An Ugly Side of America
An Ugly Side of America
Recently I have been reading a book called Flyboys, a book written by James Bradley, who also wrote Flags of Our Fathers (a book about the six Iwo-Jima flagraisers, one of them being his father) ostensibly about the loss of a number of Pilots in the Pacific during WWII. Facts were elicited from recently declassified government documents. However, while reading about the violence of the Japanese I came across this passage that indicates, in rather graphic terms of comparison, that America was not much different.
CIVILIZE-ATION (chapter title)
In the nineteenth century, the United States transformed itself from thirteen tiny colonies hugging the eastern seaboard to a continental giant stretching from sea to shining sea. America accomplished this with a government policy of ethnic cleansing. As ethnobiologist Melvin Gilmore later observed: The people of the European race in coming into the New World have not really sought to make friends of the native population, or to make adequate use of the plants, or the animals indigenous to this continent, but rather to exterminate everything they found here and to supplant it with plants and animals to which they were accustomed.
Alexis de Tocqueville, the perceptive chronicler of early America, noted that he often heard fine Christian Americans casually discuss the extermination of Indians:
This world here belongs to us, they add. God, in refusing the first inhabitants the capacity to become civilized, has destined them in advance to inevitable destruction. The true owners of this continent are those who know how to take advantage of its riches. Satisfied with this reasoning, the American goes to the church, where he hears a minister of the Gospel repeat to him that men are brothers and that the Eternal Being, who has made them all in the same mould, has imposed on them the duty to help one another.
There was a sense among white European Christians of themselves as civilized and Others who were not. The slaughter of these Others brought little hand-wringing it was, after all, the normal course of things in the nineteenth century, the original era of Darwinian thought. In his book The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin predicted, At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. Teddy Roosevelt, who often wrote of the winning of the West, observed, Of course our whole national history has been one of expansion. That the barbarians recede or are conquered, with the attendant fact that peace follows their retrogression or conquest, is due solely to the power of the mighty civilized races which have not lost the fighting instinct, and which by their expansion are gradually bringing peace into the red wastes where the barbarian peoples of the world hold sway.
Teddy, like so many of his countrymen, found nothing wrong in even the most barbaric American actions. In December of 1864, an audience in a Denver theatre applauded wildly as on stage an ordained Methodist minister displayed the results of the latest encounter between the civilized races and the Others. The ministers name was John Chivington Preacher John. Preacher John was a volunteer in the cavalry. Days earlier, he had led an attacking party to Sand Creek, Colorado, where they had surprised and massacred at least 150 Indian children, women, and old men. The braves had been away hunting.
What elicited the roars of approval from the Denver theatre audience was not just Preacher Johns tale of victory but the grisly evidence. A pile of hacked Indian penises brought laughter. Applause greeted American soldiers who displayed hats over which they had stretched the vaginal skin of Indian women.
None of Denvers civilized residents saw much wrong with this. No one was ever charged with any wrongdoing. The grateful people of Denver made Preacher John a deputy sheriff, a job he held until he died peacefully in his sleep forty-eight years later at the age of seventy-one.
Teddy Roosevelt not only approved of this atrocity, he thought it was one of the single great moments in American history. About the Sand Creek massacre he said, In spite of certain most objectionable detailsit was on the whole as righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier.
Almost the entire West was ethnically cleansed of Indians in the same manner, by American soldiers acting on government orders to remove the Red Devils from their land by imprisoning them on reservations or killing them. As Teddy said, I dont go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldnt like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.
The book goes on to describe the American attitude of and dehumanizing treatment of the Mexicans at that time and the American invasion euphemistically called the Mexican-American War, about how America confiscated much of the West coast.
In law school when we learn about equity, which is meant to soften the harshness of law, we are told the adage that one must have clean hands to ask for equity. I believe that such an adage should not be limited to individuals.
Although Germany has admitted the atrocities it committed during WWII, and made many reparations, Japan refuses to admit the horrors that it committed, and euphemistically describes itself in its history books, which is one of the things that justifiably aggravates China.
Just added to this: How much has America done to recognize and admit what it did to the Indians?They will never accurately to tell thetrue history of America and the Indian.
Most Americans cannot accept the fact that their forefathers committed genocide against the Indian. It's much easier to avoid the fact, then face it.
One only has to read the ''Declaration of Independence'' to see what the whites thought of Indians.
And, not wanting to add insult to injury, the United States has yet to admit to their wrong doings with the American Indian people. The U. S. has apologized to many ethnicities for their unfair treatment, but NEVER to the American Indian.
"Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown - " Using council records, autobiographies, and firsthand descriptions, Brown allows great chiefs and warriors of the Dakota, Ute, Sioux, Cheyenne, and other tribes to tell us in their own words of the series of battles, massacres, and broken treaties that finally left them and their people demoralized and decimated. A unique and disturbing narrative told with force and clarity, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee changed forever our vision of how the West was won, and lost. It tells a story that should not be forgotten, and so must be retold from time to time."
Sadly, in today's modern world within the U. S., I still find extreme racism (yes John, I'm gonna use the word) toward American Indians and have been told, personally, that we should have all been killed.
Remember always - history is "His Story" - as written by the conqueror - all facts are omitted.
Most Americans cannot accept the fact that their forefathers committed genocide against the Indian. It's much easier to avoid the fact, then face it.
I would say most Americans don't care. I for one take no responsibility or feel no guilt for crimes committed by those generations before me....that is to say, I reject the "sins of my father" concept....which by the way is a biblical phrase.
In recent times, the Yugoslav war , the Christian Serbs went after the Muslim Bosnians in a rage of killing and mass rape for events that happened over 6 centuries ago. While extreme, the whole idea of holding people responsible, generations apart, guilty of something they did not do...based on a biblical reference or convenient myth, is a dangerous tact to take.
You COULD take responsibility, although it is not presently genocide, for the treatment of Native Americans today which leaves much to be desired.
You mean I can do a lot more to help see that the Native American gets justice...yes, I can fully agree with that.
Aeon, I did not say accept''sins of my father''. I said that most Americans do not want to accept the fact that their forefathers committed genocide against the Indian.
''I would say most Americans don't care''...That fits quite well with the lack of recognizing what took actually took place.
