Native Americans and the origins of America

[Lights]

Technically, the Native Americans who were collectivists were here first and they were forced form their land by colonial individualists. However, a Republic by its very nature is collectivistic. Why do you think Ayn Rand only advocates anarcho-capitalism? The modern individualist is just a recreation of the American pioneer.

[Sylvanus]

You are doing a damn good job of it to. :thumbsup:



I disagree. Technically, the Native Americans who were collectivists were here first and they were forced form their land by colonial individualists. However, a Republic by its very nature is collectivistic. Why do you think Ayn Rand only advocates anarcho-capitalism? The modern individualist is just a recreation of the American pioneer.

If you want to get truly technical... The Clovus Indians (what we usually call Native Americans) came over about 10,000 years ago. There were signs of human habitation up to about 25,000 years ago in North America. Which means that the "Native Americans" came here and killed off the inhabitants before we came and bought their land from them.

[Lights]

If you want to get truly technical... The Clovus Indians (what we usually call Native Americans) came over about 10,000 years ago. There were signs of human habitation up to about 25,000 years ago in North America. Which means that the "Native Americans" came here and killed off the inhabitants before we came and bought their land from them.

You live in Rhode Island or Manhattan? Otherwise I think you need a history lesson on how we aquired the land. America is a colonialist. We conquered this land. As far as your idea that there were people here long before the first natives, there isn't much to support that conclusion, let alone enough evidence to support the idea that they were killed off by other Natives. In reality, its just as likely the died off form disease or famine.

[Sylvanus]

You live in Rhode Island or Manhattan? Otherwise I think you need a history lesson on how we aquired the land. America is a colonialist. We conquered this land. As far as your idea that there were people here long before the first natives, there isn't much to support that conclusion, let alone enough evidence to support the idea that they were killed off by other Natives. In reality, its just as likely the died off form disease or famine.

I'll get back to you on this one. My reference has vaporized...

[yondyr]

I seem to recall some anthropologist dating bones prior to American Indian era, and there being a lawsuit preventing repatriation to the tribes because the bones didn't fall under their statute...

[prometheus]

I seem to recall some anthropologist dating bones prior to American Indian era, and there being a lawsuit preventing repatriation to the tribes because the bones didn't fall under their statute...


What? I thought mother earth and father sky just plopped indians down a couple thousand years ago, and they all lived with their pet unicorns and puppy dogs and were happy ever after till the paleface showed up and mercilessly slaughtered them. Right? There was no conquest between the tribes, or warfare, didn't they invent the cumbya song and pot smoking too?

[Bossy Mom]

You are doing a damn good job of it to. :thumbsup:



I disagree. Technically, the Native Americans who were collectivists were here first and they were forced form their land by colonial individualists. However, a Republic by its very nature is collectivistic. Why do you think Ayn Rand only advocates anarcho-capitalism? The modern individualist is just a recreation of the American pioneer.

Ayn Rand never advocated anarcho-capitalism -- just capitalism. The individualist has always been a winning idea - not just the American pioneer.

Also, I'm not surprised you're a bureaucrat. I once told a airheaded bureaucrat who worked for Bill Clinton (and was proud of it), "We should have lunch someday. I'd like to know how someone like you thinks."

My ancestors were pioneers and I'm proud of them. They helped build this country. My great-grandmother crossed this country in a covered wagon with her pioneer parents when she was a little girl. People like this helped create the wealth that gives you your job (here comes a little puzzlement on my part).

And "Native Americans" were not collectivists - they were tribal. BIG difference.

[Lights]

And "Native Americans" were not collectivists - they were tribal. BIG difference.

Actually, the Iroquois are considered to be the first to have a social democracy.

[thod]

I would describe the small tribes of indians as collectivist. The indian nations were simply groupings of the small tribes which were largely independent.

Where do you get the idea that they were destroyed by individuals from? They mostly died from disease, then it was organized genocide by the government. The Indians were pushed off their land by the cavalry, funded by the taxation. They were not pushed off by individual farmers. Although you also have to consider the tech levels, organization, production, and military theory which meant the indians had no more chance than the buffalo against the modern world.

