The Second Amendment : A Sacred Covenant of Ethnic Cleansing
The Second Amendment : A Sacred Covenant of Ethnic Cleansing and Slavery Between the Nation State and Settler Militias
Written by Christine Nobiss
There is a myth that has infiltrated the core of the American imagination. It is the belief that the Second Amendment is a result of the Revolutionary War, thus, a right to self-defense and to protect the country from any enemies that might arise. It is also believed that if the government fails to protect its citizens, the citizens have the right to revolt. However, the historical context that led to the creation of the Second Amendment is actually based on the process of land annexation and the mitigation of local populations through assimilation, genocide or slavery--much of which took place at the point of a gun. The colonists that built this country ousted the British for many reasons, but fundamentally, “what colonists considered oppressive was any restriction that British authorities put on them in regard to obtaining land.” (Dunbar-Ortiz, Loaded, 24)
The Second Amendment is actually a sacred religiopolitical covenant between the Nation State and the settlers of this continent that recognizes the fundamental ideology of land expansion through ethnic cleansing and slavery. It is nothing more than recognition that this country was founded on the actions of generations of Europeans with a maniacal lust for Indian killing and the control of Black people. Men were expected to bear arms (at one point it was the law) in order to protect themselves, their families, the State and the process of westward expansion. In essence, extreme violence was a god given right and an obligation of the average “citizen” that took on the singular role of a vigilante and that formed into small groups that cleared the way for the rise of the American government. The average citizen was a raider, a ranger, a frontiersmen, a marauder, a pirate and the average colony was a settler militia, an armed household, and a slave patrol.
The Nation State did not create the Second Amendment to protect its citizens from invasion but to allow its citizens to invade. It is written permission to continue on with the doctrine of discovery, manifest destiny, westward expansion, i.e., the work of the white supremacist. As Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz writes, “The astronomical number of firearms owned by US civilians, with the Second Amendment considered a sacred mandate, is also intricately related to militaristic culture and white nationalism. The militias referred to in the second amendment were intended as a means for white people to eliminate Indigenous communities in order to take their land, and for slave patrols to control Black people.” (Dunbar-Ortiz, Loaded, 57)
This violent approach to Indigenous and Black populations is still practiced in current day American society. For instance, Native Americans have the highest police murder rate per ethnic group in the country and the vast majority of these deaths are through the use of a firearm. According to a CNN review of the Center for Diseases Control, “for every 1 million Native Americans, an average of 2.9 of them died annually from 1999 to 2015 as a result of a legal intervention”. For the Black population the number is 2.6, for the Latinx it is 1.7, for Whites it is 0.9 and for Asians it is 0.6. This is a startling statistic because Native Americans only make up 0.9% of the population. However, these deaths are probably under reported just like the other epidemics that Native Americans face, such as missing and murdered women, abuse, rape, stalking, runaway children and violence committed by non-tribal members. According to Matthew Fletcher, director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center, “The data available likely does not capture all Native American deaths in police encounters due to people of mixed race and a relatively large homeless population that is not on the grid." (CNN)
The notion that there is a rise in gun violence in this country is actually a misunderstanding of history. There was just a period in time in the late 19th and early 20th century where guns were not essential for the coercive control of brown people as the government had created reservation internment camps and implemented Jim Crow laws to segregate “problem populations”. However, the rise of the NRA, gun lobbying and the mass production of automatic weapons tied to a long held gun fetish in the American imagination has given white supremacists updated permission to dust off their ancestors weapon of choice and reenact the violence that this country was founded upon. America is a young country and lacks a distinct culture of its own, but one thing is certain--Americans covet their sacred right to free real estate, cheap labor and the gun, thus, the Second Amendment is but permission to steal, kill and dominate in order to fulfill this expectation.
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
Interesting analysis.
In other words America was evil from the go. Yup, that is the progressive view of America
Do you disagree that colonial era settlers (and after) wanted to bear arms in order to kill Indians?
The firing ran from both directions.
Your question seems to confirm my statement. Shall I say it again?
john, the only reason guns were EVER invented was to kill indians... duh.
your hilarious :)
Why isn't this statement true?
Many reasons. Let me start with the simple wording:
How many rights do we have that are that explicitly defined? Did you note " being necessary to the security of a free State" ?
Clearly this was to enable the citizens to resist tyranny.
Your conspiracy theory isn’t true because this is the truth.
Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.
Taking land by force was not an accidental or spontaneous project or the work of a few rogue characters. The violent appropriation of Native land by white settlers was seen as an individual right in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, second only to freedom of speech.
