantic (Morocco, Spain) to India and eastern China."

I don't think muslims should be held accountable for this, how about you ?

S.A.M.
10-06-08, 02:45 PM
EVERYONE born in America is a "Native American"...:rolleyes:
And NO Indian living today has "lost" lands....:rolleyes:

They do , its a lot shorter period than immigrant Jews in Canaan [400 years vs 4000 years]

Cazzo
10-06-08, 02:55 PM
What do you think of this SAM ? :
Should we hold muslims accountable for their ancestor's massive slave trades :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
"Historians say the Arab slave trade began in the 7th century and lasted more than a millennium.[26][27] Arab traders brought Africans across the Indian Ocean from present-day Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, western Ethiopia and elsewhere in East Africa to present-day Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey and other parts of the Middle East [28] and South Asia (mainly Pakistan and India). Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the New World, Arabs supplied African slaves to the Muslim world, which at its peak stretched over three continents from the Atlantic (Morocco, Spain) to India and eastern China."

I don't think muslims should be held accountable for this, how about you ?

S.A.M.
10-06-08, 02:55 PM
Sure they should. Just like New Yorkers for the bones of slaves buried in their city.

John99
10-06-08, 03:05 PM
Most native americans integrated into society. They dont wear signs so it is hard to tell them.

iceaura
10-06-08, 03:11 PM
I think the enslavement of black people by some white people cost me a lot, including a very expensive and horrific war fought by my ancestors, economic penalties that cost my grandfather his farm, and the creation of inefficient land use patterns and debilitating social structures in my region of residence.

Whom do I sue?

John99
10-06-08, 03:12 PM
Well i will tell you that none of my relatives were here because i came here when i was four.

spidergoat
10-06-08, 03:18 PM
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.:rolleyes:
And there's only 1 documented case (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/smallpox.htm) of 2 small pox laden blanets given to an Indian tribe.
All these tragedies happened before any of us ("we") were born.

A sure sign of the coming apocalypse, I agree with Cazzo. Initially, many Native Americans were friends with the new settlers. Some of them started wars with them. Others sided with the French and others fought for the British. A shocking number died as a result of lacking resistance to European diseases. As European immigrants moved west in a legitimate search for space, land, resources, and riches, they found few Natives living there. There is unquestioningly some racism involved in our dealings with the natives, many cases of failing to live up to our promises. But the settling of America was inevitable. If not for the crushing of the Spanish Armada, it would have been settled by the Spanish.

As with the case of Israel, people fail to take into account the complete historical picture. The settling of the new world was like a force of nature.

Roman
10-06-08, 03:23 PM
A sure sign of the coming apocalypse, I agree with Cazzo. Initially, many Native Americans were friends with the new settlers. Some of them started wars with them. Others sided with the French and others fought for the British. A shocking number died as a result of lacking resistance to European diseases. As European immigrants moved west in a legitimate search for space, land, resources, and riches, they found few Natives living there. There is unquestioningly some racism involved in our dealings with the natives, many cases of failing to live up to our promises. But the settling of America was inevitable. If not for the crushing of the Spanish Armada, it would have been settled by the Spanish.

As with the case of Israel, people fail to take into account the complete historical picture. The settling of the new world was like a force of nature.

lol
Either you are very ignorant of America's colonial history with the Indians, or you hate redskins.

S.A.M.
10-06-08, 03:24 PM
It was already settled, by the Native Americans. Or do you think the Chinese should settle America, seeing as they have less land per capita?

Pandaemoni
10-06-08, 03:27 PM
I don't think muslims should be held accountable for this, how about you ?

Think about it from another direction, how far back would you go? I mean, for example, the United States imprisoned Japanese Americans in concentration camps in the early 1940's, would that be too far back? (I certainly was not alive when that happened, so why should I pay for it?)

Suppose it turns out that the government shot and killed a tribe of Native Americans 20 years ago? My neices and nephews weren't alive then, so should the government not be blamed for it? Is the standard, that the government can be held accountable only so long as someone whio was alive then is still breathing, or is the window as short as a year, or what?

