Info about Native Americans

[Matteo Martini]

I thought I knew something about history, but know I realize my knowledge can be deeply flawed.
When discussing with a friend about German` s crimes during WWII, he said that Americans more or less did the same to native Americans during the 1800s causing their genocide.
I have always knew that natives have often treated badly by the US during the 1800s and 1900s and that there has been massacres ( Wounded Knee ), but is it proper to use the word genocide?
My friend claimed that the evidence of this is that right now there are few thousands of natives in the US, while there were tens of millions before white men approached America.
Can someone give me some reference, good links?
I tried to search the web but could not find much

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
When discussing with a friend about German` s crimes during WWII, he said that Americans more or less did the same to native Americans during the 1800s causing their genocide.

Impossible. By the 1800's, Native Americans had been dead for 10,000+ years. I suspect you are referring to Indians.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
When discussing with a friend about German` s crimes during WWII, he said that Americans more or less did the same to native Americans during the 1800s causing their genocide.
I have always knew that natives have often treated badly by the US during the 1800s and 1900s and that there has been massacres ( Wounded Knee ), but is it proper to use the word genocide? When Columbus landed in what is now the Bahamas, he was greeted by peaceful Lucayan indians (according to his logs).

Within several years, the Lucayans no longer existed. Columbus found gold on Hispanola and the Lucayans were rounded up to work the mines. They died from disease due to lack of immunity.

Is this genocide? I dunno. (It's close enough for me.)

Fast forward a few centuries...

A sick concept called manifest destiny (http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/dialogues/prelude/manifest/d2deng.html) emerged. Manifest destiny was used to justify the ethnic cleansing of North America.

Manifest destiny was still being taught in public school in the 1960's as a noble concept. (Is it still?)
There is an interesting symbolic portrayal of Manifest Destiny that shows "Columbia," the great American angel or woman, floating over the plains. Ahead of her, in the West, is a great darkness populated by wild animals. There are bears and wolves and Indian people, who are fleeing her light. In her wake come farms, villages and homesteads and in the back are cities and railroads. As the figure progresses across the land, the light of civilization dispels the darkness of ignorance and barbarity.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
I thought I knew something about history, but know I realize my knowledge can be deeply flawed.
When discussing with a friend about German` s crimes during WWII, he said that Americans more or less did the same to native Americans during the 1800s causing their genocide.
I have always knew that natives have often treated badly by the US during the 1800s and 1900s and that there has been massacres ( Wounded Knee ), but is it proper to use the word genocide?
My friend claimed that the evidence of this is that right now there are few thousands of natives in the US, while there were tens of millions before white men approached America.
Can someone give me some reference, good links?
I tried to search the web but could not find much

From a factual standpoint, this is difficult to support. The vast majority of the autochthonous populations of the America who were killed were killed by airborne diseases, such as smallpox, for which they had no immunity. the Jews and Romas and others who were killed in WWII weren't killed by special diseases to which Aryans had developed immunity; they were killed by more mundane and deliberate things, such as lead slugs, Zyklon B, starvation, and segregations into conditions of poor sanitation.

Many people believe that The White Man killed the Native Americans by selling them smallpox-infected blankets. While it is true that White Men sold Native Americans blankets that had been used by smallpox patients, where this falls down is that smallpox really doesn't work that way. Catching smallpox from a blanket is about as likely as catching AIDS from a toilet seat or a handshake. The smallpox virus doesn't survive drying and dies rather quickly unless it's in water or sputum. Exchanges of these small wet balls, so tiny as to be invisible and also to float in air, is what transmits smallpox. Smallpox might survive for a time on wet blankets, but almost certainly not long enough given the transport means of the time.

Nevertheless, the story is emotionally appealing. It is so appealing that even the CDC seems to go along with its veracity. Of course they have to accommodate the fact that they aren't entirely idiotic and so must conclude that there must be some vector associated with smallpox, another organism that keeps smallpox alive long enough to infect someone at a distance. This idea is somewhat like the fact that the mosquito, for example, actually keeps the microorganism that causes malaria alive. Except that nobody has ever found such a vector in a time greater than the history of remotely scientific medicine, but they have to keep believing that there must be one because it's such an emotionally appealing story.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
I thought I knew something about history, but know I realize my knowledge can be deeply flawed.
When discussing with a friend about German` s crimes during WWII, he said that Americans more or less did the same to native Americans during the 1800s causing their genocide.
I have always knew that natives have often treated badly by the US during the 1800s and 1900s and that there has been massacres ( Wounded Knee ), but is it proper to use the word genocide?
My friend claimed that the evidence of this is that right now there are few thousands of natives in the US, while there were tens of millions before white men approached America.
Can someone give me some reference, good links?
I tried to search the web but could not find much


Did the Europeans who came to the North American continent attempt a policy of genocide against the inhabitants? (As noted, recent research seems to confirm that those inhabitants had themselves supplanted the aboriginal people).