Teddy Roosevelt - a man undeniablly one of the most admired Presidents of the U. S. - and, yet, one of the strongest advocates for the elimination of the American Indians.
What is everyone's fear of American Indians?
Dependent on when our forefathers came to these shores (for me? Not really sure-the family history is kind of cloudy). I will not accept the blame for what happened in 1864 or earlier. I do whatI can now-I patronize local native businesses whenever I can (there's something in the family tree that says I do have some native american blood in me also, though again, it's a bit cloudy).
The Japanese, from all I've read, were form a differnet thought process-win or die were the only choices they knew from before they pushed out from their shores-that's how their fuedal society worked. They haven't apologized for much-but then again, what is the point in doing that? Thye have come a long way since WWII to join and be a part of the Modernized Global Society. BTW, our European forefathers were none too great in including our WWI ally, Japan, in the post war fun......
Kavika,
I'll take it even a step further. I don't think the issue is even on most Americans radar. Americans, as a culture, live in the here and now. Right now, most Americans are wondering when does ISIS comes to the US.
''I would say most Americans don't care''...That fits quite well with the lack of recognizing what took actually took place.
I agree. Then that being the case, there needs to be awareness that there is an injustice. The best way to do that is by attending individual public school districts (K-12) to ask (or demand) a curriculum that just not treat the tragedies of the Native American as just a foot note.
That beats spending millions on a public service campaign.
Gotta say that this is true, John.
In many instances the ''demanding'' has been going on for years Aeon. In some areas it's heard, others, not so much.
''That beats spending millions on a public service campaign.'' ???
No one asked you to accept the blame of things that happened in 1864 Spike. It's recognizing what happened that is the question.
1864, is one year out of hundreds that the killing of Indians took place.
This makes me ill. What makes me sicker, (and madder), is that there are still people around who see NOTHING wrong with this. I've heard their comments myself.
As Americans, we have much to be ashamed of.
'Social Darwinism' has to be one of the most egregious rationalizations of the 19th/20th centuries. While the general idea predates Darwin's writings, the rapid misappropriation of concepts of 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' to justify plunder of indigenous peoples, genocide and unchecked capitalist exploitation was a mainstay of European colonizationand American expansion. Social Darwinism provided the pseudoscientific justification for 'Manifest Destiny'-- the 'inevitable' displacement & destruction of Native Americans (parallel to the subjugation of people of color in Africa, India and anyplace else where 'primtive' (inferior) peoples/cultures possessed resources that 'civilized' (superior) folks wanted. A coat of 'scientific' whitewash covered over the unpalatable truth that 'They got it and we're gonna take it', making almost any sort of brutal conduct acceptable to 'enlightened' thinkers.
While Social Darwinism lost a lot of it's shine in the 1940's (a lot of bad press from the whole Nazi thing), it was given a 'second wind' in the mid/late 1950's by Ayn Rand. We see a lot of re-fried Social Darwinism being posted here on NT...
Indians didn't builda monument for any presidents. More BS from the master.
You forgot one key word for him Robert, ''Genocide''...But I suppose in simply minds that's ok. If you going to be remembered, it's good to get all of it out there. The good, the bad and the ugly.
What I mean is your message needs public attention. A display like in Ferguson only gets short term results as would a media awareness campaign.
Aeon, that is currently being done with the campaign against the term ''Red*kin''.It isbringing awareness to many that never thought of the term in a negative way.
Speaking as the descendant of European immigrants , I have received the blessings of liberty because of the ability of the Euro methods for supporting large numbers of population on any given area of land .
Most Americans don't care about anyone or anything but themselves. The news is overloaded with horror story after horror story about "we, the people." I won't deny that there are good people, but they don't exist in numbers vast enough to overcome the narcissism and laziness of the bulk of this population. The Constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on. "Freedom" is just a word, and a somewhat meaningless word when placed in today's context. The atrocities that are committed by one human being upon another, every minute of every day, from reckless drivers who think the laws don't apply to them to the warmongers whose taste for blood makes them first-cousins to Dracula... That "all men are endowed with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" stops after the word "men." Women aren't considered human in too many societies, including cliques and cults right here in good old America!
Some people endure. Some people manage to eke out a happy life in spite of the odds, and some even manage to help others along the way. Most, however, and I do mean most as in the majority of humans, simply struggle. From birth to death, they struggle. In a third-world country, that might be expected, but in a country that is supposed to accept "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...", the U.S. of A. is one, big, HUGE, phenomenal LIE! And the more I learn, the more I see, the more embarrassed I am to be an American.
I refuse to share the blame for what my ancestors did, but I sure don't have to repeat what they did. I really do consider all of us as having been born equal, and that means exactly that: equal, in rights, and in everything else. No one is better than anyone else, or more deserving, or more entitled. I do believe in the equality of humans where it comes to the basic rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness, and I also believe that those who are better endowed with brains, or muscle, or anything else owe it to those who are not so fortunate to help them to at least achieve some kind of parity.
Some of us do that. Too many do not.
Most Americans, from what I have seen, really do not care.
When/how/where did Indians built a monument to him, or any President?
Recognizing injustices past or present,and, expressing disgust regarding such injustices, is a component of being human.
Try it.
You may find the experience uplifting.
As much as I don't care for certain individuals (who shall remain nameless), should anyinjustice be perpetrated against them, I would feel badly for them and openly say so.
That's what I thought . T.R. did not do genocide on Indians .
Point well taken.
Feeling pain for past injustices does not saythat they are culpable Robert. I guess that's a bridge to far for you to cross.
Now it's a joke when your BS is pointed out. Nice try Robert.
Was he, or was he not part of the US Government when genocide took place Petey.
''Theodore Roosevelt delivered a Lowell Institute Lecture in Boston, Massachusetts, in which he defends the governments treatment of Indians:
As President. 1901:
With regard to Indians, in 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt stated:
I didn't say I was personally ashamed. I don't have to be a perpetrator to feel for a victim and shame for so-called "humanity."
I just have to be a human being who is capable of thinking things like "I would not want that to happen to me or my family or to anyone not deserving of such treatment."
even if it happened to you, Robert G.
In your opinion Robert. Not all Americans think the way you do.