One thing is clear enough, from a legal perspective the government of the United States that existed in 1789-1860 is the same government that exists today. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, from 1848, is still in effect and binds the United States and Mexico to this day. Why should a Mexican respect that (and not reclaim the southwest), since after all that is something his government did back in 1848 well before he was alive. Just like the government should not be blamed for bad acts committed centuries ago, should you not argue that the government it should not benefit or be harmed by agreements made to centuries ago? (Or, more to the point since I think I know your answer, why do agreements that are centuries old still have relevance whereas other acts do not?)

John99
10-06-08, 03:28 PM
The "native americans" obviously did come from someplace. I think they came from the south and some from the north over a land bridge at the north.

Cazzo
10-06-08, 04:50 PM
One thing is clear enough, from a legal perspective the government of the United States that existed in 1789-1860 is the same government that exists today.


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.

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:

spidergoat
10-06-08, 04:51 PM
lol
Either you are very ignorant of America's colonial history with the Indians, or you hate redskins.

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

Roman
10-06-08, 04:55 PM
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.

Orleander
10-06-08, 05:39 PM
....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??

S.A.M.
10-06-08, 05:47 PM
No but I've read Buried My Heart at Wounded Knee :p

Orleander
10-06-08, 05:49 PM
LOL. Yeah, it is a good book.

Simon Anders
10-06-08, 06:31 PM
[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.

Simon Anders
10-06-08, 06:35 PM
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.

S.A.M.
10-06-08, 06:42 PM
I disagree. If you were poor in India, it would mean this:

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/poverty_india11.jpg

Does it mean this in America?

Simon Anders
10-06-08, 06:56 PM
I disagree. If you were poor in India, it would mean this:

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/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.

S.A.M.
10-06-08, 06:57 PM
Those who define themselves as poor in the US do so relatively. They have no idea what poverty is.

Simon Anders
10-06-08, 07:07 PM
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.....

S.A.M.
10-06-08, 07:10 PM
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.

Lordznebula5
10-06-08, 10:35 PM
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.

John99
10-06-08, 10:39 PM
I disagree. If you were poor in India, it would mean this:

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/poverty_india11.jpg

Does it mean this in America?

yeah, pretty much. never been to U.S, have you?

Gustav
10-07-08, 09:40 AM
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 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30965)


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) (http://www.uaine.org/)


encore!
bravo!
fuck whitey!

Gustav
10-07-08, 09:55 AM
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?

John99
10-07-08, 10:04 AM
hahahaha?

the national day of mourning (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30965)

encore!
bravo!
fuck whitey!

AND similar has happened thousands of times throughout history, and much worse is happening right NOW in Darfur. Yet your mouth is shut tighter than your ass about that.

Gustav
10-07-08, 10:27 AM
/eek

you got me good?

John99
10-07-08, 10:28 AM
Who cares about "getting" you good?

Pandaemoni
10-07-08, 11:02 AM
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.

Gustav
10-07-08, 11:15 AM
Who cares about "getting" you good?


ahh
that explains a lot

/mellow

Gustav
10-07-08, 11:28 AM
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)


nonsense
a reasonable middle ground is not unattainable
there are mechanisms in place...petition for redress of grievance etc
some successes, some failures, not kneejerk naysaying

Having said yes to Japanese Canadians, the government cannot make a credible case for saying no to another group. A mixture of noble sentiments and crass multicultural politics produced the previous decision, and that same mixture beckons the government again. For better or worse, the country will be forced quite literally to pay for its history for many years to come. (link (http://www.infoukes.com/history/internment/booklet02/doc-050.html))


so?
an apology or a billion bucks
pay the fuck up

S.A.M.
10-07-08, 11:33 AM
Americans could not afford it.