Well, the Center for Holocaust Studies certianly thinks so...as do a lot of other people.
http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Links___Bibliography/Links/N/n.html


Perhaps not in the exact Third Reich sense of rounding up as many of the inhabitants as possible with the specific idea of exterminating them in some sort of final solution. As pointed out, smallpox blankets are not the efficient machines of genocide that first appearances might convey.

And not in the exact Australian sense of denying that there were any people prior to European arrival (Terra nullius legal doctine).

But the end result was that a lot of people who had been living as they saw fit, had that and a lot more taken away from them, and many of them died in the process.

Some were rounded up and died while on their way to, or under armed guard in, internment facilities. And the policies concerning their treatment ignored the most basic of human rights in application, if not on paper.

And many died in combat with government forces, in the context of violated treaty after violated treaty.

And let us not forget that the Native Americans did not go to Europe in order to declare war...but they reaped the results of being a conquered and occupied people anyway.

So if we want to use the Nazi genocide as a bench mark, the campaign against the Native Americans has enough similarities to use the term in both instances, while understanding that there were important differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples
(Has references at the bottom of the page).

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Did the Europeans who came to the North American continent attempt a policy of genocide against the inhabitants? (As noted, recent research seems to confirm that those inhabitants had themselves supplanted the aboriginal people).

Well, the Center for Holocaust Studies certianly thinks so...as do a lot of other people.
http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Links___Bibliography/Links/N/n.html


Mmm.. does not look like as an impartial site.
Do you have please any other good links to major resources?

Originally posted by crimresearch


Perhaps not in the exact Third Reich sense of rounding up as many of the inhabitants as possible with the specific idea of exterminating them in some sort of final solution. As pointed out, smallpox blankets are not the efficient machines of genocide that first appearances might convey.



So, why did they disappear?
They were not killed only by guns, I assume.
So, what happened, I do not understand

Originally posted by crimresearch


And not in the exact Australian sense of denying that there were any people prior to European arrival (Terra nullius legal doctine).

But the end result was that a lot of people who had been living as they saw fit, had that and a lot more taken away from them, and many of them died in the process.

Some were rounded up and died while on their way to, or under armed guard in, internment facilities. And the policies concerning their treatment ignored the most basic of human rights in application, if not on paper.

And many died in combat with government forces, in the context of violated treaty after violated treaty.

And let us not forget that the Native Americans did not go to Europe in order to declare war...but they reaped the results of being a conquered and occupied people anyway.

So if we want to use the Nazi genocide as a bench mark, the campaign against the Native Americans has enough similarities to use the term in both instances, while understanding that there were important differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples
(Has references at the bottom of the page).

You are suggesting that the US behaviour with natives in the 1800s was not so different than the behaviour of the Germans with the Jews during the `30s?
Well, I am opened to all ideas..

[MRC_Hans]

I think the general untermench attitude was similar. However, the centralized, highly organized, and deliberate attempt at genocide did not exist in the Americas.

Hans

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Mmm.. does not look like as an impartial site.
Do you have please any other good links to major resources?

So, why did they disappear?
They were not killed only by guns, I assume.
So, what happened, I do not understand

You are suggesting that the US behaviour with natives in the 1800s was not so different than the behaviour of the Germans with the Jews during the `30s?
Well, I am opened to all ideas..

If you would bother to read some of the links and make up your own mind by balancing out the different viewpoints, instead of dismissing them, and then lying about what I am 'suggesting', you might learn something.

If you are in fact, even interested in learning anything.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by crimresearch
If you would bother to read some of the links and make up your own mind by balancing out the different viewpoints, instead of dismissing them, and then lying about what I am 'suggesting', you might learn something.

If you are in fact, even interested in learning anything.