ALL people Robert G?
Possibly something is lacking in you something that makes it impossible for you to believe in qualities like feeling sympathy or empathy, or, having human compassion
Some people just can't get there AMac, and you almost feel sorry for them as it shows no compassion in their lives.
Compassion by some is viewed as a worthless emotion, until it is their time to need it. Or maybe it's because they are bitter about the compassion they never got. Just something I never understood.
But I thought Robert G was a "compassionate conservative."
And let me say, even though Robert drives me crazy, pisses me off, and, is usually 180 degrees from where I am and, IMO is a PIA
I like him.
I even send him a Christmas/Holiday card every year.
Don't ask me to explain it because I can't.
"Most Americans, from what I have seen, really do not care."
Bitey you struck right to the heart of the issue.
Hey Bitey,
I wish I'd written that.
Always good to see you.
Thanks, A Mac! I'm just getting over a nasty cold... I get one about once every 7 years or so... this was my year, and it was nasty! But, I'm feeling better and ready to rumble! {{{{{A Mac}}}}}
Thanks, Larry. This is a topic that is very dear to me. I loathe bigotry... it comes in all forms against all manner of beings, and it sucks! If only we could all just get along!
Thank you. Seriously.
Plain, fuckin' hyperbole
'Bout time.
Off on another path are you Robert.
I have never condoned the violence, in Chicago, or any other city by any race. If you can find a quote from me saying that I did, post it.
No. I said you posted it to get out in front of the Michael Brown story so that you could make your usual f'd up argument that we can't simultaneously feel outrage for two separate outrages.
Regarding the absence of presidential representative at one funeral and not another surprise I agree with you. Because one killing got the publicity, it got the photo op as well. Bad form and simply not right.
From the article.
Teddy Roosevelt not only approved of this atrocity, he thought it was one of the single great moments in American history. About the Sand Creek massacre he said, In spite of certain most objectionable detailsit was on the whole as righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier.
Mixed record...LOLOL
Kudos and a sincere tip of the Swami's turban for that one, bitey...
(nice to hear from you again
)
And you Robert?
Robert, his comment above and others he made justified the killing of innocent Indians. Did he pull the trigger, probably not. Did he think it was fine to slaughter Indians. By his own statements he did.
You can dance around it all you want, that is not going to change the fact.
It was not only TR, but a list of American Presidents and others in power who advocated the extermination of Indians.
When you have a closed mind, no matter the facts, or in this case, his own words are going to change you mind.
I never lived in Denver, nor even visited it, and any time I have spent in the USA was for very short term vacation or business travel because I am not an American. As a Canadian citizen I am willing to admit to what my country has done to its native people, and over the years I have not ignored the issue but have put some effort towards making it right which is all I as an individual can do.
Thank you bitey. So good to see you again - it has been too long.
It's kind of 1 sided to talk only about the Euros attacking Indians without also talking about the Indian tribes attacking & killing each other . And lest we forget , they also stole each other's women when the opportunity availed itself .
WTF does that have to do with genocide Petey? Or the statements and actions of the US government.
It was way way beyond attacking Indians Petey. It was genocide, plain and simple. Your trying to divert itwith your comment doesn't fly.
Remember, the Euros invaded this country, ''doctrine of discovery'', ''manifest destiny'' and all the other bullshit excuses used by the Euros to slaughter indigenous people through out the Americas.
Those are the facts Petey.
Two years ago, when I realized my great-great grandmother was mistreated by her husband. I took a day off from work to drive to Hodgensville and look for her grave. But then, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
Yes, I have shed tears for my long-dead family that I never knew. Their lives are worth missing. I am empathetic to the plight of others, Robert. That's a very human quality. BTW, I still decorate the grave of my 4 greats grandfather, who fought in the Revolutionary War. Should I not feel grateful that he came here? Should I not honor my dead?
Here's more facts . Some tribes were being slaughtered by other tribes . It is likely that some of those tribes were saved by the presence of Euro troops . As to Sand Creek , that was indeed genocide . But the extortion of tribes by the more aggressive tribe might be as well .
Petey,
I'm not going to debate with you on this. Guessing that euro troops might have saved some Indians is guess work on your part. Who did they save them from, other euros?
None of what you posted has any thing to do with what transpired in the genocide of American Indians by the US.
Sand Creek was one of hundreds of massacres done by the US. What I gave you are facts, you present guesses, hypothetical situations. If you want links, there are plenty of them to confirm my comments.
Accept it or not Petey. It was genocide, plain and simple.
Robert, neither you or I know for sure if TR actually pulled the trigger. What he did do was condone and excused it.
Does that sound like a person that the wasn't in support of genocide?
Blood on his hands Robert. Does the one who supports genocide and excuses it have clean hands. No, he doesn't.
I suspect the Lakotas were not the most peaceful of tribes . I would not be surprised if their neighbor tribes were happy to see Euros show up and fight against the Lakotas .
We have always celebrated America's dream, being self-described as a land of immigrants, a melting-pot, a land of opportunity...
Our identity, or persona as a society is always evolving, growing, becoming. Honesty in identifying ourselves, is a sheer necessity to overcoming obstacles; our ability to learn from our history directly affects how we handle today. Our identity as a melting-pot, without understanding that that "pot" was built on the attempt to rid the nation of it's indigenous habitants,is avalue that cannot be ignored. Not only should it not be ignored, it needs to be reconciled. I believe that Native Americans have exppressed a genuine desire for such,in word and in deed,serving our country with valorand caring for it's lands, without equal. It seems to me that this article would hope to begin a dialogue for exploring that reconciliation.
How would an actual reconciliation take place? In a lotta ways really; there are ample opportunities to be educated; and, research is pretty easy with Google and NewsTalkers Indianswho are more than willing usually to help an eager student on their way.
I think it's also important to acknowledge the repercussions of America's treatment of Indians, as reflected in the state of many Indians, today. There are today, the great grandchildren of free Indians, existing in disheveled and abandoned cultures, attempting to piece back together a reflection of their own identity. All the while not having the opportunities for education, food or shelter, that other American citizens enjoy. Many, many Indian youth today are simply lost for a connection with a lost society, while living in a chaotic, unfair, and unfamiliar one.