Where would they start?

http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/index.html

http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty

http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance

Gustav
10-07-08, 12:03 PM
again
you assume outrageous demands for redress and compensation
perhaps a safe assumption but still indeed one

Baron Max
10-07-08, 03:45 PM
Americans could not afford it. Where would they start?

Well, SAM, a good start would be to use the billions that we send to India every year ...that would help a lot, don'tcha think?

Baron Max

Pandaemoni
10-07-08, 08:06 PM
nonsense
a reasonable middle ground is not unattainable
there are mechanisms in place...petition for redress of grievance etc
some successes, some failures, not kneejerk naysaying

Having said yes to Japanese Canadians, the government cannot make a credible case for saying no to another group. A mixture of noble sentiments and crass multicultural politics produced the previous decision, and that same mixture beckons the government again. For better or worse, the country will be forced quite literally to pay for its history for many years to come. (link (http://www.infoukes.com/history/internment/booklet02/doc-050.html))


so?
an apology or a billion bucks
pay the fuck up

Redressing grievances from the 1940's is far easier to do because many of the victims are still alive and for those who are not their lineal descendants are still likely to be relatively manageable in number. Sure you can come up with a bullshit number that is not based on anything, but that number is as likely to be "zero" out of a sense of forgiveness as "a billion bucks" out of sense of retribution. And who gets that billion bucks anyway?

If you calculate damages the way the law does (i.e. with an eye towards properly compensating people for their injuries, not punishing the wrongdoer because you dislike them) and look at addressing grievances from the 1820's, not one single victim will be alive. Assuming an average of let's say 5 living descendants per 30-year generation (which is on the low side for the 19th and early 20th century, and a bit high for the generation born after 1940), *each victim* could easily have more than 15000 descendants. If the grievance was 1850, under those assumptions you'd expect 3125 descendants. In 1880, he should have about 625 living descendants, and so on. Then, you have to determine how to allocate it amongst his thousands of descendants...pro rata? What if one descendant can show that by will all the victims property was left to his ancestor and none of the other siblings? What about the descendants that are not full-blooded. Does Jane Smith get a full share because she's 1/16th blooded? A 1/16th share? No share?

In general, first you have to figure out who the victim was. Then you can to figure out what his injuries were. Did he get sick in or on the trip to the new lands the U.S. sent him to? Might he not have gotten sick had he stayed home untroubled by the U.S.? What other injuries were there? What was the value of the lost property that there is no documentation for? How do we even begin to guess? Then you have to determine how much his injury was worth. Then, there's the matter you have to determine how to allocate it amongst his thousands of descendants, many of whom are not full-blooded. Does Jane Smith get a full share because she's 1/16th blooded? A 1/16th share? No share?

Does the U.S. get due process for this law suit? Evidence is going to be hard to come by, so who has the burden of proof? If the issue is the lack of evidence. what about the doctrine of laches? Does that apply? Why not?

All of the problems are vastly simpler when the mystery is only 60 years old, and not 160. Then you still have to guesstimate but if the death and displacement of your grandfather was worth $1 million in damages (in 2008 dollars), you and your fellow grandchildren get a $40,000 each (assuming 5 per generation). The descendants of the native American killed in 1820 get an insulting $64 each, if you can find all 15,625 of them. The government might be better off using the money to build a museum of native cultures, rather than paying cash awards.

Again, you can skip this process by use guidelines to come up with proxy numbers unrelated to the facts, but the results will have nothing to do with the actual economic impact of the harm done. It's not even "damages" at that point, it's just a wealth transfer.

Better to acknowledge the truth, you did not know your ancestors from 1820, and unless you are a freak they do not mean shit to you. Giving me money for what my distant ancestoróto whom I have no connectionódid makes no more sense than slapping me in jail for what my ancestor did.

Simon Anders
10-07-08, 08:31 PM
I can't really see reparations.
I think a national reappraisal of the relationship and a demythologizing of Manifest Destiny would be a good thing.
But I am not holding my breath.

