1
   

ethnic groups granted a homeland pre 1500

 
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 08:11 am
dadpad wrote:
Quote:
Did the Iroquois claim actual ownership of these lands or merely the right to use them? In legal terms there is a difference.


Only in the eyes of a non indigenouse person.

Just because an indigenouse native does not have a piece of paper with his name on it does not make him less of an owner.


I'm not talking about any piece of paper. I'm talking about a mindset. Psychologically the Indians didn't claim ownership of land even when they knew that they drew their sustenance from it.

BTW: Rumor has it in my family that my mother's father had Cherokee ancestry on his mother's side of the family. And supposedly if you have straight hair you have either American Indian or Mediterranean ancestry. So even though my grandfather and I both have/had very fair skin he, my mother and I all have/had hair that is straight as a board. So don't presume to lecture me on Indian matters in my own country.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 11:36 am
In that other thread, you claimed to have German-American and "British"-American ancestry (that's a pretty vague term, "British"-American). So now we should add Cherokee? Forgot to mention that in the other thread.

Now you claim that people with straight hair have only Mediterranean or Amerindian ancestry? Have you told the Chinese, the Japanese, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Laotians, the Thais, the Burmese, the Indians, the Pakistanis and so, so many others about this? How do you think that figures? Did they originally come from the Mediterranean, or are they all just closet American Indians?

You crack me up, Bubba.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 11:47 am
I'm belong to the curly-straight-bold race. And when I re-find that photo of my ancestor signing a notitia in 1287 ... he might have been an American Indian!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 12:08 pm
dadpad wrote:
Largely this is similar to Aboriginal Australia. The difference is that because of our young history (oxymoron?) many aboriginal people still have a continuing association with their tribal lands. Where possible "ownership" of tribal lands is being transfered back to those persons who can demonstrate a continuing association with their lands.

(it's a lot more complicated than that simple explanation)


I recently re-read The Fatal Shore, which lead me to think a great deal about this issue, as well as to research it online.

It is interesting that Captain Phillip decreed that the aboriginals should be treated fairly, and that anyone killing an aboriginal would be hanged. Soon after the arrival of the First Fleet, the English became aware that the aboriginals were dying of small pox in large numbers. No small pox appeared among the English, however, whether among the military detachment or among the convicts. It has long been alleged that the aboriginals contracted the small pox from members of the First Fleet, and in some cases it has even been alleged that the English intentionally infected the aboriginals with small pox. However, the absence of small pox among the Marines and the convicts is evidence that neither allegation is true. Very likely, aboriginals in what is now Victoria contracted small pox from European sealers or whalers who were already known to have established sealing and whaling stations on the islands in Bass Strait. If that were true, then small pox would have spread in the aboriginal populations south of Port Jackson, and eventually to the Eora in the vicinity of Sydney Cove.

Small pox, of course, did a good deal of the work of ridding the land of aboriginals, just as it did often in North America. In North America, the hostility of the aboriginal tribesmen to the English colonist doubtlessly arose from their contacts with the Spanish who had colonized what is now Georgia on the southeast coast of the United States, and who had pushed outposts as far north as what is now Virginia. The Spaniard had no compunction about slaughtering the local populations. Although the Indies Commission of the Inquisition prohibited the outright slaughter of natives, who were to be given an opportunity to convert to Catholicism, the conquistadores on the scene resented the Indies Commission, and ignored their injunction when not actually under the eyes of a member of the Inquisition. By the time the English landed and established Jamestown in 1607, the local tribes already despised and mistrusted Europeans, and additionally were suffering from a prolonged drought which made food resources scarce. There was some skirmishing between them, but the English managed to hang on (about 80% of new arrivals did not survive their first year in the colony), until 1622, when the Powhatans attempted to unite the tribes to exterminate the English.