I have to say I have talked too soon.
I have looked at the site throughfully and it is well done, it is from the University of Minnesota, indeed.
Thanks for the link

[epepke]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
So, why did they disappear?
They were not killed only by guns, I assume.
So, what happened, I do not understand

They got smallpox, etc. by ordinary means, by exposure to people who had had it. That doesn't make it less horriffic, or less terribly tragic. But most of what killed the Native Americans was beyond the Europeans' control.

Not that this absolves Europeans of guilt. For quite a long time, it was legal to kill Native Americans. But only a small remnant were left by that time. "Decimate" is a weak word, because it means killing one out of ten. It was more like killing all but one out of ten.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Did the Europeans who came to the North American continent attempt a policy of genocide against the inhabitants? (As noted, recent research seems to confirm that those inhabitants had themselves supplanted the aboriginal people).

Well, the Center for Holocaust Studies certianly thinks so...as do a lot of other people.
http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Links___Bibliography/Links/N/n.html


. . . snip. . .

Some were rounded up and died while on their way to, or under armed guard in, internment facilities. And the policies concerning their treatment ignored the most basic of human rights in application, if not on paper.

And many died in combat with government forces, in the context of violated treaty after violated treaty.

And let us not forget that the Native Americans did not go to Europe in order to declare war...but they reaped the results of being a conquered and occupied people anyway.

So if we want to use the Nazi genocide as a bench mark, the campaign against the Native Americans has enough similarities to use the term in both instances, while understanding that there were important differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples
(Has references at the bottom of the page).

Thank you Crim,

Being Native American myself (we have gotten away from the term "Indians" since we got that name because of Columbus's incompetance), I would like to thank you for your post.

I have actually argued this subject with acquaintances who insist that the obliteration of the various tribes was NOT a genocide, but simply a matter of consequences (diseases, the push for more land, the gold rush, massive buffalo hunts, etc.). I think that most people who think along these lines don't consider it a genocide because Native Americans weren't (in many cases) systematically rounded up and killed.

Still, if you question most Native Americans they'll agree that the actions taken against their particular tribe (for the most part - there were tribes who sided with either the Colonial or Frontier Americans, although they fared no better in the long run) were indeed genocide. What else would you call the eradication of a people by whatever means?

If you're interested here are a few links to sites and books that you might find interesting. Included in the links is information to the Sand Creek massacre, Wounded Knee and Leonard Peltier. Hope you enjoy them and hopefully solidify any suspicions you may have had regarding the Native American genocide.

Lists of books

http://www.nativecircle.com/books.htm

This link is regarding the Sand Creek massacre. The article doesn't go into detail about what the U.S. Cavalry did to the bodies of Native American women they killed. Their breasts were cut off to use as trophy tobacco pouches, many soldiers also cut out around the women's vaginas to make trophy hat bands (source, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee).

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Sand-Creek-Massacre

The last link is to an article outlining the inaccuracies of historians with regarding to the Native Americans, and even mentions the fact that L. Frank Baum (the writer of children's books, most notably, "The Wizard of Oz") called for the genocide of the Indian.

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1046699105

Hope you find these helpful.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Thank you Crim,

Being Native American myself (we have gotten away from the term "Indians" since we got that name because of Columbus's incompetance), I would like to thank you for your post.

I have actually argued this subject with acquaintances who insist that the obliteration of the various tribes was NOT a genocide, but simply a matter of consequences (diseases, the push for more land, the gold rush, massive buffalo hunts, etc.). I think that most people who think along these lines don't consider it a genocide because Native Americans weren't (in many cases) systematically rounded up and killed.

Still, if you question most Native Americans they'll agree that the actions taken against their particular tribe (for the most part - there were tribes who sided with either the Colonial or Frontier Americans, although they fared no better in the long run) were indeed genocide. What else would you call the eradication of a people by whatever means?

If you're interested here are a few links to sites and books that you might find interesting. Included in the links is information to the Sand Creek massacre, Wounded Knee and Leonard Peltier. Hope you enjoy them and hopefully solidify any suspicions you may have had regarding the Native American genocide.

Lists of books

http://www.nativecircle.com/books.htm

This link is regarding the Sand Creek massacre. The article doesn't go into detail about what the U.S. Cavalry did to the bodies of Native American women they killed. Their breasts were cut off to use as trophy tobacco pouches, many soldiers also cut out around the women's vaginas to make trophy hat bands (source, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee).

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Sand-Creek-Massacre

The last link is to an article outlining the inaccuracies of historians with regarding to the Native Americans, and even mentions the fact that L. Frank Baum (the writer of children's books, most notably, "The Wizard of Oz") called for the genocide of the Indian.

