Where did all the Indians go?

Well you just compared the situation to Hitler.
So I guess I Godwin this disscusion

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Law

as well as


WAC 375.1.45.1. Faux-Authority Card Statute.

Anyone claiming to be an authority on the discrimination leveled towards a societal group by virtue of associating with/being descended from members of said group -- without actually being a member of the group themselves, or experiencing said discrimination firsthand -- will automatically lose the argument and be transported back to the 1800s for a crash course on segregation and racism.

Examples:

"I know all about homophobia. I have gay friends."
"I know all about racism. My boyfriend is half-black." (This was an actual argument point.)
"I know all about slavery! My ancestors were slaves!" (This was an actual argument point as well, by a girl with some Irish in her background.)
"I know all about discrimination! I'm descended from Pocahontas and a black slave!" (See wank mentioned.)



[edit on 10-6-2007 by drk3p]

posted by NGC2736
“ . . as evidenced by the treaties, [the government] cannot uphold the treaties, [or] change anything in them. You can't go to the courthouse and tell them that since you mow the right of way in front of your house, it now belongs to you. It is not your property and you cannot change the wording in the deed that was written . . you want to re-write history and [change] the agreed to meanings of past documents . . you can't stand the thought that it didn't work out to your benefit in the long run. Sour grapes. [Edited by Don W]

Someone says he counted the number of treaties between the US and the Native Americans. It’s around 330. He also claims the US broke each and every one. No one has ever offered to show a treaty that was not broken. I guess it is true, that we [white Americans] broke all the treaties.

One treaty is under serious consideration right now in NY. It is the treaty with the Oneida Indians, made or perhaps signed by George Washington or made during his tenure as president. It promised about 300,000 acres to the Oneida for their invaluable service during the Revolutionary War. Johnny Cash sings it [America's promise] was for "as long as the rivers flow." The state of NY took 99% of their land - I think they have 3 acres remaining - and sold it by lottery to white settlers. I believe even the Native Americans were barred from the lottery although that may have been the Georgia case I’m mixing. Now of course, Elmyra, Corning and many other mid-size cities are wholly inside the treaty land. It must be worth $150 b. by today’s values. One wag has suggested paying them the standard price for 1790, about $1.50 an acre. Wow!

[edit on 6/10/2007 by donwhite]

drk3p, yes, it is overused. But due to your obviously poor understanding of history, I thought it best to use a reference that you could possibly have at least heard of.

Try to decide if you want this kept simple enough for you to grasp, or do you want to go out on the limb a bit further?

And before you get carried away in trying to make us poor savages out as having robbed you of any chance at bettering yourself due to our idiotic insistence on being allowed to abide by legal treaties, perhaps you could re-read some of the questions posed by others on this thread. I am sure others value your pearls as much as I do, and I don't want to monopolize your skills as an orator.

I am going to the kitchen to fry some dog meat to go with my flat bread, and will return soon to ponder your wisdom.

Well its clear you cannot see my point.
I do not consider native as savages, I consider them people.
And they have the right to improve upon their lives, make an impact or not just as much as everyone else.
But no person should be granted special favors.
This board is all about crazy ideas of how laws and lawmakers are wrong, so why must you insist the law that helps you out is automatically right?
Why cant you perceive a world where you are considered just a person, nothing special in its own right, and you are treated the same as everyone else.

And when you do something wrong, you are criticized for that action and it is accredited to the fact that its your own fault, not the fault of your heritage, but also, you gain no benefits because of your heritage.

You would rather have treaties and reserves then peace and understanding.
And if all treaties have been broken, that should make them invalid and be renegotiated if both parties wanted so, but that would still be a step in the wrong direction.

You are not equal because someone has bought your satisfaction and you are content with the outcome. And wrongs have not been undone because someone is willing to pay you off.

If you want to talk about Nazis then you should remember that one of the first steps was to get rid of a population by moving them, letting them have their own land away from the Nazis, and that didn't work because no other country would accept them. So if your content with reserves, and special places that are just for natives so they can only have contact with natives, then I personally think you need to reconsider your views.

drk3p, you're wrong if you think that Natives haven't had to fight the government every inch of the way to get the little that we have.

I'm sorry that you equate these things to welfare. I simply lack the energy to try to point out how far wide of the mark such a thing is.

In your left handed way, you want to 'help' us. Thanks, but we've had about all the help from well meaning white folks that we can stand. And while you're surfing around, notice how much we were having to battle in the 70s-The Second Battle of Wounded Knee- to try to keep our ways and to get the government to to live up to some of it's promises.

No one GAVE us anything, nor are they now. Your basic premise is wrong, we may have been defeated, but we were never conquered. And that is the reason the government had to settle the wars with treaties.