The occasional indian raiding party did wander round killing farmers and it was always the cavalry that chased them down, never farmers. The indians lost due to collectivism on a bigger scale, without it the raiding parties would have destroyed the farmers. This is akin to the service the fuedal lord supplied in medievel time. Without that military making the land safe the farmers would be easy targets.

[Lights]

Where do you get the idea that they were destroyed by individuals from? They mostly died from disease, then it was organized genocide by the government. The Indians were pushed off their land by the cavalry, funded by the taxation. They were not pushed off by individual farmers. Although you also have to consider the tech levels, organization, production, and military theory which meant the indians had no more chance than the buffalo against the modern world.

Go look back in history and you will find that just about every forced move of natives began when a few individualist settlers pushed onto their land and were massacred. Then the government had justification to go move the "savage Indians" which led to massacres on the native side. It's one of the most repetitive patterns in American history, and I'm surprised a history buff like you would choose to ignore it.

The occasional indian raiding party did wander round killing farmers and it was always the cavalry that chased them down, never farmers. The indians lost due to collectivism without it the raiding parties would have destroyed the farmers. This is akin to the service the fuedal lord supplied in medievel time. Without that military making the land safe the farmers would be easy targets.

The natives lost because they weren't centralized and the US government was. The individualist settlers also weren't centralized, and would have been eradicated by the collectivists had they not had the US government's backing.

[Bossy Mom]

Actually, the Iroquois are considered to be the first to have a social democracy.

Nope. They were primitive tribes. Women were nothing more than slaves, and when the old became useless, they were left to die. Tell me all about their great inventions, philosophical ideas and great literature.

[Lights]

Nope. They were primitive tribes. Women were nothing more than slaves, and when the old became useless, they were left to die. Tell me all about their great inventions, philosophical ideas and great literature.

Um...maybe you ought to actually do a little research before you flaunt your ignorance.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Women were often the council leaders and were treated as equals. A good few hundred years before the US gave women equal rights.

Equality between the sexes had a strong adherence in the Confederacy, and the women held real power.

I've always particularly liked this claim.

The Iroquois nations' political union and democratic government has been credited by many[15] as one of the influences on the United States Constitution.

I know that reading stuff outside of Ayn Rand is a bit difficult, but you should actually give a try once in awhile. :laugh:

[Octavianus Caesar]

Every country in the world has been conquered by someone at some point and to displace everyone now because of that, would mean that no one lives any where.

[Bossy Mom]

Um...maybe you ought to actually do a little research before you flaunt your ignorance.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Women were often the council leaders and were treated as equals. A good few hundred years before the US gave women equal rights.



I've always particularly liked this claim.



I know that reading stuff outside of Ayn Rand is a bit difficult, but you should actually give a try once in awhile. :laugh:


Umm...I don't care what you call me...I STILL want to know what great philosophical ideas, scientific advancements, great literature and let's add great music they gave us.

Calling someone arrogant doesn't displace the questions.

I can't imagine how awful it would be to never be able to read a book. Also, if women "enjoyed being council leaders," etc., where was this recorded?

And to look back (if possible) and never see any progress would be discouraging. Of course this would never bother bureaucrats; they enjoy an unchanging status quo - it reinforces their power.

[Lights]

Umm...I don't care what you call me...I STILL want to know what great philosophical ideas, scientific advancements, great literature and let's add great music they gave us.

Considering it was the policy of the US government to destroy all those things in order to promote assimilation, its a bit difficult. But I posted a link containing some good general information about their culture as well as a cite that they may have influenced ideas in the very formation of our own Constitution.

Calling someone arrogant doesn't displace the questions.

I never called you arrogant, I said you were flaunting your ignorance because its clear you have never read anything about Native Americans and you are speaking completely uniformed.

I can't imagine how awful it would be to never be able to read a book. Also, if women "enjoyed being council leaders," etc., where was this recorded?

By both themselves and people from the US government! In fact there is this thing called an "internet", which you can actually use to research this stuff so that you don't go around making yourself look like an idiot. :rolleyes:

And to look back (if possible) and never see any progress would be discouraging. Of course this would never bother bureaucrats; they enjoy an unchanging status quo - it reinforces their power.