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1046699105

Hope you find these helpful.

Thank you SO much.
These are the info I am looking for.
I will try to order the books via amazon.

Regards,
Matteo

[Michael Redman]

During the 19th Century, many groups of European people interacted with many native groups with many motivations and methods. At times and in places, genocide was clearly the goal. At other times, simply dislocation to take valuable land. At times, Whites fought defensively against attacks of agressive and powerful native groups. At other times, governments acted as paternalistic guardians.

Some of what was done was indeed as evil as what Nazi Germany perpetrated. Some was not. What, exactly, is the point of comparison? That people of different historical periods should be judged from the same modern moral position? Or that condemning Nazis is hypocritical?

By the way, according the US Census Bureau, there are 4.4 million Native Americans in the US, not a few thousand.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
I thought I knew something about history, but know I realize my knowledge can be deeply flawed.
When discussing with a friend about German` s crimes during WWII, he said that Americans more or less did the same to native Americans during the 1800s causing their genocide.
I have always knew that natives have often treated badly by the US during the 1800s and 1900s and that there has been massacres ( Wounded Knee ), but is it proper to use the word genocide?
My friend claimed that the evidence of this is that right now there are few thousands of natives in the US, while there were tens of millions before white men approached America.
Can someone give me some reference, good links?
I tried to search the web but could not find much

I think you need to ask him his source on the claim that there were tens of millions Amerindians before the white man arrived.

[Spindrift]

Originally posted by Tony
I think you need to ask him his source on the claim that there were tens of millions Amerindians before the white man arrived.

From the UN (http://www.un.org/WCAR/e-kit/indigenous.htm),
Modern estimates place the 15th century, or pre-Columbus, population of North America at 10 to 12 million

[Matteo Martini]

It also says:
" The world's indigenous peoples - or "first peoples" - do not share the same story of colonization. In the New World, white European colonizers arrived and settled suddenly, with drastic results. The indigenous peoples were pushed aside and marginalized by the dominant descendents of Europeans. Some peoples have disappeared, or nearly so. Modern estimates place the 15th century, or pre-Columbus, population of North America at 10 to 12 million. By the 1890s, it had been reduced to approximately 300,000. "

Impressive.
:(

[Magyar]

how about googling "trail of tears"

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Magyar
how about googling "trail of tears"

Done
I am reading the passages..

[kimiko]

There were also sterilizations of Indian women up until the 70's. That is very much a genocidal policy.

I'll see if I can find some hard data for you.

[Bikewer]

Somewhat related....They had the author of "1491" on the Diane Rehm show this morning. The brunt of the book (apparently, I havn't read it yet) is that the population of the Americas was much larger than previously thought, that many of the civilizations were considerably more advanced than is commonly represented in textbooks, and that as many as 9 out of 10 of these peoples may have been killed by European-borne diseases.

Interesting listening to the callers, one claimed the fellow's book was evidence in support of The Book Of Mormon, and another brought up the long-refuted Viking-colonies-in-the-Midwest thing, based on the so-called "runestones".

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Somewhat related....They had the author of "1491" on the Diane Rehm show this morning. The brunt of the book (apparently, I havn't read it yet) is that the population of the Americas was much larger than previously thought, that many of the civilizations were considerably more advanced than is commonly represented in textbooks, and that as many as 9 out of 10 of these peoples may have been killed by European-borne diseases.....

One book that I have read that addresses that is Plagues and Peoples:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385121229/103-6373895-1211035?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance ... I remember something about 95% of the native American population was wiped out between 1500 and 1800 (or was it 1700?).

Some of this is addressed in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

I do not have a reference for this, but I lived in Caracas, Venezuela in the 5th and 6th grades. In my school (an American school, http://www.eca.com.ve/ ) we had a teacher come in everyday to teach Venezuelan history and social studies (usually in the form of some great story telling). Some of the history included what the Conquistadores did to the native population (some of it is described in Diamond's book). The Spanish did exactly what the name "conquistador" implied... conquered. Not only with guns but with large dogs (the teacher described how they were trained to attack human throats). The Spanish also used the native population for slave labor... but since they managed to wipe out most of the Carib population, they had to import slaves from Africa.