This topic should rile us up. Part of the problem that we as Americans seem to have today, is an inability to even describe who we are and who we want to be. This is exemplified by a stymied and clogged political system.Perhaps it's because we have ignored for too long, that we stole an entire people's land, culture, freedom, lives and yes.....identities. Not learning about one's past is a recipee for disaster.
It was the US government that slaughter the Lakota Petey.
Please stop with the guess work and hypotheticals. None of this has anything to do with the genocide perpetrated by the US government.
One more fact Petey. The Lakota, Santee, and Nakota are all part of the Sioux nation. My tribe the Ojibwe lived next door to them and had no fear of them. In fact there was a lot of inter-marriage between the tribes.
Petey,
Certain Indian tribes did make war among themselves. Yet the population of Indians remained pretty constant till the various mass killings that went on from the early 1800's till into the 1920's till their numbers fell from the millions to a few hundred thousand. That is what a genocide is even if it takes longer than a war. It is the systematic killing of a people.
Dennis McCann (PBUH) would have said the same thing about the Armenians, yet we know the Turks did it. Ask any Turk on the street and they will tell you no... it didn't happen... it wasn't them...it was exaggerated.
Perrrie ,
What you are referring to is the result of technology , more than of ill intent .
Swamijim, it is always a real pleasure to stumble across you on an article! I mean that sincerely! I wish I had more time to spend here... I know I'm missing out on a lot. {{{{{Swamijim}}}}}
Petey, first off the genocide started in 1492. Read the history of Columbus. And it progressed from there.
Technology only speed it up. The ill intent was there from the beginning.
Yoursounding like the people Perrie described, denying that it happened.
And thank YOU, Buzz! As I said to Swamijim, I wish I had more time to spend here... this has just been one of the busiest years, ever, considering that I am retired and should have a TON of time... but having no time doesn't mean having no love, for ALL of my dear online friends! {{{{{Buzz}}}}}
Little bit of historical information for you Petey - in 3 years, Columbus "massacred" 1.8M Indians in the Carib. When his men touched shore in 1492, the population in the Western Hemisphere of Native peoples was 80M in North American and 172M in in Central and South America.
From 1492 to 1950, the population of the "Americans" was reduced by 94% - the U. S. population of Native peoples went from 80M to 252,000 - tad bit of mass killing of 79,748,000 through disease, war, and mass extermination. Kinda beats what Hitler did, eh?
Indian peoples "fought" each other for territory, horses but, at no time, did they ever have "mass" executions. The losing tribes were taken in as slaves/replacements for those lost in battle, and, usually after a bit of time, they were adopted into the "new" tribe and welcomed into the family. Not quite like the Euro idea of "off with their heads".
Before you attempt to throw one-liners out about how evil and wicked the Indian people were - learn your history - learn it well - 'cause there are a few of us who are quite knowledgeable about "our" history.
Much of that is the result of thinking of ourselves as hyphenated-Americans Irish-American, Italian-American, African-American and on-and-on. This would be relatively innocuous were we then not to segregate ourselves by neighborhood, church, social affiliations a kind of ghetto mentality.
African-Americans came here originally, not to escape religious and other forms of oppression, but as captives against their will; while that is true of some other "nationalities," those were enslaved for crimes they committed in their home countries.
But beyond that, the only genuine un-hyphenated Americans are Native Americans and the only Americans with both a legitimate claim to ownership and reparations thereof. The lone exceptions IMO are those African-Americans who have a direct ancestor-descendent line to slaves. Resentful whites with regard to reparations can go shove it is not ideologically consistent with our so-called "Christian nation" to make proper amends? And making laws to make "legal" that which was been gained by violence and outright theft doesn't make it morally or ethically "right."
Big fuckin' laugh at the "Christian Nation" occupants who have no moral compass when it comes to discriminatory laws, practices, law-enforcement, job discrimination, etc., and who kiss the asses of the politicians who kiss their asses by pandering to ethnocentric, bigoted and sometimes just plain ignorant or stupid people.
Other than these few grievances, I'm just proud to be part of it all well, not so proud when the Ted Nugents and the Duck Dynasties are role models and "resource" people and foreign policy "experts," that while "Victimcrats" exploit their own race in the guise of "advocacy."
And while I'm at it, WTF is wrong with people who vote solely on the basis of race (any/all), religion, gender, special interest at the expense of anything utilitarian?
OK. That's it for this hour. Now watch someone drop by and leave a one-liner because he/she/they can't viably rebut anything I wrote.
Goin' down the road for coffee (hopefully I won't run in to any of those "other" kinds of people).
From 1901 to 1909, TR was Pres of the U. S. During that time in Native American History, the Dawes Act (i.e. taking of Indian lands for white dudes - loss of over 93 million acres - loss of over 3.1 million Indian lives due to loss of lands), the Homestead Act (all lands not allotted to Indians (93 million acres) "given" to white dudes for homesteads, BIA "leasing" of lands "not used" by Indians created loss of 68 million acres/homes, an additional 60 million acres of land was ceded outright or sold to non-Indian homesteaders adn corporations as "surplus lands not included in the 93 million acre loss.
Enough genocide for you?
Thank you Teddie.
Oh, my source??? Felix Cohen's Handbook on Federal Indian Law (2005/2012), Jack Weatherford - Indian Givers; Indian Givers: How Native Americans Transformed the World (2010), Native Roots; How the Indians Enriched America; Tribes and Civilizations - Who will Survive?
So true, Hal. Weinberg had it spot on.
Buzz, the horrors committed by "civilized" people can be as perverted and dehumanizing as those committed by "savage" people, is exactly what this excerpt shows.
Robert, TR was a contradiction. Yet, what he did follow was the genocide of American Indians. A long line that started in the 1600's. One only was to research the comments and actions of prior and post leaders of America.
Genocide can take many forms, from the outright killing of Indians to the policies set in place that would destroy us as a people. For that, I give no quarter.
As late as 1973, the US Government maintained a ''tribal termination act, public law 280. The boarding school era, started in 1898 and didn't end until the 1980's. This destroyed generations of American Indians. The forced sterilization of Indian women from the 1960's and 70's. All add up to genocide.