S.A.M.
10-07-08, 08:32 PM
But you might get a country out of it. :p

iceaura
10-08-08, 03:36 AM
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 And the annihilation of the "non-native" American way of life as well.

All industrial civilizations meet that description.

And "all Americans" would include those whose ancestors were members of the Red nations in North America. That includes, as a minority subset, those who are members of formal tribes now.

For that matter, the Reds in the years from 1500 to about 1750 in the east, and to about 1800 in the west, enjoyed a way of life that would not have existed without the annihilation of the earlier ways of life - and quite possibly the people who followed it - on the land. The entire horse culture of the Great Plains, for example, was built on the ruins of whatever was there before about 1560.

Likewise the town civilizations of the Ohio and Mississippi and Arkansas River valleys.

The Scotch Irish takeover was just the third or fourth in the past few hundred years, and was itself replaced. The current civilization in Missouri or Wyoming, say, has by now been there about as long as the culture it replaced had existed. The white tribes in some of the midwestern woodland areas replaced red tribes who had replaced other red tribes (by force, with bloodshed) only a few decades - or even years- previous.

S.A.M.
10-08-08, 08:36 AM
All of whom have benefited from the forcible removal of native Americans. Agreed?

Gustav
10-08-08, 10:05 AM
Better to acknowledge the truth, you did not know your ancestors from 1820, and unless you are a freak they do not mean shit to you. Giving me money for what my distant ancestor—to whom I have no connection—did makes no more sense than slapping me in jail for what my ancestor did.


ahh
the high drama
what fun

emoting in sci?

/spits

it appears that complex and nuanced solutions for problems is not your forte.
nor does it seem the capacity for a simple expression of regret is present.
fine.
go away and let those willing, deal with the issues.

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/7418/apo1fe0.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/1294/apo2et4.jpg

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/1949/apo4yz2.jpg (http://political-apologies.wlu.ca/details.php?table=doc_primary&id=277)

political-apologies (http://political-apologies.wlu.ca/doclist.php)

aboriginal reparations (http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n4/buti104_text.html#Composition%20of%20Reparations_T )

Gustav
10-08-08, 10:15 AM
...it's just a wealth transfer.


out of the mouth of babes?
surely that is part of what the dispossession of the indigenous peoples of this world entailed?

/cackle

[underneath the thin veneer of civilization beats the heart of a bloodthirsty and murderous savage!

/emoting

nuke the sub-humans. nuke em all! impose the goddamn final solution!

/more high drama

Baron Max
10-08-08, 10:25 AM
All of whom have benefited from the forcible removal of native Americans. Agreed?

I agree, SAM. And if you or anyone else can bring those same people back to life, then I think we should give them a few bucks.

Baron Max

Gustav
10-08-08, 10:39 AM
In the case of blanket blame, why not blame Europeans for the deaths of the neanderthals.


this is absolutely breathtaking in the level of disingenuity expressed.
rather than an illustration of a slide down a slippery slope, it is instead akin to a tumble off a cliff into the abyss below

/snickers


I have no issue with sayng that what happened to them was a travesty


not good enough
i want an apology
now!

/*&*&#$#%$@

Gustav
10-08-08, 10:40 AM
Baron Max


you!

/smile

Gustav
10-08-08, 11:07 AM
A Proclamation

I, Gustav AKA The Horse That Gallops Across the Prarie, the Most Distinguished and Pre-eminent Member of the Chumash Casino Caucus, Sciforums Chapter, Demand an Apology from the Genocidal Caucasoid Members of this Board on Behalf of the Indigineous Peoples of the World

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/126/tshirthomeland20securitqt3.jpg

Gustav
10-08-08, 11:14 AM
lets start with the aryan caucasoid known as sam!

APOLOGIZE, BITCH! LEAVE INDIA! GALLOP BACK TO YOUR GODDAMN STEPPES AND YURT
THE MIGHTY AND NOBLE DRAVIDA RACE DEMANDS IT!