I have recently read some books on the "Buffalo Soldiers". These were black soldiers in segregated units created after the American Civil War... they were sent to the Western Frontier. Some of their duties were to chase down and hunt Indians. I read more than one book on the subject, but I cannot remember any that were any good (they were mostly dreadful historical tomes... great stories that need to be written by someone who can WRITE!!!). Interest in that was from visiting the Army Museum near where my parents live: http://huachuca-www.army.mil/HISTORY/huachuca.htm

Locally to me now, the European diseases had pretty much dessimated the population prior to any long lasting contact. I read that the English ships (Vancouver) that came to Puget Sound noted smallpox scars on the Indians. More recently entire tribes would be forced to move when profitable mines were found... lots of stuff here:
http://content.lib.washington.edu/aipnw/index.html (there is enough stuff in there to keep you busy for a L..O..N..G time)

[Corpse Cruncher]

This I believe is a long standing argument; who are the Native Americans. My view is America has had many natives, however the Indians, just as the Aborigines were more suited to the land.

It is wrong to claim the Indians as being victims, they too had much blood on their hands by their own massacres.

[casebro]

I think that the Europeans stole America fair and square, by the rules of Civilisation that are still intact today. That is, he who has the most efficient society wins. It worked in 'Europe vs Amerinds', it worked during WWII in US vs AXIS, it's worked for 50 years in Jews vs Palestinians, it's working today in The Global Economy. The definition of success hasn't even changed - while on the surface, it used to be adding acreage, the actual victory was always the gain in efficiency of the society. Why, even the Amerinds had a population explosion, of 15 to 1 in the last 100 years, didn't they? Overall population of the US has only gone up about 5 times?

Quitchyerbitchin and go open another casino, win this battle against the capitalists using their own rules.

[varwoche]

I think that the Europeans stole America fair and square, by the rules of Civilisation that are still intact today. That is, he who has the most efficient society wins. It worked in 'Europe vs Amerinds', it worked during WWII in US vs AXIS, it's worked for 50 years in Jews vs Palestinians, it's working today in The Global Economy. The definition of success hasn't even changed - while on the surface, it used to be adding acreage, the actual victory was always the gain in efficiency of the society. Why, even the Amerinds had a population explosion, of 15 to 1 in the last 100 years, didn't they? Overall population of the US has only gone up about 5 times?

Quitchyerbitchin and go open another casino, win this battle against the capitalists using their own rules. If your neighbor is wealthier than you, and/or thinks he is more civilized, and is clever enough to get away with it, does your ethic system make it OK for him to kill you?

[casebro]

If your neighbor is wealthier than you, and/or thinks he is more civilized, and is clever enough to get away with it, does your ethic system make it OK for him to kill you?

Well, on a national scale, and according to history, yes.

War has been going on between nations since we were tribes. My 'tribe' has won some, lost some. If the world is gonna take pity on the Amerinds, shouldn't we also cry over the rest of the 'tribes' who lost their countries? The Anasazi, The Celts, the Huns, Neanderthals? Even the Roman Empire "lost" eventually, should we make reparations to the Italians? Apologise to the Muslims for kicking them out of Spain? Has the US ever paid Britain for the land we 'stole' from them?

[casebro]

[QUOTE=Corpse Cruncher;1216221]the Indians,(snip)were more suited to the land. [QUOTE]
The Amerinds raped the land as well as they could, with their low level of technology. Driving so many Buffalo over a cliff that all they could use were the tongues. Living in a city of 20,000, with no sewer system, then calling the valley cursed after the cholera epidemic killed them off. Killing 200 birds to make a shaman's rattle out of woodpecker beaks.

As I said in an interim post, we beat them because we were more efficient. We had more efficient houses, more efficient agriculture, more efficient medicine, more efficient weapons.....That is called progress. Maybe without Small Pox, their economy would have remained strong enough to retain some respect, and they would have had a western empire today, (Indiana ?) or melted into our society completely???

Maybe a more appropriate discussion would be to compare current Amerind to African native's lifestyles? Or how the Japanese treated 'loser' GI's in WWII? Or how the ancient Hebrews handled the vanquished?

And as a side query, Shouldn't there be some Amerind legends about Small Pox plagues? Anything about how "The People" had faces like teenagers and died like flies? Or only legends about the evil whiteman massacreing them? Research bias, anyone?

[varwoche]

Well, on a national scale, and according to history, yes. If the history of mankind is our guide for how mankind should behave going forward, that is a sorry state of affairs. IMO of course. The Anasazi, The Celts, the Huns, Neanderthals? I welcome you to visit the Indian reservation up the road from where I live, or most any reservation for that matter, to get a taste of third world, USA, present tense.