The US government and many of the ''Christian religions'', assimilation was the destruction of the culture/history/religion and language of the Indian people.
That, to me is unacceptable. The term used for the ''doctrine of discovery'' of the Catholic Church was ''Gold, Greed, conquest''.
It is also a misnomer that the Seminole are the only tribe technically at war with the US, since they never signed a ''peace treaty''. Many tribes did not sign a peace treaty with the US. Those that signed agreements and treaties, those treaties, supposedly the highest law of the land were violated by the US government.
Robert each and every one of them are another coating of genocide.
Caffe Mocha w/Hazel Nut and whipped cream please.
Robert - read my comments -
Which is an interesting thing about the Indian culture Robert. Our ancestors were not "strangers". Even in death, they are a part of our families, for most tribes. Some tribes refuse to acknowledge/remember the dead - other tribes can give you the oral history of all their ancestors, such as the Oneida, Lakota, Suquamash, members of the Five Civilized Tribes, and others.
You'll never see any Congressperson lobbying to give up his bread and butter
In light of this passage, how can you say T.R. did not do genocide on Indians?
"Almost the entire West was ethnically cleansed of Indians in the same manner, by American soldiers acting on government orders to remove the Red Devils from their land by imprisoning them on reservations or killing them. As Teddy said, I dont go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldnt like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth."
Was Teddy not part of the government? I thought the President had certain powers, such a power of veto if he did not acquiesce in what his government was doing. Judging from that passage, I doubt he would have used his veto to prevent the carnage.
TR was president from 1901 to 1909. In 1898 the ''First Indian Boarding School'' was opened. He presided over the expansion of them for 8 years.
During this time, Indian children were taken by force from their familes. Their hair cut, forced to dress in euro styled clothing, and if their spoke their language they were severlybeaten. Forced labor, abuse, both sexual and physical, and the destruction of them as Indians.The term, ''Kill the Indian, save the Child'' was the motto.
Yet, did TR do anything about it? Hell no he didn't. These ''Indian Boarding Schools'' lasted in the US, until the 1980's.
TR did not have clean hands.Killing a culture/language is part of genocide.
Over a 500 year period, the loss of 558,000 people of one ethnicity in one year doesn't come about by accident.
BTW - that Hitler thing was a paradoxical joke.
Giving small-pox infested blankets to the Indian tribes is not "a lack of intent and dedication" - it was certainly intentional and approved by governmental officials (U. S. Congress/Administration).
And, yes, in the 15 - 1700's, the intent of the Europeans was to decimate the Indian tribes so the "White Dudes" could have the land and thus be "citizens" of the new world since they were now land owners - a European/White Dude requirement for citizenship. Not to mention the Holy Roman Father, the Pope, issued Bulls stating that the savages were not human, nor were they akin to animals and the elimination of their lot would benefit all Christianity. 'Course, nobody in Europe is Catholic, right?
No, it's not "racism" - it was dedicated and intentional ethnic cleansing purpetrated by the Europeans in their vast desire to dominate everything/everyone in their path - and that same ethnic cleansing attitude is still prevelant in many European countries - ever hear of colonialism? How 'bout "showing them how to live under a democratic government"? How 'bout "Muslim - why can't they be Christians"? How 'bout "we need to show them how to live like civilized people (when discussing the issues/concerns of the ME)"?
Uh, excuse me, but who are you to tell me what to feel and what not to feel? How DARE you? How dare you to presume that I shouldn't feel empathy for the plight of others, whether or not they are of my own century? Isn't empathy a part of 'putting yourself in another's place' so that one can understand what they are feeling and why they feel as they do? Isn't empathy just a step in understanding other people, and history?
I love the family that I didn't know differently from the family I did know, yet the key word here is "love". I can appreciate their lives, empathize with their troubles, and rejoice in their triumphs, still. Perhaps you are not living as I am, surrounded on all sides, in every room, with the bits and pieces of their lives. Perhaps you lack the ability to feel for other people, or don't want to do so. That's your business.
I happen to be an empathetic person. I was reared to be. Perhaps, in your granite hard world, it's a bad thing. And perhaps it isn't. Please Robert, just leave me alone. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything. Your constant bickering just wears me out.
I know you don't 'member the guy named Henry VIII in 1534 who made himself the head of the Church and his son, Edward IV followed suit. It wasn't until 1707 that the Papacy was overthrown by the Monarchy. Lemme see - 13 colonies in 1660 - yup - Catholic AND Puritan.
Indians slaughtering settlers????? BBBRRRUUUUUHHHHAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAA. Quit reading Finamore Cooper.
Your need to nit-pick is well noted. Please stick to the thread.
Blatant ignorance of humanity was in our distant past and still dominates our present. The fact that Humans all genetically came out of Africa related to our closest genetic cousin the Chimpanzee. We for a large part have no feelings of guilt in killing men women and Children in Iraq or Afghanistan or even here in the USA. What Religion stands up and declares that all Humanity is equal regardless of their skin color language or religion. There is a huge push now by KKK types many wear Police uniforms and kill selectively according to race with very few if any of them being convicted.
Religion feeds the hatred as does the Police and failure of way to many Americans who fail to have the guts to stand up for what is right. We belittle people or abuse those who organize and protest against unfair treatment and slaughter of People who carry the same genetic make up as everyone else. Religion is often used as a tool of the devil if you believe in the devil or God. Look at the Preachers standing up wanting to kill Gay people. Preachers wanting to kill Muslims if they won't convert. Where does Freedom of religion fit in to the United States or how about all men/women are created equal. I have had friends from many races and religions. Its time we live up to what this country is supposed to stand for. Ok off my soap box. And it makes me sad over the way we treated the Indian the Mexican the other hundreds of nationalities and races we have abused. We argue over the past and we are still doing the same nasty shit!!!!
Thanks for your concern.
A. Mac, I knew there was a reason I am so fond of you! Kudos for that entire piece! Wish I'd written it, but am delighted that you did! You nailed it!
Battles for land are as old as mankind . There is nothing unique or worse about what happened on the US land than anywhere else in the world . England was invaded by both the Vikings and the French in 1066 . They defeated the Vikings but the French prevailed . To this day the French descendants own land in England which was originally taken by force . No one advances the idea that those French descendants should be required to give back their land or pay reparations . Life goes on ...
