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.
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??
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. 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.
perhaps you will take it as petty, but native americans who are american citizens do not fit this category. At least, many of them do not. I also think the case gets very complicated with afro-americans and your rule does not hold. Current immigrants and the very poor also do not fit with what you say. I do not think it is petty pointing this out because your wording makes it seem like NAs are not Americans and further I think oversimplifications, whether unconsciously or consciously intented to or not, make resolution less likely and conflict more likely.
I disagree. If you were poor in India, it would mean this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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.
Wow. I've seen men with no clothes begging on the streets of my home city. I'll be sure to let them know. God knows what happens to the women in similar situations. And somehow I find myself perhaps expected to respond to a comparison between the very poor - as I put it above - in the US and the very poor in India. If it weren't you I would wonder if you were confusing Native Americans and Indians, since it is you it seems like a rhetorical shift, and not a justified one in the context of thread or the point I was making, and one I don't have the patience to chew on. It's not your fault especially SAM. But I've been working too hard here. I see people come at tangents and toss out questions and whizzing by things without remarking - I know you agree, often, with things you don't comment on. Perhaps I could have as a header to each of my posts.... I am now assuming you agreed with Point A: _____________ and Point C: since these were not commented on. And then go on to the bulk of my response to what you did comment on or ask me about. I think I have to treat sciforums more like one of those county fair things where you get three shots at targets and you either win the stuff animals or you miss or maybe the guy behind the counter moved the target with a foot lever and whatever the case move on. I know, irony. Look out.....
Don't worry, you'll learn. You can read my ancient beginner posts for inspiration Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I haven't seen the level of poverty in the US that I have seen in India. Could you tell me where people are living in the US with no access to food, shelter or clothing? My point is or was rather that all Americans have an opportunity that would not have existed without the annihilation of the native American way of life. Thats all inclusive. Its not restricted to those who lived 400 years ago or those who live now.
I'm sure they are more upset at one culture trying to change them more than anything. To look down on the hunting and gathering as inferior behaviors. Yes those tragedies did happen before us now and we are not responsible. But we should have quiet sentiment to not wish to to occur on them.
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?
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.
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? 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.