[casebro]

If the history of mankind is our guide for how mankind should behave going forward, that is a sorry state of affairs. IMO of course. I welcome you to visit the Indian reservation up the road from where I live, or most any reservation for that matter, to get a taste of third world, USA, present tense.

So, come visit the Indian Reservations in my county, See the all-you-can-eat buffets hosted by their casinos. Bring cash for the factory outlet stores.

Some Indians are rich, some poor. Sorta like us white guys. I'm a poor white guy, but I don't blame the indians for my problems. I don't know of any currently enforced laws keeping them folks on the reservations- in fact, don't more "NativeAmericans" live off the reservations? In Los Angeles, as a frinstance? Can you say "welfare mentality"?

[varwoche]

Some Indians are rich, some poor. Sorta like us white guys. Are you arguing that wealth is statistically in balance between Indians and white people? If yes, I'd like to see this supported. I'm a poor white guy, but I don't blame the indians for my problems. Non sequitur. (And so what.)

Seeing as you are a racial equal opportunist: Using your logic, it sounds like you belong to the class of losers that advanced societies should do away with.

[casebro]

Are you arguing that wealth is statistically in balance between Indians and white people? If yes, I'd like to see this supported. Non sequitur. (And so what.).

No, I'm arguing that, in all races, some individual succeed, some don't. Some groups succeed, some don't.

Seeing as you are a racial equal opportunist: Using your logic, it sounds like you belong to the class of losers that advanced societies should do away with.

Gee, I don't remember saying anybody should be done away with. Only that some societies are more efficient than some others. And I said that without the small pox epidemic, the Amerinds might have maintained their society long enough to learn some of the efficiencies of the Europeans. And thereby would be more successful today.

You do the math:
After 10,000 years of nomads, North America had 12,000,000 indians.
500 years after colonisation, North America is supporting 600,000,000 people.

[Roboramma]

You do the math:
After 10,000 years of nomads, North America had 12,000,000 indians.
500 years after colonisation, North America is supporting 600,000,000 people.
Why do you think that is, exactly? What I mean is, what is it about european culture that you think has given this apparent massive difference?

[Roboramma]

Well, on a national scale, and according to history, yes.
You're trying to reason an ought from an is. "Because more successful societies have taken advantage of less successful societies in the past, this is a good thing, or at least justifiable, after all, look at history, it happens all the time."
There is a difference between saying that things happen a certain way, even that they inevitably happen that way, and saying that they should happen that way. Or that it's ethical to support their happening that way.

War has been going on between nations since we were tribes. My 'tribe' has won some, lost some. If the world is gonna take pity on the Amerinds, shouldn't we also cry over the rest of the 'tribes' who lost their countries? The Anasazi, The Celts, the Huns, Neanderthals? Even the Roman Empire "lost" eventually, should we make reparations to the Italians? Apologise to the Muslims for kicking them out of Spain? Has the US ever paid Britain for the land we 'stole' from them?
Has anyone argued in this thread for making reparations to anyone? There is a difference between admitting that something happened and that it was wrong, and suggesting a particular course of action.

Your argument seems to be that there was nothing wrong with european treatment of native americans because this is what people do all the time. I'm not arguing that people don't generally take advantage of each other, just that this was something that happened on a massive scale, and that we should at the least remember.

I might also point out that the state of affairs for native americans today is at least partially caused by historical factors. There is still a question of whether we have an obligation to try to mend that.

[Roboramma]

This I believe is a long standing argument; who are the Native Americans. My view is America has had many natives, however the Indians, just as the Aborigines were more suited to the land.

It is wrong to claim the Indians as being victims, they too had much blood on their hands by their own massacres.
By this logic if Mexicans were to invade the USA and kill off 95% of it's inhabitants this would be entirely justified by the fact that european colonists had done the same thing to the previous inhabitants?
The sins of the father do not fall on the son as well.

However, when the sins of the father benefit the son, he might have an obligation to at least share those benefits with the decendants of the person that his father stole them from. But this is a difficult issue.

[varwoche]

No, I'm arguing that, in all races, some individual succeed, some don't. Some groups succeed, some don't. Clearly. That's different than your prior statements though, which staked out ethical legitimacy.