Male colonial settlers had long formed militias for the purpose of raiding and razing Indigenous communities and seizing their lands and resources , and the Native communities fought back. Virginia, the first colony, forbade any man to travel unless he was “well armed.”
A few years later, another law required men to take arms with them to work and to attend church or be fined. In 1658, the colony ordered every settler home to have a functioning firearm, and later even provided government loans for those who could not afford to buy a weapon. Similarly, New England colonial governments made laws such as the 1632 requirement that each person have a functioning firearm plus two pounds of gunpowder and ten pounds of bullets. Householders were fined for missing or defective arms and ammunition. No man was to appear at a public meeting unarmed. 4
These laws stayed on the books of the earliest colonies and were created in new colonies as they were founded. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, enshrined these obligations as constitutional law: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The continuing significance of that “freedom” specified in the Bill of Rights reveals the settler-colonialist cultural roots of the United States that appear even in the present as a sacred right. Several of the colonies that declared independence in 1776—Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia—had already adopted individual gun rights measures into their state constitutions before the Second Amendment was passed at the federal level.
Settler-militias and armed households were institutionalized for the destruction and control of Native peoples, communities, and nations.
You nailed it
John you kind of skipped over to the Indian wars. Could you at least address my main point as to the reasons for the 2nd Amendment?
The other question I still have for you is if you believe this country is inherently evil?
Let's tackle that and I'll be glad to discuss "settlers & savages" with you.
I wonder if, without the need to appropriate native land (by force if necessary) and the need to keep millions of African slaves subjugated (by force if necessary) there would have been the "necessity" of a second amendment right to bear arms in the service of militias.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Are u saying the Indians owned all of North America?
You honestly don't see a connection between the necessity for a "right to bear arms" and the two factors the author mentions in her essay?
No. Native Americans never OWNED all of North America, as they do not believe that any part of the earth is meant to be OWNED by any one person, or group of people.
There is an old Native American Proverb;
"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?” ~ Massasoit"
Also -“It was land – it has ever been land – for which the White man oppresses the Indian and to gain possession of which he commits any crime. Treaties that have been made are vain attempts to save a little of the fatherland, treaties holy to us by the smoke of the pipe – but nothing is holy to the white man. Little by little, with greed and cruelty unsurpassed by the animal, he has taken all. The loaf is gone and now the white man wants the crumbs.” ~ Luther Standing Bear
Source:
So your trying to accuse the Native Americans of OWNING what does not belong to any one man or woman, is a delusion of your biased mind.
So how did they sell it?
All hail for your native culture knowledge but the Tribes were very diverse as where some were nomads some had towns.
Where does she say they "sold" it? Where did she say they stayed in one location?
Tribes/Nations did not OWN the lands they occupied/utilized and at no time during the 25K plus years that the Tribes/Nations were on this continent prior to the arrival of the Euros did any Tribe/Nation claim " OWNERSHIP " of the lands.
So, the question should be poised to read - "Why would Native Americans need/require the rights of gun ownership?"
The answer is/was quite simple -
"In 1795 Governor Matthews of Georgia signed the infamous Yazoo Land Act, bill authorizing the sale of 40 million acres of land that had been granted to the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes by the federal government . When news of the sale became public, the people were outraged, and in 1796 the incoming Governor Jare Irwin signed a bill nullifying the act. But the story does not stop there. The new bill failed to undo the damage and complications increased. So the sate of Georgia decided to turn over the responsibility for settling the Yazoo land claims to the federal government. In the Compact of 1802, Georgia ceded all of it's Alabama and Mississippi territories to the federal government in exchange for $1.25 million and a promise to extinguish all American Indian land titles in Georgia ."
"Ultimately, it was the Compact of 1802 agreement that set the stage for the "trail of tears" some 35 years later under President Andrew Jackson. In 1802, the Indian lands were signed away without any approval secured or solicited from the Cherokee nation . For the next years, the state of Georgia and the federal government struggled over jurisdiction and the general government's obligations stated in the compact. Then in 1822 a congressional committee called for an appropriation sufficient to extinguish the Indian titles to lands in Georgia, and the powerful Ways and Means Committee declared that it should be carried into effect. President Thomas Jefferson supported it, but added that the Cherokees had the right to refuse and that he lacked the power to remove them forcibly. This triad of struggle between Georgia, the federal government and the Cherokee nation continued until 1830s when the advocates of Indian removal gained a powerful ally in the White House by the name of Andrew Jackson." -
You'll note that the Feds decided they had the RIGHT to give the Indian Tribes/Nations lands for their use/occupation - lands that the Tribes/Nations had been on utilizing for over 25K years before the White Guys/Euros got kicked out of their countries because of their religious/legal beliefs of "Well, why can't I have it all - why can't I MAKE others do my will?"