It only appears convoluted if Ted Nugent is one of your role models.
Duck (Dynasty) the content when you can't rebut it next time I'll try to limit the word count to what will fit using 72 point tall fonts, to a standard size bumper sticker.
Quote any "convoluted" portion and I'll translate.
Nailed it there, D...
Neitherthe Vikings nor the French set out to deliberately exterminate the English 'natives' however... there is a qualitative & quantitative difference PC, whether you acknowledge it or not. (BTW, I haven't seen anyone on this thread maintain that "descendants should be required to give back their land or pay reparations", rather only that'crimes against humanity ' perpetrated on the Native Americansbe admitted.) Evidently too much to ask of some folks... "Life goes on..."
A number of years ago, comedian and civil rights activist Dick Gregory, compared the Discovery of America to someone walking along a street and upon seeing a parked Cadillac, declaring
"I discovered you You belong to me!"
Fair comparison IMO.
Petey, once again your way off on your analogy. No one asked for land back or to pay reparations. A simple acknowledgement and apology is what Indian people are asking for.
The Vikings nor the French set out to exterminate a race of people. If you can't grasp that concept then I would say your a ''holocaust denier''.
How convenient of your Robert. Our country was invaded, our people slaughter, by the euros.
I guess that being the jellyfish that you are, you wouldn't fight for your country/culture/life.
That's the point Robert, we were invaded and genocide was attempted.
Keyboard warriors like yourself, don't have the backbone to do anything but deny, and make excuses for genocide.
I'm battling a war on several fronts this week. About the last thing I need is this bickering from Robert.
Maybe you didn't ask for that Kavika but there are those who are pursuing such things through the court system . As to an apology ... does that mean all those of Euro descent owe this apology ? Who exactly are you talking about ?
Germany has done the right thing in its reparations and humility for the Nazi regime. Canada apologized for its "boarding school" treatment of the Indians. I guess Americans are too too good for such kindnesses. Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia far enough to give him a blow job, but fuck the Indians, eh?
What reparations ? Have Germany's former Jews or their ancestors received those reparations ?
You have company in that, Dowsey dear! I'm still battling this rotten virus which seems to have moved in permanently! I have no patience for any kind of nonsense! I just wanna go back to sleep (it's 06:21 AM). {{{{{Dowsey}}}}}
The only thing frozen in time Robert is your brain, somewhere around the 1850'sseems about right.
As for being Special Race Robert, your correct. We rank much higher on the evolutionary scale than you do.
You have proof of this Petey, court action asking for an apology, or more of your BS. BTW, the court actions are for land that was ILLEGALLY taken, violating treaties. You know those pesky things that you law and order people think the world revolves around. Or, is it ok to break the treaties as long as it benefits you?
How about the same apology that the PM of Canada, Australia and NZ gave to their indigenous people. Think that's too much Petey.
I guess that your willing to sweep genocide under the rug. Nice.
Just as I thought Robert. A keyboard warrior from the mole hole.
Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia
...and Bush held Saudi King Abdullahs's hand and kissed him on the lips while the two took a leisurely walk down Gum Drop road.
Really Petey, you shouldnt mouth off like a complete idiot when you dont know what youre talking about.
And neither have anything to do with the thread.
Actually Robert, the Supreme Court has ruledIndians to be a "Political Body" and not a race.
Only the government.
Only Bill Clinton.
And, based on your examples, ethnic cleansing in the U. S. of the American Indians is acceptable?
Which, again, is an English based (read that Euro/White Dude) issue. Cabot "discovered" Canada in 1497 on Elizabeth's orders to "claim, for England, all lands in the new frontier" - which he did. France assisted in the dessimation of the tribes, but in 1763 treaty of the Peace of Paris, ceded all lands to the Brits/English (read that Euro/White Dudes).
The Canadian/English government in Canada has issued apologies for the mistreatment of the Aboriginal's, done reparations, recognized First Nation's governments - none of which will ever come forth from the U. S. government.
As Buzz says Petey, and as have I- learn your history before you come to this table.
Not to mention the public announcements made by the South American and Central American countries to their indigenous peoples.
Yup - the U. S. has a loooonnnnngggggg way to go to catch up with the rest of the world in their dealings with indigenous peoples.
bitey & Dowser--
Those of us who are (relatively) healthy don't have any more patience for it thaneither of you... trust me.
Kept on noticing that you continued to say "presently part of the U. S."
Absolutely correct and, that being the case, why should they not apologize for actions that were conducted within the U. S.?
Kavika ,
Based on your answer I'm guessing you think it is US leadership who owes the apology. But your pretend "we don't want no stinkin' land" is BS . You know as well as I do if such an apology was issued by US leadership it would be ammunition to be used in court cases to obtain land . So ... don't play innocent . We know what the real agenda is .
Do you presume to speak for an entire people and not take it at its word?
And who are "We"?
I am basing my commentary on evidence ... the evidence of ongoing court cases . Clearly it is NOT "an entire people" . But thanks for playing ...
Really Petey, ''we don't want no stinkin land'' is BS.
How do you know it would be used in court cases. Are you the Great Karnac? see's into the future.
Thus far all you done is parroted the right wing, wing nut line. Are you actually going to produce some evidence/links to all of your nonsense.
If that were so, are you saying that your not in favor of the American legal system? If your so sure that our system is the greatest on earth, why don't you want to test it. I'm sure that in the end, ''justice would prevail'', don't you?
Did you miss my comment about current court cases. They were all about land taken from Indians that was protected under treaty.
You do believe in treaties don't you. I mean they are supposed to be the supreme law of the land.
Oh, I got it now Petey. It ok to take land illegally if the ''those people'' aren't white. The law be damned.
Petey, you best get some education on the subject matter. Thus far, you shown that you have no knowledge in this subject.
What I am saying is that you have misrepresented the probable effects of such an apology . Such actions do not happen in a vacuum . And further I am saying that you are fully aware of what the effects are likely to be . But that's not what you say . Saying "all we want is an apology " does not accurately represent the real position of the Indian community ... whatever that is precisely .