[casebro]

Why do you think that is, exactly? What I mean is, what is it about european culture that you think has given this apparent massive difference?
See above post, #26

[casebro]

By this logic if Mexicans were to invade the USA and kill off 95% of it's inhabitants (snip much) .

White men didn't kill off 95% of the Amerinds, disease did. At the time, even the most advanced scientists didn't know what caused diseases. Don't blame germ warfare on the Euros, they had a vested interest in keeping indians alive- slave labor.

[casebro]

(snip)


Has anyone argued in this thread for making reparations to anyone?

(snip)

I might also point out that the state of affairs for native americans today is at least partially caused by historical factors. There is still a question of whether we have an obligation to try to mend that.

YOU are talking reparations now?

I'm saying, if you want to make good our forefather's past deeds, where are you going to stop? Should the Spaniards pay back the Aztecs? Should the Aztecs also pay back the Mayans? Should the Shoshone pay back the Anasazi? The Italians pay for taking over Britain by the Romans?

[casebro]

Experts claim that there were 12,000,000 natives here in 1492.
Other experts say that diseases killed 95% of them. That leaves 600,000 survivors of the plagues.
After the "Indian wars", census figures claim 300,000 survivors in 1900.

That means that the white man, in a continental conquest, only killed 300,000 people. That's a lot, but is pale in comparison to Nazis (6m jews), Stalin (20m of his own people), WWii Japan in China....Red China's own internal genocides???

Any figures on how many white settlers were killed by the Amerinds?

600,000 people in all of North America...sounds more like we moved into an abandoned property than a "Conquest", don't it?

[hodgy]

I think some reasonable (when qualified) posts by casebro - there is a distinct tendency to judge our forebears by current liberal standards, This is stupid - if all you judgers were there at the time you would not be weilding your 20th century attitudes.

Further, we (Eurpoean descent) are only guilty by good luck - historical accident determined our ascendancy. Be assured that an advanced Sioux empire navigating the Atlantic would not have implemented the world's first racial awareness classes in British schools in 1700.

There's a hard world out there and we are here because our ancestors were able to meet its demands more successfully than those who were not our ancestors.

[kimiko]

Experts claim that there were 12,000,000 natives here in 1492.
Other experts say that diseases killed 95% of them. That leaves 600,000 survivors of the plagues.
After the "Indian wars", census figures claim 300,000 survivors in 1900.

That means that the white man, in a continental conquest, only killed 300,000 people. That's a lot, but is pale in comparison to Nazis (6m jews), Stalin (20m of his own people), WWii Japan in China....Red China's own internal genocides???

Any figures on how many white settlers were killed by the Amerinds?

600,000 people in all of North America...sounds more like we moved into an abandoned property than a "Conquest", don't it?Would it be ok if someone invades the US and only kills half the population?

[Roboramma]

YOU are talking reparations now?

I'm saying, if you want to make good our forefather's past deeds, where are you going to stop? Should the Spaniards pay back the Aztecs? Should the Aztecs also pay back the Mayans? Should the Shoshone pay back the Anasazi? The Italians pay for taking over Britain by the Romans?
I'm not talking reparations. First off, I said there is still a question, not that I have an answer to it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I suggest that we might have an obligation to do something about current inequalities that have historical causes. This doesn't mean reparations. It might mean putting more educational funding into native american communities.

I would see that not as reparations, but as trying to solve a problem that these people are facing whose cause is the same as the cause of our own wealth. That is, I don't think that native americans can be said to "own" america. I don't think they should be payed back for it's conquest. I do think that they have as much right to it's wealth as we do.
Yet history has put them in a poor position to take advantage of that. For the same reason that you and I are in a good position to do so. Whatever responsibility I'm suggesting is just that those of us who are in a good position because our ancestors took advantage of theirs might have a responsibility to offer them some aid from their current position.

In other words we should try to level the playing feild. How to go about that is beyond me. i don't know that I would support any really agressive action, but I do think it's an important goal. Partly for historical reasons, and partly for humanitarian ones.

[Roboramma]

See above post, #26
Fair enough. I don't see that there is any moral authority here though.
What I mean is that I don't see that just because a society is more technologically advanced it should conquer other societies. But I see that idea implied in your posts.

[Roboramma]

YOU are talking reparations now?