Sure KD, some Indian Tribes/Nations were mobile/nomads and some were not - just like in the rest of the world. So, being mobile/nomads within the territories they utilized for hunting/growing/living means they didn't "want" the lands and they decided to "give it away" to the poor Euros who didn't have any lands??
My Nation, the Chickasaw, lived in the SE for thousands of years. We didn't own the lands - and we couldn't sell the lands that we didn't own - and we knew it. However, the lands that we utilized were utilized for hunting/fishing/game/agriculture/homesteads and each Clan was assigned a portion of those lands to take care of. The Clan would clean their assigned section of land through clear-burning to ensure growth and promote food accessibility for the game, would have sections of land that were designated as agriculture and were responsible for the successful harvesting of the crops for the benefit of the Nation, not the Clan. They were responsible for building huts/lodges within the village and maintaining sanitary conditions within the village.
Every 5 or 10 year period, the Clans would alternate and swap their responsibility portion of land for another with another Clan and both would pick up the responsibility of maintenance of their portion. They would SWAP THEIR RESPONSIBILITY - but the lands were NEVER sold as no tribal/nation member OWNED the lands.
Why would they need weapons???? Lemme see - 40 million acres of land were TAKEN from them because the Euros (sniff-sniff) "needed" the lands more since the Tribes/Nations weren't USING the lands properly. The Euro's had no qualms of totally decimating villages and killing tribal/Nation members for their lands. And this was just in Georgia/Alabama and Mississippi.
In 1832, the infamous Trail of Tears began and it didn't just include the Five Civilized Tribes (Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole) in the SE - the Removal program was for ALL Tribes/Nations east of the Mississippi River.
So, yeah, one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment was for protection from the Indian Tribes/Nations defending their way of life because of the Euro encroachment and takings of lands that the tribes/nations had been utilizing for over 25K years before the invasion.
Sorry John - topic dear to my heart and had to take a stand.
"So how did they sell it?"
They didn't SELL it, they were driven off the land tht had been their homeland of hundreds, if not thousands of years, by the colonists. The colonists are the ones who SOLD the land when they moved on.
"All hail for your native culture knowledge but the Tribes were very diverse as where some were nomads some had towns. "
Yes they were, and it was not until much later that some Tribes established VILLAGES, not TOWNS.
You might want to read up on some history so that you don't make such inane comments when you obviously do not know anything of what you are talking about.
NO
Lol, I never "ACCUSED", I merely asked John if that was his position. .....you need to read a little better
I'd really like to get into that discussion too Vic.
I was hoping that John would be able to answer one of my questions. The article is an assault on America and millions of people.
You want to discuss native Americans?
Yes you should. Google is your friend.
Now did Native Americans have deeded land? Hell no. But one tribe did not just saunter over to another tribes land and set up camp and start building a "village" shooting the game and harvesting there food.
Now more likely they would come in raid the village, steal some assets and acquire some slaves.
And the author of this article is a dingbat. You know we just see people "white" driving around using their guns to oppress black people. Obviously they did not take into account the rate of black on white crime. Of course to the loony liberal that does not exist.
Basically, just want to see where you're headed with your comment 'bout "settlers and savages".
"But one tribe did not just saunter over to another tribes land and set up camp and start building a "village" shooting the game and harvesting there food.
Now more likely they would come in raid the village, steal some assets and acquire some slaves."
Recommend you follow your own googling -
Yup - sometimes tribes/nations would just saunter into another tribe's/nation's land and totally take over. And then, sometimes, they would raid a village, steal, and take slaves. Depended on the tribe, location, time and needs.
You need to word your comments a little better so they are not so misconstrued. And take your own advice about reading better. It might really help.
Now....why not stick with the subject that started out with, about Native Americans OWNING and SELLING their land instead of trying to deflect with some other topic regarding how Native American lived. Or are you not capable of doing that?
And yes, you should do a bit more reading of the history of the Native Americans so that you don't make such statements.
?
How about Indians killing settlers with guns given to them by the British. How about Native Americans killing members of other tribes and stealing their possessions and lands. These people were not "noble savages" as you proclaim.
Gee I thought I did address your inane comment that native Americans didn't own land. Other than the fact you try to lump all the different tribes in north America as some one solid unit that all thought the same and prayed to the mother Earth...Oh wait that was Avatar. Native Americans DID sell land to the colonies no matter how much you try to put your spin on it I don't care.