The US legal system is far from perfect . But I recognize attempts to influence it when I see them . Are those attempts justified ? Perhaps . But at least you could admit that is your aim ...
Petey, as I said before. Educate yourself in the subject matter.
I'm not going to waste anymore time, attempting to answer your accusations. None have any basis in fact. If they did you would be posting them.
There is a difference between an idiot and an ignoramus . I will admit to being ignorant . But calling me an idiot is offensive and nothing more than a personal attack . Thanks for nothing ...
$26.00 in beads weren't too great a deal for such prime real estate property. However, we have learned how to make a cash cow off the beads - made in the USA, of course.
{{{{{Swamijim & Dowsey}}}}}
You're right, Petey, it was a bad choice of words. "Uneducated" would be more accurate in this case.
Interesting that you should ask that question Cerenkov.
Last night I placed a lengthy response on this thread to Robert, who is asking, quietly, what do Indians want. Where that response went, no one knows.
Quite simply this. When the U.S. was arguing 'bout their form of government in the 1760/70's, some of the leaders of the "movement" wrote these dissertations to explain specifically what the "new" country wanted to be like. In many of the papers (Federalist), they explained how their "new" government would interact with the Indian tribes, since they were "separate countries", with laws, boundaries, rules, populations, economies, etc., of their own. When the founders of the "new" country wrote their founding document, the "Articles of Confederation", it was signed, approved and ratified in 1781, and included this phrase " being formed by some nation of Indians " and this one - " regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians ". You see, the "Founders" determined that Indian tribes were, indeed, nations of their own.
A new Constitution was written, signed, approved and ratified in 1789. In that Constitution (the "living" document we live and work with today) there are three references to Indian tribes - all three references advocating that Indian tribes are, indeed, separate nations and not a part of the U. S.
Indian tribes/nations are/have been, and will be separate nations - within the boundaries of the United States. We have been tribes/nations for over 40,000 years on this continent and will continue to be - separate nations - not cities, municipalities, counties, states or "members" of the United States body-politic - but separate nations.
As such, getting to your question, Indian nations are to be treated as nations, and the Supreme Court is beginning to answer some of the "jurisdictional" questions regarding our Constitutionally guaranteed nationhood. In 1934, in the Indian Reorganization Act, John Collier, it's drafter, inserted language that stated Indians would receive preferential treatment in hiring by the Department of Interior on our status as "separate Indian nations." The Supreme Court substantiated that treatment, based on political status, in Preston v. Heckler and Morton v. Mancari , by stating that Indian tribes are not races - they are political body-politics. True, an INDIVIDUAL Indian can be classified as being a member of a race, and that a nation is just that - a nation, separate from the United States.
Now, to Robert's "hidden" question of what do Indian's want.
Indian nations want what all nations want - honor, respect, being treated with dignity and integrity. Indian nations, as stated above, have been here for thousands of years - and we're not going away. Reparations? Not enough money in the world to pay for all the damage done to our peoples. Our lands back? Possibly, some of it, but we don't need the 6.3 billion of acres of land that has been stolen/taken/improperly paid from us. We presently "own" 2% of all U. S. lands - (5% would be nice
), but that is not what we want.
We want to be treated as people - separate peoples - with our divergent and different cultures, traditions, history, and life-styles. We want to be treated as the U. S. Constitution states we are to be treated - as peoples of separate nations. Give honor to us when it is due. Treat us with respect, dignity, integrity, and human kindness. After these hundreds of years piled under all of the lies, abuse, cheating, scandals, killings that the U. S. has placed on the Indian nations, we, the Indian nations, STILL treat persons of the U. S. with honor, respect, dignity, integrity and human kindness - STILL.
Give to us what we give to you - and give it to us freely, openly and honestly. That's what we want.
Sorry for the missive, but these comments should explain much - if read with an open mind and heart.
Very well stated!
When one considers the disparities of treatment by both government, and, by many individuals toward various minorities -- including mistreatment in the forms of racial, religious, gender-bias and other forms of personal and institutionalized discrimination, IMO Native Americans have at least a two-fold justified grievance.
By that I mean, Native Americans have had both their property and sovereign-nation status taken, but, as United States citizens, they are victims of racism as well!
Huh ? The above comments indicate they do not want to be considered US citizens . They want to be considered a separate nation .
Ever hear of dual-citizenship?
Since their property was stolen and then encapsulated by the thief-nation, wouldn't you say that the situation for Native Americans is unique and warrants, if nothing else, the rights and privileges of dual status?
If someone/some entity commandeered your house but allowed you to continue living in it, might you ask its new "owner" to allow you to keep parts of it in addition to whatever the new owner might extend to the "family members" he moved in along with himself?
Petey - in 1924, the Snyder Act was passed which made all Native Americans U. S. Citizens. We are also citizens of our separate nations making us dual-citizens in the U. S.
As A. Mac says above, "as United States citizens, they are victims of racism as well" primarily because that's the way the U. S. social culture places everyone - by race. Indian nations do not differentiate by race - we use "nationhood".
So I guess that makes my descendants "orphans" since we had to abandon our homeland to come to the US .
Although the USA would like to consider itself a "melting pot" for people of different cultures, ethnicities and races, it isn't, even though it is almost forced upon the population. It is more a mosaic of all of those, and as in the case in Toronto, such a mosaic adds to the attractiveness of the city. There are open air festivals by different groups during the summer when streets are closed and it is a joy to wander through, tasting the different foods, watching the entertainment, all specific to the particular festival makeup. This way people retain the pride in their ancestral background. Caribana is particularly colourful - it is amazing to watch the parade:
It makes them emigrants or refugees depending on from where and why they came.
It might to you , but not to those with "dual citizenship" .
Brilliant comment 1st. Well done!
Petey,
Indians have what is called a "Nation within a Nation" status. That means while the US recognizes the various Indian nations, they are still US citizens.
This should explain it:
Since you don't have it Petey, you wanna explain where you're coming from?
Sure . Your people are not the only ones who have suffered .
TY Sis.
Petey, no one said that we were the only people that suffered. What is being pointed out is that it did happen, and many refuse to acknowledge it.
As 1stwarrior pointed out, what we want is equal status.
Do you get the POINT?
