Native American "Indian" Removal: Are Our Actions Justified?

And the early settlers introduced diseases that killed a large portion of the native population, so that when most people got there, it looked like there was plenty of room for everyone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's a relevant paragraph:
"The population of Old World peoples in the Americas grew steadily, while the number of the indigenous people plummeted. Old World diseases such as smallpox, influenza, bubonic plague and pneumonic plagues devastated the previously isolated Native Americans."

from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

The exposure was accidental rather than planned.

Going the other way, the New World may have given the Old World syphilis and certainly gave it tobacco.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No they weren't. They were fleeing governmental interference with their own attempts at religious persecution - they were fleeing religious tolerance.

Hence my comment that we establish some clearer distinction between needs and wants, above, if we want to approach things that way.

It may have looked like that to small acreage draft animal farmers, but to the hoe agriculture, hunting and gathering tribes who were engaged in running battles and mutual displacements of populations it looked quite different.

The first white tribal settlers west of the Appalachians chose a place in the narrow demilitarized zone between the Five Nation confederacy and the Cherokee (the Walker "family", more of a tribe, Creek Valley settlement) - that was the only open land available, prior to the removal of a good many reds.

Again: from what viewpoint do we attempt our discussion of "justification" ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I fail to see the difference between Euro settlers and the mutual displacements of the natives. Was it the Ocean that was supposed to guarantee their theoretical immutability in the eyes of modern moralists?

 

Here's a relevant sentence:
"In a fit of rage at these people, the Puritans, King James vowed, 'I shall make them conform or I will harry them out of the land, or else do worse.'"

from this link:
http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/chronologies/pilgrims.htm

Look at the entries from 1603 on. The Dissenters and the Separatists were persecuted.

 

Well, look into what James was angry about. And consider their behavior when those remaining in England did gain power, under Cromwell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

And then consider: They didn't flee James to America - they fled James to Holland. Holland did not persecute them for any reason.

But Holland was tolerant of other sects as well and thus not to their liking.

Only in America could they set up their Taliban style theocratic tyranny, free from interference by governments that enforced a level of tolerance for others they found objectionable.

The major difference I notice is the permanent absorption of the land into a much different economy and way of life. Draft animal agricultural, blacksmithing and other technology, transformed the landscape into a place unsuitable for stone age culture.

 

As my original post said, they felt they would lose their cultural identity in Holland. The Pilgrims weren't tolerant of other religions. But, despite what you said, they were persecuted.

 

Then it seems to me much of the blame is due to inevitable technological change (guns, germs, and steel).

 

They did not emigrate to America because they were being persecuted. They emigrated to America because not even Holland would allow them to oppress and persecute as they wished to.

That was the point, in the context of distinguishing wants from needs. Said distinction being advanced in the service of an attempt at justification of something.

The question is not one of blame, but justification - is a justification taht would be acceptable for one red tribe displacing another adequate for the displacement of an entire way of life by those who would destroy even the possibility of it returning?

To clarify: I think that "justification" does not apply to such wholesale and huge scale displacement of ways of life as happened in North America. The concept doesn't make sense. A more narrow focus, on specific atrocities say (the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee), seems necessary, if injustice and lack of justification is the concern.

 

You haven't cited one source to support your claims. You haven't attempted to rebut any of the sources I cited. I won't respond to any further posts from you on this topic.

 

Yes, I did. Reread above, the link to Cromwell, for an idea of the kind of government the Puritans wanted to establish, and King James opposed.

I simply observed that they don't support your claims.

None of your sources document persecution in Holland - there wasn't any. None of them even show persecution, as opposed to governmental interference in their own bad behavior, in England. Your quote from King James, for example, does not show persecution in England - it shows anger over behaviors unspecified, and a desire to stop them.

To augment, look at the miserable and superstitious theocracy the Pilgrims actually did establish in America. That's what they came for: the opportunity of governing themselves like that, without interference from more liberal and tolerant authorities. That is not honestly describable as "fleeing persecution".

And meanwhile, the question of whether these Pilgrims were "justified" in their displacement of the local Indians remains. It's an interesting one: the Pilgrims could, for example, have simply joined the local reds, become members in good standing of the local tribes, and filled in for the losses due to disease etc. They might have made a great contribution, in their importation of European advances in tools, agriculture, animal husbandry, and knowledge of the coming influx and its basis.

 

Not necessarily.

I would say, instead of looking back, and focusing on the here and now, realize that what happened in the past is in the past, but that doesn't invalidate anyone from trying to defend their land or way of life.

Land constantly changes hands throughout history. One group of people migrate, another group of people falls, and all the minor movements and rulers that come and go are a part of that.

Saying that after hundreds of years, the new group has no right to defend what they view as their sovereign land is pushing it.

If you want to go down that road, then how far back do you go? Who will you kick off the land and give to whom? Does this only apply to the US, or does it apply to all countries?

What a mess.