And you are not going to succeed in taking anything from us. Ever.

in my real world experience, i'd say whaterver 'counting method' used
by authorities, there will always be a lower population figure for living
Native Americans than are actually alive & thriving in the USA.

i know that many do not affiliate with the Tribe, for whatever reasons,
or have only minimal interaction with their communities...
many i knew were engaged in being workmen, craftsmen, professionals,
and left the reservations to be away from them...

now the financial responsibilities & the upward mobility they sought
caused many to compromise- - to the extant that relatives and/or older family members elected to remain in the fold of the community on Nation land (reservations in white talk) so as to not hamper the younger folks
living in the civilian communities, seeking a somewhat upward mobility...

many of these Native Americans are not registered, because thats just another means of control/ or being under-the-thumb of government.

but two of my co-workers there in Phoenix for 5 years at the same company, would go up to their relatives near Gallup, NM at holiday,

they also would sign up for the prime hunt sections which were on a very
limited basis for their week of outdoor adventure...
a fair ammount also hung out at lcal NativeAmerican pubs, the 'Ponderosa'
comes to mind, as that name must have been made as a 'dark irony' reminder....

Assimilation & integrating into a community, is what one does, but for many different reasons...sometimes the apparent assimilation is another disguise one wears...
'Charley', a friend i have since lost touch with,
always told me...'all my heroes, are dead cowboys'

Thats the question I posed in my other thread, Conquered?
Its a question for debate, where I hoped to get a wide response instead of a one on one.
I'm not suggesting anything be taken away. I'm suggesting everyone be on the same boat, and everyone be treated the same.

Do I as a polish descendant deserve to go up to Russia and say, hey, give me some land, or to Germany to get repayment because my polish ancestors were on the chopping block as well?

Just because someone did something bad in the past, doesn't mean their descendants have to pay for it.

drk3p, are you being hardheaded on this, or truly not see the difference? You're ancestors did not have a binding legal contract to perform certain actions in return for a halt to warfare.

How plain is the difference? While you might have a reason to complain, we have a binding legal document(s) that were so administered to end warfare between two groups.

There is a major difference between a complaint and a legal document.

posted by forestlady
“ . . by that logic we would all be counted as "Africans." The Native Americans came here at least 15,000 years ago, if not longer. During the last 15,000 years, Native Americans have [evolved] differently than Asians: look at [NAs] and you can see different features from [modern] Asians . . Text

Donwhite, why did YOU edit MY post? You never asked my permission to do so. You never change a writer's writing without asking them first. I'm a writer and the managing editor of a magazine, for friggin' sakes, I know how to write. Not even the mods change writing the way you did with mine. That's just plain rude.

At any rate, you still missed my point. I wasn't arguing whether the Native Americans came from Asia originally. In fact, I do know that there is DNA evidence that they did. My point is that it was at least 15,000 years ago and Asians and Native Americans are now quite different; which is why it's ridiculous to lump Native Americans as Asians on a census.

Donwhite, I sure hope you don't edit any more of my posts.

[edit on 11/6/07 by forestlady]

posted by forestlady
“ . . by that logic we would all be counted as "Africans." The Native Americans came here at least 15,000 years ago, if not longer. During the last 15,000 years, Native Americans have [evolved] differently than Asians: look at [NAs] and you can see different features from [modern] Asians . . [Edited by Don W] [edit on 6/10/2007 by donwhite]

Donwhite, who gave you permission to edit my original post? You never asked me, just went in and altered it. I'm a writer and managing editor of a magazine, I think I know how to write. It is considered rude to ever change an author's writing unless it is being edited, with permission from the writer. I didn't give you that permission and don't appreciate you changing my writing. I like to use the word Native Americans or First Americans; I don't want to trivialize them by referring to them with only 2 letters, NA.

At any rate, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not denying that Native Americans come from Asia originally, as I believe they do. My point is that they have changed somewhat from their Asian ancestors, due to living in a different climate, etc.

[edit on 11/6/07 by forestlady]

Originally posted by forestlady

Donwhite, who gave you permission to edit my original post? You never asked me, just went in and altered it. I'm a writer and managing editor of a magazine, I think I know how to write. It is considered rude to ever change an author's writing unless it is being edited, with permission from the writer. I didn't give you that permission and don't appreciate you changing my writing. I like to use the word Native Americans or First Americans; I don't want to trivialize them by referring to them with only 2 letters, NA.

At any rate, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not denying that Native Americans come from Asia originally, as I believe they do. My point is that they have changed somewhat from their Asian ancestors, due to living in a different climate, etc.


[edit on 11/6/07 by forestlady]

I apologize, Ms Forelady. I should not have edited your material without your prior permission.
Don W

[edit on 6/11/2007 by donwhite]

The treatment of Native Americans by White Americans was, and to a certain extent still is, reprehensible. I doubt anyone, other than a rampant bigot, would deny that.