I'm saying, if you want to make good our forefather's past deeds, where are you going to stop? Should the Spaniards pay back the Aztecs? Should the Aztecs also pay back the Mayans? Should the Shoshone pay back the Anasazi? The Italians pay for taking over Britain by the Romans?
By the way, I'd just like to say that this doesn't respond to any of the points I made in that post. Except maybe the point about reparations (falsely).

[Roboramma]

I think some reasonable (when qualified) posts by casebro - there is a distinct tendency to judge our forebears by current liberal standards, This is stupid - if all you judgers were there at the time you would not be weilding your 20th century attitudes.

Further, we (Eurpoean descent) are only guilty by good luck - historical accident determined our ascendancy. Be assured that an advanced Sioux empire navigating the Atlantic would not have implemented the world's first racial awareness classes in British schools in 1700.

There's a hard world out there and we are here because our ancestors were able to meet its demands more successfully than those who were not our ancestors.
What does any of this have to do with the moral claims being made in this thread? I know it's a hard world. I know people tend to take advantage of each other - native americans were doing it to each other long before europeans crossed the pond. But what happened when the europeans did arrive was on a horrendous scale.
Would something similar have happened if the situation as reversed? Probably. So what? Does that make it any less wrong?

And just to say it again, I'm not suggesting we "give them their land back" or something like that. I'm only suggesting that we recognise that this was a tragedy. This contrasts strongly with casebro's response when asked if it was justified for a wealthy neighbor to kill a weaker one: "Well, on a national scale, and according to history, yes."

And once that tragedy has been admitted, what then? Try to undo it by doing as much wrong to the decendants of the conquerers? No. But deal with the current situation that has arrisen out of it? Yes. How? No idea.

[Roboramma]

White men didn't kill off 95% of the Amerinds, disease did. At the time, even the most advanced scientists didn't know what caused diseases. Don't blame germ warfare on the Euros, they had a vested interest in keeping indians alive- slave labor.
Okay. Point taken. I'm not about to argue that european settlers were the equivalent of nazis. But they certainly didn't make any concessions for the native inhabitants either.

Anyway, regardless, my original point still holds, they are no less victims because they abused others in the past. If mexico led a steady invasion of the USA backed by (not known to them) a disease which americans didn't have immunity to, would this not be wrong because the ancestors of americans had done the same thing?

[varwoche]

And once that tragedy has been admitted, what then? Try to undo it by doing as much wrong to the decendants of the conquerers? No. But deal with the current situation that has arrisen out of it? Yes. How? No idea. Ditto.

It makes me crazy that here in WA state, pissing and moaning about treaty-granted Indian rights is a constant. For instance, a vocal minority of waterfront property owners -- an overwhelmingly white, affluent group of libertopian zealots -- just can't deal with the fact that Indians have rights to the tidelands that others don't. Similarly, sports fishermen piss and moan to no end about inequality of fishing rights.

[Soapy Sam]

Has the US ever paid Britain for the land we 'stole' from them?- Casebro.


We've been meaning to talk to you about that...

[Mephisto]

Thank you SO much.
These are the info I am looking for.
I will try to order the books via amazon.

Regards,
Matteo

Glad I could be of help.

[Mephisto]

It is wrong to claim the Indians as being victims, they too had much blood on their hands by their own massacres.

It's funny, but I've heard the very same thing said about the Palestinians. I'm not sure how to draw the parallel, could it be, . . they had dangerous weapons to use against us, . . . no wait . . . they were ruled by a vicious dictator, . . . that's a good 'un, heh, heh . . . hang on, heh, heh, . . . we invaded their country to bring them Democracy . . . that's right! Heh, heh.

P.S. I love your handle!

[casebro]

I just had another thought about the history of the new world. I wasn't the Americans that did most of the damage to the Amerinds. Since most of the damage (epidemics) were started before the American revolution, it was the Spanish, English, and French governments that were responsible. Yup, I think that in the name of the Amerinds, the US gov should persue reparations from the old world.

[Matteo Martini]

Hi all,
during the last days, I managed to read " An History of the Indians of the United States " by Dr. Angie Dabo, a book with good reviews by " Choice " and The New York Times.
I have read about numerous abductions of Natives from their places, often by forced marches which lasted fo days and which left women and children in unhospitable territories.
Often those adbuctions required a high death toll, according to Dr. Dabo
There are also described the violences done to women and children, of the robberies that have been performed on the Natives to steal their land by authorities of the U.S., not to speak about the rapes on Native women, etc.
My question is: is this all true?
If yes, are those topics studied in U.S. schools?