S.A.M.
10-08-08, 11:33 AM
Down, boy! :mad:

Tameez se baat karo!:bugeye:

/ nose in the air.

Pandaemoni
10-08-08, 11:50 AM
this is absolutely breathtaking in the level of disingenuity expressed.

It was more an expression of the the fact that apologies are free, and was made facetiously in any event (hence the "Who cares?").

Pandaemoni
10-08-08, 11:56 AM
out of the mouth of babes?
surely that is part of what the dispossession of the indigenous peoples of this world entailed?

/cackle


The harm caused to indigenous peoples certainly involved a wealth transfer from someone in some magnitude to someone else. That said the transferors are long dead. the amount unknown, the transferrees are long dead, and there is no evidence that a randomly selected white guy will have been a benerficiary of that transfer, even indirectly.

Paying "damages" makes sense. Taking money from someone who may or may not owe it to make a payment to another to whom it may or may not be owed, is a waste. The person being forced to make the reparations payment should tell his descendents to wait 100 years then sue your descendents for reparations, for the money you took from him. :D

S.A.M.
10-08-08, 12:00 PM
Anyone who has benefited from living on land that belonged to the native Americans is a beneficiary.

Gustav
10-08-08, 12:03 PM
It was more an expression of the the fact that apologies are free, and was made facetiously in any event (hence the "Who cares?").


noted ;)

Gustav
10-08-08, 12:18 PM
The harm caused to indigenous peoples certainly involved a wealth transfer from someone in some magnitude to someone else. That said the transferors are long dead. the amount unknown, the transferrees are long dead, and there is no evidence that a randomly selected white guy will have been a benerficiary of that transfer, even indirectly.

Paying "damages" makes sense. Taking money from someone who may or may not owe it to make a payment to another to whom it may or may not be owed, is a waste. The person being forced to make the reparations payment should tell his descendents to wait 100 years then sue your descendents for reparations, for the money you took from him. :D


i think the initial disbursement is to the collective
this group then distributes to individuals

that seems practical
we wash our hands and walk away leaving the tards squabble amongst themselves

iceaura
10-08-08, 10:57 PM
All of whom have benefited from the forcible removal of native Americans. Agreed? By other Native Americans, agreed ?

Or are you putting all the reds on one side, and all the whites on the other, for some reason?

madanthonywayne
10-08-08, 11:07 PM
With that combination, they probably have a higher incidence of suicide as well. Whats preventing their assimilation?Many (most?) have assimilated, my wife has a bit of Indian in her. Many Americans who have been in the US for very long do. But some decided to "stay on the reservation". These days, they're doing a bit better by using their special status (as "sovereign" nations) to open casinos, sell cheap cigarettes, etc.

S.A.M.
10-09-08, 06:05 AM
By other Native Americans, agreed ?

Or are you putting all the reds on one side, and all the whites on the other, for some reason?

Yeah, its a reversal of what was done to the reds. Do you object for any particular reason?

Gustav
10-09-08, 10:25 AM
i think the initial disbursement is to the collective
this group then distributes to individuals

that seems practical
we wash our hands and walk away leaving the tards squabble amongst themselves


word

Outraged, numerous Freedmen have turned to the courts for help. In the most celebrated case, a black tribal leader named Sylvia Davis filed suit against the Seminole tribe in 1994 to get her son a $125 clothing stipend from the Seminole reparations money. But US courts have repeatedly refused to meddle in Indian affairs, noting that the sovereign nations determine their own membership criteria. Davis suffered a serious - and perhaps final - setback last year, when the Supreme Court refused to consider her appeal of a lower court's ruling that the Seminoles could not be sued in federal court. (The Bush administration filed a brief on behalf of the tribe.) (link (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.09/seminoles_pr.html))

S.A.M.
10-09-08, 10:27 AM
Hilarious. So what happens if the US government takes their land or resources? And doesn't the US "hold" their money as well?

Gustav
10-11-08, 01:42 AM
you tell me