Treaties with 19th century White America were not worth the paper and ink it took to write it. Promises made worthless by actions before the ink was even dry. It's a dark time in the history of America that we should never forget, though some try.

Originally posted by seagull
The treatment of Native Americans by White Americans was, and to a certain extent still is, reprehensible. I doubt anyone, other than a rampant bigot, would deny that.

Treaties with 19th century White America were not worth the paper and ink it took to write it. Promises made worthless by actions before the ink was even dry. It's a dark time in the history of America that we should never forget, though some try.

S/G, are you old enough to remember all the historical revisionism we used to accuse the USSR of? We pontificated as if we never did that. Post-1950 historians find almost nothing taught in our schools was true or accurate or complete. Just as in ancient Athens, we were in the myth-building business.

But we devoted pages of praise on Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller and George Pullman, et al., and made them into American icons. Hmm? Wow! Talk about a snow job? Isn’t that ethnocentrism? In spades. Or to be PC, should I say in "no trump?"

[edit on 6/13/2007 by donwhite]

don, glad you understand about 'revising' Native Peoples out of history. This has been fought successfully in court because of records, but the average person is unable to see this due to the overwhelming displacement by self serving 'New Americans'.

Opps.

Yes, DW, I am old enough to remember that, though for me it was in the late 60's when I started school, even than there were problems with that, though I didn't really discover that until I was in my late elementary schooling, and one of my best freinds was Native American, a member of the Umatilla tribe of NE Oregon. I remember him asking why the Indians are portrayed as the bad guys in movies, and not getting much in the way of an answer, though the teacher did try; try explaining ingrained bias to a bunch of 4th graders who'd rather be outside on a fine spring day...it's tough. To her credit, she did try. I think I've questioned the history books ever since that particular fine spring day. Could never buy into it after that. That's a tough thing to ask of a ten year old kid.

I remember the bugaboo that was the Soviet Union, only too well...live on military bases as an Air Force brat, you couldn't avoid it. The evil that was the Soviet Union, yes I remember being told that. I remember Vietnam, though not as clearly as those of you older than I.

History should never be taken at face value, no matter how they try to be fair, an authors bias is always present...how much worse when they don't even try to hide the bias...

posted by seagull

Yes, DW, I am old enough . . there were problems with that in the late 60's though I didn't really discover that until I was in my late elementary schooling and one of my best friends was Native American, a member of the Umatilla tribe of NE Oregon.

I remember him asking why the Indians are portrayed as the bad guys in movies and not getting much in the way of an answer, though the teacher to her credit, did try. I think I've questioned the history books ever since that particular fine spring day. Could never buy into it after that. I remember the bugaboo that was the Soviet Union, only too well . . lived on military bases as an Air Force brat, you couldn't avoid it. I remember Vietnam, though not as clearly as those of you older than I.

History should never be taken at face value, no matter how they try to be fair, an authors bias is always present . . how much worse when they don't even try to hide the bias. [Edited by Don W]

It found its spokesman in Frederick Jackson Turner in 1893 in Chicago. He delivered a paper at the World’s Fair entitled, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History.” He rationalized what had earlier been called America’s Manifest Destiny. A thinly veiled invocation of the Devine as a guiding light for our inexorable westward movement from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In other words, “It was God’s Will!”

As the Spanish before us suffered no moral qualms when murdering 10s of 1000s of Mesoamericans, so we had no hesitation to remove people from a place where they had evolved successful survival tactics to another vastly different place where they had not. I’m thinking of taking highlands Cherokees and forcing them to move to dry plains Oklahoma. I’m thinning of taking dry mountain dwelling Apaches to mosquito infested rani forest in Florida.

Perhaps you recall studying the horrible Bataan Death March forced on the Filipino and American soldiers in 1942? Over 3,000 people died on that 120 miles walk in the hot tropical sun. But research indicates more than 5,000 to as many as 10,000 Cherokees died on the Trail of Tears. And let us never forget after the Battle of Wounded Knee the Congress awarded 20 Medals of Honor, the most in any battle, ever. That was national revenge for the earlier Little Big Horn battle we call a Massacre, in which a Civil War hero George Armstrong Custer carelessly led his troops to his death as well as all his solders. In a fair fight, as fights go.

The terrible part about the Cold War and the USSR is that they never had the industrial capacity equal to California but the CIA - in an over-abundance of caution - portrayed the USSR as a formidable enemy. We spent 2X or 3X more than a proper CIA evaluation would have justified. OTOH, had not the CIA lied to us for 40 years, the Director would have been replaced until one was found who would tell the lie the Pentagon’s military industrial complex and White House wanted to hear. That’s life in the fast lane. Say hello Halliburton!