Wow, and what do you base this on? Let's see some evidence. It's actually written in the social worker code of ethics to "promote social change".

[pavman]

Um...maybe you ought to actually do a little research before you flaunt your ignorance.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


LOL. He says this then posts a link to wikipedia, of all places! Yeah Wikipedia is definitely the most authoritative source there is on everything, and all other means of research should be burned in fires across this land. :laugh:

Look, there were way too many different circumstances to argue over some random point that doesn't really do justice to the actors involved.

Do you have any specific points you'd like to make, such as how the Louisiana Purchase went down?

If I recall correctly, there were tribal wars long before the white man showed up and eradicated the Indians. Not to mention the fact that different tribes worked for different governments during the struggle over who would control the US, and how she would be divided. :idea:

[Lights]

LOL. He says this then posts a link to wikipedia, of all places! Yeah Wikipedia is definitely the most authoritative source there is on everything, and all other means of research should be burned in fires across this land. :laugh:

Yeah, it isn't like I said she should use the "internet" to research. :rolleyes: Clearly I restricted her to just wikipedia. :rolleyes:

Look, there were way too many different circumstances to argue over some random point that doesn't really do justice to the actors involved.

Do you have any specific points you'd like to make, such as how the Louisiana Purchase went down?

If I recall correctly, there were tribal wars long before the white man showed up and eradicated the Indians. Not to mention the fact that different tribes worked for different governments during the struggle over who would control the US, and how she would be divided. :idea:

That is true. I actually didn't start this thread. It was split off form another where I was making a point, and I would have been happy to leave it at that, had Bossy Mom not come around and decided to show off how she can talk about stuff she knows nothing about. But hey, pick a topic and I'll discuss it with ya.

[Bossy Mom]

Considering it was the policy of the US government to destroy all those things in order to promote assimilation, its a bit difficult. But I posted a link containing some good general information about their culture as well as a cite that they may have influenced ideas in the very formation of our own Constitution.



I never called you arrogant, I said you were flaunting your ignorance because its clear you have never read anything about Native Americans and you are speaking completely uniformed.



By both themselves and people from the US government! In fact there is this thing called an "internet", which you can actually use to research this stuff so that you don't go around making yourself look like an idiot. :rolleyes:



Wow, and what do you base this on? Let's see some evidence. It's actually written in the social worker code of ethics to "promote social change".

No, I do not believe that the "ideas" of the Iriquois or any other group of Indians were the basis or helped build the base of our Constitution. Ever heard of the Enlightenment?

I will not respond to your charge of "ignorance" because you just want to throw mud at anyone who disagrees with you. Also, I'm not the type who believes everything he/she reads on the internet (some of us are not that naive).

And I still haven't heard anything from you about their great scientific achievements, their great literature, their great philosophical works, or any great musical compositions they created.

Maybe you could live in a hut or a wigwam or a teepee and be happy, but I couldn't.

By the way, I've dealt with two types of social workers; the first type of workers were disillusioned after they began their careers (they sometimes discovered ugly truths about the people they had wanted to help); and the second type would never let go of their illusions (it's easier to close your eyes and spout vacuous platitudes). Which type are you?

[Lights]

My apologies Bossy Mom. I suppose I let my ego get the best of me. You are entitled to your beliefs. It is not my place to judge you as a person simply based on what you know.

[Colette]

Technically, the Native Americans who were collectivists were here first and they were forced form their land by colonial individualists. However, a Republic by its very nature is collectivistic. Why do you think Ayn Rand only advocates anarcho-capitalism? The modern individualist is just a recreation of the American pioneer.

What exactly is your point?

[Santana28]

the past does not matter - only what we do from this day forward.

people that exist have a right to exist. if two groups want the same thing (land) they either pay for it or fight for it. winner take all. that is the way of the world, and this will never cease.

i have never forcibly removed someone from their land. my parents, their parents, and so on as far as are still alive did not do so.