Now trot on and have a good day.
The Native Americans never had any inherent right to any lands. If they can't defend them, then they will probably lose them.
It's John's article, but it seems he did want to go there as well, my only point was that nobody really had clean hands when it came to conflicts over land. Do you disagree?
I really cant improve on the English language.
I asked John if he thought all North America was owned by the Indians and you responded with: "So your trying to accuse the Native Americans of OWNING what does not belong to any one man or woman, is a delusion of your biased mind." WHICH YOU THEN REVISED TO: "No. Native Americans never OWNED all of North America, as they do not believe that any part of the earth is meant to be OWNED by any one person, or group of people."
I was clear and you were clear
Gee....I thought I said that Native Americans NEVER OWNED any land until long after the Europeans barged into America and suddenly it all belonged to them.
Now...go play with the other kiddies who like to play dodge the topic.
"The Native Americans never had any inherent right to any lands. If they can't defend them, then they will probably lose them."
Correct, the original Native Americans never OWNED or SOLD land. There was plenty of land for all, and the various Tribes claimed certain areas as their homeland where their Tribes lived for hundred or thousands of years. The only ones who OWNED or SOLD land were the Europeans who either ran the Natives off their homeland and claimed it as their own, or the Natives were sent off to other parts of the country by the government so that the white settlers could then take over their homelands.
But, the idea of the original Native Americans owning and selling land is not true at all. It was their teachings that Mother Earth belongs to all living creatures and that no one can own or sell any part of it.
So trying to tell people that the original Native Americans OWNED and SOLD land is a lie.
Sorry Greg - even SCOTUS agreed that the Native Americans had the inherent right to the lands in the Marshall Trilogy. In fact, Justice Marshall stated the tribes/nations had aboriginal title (Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time.") to the lands in North America.
"Conspiracy thinking"??? How 'bout a population of Native Americans going from 120M in 1450 to 252,000 in 1953 - tad reduction of people's to the tune of 119,748,000 - compliments of the Euro nations. That's a "conspiracy thought"???
no myth... we are any threats worst nightmare.
we will protect ourselves and our country from any threat foreign or domestic. count on that.
Meh, only in your mind. No foreign invader is worried about you and your cute little gun (I mean, if they can defeat the US military why would they be?), and no would be autocrat is either (you all will be their primary base of support).
Someone forgot to tell that to the British when they lost.
Yeah but......The American military manpower, naval strength and overall technology has progressed a great deal since the British attacked American soil.
Have you not noticed? ??
At the time native raids were a real threat, as were slave revolts.
This seed has left me curious, I wonder how the cost of a gun in early America compares to the price of toilet paper.
She just makes Crap up, she's got a hell of an imagination though. I'm wondering if she's just a Racist Propagandist or if she suffers from Paranoid Delusions. We'd better watch out though because if the Left gets it's way this is the False History that the next generation of children will be learning in School.
We are already there
They might even ask eighth graders in Texas to list some good things about Native Americans. The horror.
We've already gone over how your home city segregates the non white population. Should we do it again?
Please keep your delusions to yourself.
Good find, John.
If we think about "events and incidents" that required arms for resolution... Ms Nobiss is obviously right. Slave uprisings and skirmishes with Indians. In both cases, property.
And as we know... "Property is theft". Who can argue otherwise when the "property" is human beings and stolen land?
Though legitimate points have been made on both sides of the discussion, the one curious thing that has been left out is that I presume they liked to eat.
I will say that in this day and age I see no need for a well armed militia, anything in a hunting rifle beyond a five round clip and ten for a hand gun, but that's me.
Let's say three rounds maximum for any civilian-owned firearm before reloading. No problem for hunters or target shooters. Big problem for mass-murderers.
No problem at all, they'll just get their guns from criminals, who ignore gun laws.
The treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 .. ending the American Revolution .. the Bill of Rights was implemented in 1791 .. Jefferson in 1803 signed the Homestead Act...
I have read Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's book "Loaded" .. it is definitely compelling reading, a must read if one desires to see all sides and points of view - yet I do not have to necessarily agree with her completely that the intent of the Second Amendment was to perpetrate violence against Natives ...
This is an interesting read (for those that will most likely never read "Loaded" .. here is a sampling of sorts) --
There is the nutshell that the conservatives on this seed are doing their best to ignore and belittle.
Think you forgot to copy / paste this part ...
The Second Amendment is Sacred !!!