Funny that you mentioned that Robert. Did you know that Canada was to be part of the U. S., according to the "Articles of the Confederation"?
" XI.
Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States." -
Did they wisely decline?
Petey - at no time in this discussion thread has anyone said or even implied that the Indian people are the only people who have suffered. People around the world have and are suffering due to the heavy handed domination, "I own you" mentality, of some races/ethnic groups. Hell, look at what's happening in Europe with the Ukraine and Russia - or in Africa - or in the Middle East.
The basis for this thread, I believe and could be very wrong, is that, because of the harms/wrongs done to the American Indian peoples, the Indian people are NOT looking for a massive, one-size-fits-all band-aid to fix the wrongs. What the Indian people are asking for is to be treated as equals in the lands that they have been a part of for over 40,000 years - and that request is falling on deaf ears - why?
Comment was deleted 'cause it didn't address your concerns/issues and because, IMHO, it was inappropriate and I apologize.
Two sections of your response deserve feedback - I hope I can make them concise and accurate enough for you.
1st - There is so much racial hatred in any and all races Robert, as you have so openly posted on this board in other articles - and many people totally ignore to accept that as a fact. It is true in the white world, the red world, the brown world, the black world and the yellow world. In many instances, the "hatred" is well founded - in many it is not and there is no middle road. Hatred is an ugly thing and can cause serious problems if not feathered properly such as riots, raids, massive destruction, loss of lives. The Indian peoples, yes, some have a "racial" hatred for anything/anyone not red. The black peoples, yes, some have a "racial" hatred for anything/anyone not black.
With that said, I do know, or assume, you truly don't believe the Indian world of beliefs is based on racial hatred. You do know more about the Indian people than you come across with on these boards - you just like to discuss "What if's" - and I respect that.
But, the thread is not about Indian racial hatred. The thread is not about the "Indian getting what he thinks is right"- the thread, IMHO, is about the Indian people asking for the same respect and honor and treatment that other peoples in the United States receive.
Dustin Brown "may" have only 2% Cherokee blood in him - BUT - under the Indian Child Welfare Act, all that is required for him to be an "Indian" is for the tribe to have enrolled him as a citizen - based on their requirements - not the requirements of the Feds. As stated in the numerous threads dealing with the "Baby Veronica" case, the tribes, and ONLY the tribes, do and can make citizenship requirements in their tribes. The courts and the laws and the Constitution support that decision making process. Again, under ICWA, Baby Veronica, as the child of an enrolled citizen of the Cherokee Nation, is afforded the protections of the Cherokee Nation upon her application for membership in that tribe, and the states and the Feds have NO jurisdiction in handling that case - that is the law as stated in ICWA and supported by previous SCOTUS decisions.
2nd - Indian tribes have "inherent Sovereignty" that they have had since time immemorial. That sovereignty has been recognized by the U. S. government from the 1700's in both the Articles of Confederation and in the U. S. Constitution, and has been upheld in over 72 SCOTUS decisions. We are not and do not ASK PERMISSION from the Feds to operate our governmental bodies. They ASK PERMISSION from us to interact with us - again, check your Articles of Confederation and U. S. Constitution and SCOTUS cases. So, no, we do not and will not say "Whatever you say, Boss" - that is their job and the Fed courts are assisting the tribes/nations in realigning the Fed's line of thinking.
You really need to understand how Federal Indian Law works. It does not place restrictions on what the tribes/nations can do - it places restrictions on what the Federal government can do - that's how "inherent sovereignty" works.
Lastly - dual citizenship - we didn't ask for it and many Indians do not want it. Those that don't, to a very true extent, have "renounced" their "forced" U. S. citizenship and only have tribal/nation membership. They never leave the reservations, they never interact with the cities, municipalities, counties, states or the Feds. We, the Indian people, DID NOT ASK for U.S. citizenship because we DO NOT WANT to be "forced" to assimilate into the mainstream of U. S. society. Many of us wear dual hats by working in U. S. society, but living in/with our tribal/nation cultural/traditional worlds.
We are a separate people - treat us with the respect, etc. that others are treated - period.
Great comments, 1st!
Robert - one final note to the 2nd point above -
In Worcester v.Georgia, 1832, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote " From the commencement of our government, Congress has passed Acts to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians, which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest a firm purpose to afford the protection which treaties stipulate. All these Acts, and especially that of 1802 (Trade and Intercourse Act with Indians), which is still in force, manifestly consider the several Indian nations as distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledge, but guaranteed by the United States. "
And, that's it.
Darn, 1st, but that is EXCELLENT!!!! Beyond excellent! WAYYYYY beyond excellent!
And, I believe at one time, someone said that if we can't learn from history, we're certain to repeat it??
George Santayana was an American Philosopher who said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
"You saw "what do they want" in some comment. I had one go missing too. A reply to Buzz. And that comment by Buzz disappeared too. Someone is cleaning up, I guess."
I have not deleted any comments from this article - someone to whom we may have replied must have done so, which deleted our replies with the deleted comment.
Now we see that it was a natural method of death - disease brought by the Europeans - that caused the demise of 79M American Indians.
Nice stretch Robert - no cigar.
ICWA was drafted strictly because of the soveriegnty issues/concerns - as we discussed in one of the many "Baby Veronica" threads I posted.
I'm not going to rehash the case - SCOTUS ruled in error - tribal sovereignty, constitutional law and Federal law was violated, as was pointed out by three of the Justices.
Clear and understandable if one chooses to understand. Thanks, 1st.
And, back to the original question - what does either of our answers have to do with the thread of the destruction wrought by the incoming forces?
No where in the thread is disease mentioned as one of the harbringers of the massive deaths "caused by the governments."
"As ethnobiologist Melvin Gilmore later observed: The people of the European race in coming into the New World have not really sought to make friends of the native population, or to make adequate use of the plants, or the animals indigenous to this continent, but rather to exterminate everything they found here and to supplant it with plants and animals to which they were accustomed.
"The people of the European race in coming into the New World havenot sought to make friends of the native population,but rather to exterminate everything they found here."
This is the crux of the thread Robert - not religion - not diseases - not sovereignty - but pure, simple, unadulterated greed with the intent of the annilhilation of a people.
And it almost worked.