"reparations" is a parasitic concept dreamt up by the vanquished who cannot accept their loss and will never be strong enough to forcibly take back that which they had lost. life is not "fair." if the indians want their land back - let them forcibly take it back. that is their right and i would applaud them for doing so. but until they are able to do so... things are what they are and no amount of collective "guilt" will change that.

(i have a Cherokee ancestor btw)

[Bossy Mom]

"It is not my place to judge you as a person simply based on what you know."

That was rather backhanded. I have yet to see you exhibit what you know about this topic. A person who spends half their time surfing the net to find "essays" to back up their "theories" and the other half of their time posting here has an empty life. We all make choices in life.

(Like Santana28, I have an Indian ancestor, too, along with Davy Crockett. I don't use the term "Native American," because I was born in the US, so I'm a "Native American" also.)

My ancestors were indeed pioneers and have handed down their individualism to myself and my siblings. Why do you insist that Indians were "collectivists"? They were hunter-gatherers for the most part, and they were not progressing. Then nature took its course.

[OneBadMother]

I can't help but think that each person is only seeing one side of what they believe to be a two-sided argument. :P Could it be possible that all societies in practice are flawed in some way, that Native Americans were not perfect spirit-communal nature sprites but had their own unique, sometimes brutal cultures that happened to pertain more to an oral tradition, that pioneers were not all gritty heroic cowboys and brave-willed bright-eyed lasses who were looking to found a nation and take the land that was their God-given right from the horrible savages around them, and that needlessly idealizing the past clouds one's judgement? Jeez.

I agree that the suffering of your ancestors shouldn't be an excuse for monetary gain. An acknowledgment that that suffering happened and of who was responsible is pretty sufficient. Which also means I don't believe that the fact that you have a Native American or pioneer ancestor somehow stands as a justification of a point of view, regardless of what it is. :P

[pavman]

a Republic by its very nature is collectivist[ic].

Hmm, I disagree. A Republic is really oligarchical in nature, if you look at Republics of the past and present. A certain minority takes control and tries to keep that control until they are over-thrown by a different minority, who then does the same thing. If anything, the representatives are working for their constituents, but also to increase standing and favor among other representatives, hence the Oligarchical aspect. In modern America, contributions and kickbacks tend to sway the oligarchy in an individual way that is anti-collectivist and pro-special interest, in order to keep control over the direction the oligarchy takes with regard to special interest policies.

A Democracy (E.g. Ancient Greece) is collectivist in that every citizen had the same amount of say in the society; however, I think history has really proven that this kind of system doesn't work all too well when the society gets beyond a certain capacity, hence the favored Republican Oligarchical Structure that works more realistically.

[Santana28]

(Like Santana28, I have an Indian ancestor, too, along with Davy Crockett. I don't use the term "Native American," because I was born in the US, so I'm a "Native American" also.)


wow, Davy Crockett must have gotten around. my in-laws claim to be related to him as well.

i guess i should be fair and also point out that i am somewhat related to Dolly Parton.

There. LOL. I said it. Laugh all you must.

[DeadSpace]

No, I do not believe that the "ideas" of the Iriquois or any other group of Indians were the basis or helped build the base of our Constitution. Ever heard of the Enlightenment?

I will not respond to your charge of "ignorance" because you just want to throw mud at anyone who disagrees with you. Also, I'm not the type who believes everything he/she reads on the internet (some of us are not that naive).

And I still haven't heard anything from you about their great scientific achievements, their great literature, their great philosophical works, or any great musical compositions they created.

Maybe you could live in a hut or a wigwam or a teepee and be happy, but I couldn't.

By the way, I've dealt with two types of social workers; the first type of workers were disillusioned after they began their careers (they sometimes discovered ugly truths about the people they had wanted to help); and the second type would never let go of their illusions (it's easier to close your eyes and spout vacuous platitudes). Which type are you?

Philosophy...do not take from the land what you cannot give back, the US and other nations have only realised this husbandry of natural resources in recent years...and is a half hearted effort most of the time. Native americans never over-hunted, over farmed, over fished. That kind of greed came from across the ocean. Were they perfect? no, no society has ever been. But do not assume that you know something about a race of people that you know nothing about.
Definition of racist: Racism is a belief system or doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various human races or ethnic groups. It may be based on an assumption of inherent biological differences between different ethnic groups that purport to determine cultural or individual behaviour.