Similar wars in New England, in which the aboriginal inhabitants became alarmed at the constant arrival of new settlers, and eventually went to war with them, helped to establish a pattern. Not long after the North American colonies were established, the crown, in the person of Charles I, began a long struggle with Parliament which resulted in the three civil wars of the 1640s. The North American colonies were largely forgotten, and were left to their own devices to survive among a warlike and hostile population. They developed a siege mentality, and among the Puritans of New England, there was no compulsion to convert the Indians to Christianity, and many of the Puritans were wont to describe the natives as the agents of Satan. The pattern of hostility, murders and reprisals was set for the centuries to come. The French in Accadie (Accadia, now New Brunswick in Canada and Maine in the United States) also added fuel to the fire by encouraging the Migma (known as Micmacs to the English) to attack the English colonists, which lead to more hostility, more murders and more reprisals.

In New South Wales, the small pox epidemic apparently carried off a great deal of the Eora and the other local tribes. Phillip in writing a description of the expedition which found and established the colony on the Hawkesbury River comments that the local aboriginal population had suffered badly from the small pox. In North America, the original settlers in both Virginia and New England went through starvation years, just as was the case with the First Fleet. There, in North America, the aboriginals often helped to feed the English, which lead to later resentments, especially in Virginia in the grip of a years-long drought. But in New South Wales, the penal colony was on its own. No such relationship was formed with aboriginals, and often, to the resentment of both the Marines and the convicts, he (Governor Phillip) gave food stores to starving aboriginals who were sufficiently devastated by the small pox as not to be able to rely upon hunting and fishing.

The hostile attitudes which arose also came from the fact that the aboriginals who survived the small pox became the de facto warders of the convicts. Any convict who escaped into the bush had not only the daunting prospect of surviving in an alien landscape, but one in which there were armed and capable natives (they were deadly with their spears and spear-throwers), and one in which the escaped convict went unarmed. The North American colonists were well-armed, and made a point of being well-armed after the first years; the convict in New South Wales had no such resource. Although within less than 30 years free settlers came to outnumber the Emancipist settlers, the attitude of former convicts was quickly adopted by free settlers. In the poor grazing land of the bush, it required a hell of a lot of acreage to graze sheep, and often the outstations were manned by convicts who were unarmed, and who were not capable of defending themselves, let alone their livestock.

The situation was even worse in Van Diemen's Land. There, free settlers were a rarity, and the outer stations were the property of Emancipists who used assigned convict labor. The resentment of and hostility toward the aboriginals lead to the near complete extermination of the aboriginals, with the only Tasmanian aboriginals to survive being those who had been kidnapped by sealers or whalers and taken to the islands in the Bass Strait.

That is, roughly and simplistically, the view i have taken from Hughes and from my other reading. I'd be interested to know how you see the development of attitudes as between the aboriginals and the English.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 12:17 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I'm belong to the curly-straight-bold race. And when I re-find that photo of my ancestor signing a notitia in 1287 ... he might have been an American Indian!


You know, Walter, if you had more straight hair on top of your head, you'd even look like an Indian.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 12:21 pm
Hair on the top of the head? Yuck!
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 03:25 pm
Setanta wrote:
In that other thread, you claimed to have German-American and "British"-American ancestry (that's a pretty vague term, "British"-American). So now we should add Cherokee? Forgot to mention that in the other thread.


My father was English (and by way of Edward III a lot of other things as well) on his mother's side (his father's side I don't know anything about yet but the name may be Franco-Norman). My mother is Scots-Irish on her father's side and Rhenish Palatine on her mother's side. These things I am pretty sure of based on my genealogy research. My mother's father claimed to be part Cherokee on both his mother's and paternal grandmother's side. I don't have any definite documentation for any Cherokee ancestry I may have, and I cannot remember where I read that straight hair is an indicator of American Indian or Mediterranean ancestry, but I have a photograph of my grandfather's father and the man in the picture definitely looks like an American Indian.

Quote:
Now you claim that people with straight hair have only Mediterranean or Amerindian ancestry? Have you told the Chinese, the Japanese, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Laotians, the Thais, the Burmese, the Indians, the Pakistanis and so, so many others about this?


Are you denying that American Indians have straight hair?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 03:35 pm
I am denying that, and i quote you: "And supposedly if you have straight hair you have either American Indian or Mediterranean ancestry."