[edit on 6/15/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by drk3p
Well its clear you cannot see my point.
I do not consider native as savages, I consider them people.
And they have the right to improve upon their lives, make an impact or not just as much as everyone else.
But no person should be granted special favors.
This board is all about crazy ideas of how laws and lawmakers are wrong, so why must you insist the law that helps you out is automatically right?
Why cant you perceive a world where you are considered just a person, nothing special in its own right, and you are treated the same as everyone else.

drk3p, you really need to reevaluate your ideology when it comes to history. You ask why can't one perceive a world where everyone is considered a person? Try to putting that perspective into the frame of Manifest Destiny, which decimated the Native American people, even till today. And you say the Native American people should just be contempt with what the government and early settlers have done to them? You are forgetting that the battle(s) are still occurring today--they are still fighting for land rights that are still not being upheld even after 100+ years.

And these special rights issues you bring forth are downright ludicrous. Are you speaking of fishing and hunting rights, which the Native Americans had to fight for even though they've been doing it for thousands of years before the settlers came? If that's what you're talking about then...WOW. All Native Americans should demand nothing less than what the U.S. government has promised them.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by douglas2k4]

Mr Douglas2K4, you raised 1 issue I want to speak on.

But first, I’m reading a book by Charles Wilkinson, a Native American advocate but not a Native American himself, entitled “Blood Struggle: The Rise of the Modern Indian Nations.” 2005. He includes various historical references to Native Americans in the New World as long ago as 10,000 BCE. He accepts 5 to 7 million as the more likely pre-Columbian population.

OTOH, the book really “begins” with the 83rd Congress, which on August 1, 1953, adopted House Concurrent Resolution 108. This law is referred to as the “Indian Termination Act.” America’s version of Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’ for Jewish people sans the furnaces. The Republican Congress was swept into office on Eisenhower’s wining coattails. Despite evidence it possessed to the contrary, the Congress declared the NAs were ready for the end of Federal protection. All 300+ treaties were unilaterally declared to be Null and Void. Republican President Eisenhower was all too ready to order the Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs to proceed with termination with all deliberate speed.

The Final Solution. House Resolution 108 meant all Native Americans would be expelled from the Reservations, paid a small sum in cash, declared to be full citizens of the United States, and thereafter IGNORED. Their reservation land would be sold to high bidding white speculators or developers. There would be NO Indian problem, anymore. The book then details the struggle’s ups and down from 1953 until the year of the writing , 2005.

And now to the issue you raised. Issue 1) Should Native Americans be content with what the current generation wants to “give” them? Or should the NAs demand the treaties be respected and followed?

Look, Mr D, we’ve got to be realistic. I don’t know how, but we must try. Take the Oneida Indians of New York. A treaty signed - by George Washington - promised 300,000 acres to the Oneida tribe as payment for their service to the United States in the Revolutionary War, for “as long as the grass shall grow.” In the 1820s New York ignored the treaty, took the land, sold it in a lottery like the Georgians did to the Cherokees, and now, the Oneida have about 5 acres.

Federal courts have declared the taking by NY was illegal. So how do we undo this bad deed done in the 1830s? Elmyra and Corning are just 2 cities “on Indian land.” If paid off, perhaps the Oneida would be entitled to $150-$300 b. Who pays? Do the current landowner had to pay for their land a second time? At today’s price or as NY wants, to pay at 1830 prices. We cannot return that land to a hunting preserve, tearing down all the houses, factories, schools and other improvements. We cannot do that.

Here’s my proposed NINE point solution. 1) Mark off the original land grant. Post appropriate road signs notifying travelers they are entering an area once given to the Oneida for services rendered to America. 2) Define Oneidas to be eligible for benefits under this Settlement prove at least one-eighth Oneida by blood. 3) Provide Oneida a pre-emptive right to buy any home site up to 5 acres in the Settlement area, at 3X the assessed value paid by the Trust. 4) That all such land goes into a perpetual Oneida Settlement Trust but the Oneida person has the right of occupancy “as long as the grass shall grow” and to his descendants. 5) The Oneida person would get an interest free 30 year home loan to build a residence suitable to the area. 6) All necessary infrastructure will be furbished promptly; roads, water and sewers, gas and electric service and phones and electronics facilities. 7) Any Oneida who wants to attend a public school in NY or PA would do so with all fees paid and receive an appropriate living allowance. 8) Any Oneida who wants to establish a small business would receive full services from the SBA and a loan up to $1 m. interred free for 10 years. 9) All Oneida’s put on Medicare for life premium free and with 100% coverages in Part A, B and D.

OK, that might end this dispute?

[edit on 6/24/2007 by donwhite]

I agree with you donwhite, particularly on your proposed plan to somewhat reconcile the Native American plight. Realistically, yes, there are little to be done to undo the devastation that they have received, but a plan such as yours does show the possibilities that can be obtained. Thanks for sharing!