Pioneers were in no way superior...just different and greedy. Buffalo were hunted to near extinction, as were wolves, mountain lions, and anything else that had profit or threatened pioneers, livestock, or land they wanted...including indian tribes. Check out some of the us gov's restructering of reservation lands when someone wanted to expand a ranch...or something of value was discovered. How the pioneers and the government dealt with the indians is where that term indian giver came from, it was not in reference to an indian giving something and taking it away...it was in reference to something being given to native americans...and being taken back. I'm not as forgiving of blind self inflicted ignorance(giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's not stupidity) as light, hold your ancestors on a pedestal if you want, if it makes you feel superior. that kind of unthinking rationalisation makes you no different from a klansman in my opinion.

[Bossy Mom]

Philosophy...do not take from the land what you cannot give back, the US and other nations have only realised this husbandry of natural resources in recent years...and is a half hearted effort most of the time. Native americans never over-hunted, over farmed, over fished. That kind of greed came from across the ocean. Were they perfect? no, no society has ever been. But do not assume that you know something about a race of people that you know nothing about.
Definition of racist: Racism is a belief system or doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various human races or ethnic groups. It may be based on an assumption of inherent biological differences between different ethnic groups that purport to determine cultural or individual behaviour.

Pioneers were in no way superior...just different and greedy. Buffalo were hunted to near extinction, as were wolves, mountain lions, and anything else that had profit or threatened pioneers, livestock, or land they wanted...including indian tribes. Check out some of the us gov's restructering of reservation lands when someone wanted to expand a ranch...or something of value was discovered. How the pioneers and the government dealt with the indians is where that term indian giver came from, it was not in reference to an indian giving something and taking it away...it was in reference to something being given to native americans...and being taken back. I'm not as forgiving of blind self inflicted ignorance(giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's not stupidity) as light, hold your ancestors on a pedestal if you want, if it makes you feel superior. that kind of unthinking rationalisation makes you no different from a klansman in my opinion.


Your language to me is despicable. I am proud that my ancestors came to this country to build new lives. These "Native Americans" came from Asia, FYI.

Reminder, one rule of this forum states that you cannot personally attack another. You disagree with me, so you attack me personally in order to force me to leave this forum. This behavior reminds me of elementary school bullies I have known.

[DeadSpace]

Your language to me is despicable. I am proud that my ancestors came to this country to build new lives. These "Native Americans" came from Asia, FYI.

Reminder, one rule of this forum states that you cannot personally attack another. You disagree with me, so you attack me personally in order to force me to leave this forum. This behavior reminds me of elementary school bullies I have known.

If i was attacking you personally, you'd know it.
Your absolute refusal to mitigate your ignorance is obvious.
The fact that you defend your ancestors as if they were some kind of heroes and the native americans as unenlightened savages is also obvious.
The fact that you refuse to entertain any other thought contrary to your beliefs is also obvious.
That your entire point of view has only the basis in your beliefs is obvious. (much like many racists)
They are logical conclusions based upon your posts. Wether you like them or not, 'feel' that they are a personal attack is irrelevant. Your posts have shown your attitudes precisely, harping on the rules in an attempt to have my post seen as a personal attack...lol. If it's seen as such, so be it. I'm around 30% native american, my white ancestors came here and fought in the revolutionary war, 7 were hung as traitors to the crown. So should i be elitest towards your johnny come lately 'pioneers'? pffft, you have an opportunity to expand your mind here, in these forums...you should take it. A narrow view leads to a narrow life.

As for the original topic, and the bit of philosophy in my earlier post. Native americans, most tribes had a unique world view, classifying it by any modern perspective i think would be difficult. Knowing, not just guessing...but knowing what you do affects the world around you, and those effects have consequences for yourself, your family, and your tribe. That each piece of the puzzle has value, no matter how small. While at the same time your relationship to it all is as important...collectivist, somewhat. collectivistic commune, heh. Smidgen of anarchy. A mix that won't be seen again.

