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

cosmictraveler said:
6. Equality and Democracy. Thus the eastern tribes of red men enjoyed a degree of democracy that the white invaders of their country were never able to understand. ...
Click to expand...

Indeed, but the Trail of Tears was due to one man, acting in violation of the Supreme Court.
 
S.A.M. said:
Nope everyone still gets fucked over for their natural resources. Bullies still rule.
Click to expand...

I sure wish I was part of the tiny group fucking everyone over, particularly if I'm going to take the blame just based on how I look. My family lost mineral rights to their lands long ago...
 
S.A.M. said:
Well just consider what it would be like if present day non-European immigrants decided to contest your land ownership rules and regulations, made up their own and decided they were the only legal ones and imposed them on you.
Click to expand...

They wouldnt have to because they already are in North America and do own land. It is not reasonable to assume these lands would remain unpopulated and the truth is 90% of NA was unpopulated a few hundred years ago.
 
S.A.M. said:
Well that was definitely worth 30 million people dying of starvation, because clearly, it was ONLY by killing people around the world for their colour race or religion was it possible to invent the internet
Click to expand...

haha

/snort
 
spidergoat said:
Indeed, but the Trail of Tears was due to one man, acting in violation of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

And who tried to stop that man? And what was done after they got to their new lands and no one helped them survive there as well. It wasn't "one man" as you say but a few thousand or million that never bothered helping them afterwards.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Nice revisionist history. The true history of our interaction with the natives of America is a little more complex. Indians fought the British alongside George Washington. They traded with the French for hundreds of years, they had agricultural settlements in the South... we didn't just "wipe them out". Most of them died of disease.... But Christians didn't think they had the same rights to establish their civilization because they were "savages", they didn't worship the same God (for the most part). Treaties with them were problematic not only due to our own racism but also because Indians were not monolithic, a chief did not necessarily control the actions of his warriors, and every tribe had it's own ways of doing things.
Click to expand...

I meant to state that disease wiped out the majority of them, not "we" as in the pilgrims, settlers, etc., killing them outright with their own hands. Though I do see how you could have thought that this is what I meant.

S.A.M. said:
Well instead of looking back - why not look around? While no one can go back and return the Indians to their lands, their buffalos and their hunter gatherer lifestyle, what is truly bizarre is Americans bemoaning immigration and globalisation while denying their own role in wiping out the natives who preceded them.
Click to expand...

This is definitely a good point.

cosmictraveler said:
And who tried to stop that man? And what was done adter they got to their new lands and no one helped them survive there as well. It wasn't "one man" as you say but a few thousand or million that never bothered helping them afterwards.
Click to expand...

When the Indians that were removed by the Trail of Tears arrived in their new lands they actually prospered, though without the help of the government. Edit: They were again jostled around a bit after Oklahoma was admitted into the Union.
 
Last edited:
In the 16th century, might makes right.

We can't exactly go back and all leave America and give it back to the Native Americans, best we can do is make their lives today as prosperous as possible, which I think we're doing an OK job of these days.
 
jmpet said:
In the 16th century, might makes right.

We can't exactly go back and all leave America and give it back to the Native Americans, best we can do is make their lives today as prosperous as possible, which I think we're doing an OK job of these days.
Click to expand...

True but informing everyone of what genocide took place by the people in charge back then shouldn't be swept under the rug but brought to light so that the truth is known to all to see America makes mistakes, many, and should be held accountable no matter when it comes to light about what those mistakes were.
 
There's genocides taking place today! Look at Somalia for example.

As bad as I feel for the Native Americans I can't take personal responsibility for stuff that happened 300 years ago.
 
Removing the Indians was for the most part justified. They had a kind of religious attachment to large areas of territory which they no doubt spent lots of time and effort defending from other Indians. These were mostly territories that could support many more people in other modes of life such as farming and ranching. Thus, the native way of life was immoral from a humanitarian point of view.
 
spidergoat said:
Removing the Indians was for the most part justified. They had a kind of religious attachment to large areas of territory which they no doubt spent lots of time and effort defending from other Indians. These were mostly territories that could support many more people in other modes of life such as farming and ranching. Thus, the native way of life was immoral from a humanitarian point of view.
Click to expand...

So because your can claim your want is beneficial it makes it right. No spider it wasn't justified. destroying cultures/peoples because you want things is never justified.
wasn't justified by the europeans in the americas
wasn't justified when the mesoamerican empires did it to expand and ensure a stream of sacrifices
wasn't justified when the romans did it to expand and get more recources
wasn't right when the europeans did it in africa for resources
wasn't right hitler and stalin tried to do it in WW2
wasn't and isn't justified in the jewish/zionist efforts in palestine
wasn't and isn't justified when ever a country sought to expand for what ever reason.
 
It's not just a desire, the need to feed and clothe a growing population was a vital humanitarian concern, that is why the Indian way of life was doomed, it was a poor use of the land's resources. It wasn't just the desire of a country, since this was happening before the US was a nation.
 
spidergoat said:
It's not just a desire, the need to feed and clothe a growing population was a vital humanitarian concern, that is why the Indian way of life was doomed, it was a poor use of the land's resources. It wasn't just the desire of a country, since this was happening before the US was a nation.
Click to expand...

yes and than it was at the hands of the british the french the spanish and if you want to go through out the americas the russians and the portugese. just because the settlers needed more land to keep expanding doesn't mean they were justified in doing so. by your logic every war and ethnic cleansing is ok.
 
Mod note:
Just altered the title to reflect that it's the subject is about "Native Americans", otherwise "Indians" might end up being mislead to view the thread. It's not a major thing, but it just makes things clearer.
 
S.A.M. said:
what is truly bizarre is Americans bemoaning immigration and globalisation while denying their own role in wiping out the natives who preceded them.
Click to expand...

That would only be bizarre if said people were bemoaning immigration in general, abstract terms. I essentially never hear that. What I do hear is people bemoaning immigration in terms like "They are taking Our stuff!" Which is not bizarre at all. The self-interest is pretty much naked, and the pretension of some general position on immigration as such not in evidence.

But don't let that stop you from playing with your straw men, if that makes you feel important or witty or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top