Come on, tell the truth . . . you just make this sh*t up as you go along, no?
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 03:36 pm
Setanta wrote:
I recently re-read The Fatal Shore, which lead me to think a great deal about this issue, as well as to research it online.


My college course on British Imperial History used Fatal Shore as a text, but since we also had to study India and South Africa, we didn't spend too much with this book.

Quote:
It is interesting that Captain Phillip decreed that the aboriginals should be treated fairly, and that anyone killing an aboriginal would be hanged. Soon after the arrival of the First Fleet, the English became aware that the aboriginals were dying of small pox in large numbers. No small pox appeared among the English, however, whether among the military detachment or among the convicts. It has long been alleged that the aboriginals contracted the small pox from members of the First Fleet,


Was there any real evidence for such a claim at the time?

I don't know for certain, but chances are some people may be carriers for smallpox without ever showing symptoms of the disease themselves. I know that someone's susceptibiity to bubonic plague is determined by their genetics. Some plague victims couldn't survive no matter what they did (in the absence of modern medical care), others were only mildly sick and managed to recover while others couldn't get sick at all. Smallpox may work the same way.

I've always questioned the claim that the White Man intentionally gave smallpox infested blankets to the Indians. Before Pasteur's germ theory of disease was proposed, I doubt that anyone knew anything about infested blankets.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 03:37 pm
Don't try to stray. Let's stick with your horseshit claim about straight hair--it's far more entertaining.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 03:52 pm
flaja wrote:
And supposedly if you have straight hair you have either American Indian or Mediterranean ancestry.


I can hardly wait til mrs. hamburger finds out.


(the 40-hour historian strikes again)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 03:56 pm
That would start an East Prussian riot, I think.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 03:59 pm
So Mrs. Hamburger and all them Prussians, what do you think they are? Mediterranean? American Indian?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2007 05:15 pm
Mebbe Chinese - before they trekked to North America?
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Dec, 2007 01:21 am
Setanta wrote:

That is, roughly and simplistically, the view i have taken from Hughes and from my other reading. I'd be interested to know how you see the development of attitudes as between the aboriginals and the English.


Big subject.

1. I suspect that the aboriginals contracted a strain of small pox that the English settlers had some form of aquired immunity to.
sypillus, gonnereah, colds, flu, all the bugs that the native population had no immunity to would have had an effect.
Additionally much of Southern australia's native population were dependant on a root vegetable called Myrnong. This plant was decimated in a year or 2 by the introduction of sheep which dug it out of the soft soils to eat.

Times were indeed hard. Sheep and cattle were much easier to spear than kangaroo and emu. It is hardly surprising then that natives took what they needed. Also hardly surprising was the reaction of the settlers to stock losses in those hard times.
There were glimmers of sensibility from small holders who realized they need to work with natives. Many of these small holders were ticket of leave convicts and at times dependent on aboriginals for food and water. There does appear to be a different attitude to natives from the "squatocracy". Wealthy land barons with no real dependency on the land who could send "the men" out to do their dirty work. Although not all had this attitude.

This attidude seemed to be prevelant in the upper classes right up to the 1940/50's when it seemed to permeate into the whole English/Australian culture.
You may find it rewarding to research William Barak(an aboriginal man), Anne fraSer Bon from scotland and Wappan station, and the Board for the Protection of Aboriginals.

Avoid Mrs Bon's poetry.

All in all I get a sense of a superiority complex held by the English that was not always present in those from other countries. Scotland Ireland other European countries.

The community system used by the aboriginal population was also responsible for a great deal. There was very little private individual ownership present in aboriginal populations. If I kill a kangaroo I share with any who have not, because tomorrow I may not be so successful.

A real whats mine is yours and yours is mine attitude born of dependency on community rather than individual.
It would seem that the natives were inclined to extend this attitude to the newcomers in their land at least initially.

The settlers of course took what was offered/available such as land and women but gave nothing back.

Another interesting story
William Buckley


Thats enough for now.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/21/2025 at 04:02:16