[Bossy Mom]

You don't know anything about my life, except for the few words I have written here.

You and Lights are nothing but bullies, so I have removed as much of my personal information as possible from my profile.

As Ayn Rand said, "I would have gotten down on my hands and knees and thanked God that civilization had finally arrived."

[Lights]

You and Lights are nothing but bullies, so I have removed as much of my personal information as possible from my profile.

Hey, leave me out of this. I apologized and I'm leaving you alone.

[Colette]

You don't know anything about my life, except for the few words I have written here.

You and Lights are nothing but bullies, so I have removed as much of my personal information as possible from my profile.

As Ayn Rand said, "I would have gotten down on my hands and knees and thanked God that civilization had finally arrived."

INFP alert! :p

Seriously Mom (and i am a mom too, incidentally), switch off your ego in these debates to the extent you can, and you'll sail through them with your dignity and sense of intellectual accomplishment, still intact.

Ethnicity debates will always attract strong and deeply held views on both sides - this is par for the course. If you can't stand the heat, you need to go lurk in a cooler room of the house (like the lounge or member area) :)

[yondyr]

Back to native populations and pressure on the land and its bounty. Isn't this a function of population per square mile? The more there are competing for fewer resources the more they will come into conflict.

[Bossy Mom]

All I have ever said here is that living and growing in a civilized world is superior to not living in a civilized world. Calling another person a racist because one cannot argue otherwise is the last refuge of a scoundrel. There are, unfortunately, people who go onto these types of forums to intimidate, ridicule and humiliate others who do not share their irrational views and calling another person a racist, stupid, etc., is what they do to attempt control.

[Lights]

All I have ever said here is that living and growing in a civilized world is superior to not living in a civilized world. Calling another person a racist because one cannot argue otherwise is the last refuge of a scoundrel. There are, unfortunately, people who go onto these types of forums to intimidate, ridicule and humiliate others who do not share their irrational views and calling another person a racist, stupid, etc., is what they do to attempt control.

Tell me about this "civilized". Was it civilized when Christopher Columbus committed terrible atrocities such as mutilation on the Native inhabitants of Haiti? Was it civilized when Spanish conquistadors came across the ocean and waged wars with Native American empires that had existed for hundreds of years so they could steal their gold? Was it civilized when Europeans went to Africa and enslaved people so they could force them to work on their plantations in the caribbean and southern parts of America? Was it civilized when Europeans came over the ocean and colonized the lands of North America, nearly starved until natives taught them how to plant food and survive, and then turned on the natives when they got a foot hold on the land? Was it civilized when America took up policies of extermination and forceful assimilation of the native people? Was it civilized when America denied people equal rights based on arbitrary characteristics such as skin color and sex? Was it civilized when America locked up American citizens of Japanese decent in camps during World War 2?

Yes, please do tell me about this "civilized"?

Before you assume that your line of "reasoning" isn't racist, maybe you should learn a little about the history of racism.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Doppelbock]

I just saw this thread for the first time, don't know why I missed it until now.

Anyway, here's my moderately informed $0.02 on the subject...

To those who say the "Native Americans" took the land from those who were already here: They are the descendants of those who were here first. DNA evidence has shown lineage, for example, from the Shawnee to the Fort Ancients (800 A.D. - 1500 A.D.) and Hopewell (100 B.C. - 400 A.D.), from the Hopewell to the Adena before them (800 B.C. - 100 A.D.), and from the Adena to yet earlier cultures such as the Glacier Kame and Red Ocher peoples, going back to about 8000 B.C.. This is all in the Ohio area alone. Thus the Shawnee people lived pretty much continuously in the Ohio area for thousands of years until the Iroquois drove them out in the 17th and 18th century (the Iroquois themselves having been driven west into Pennsylvania and Ohio by European settlers). At one point in the first centuries A.D. the Hopewell culture covered most of the midwest, with trade routes from New York to Florida and as far west as Illinois. At its peak, there were an estimated 25,000+ people living in the city of Cahokia alone. These were hardly primitive nomadic barbarians with no claim to the land. If the Hopewell culture hadn't collapsed (nobody knows why, but possibly a combination of social pressures/competition for food combined with weather, possibly including the worldwide cold weather of 536 A.D.), the Europeans would have possibly found a civilization of Native Americans rivaling that of the Aztecs.

And the early settlers made and subsequently broke a whole series of treaties with the Native Americans until they were ultimately forced into reservations. A huge ugly black spot on our nation's history, if you ask me.

[Colette]

All I have ever said here is that living and growing in a civilized world is superior to not living in a civilized world.

Haha. I presume then that the Native Americans weren't civilized enough for the likes of the Conquistadores. I presume it's 'civilized' to come into another person's country and murder, burn, rape, and loot (all under the guise of performing the will of God), and then annihilate any sense of geographical, cultural, and religious pride and identity that other 'barbaric' race may have managed to develop over the past few thousand years?

Hmm...what part of the definition of 'civilization' did I miss out on, at school?

[notoppings]

the past does not matter - only what we do from this day forward.

people that exist have a right to exist. if two groups want the same thing (land) they either pay for it or fight for it. winner take all. that is the way of the world, and this will never cease.

i have never forcibly removed someone from their land. my parents, their parents, and so on as far as are still alive did not do so.

"reparations" is a parasitic concept dreamt up by the vanquished who cannot accept their loss and will never be strong enough to forcibly take back that which they had lost. life is not "fair." if the indians want their land back - let them forcibly take it back. that is their right and i would applaud them for doing so. but until they are able to do so... things are what they are and no amount of collective "guilt" will change that.

(i have a Cherokee ancestor btw)

I agree (here's where I'm supposed to state my pedigree my mom is full blooded Comanche so that makes me half) reparations is wrong next you'll get African Americans wanting it, oh wait I guess they do. Well they might want to try what the Indians are doing we can't take back the land so we'll take your money ever hear of bingo/casino just give us a few more decades.


I can't help but think that each person is only seeing one side of what they believe to be a two-sided argument. :P Could it be possible that all societies in practice are flawed in some way, that Native Americans were not perfect spirit-communal nature sprites but had their own unique, sometimes brutal cultures that happened to pertain more to an oral tradition, that pioneers were not all gritty heroic cowboys and brave-willed bright-eyed lasses who were looking to found a nation and take the land that was their God-given right from the horrible savages around them, and that needlessly idealizing the past clouds one's judgement? Jeez.

I agree that the suffering of your ancestors shouldn't be an excuse for monetary gain. An acknowledgment that that suffering happened and of who was responsible is pretty sufficient. Which also means I don't believe that the fact that you have a Native American or pioneer ancestor somehow stands as a justification of a point of view, regardless of what it is. :P


I believe that there are at least two points of views on this we are just as flawed as any other group and we do truely have a rich oral history in song and dance and some wonderful aspects to our belief (Gitchi Manitu,) system. There were some wonderful settlers then again there were the "The only good injun is a dead injun" types and some in between. We lost but we're still here flush toilets, cable t.v., computers, seems like a fair trade, from my "now" mind set I wouldn't want to live in a world without toilet paper. (Shudder).

[sriv]

Worst part about this whole ordeal is that they are still refered to them as Indians even though that is not the least bit politically correct.

[Darkmist]

No the worst thing is wallowing in a past that has nothing to do with the present. If I followed Indian, oops, American original national, though they had no concept of nationality, I'd trace my ancestors back to the first person on earth and gain more. Then I could have all the lands and be god queen of all the peoples.

The problems with the current thinking:

First and foremost, I am not responsible for what my ancestors did, secondly, we all lose sometimes, get over it. And third, those who fail to move on and learn from their mistakes (yes I said the forbidden their), die. You don't have to succumb, but you do have to overpower and that isn't always accomplished with brute force, accumulating mass sympathy or whining as the case may be. It can be done with making yourself better, stronger.

Our lives are what we make them, not what our history made them. All we do now is give freebies to a society that is used to getting freebies. That is not helping anyone.