Native Americans and the Current face of America

perception, if we hadn't taken land from the natives, things here in the americas would have proceeded very differently. Your point is moot as there prolly wouldn't even be a Boston for us to discuss.

Some humanoids adapt better than others? My head is spinning. That was the basis for the "scientific" oppression of a lot of people.

Littlek

I'll let you think about what you just said before I reply

I already did think about what I just said. I studied this in college.

Littlek

My point is The point-----if we hadn't taken the land from the Indians there wouldn't be any America. The actual truth is we didn't steal the land----we I believe, in most cases, bought it from the Indians for a few $dollars worth of trinkets. Everything is relative---the Indians were satisfied then-- Clark of the famous Lewis and Clark expedition, became the governor of the Louisiana territory and "bought" most of that territory from the Indians for about $2500 in trinkets. We "bought" the same territory from the French for a different amount---$15 million I believe--- so you could say we stole it from the French!!!! At the time the French considered it a good deal because they knew could eventually take it from them for nothing. Everything is relative.

As for your other question about humanoids----my thinking goes back a bit further than your thinking about oppression of certain peoples. It goes back to the time of the Neanderthal. This branch of humanoid could not adapt so they perished. If I am wrong someone please correct me.

Perception......did you ever see the movie called The Last of the Mohicans?

Might be worth a look. And a thought. And the effort.

This land was GIVEN to us, because we took it, by force, without right to do so.

Might I just recall that a) America is more than just the USA, b) how do you call the land where the American Indians live/lived?

My point is exactly your point, there would be no america as we know it and that would be ok, in the greater scheme of things.

Neanderthals were not or kin, all humans are.

Walter, the Indians were here long before we were.

There would be no America as we know it if they had an army with the size and power of the English.



I think I should back off of this thread..........my bp is rising

mikey
I have let this thread go in the wrong direction and way beyond the scope. If you would like to start a thread of "Right from Wrong" and "Just vs Unjust" I will be happy to participate but I think we should allow these good people get back to their Poll.

The American Indian question is a social/political issue having little to nothing to do with anthropology or paleontology. They weren't hit by an astroid which would have also been out of their control -- they simple were not able to comprehend our political scheme. That sceme was to segregate them and keep them contained as social inferiors. Their only defense was a counter aggression or an abject surrender to superior military forces. It was all for their own good?

Clark was a shameful example of unChristian-like greed so common among those European descendants who believed (and apparently still believe) they had every right to steal, pillage and murder a huge number and variety of American native peoples who were living quite happily here. His brother was among the most vengeful and cruel of the Indian Fighters. And don't get me started on Custer or what is still happening today in many places.

It was a brutal and unfair taking of people, based on the belief that their culture was inferior and they were less than human. Was gross and matched only by the French in Canada and the Spanish in Mexico and California. Not much to be proud of. Surely not.

There is no proof that all of our railroads, housing, cars and that amazing burst of population will be worth much in the scheme of greater things, though surely each of us is glad to be alive.

EDIT: Now, would you say that my opinion is an example of Liberal, Conservative, Independent, or Green (or an an anarchist)?

What mankind has achieved is not a gift from our ancestors, but rather a trust to be held and nurtured for our descendents. The rights and wrongs of the past are of the past. There are lessons to be drawn therefrom, and it is how we apply those lessons which shapes our future. The only constant is change, the only absolute is that there are no absolutes.
Noble aspirations and lofty ideals serve as aiming points, goals to be striven for, principles to be revered. In the dirt of reality, however, it is pragmatism which gets the job done, and the ethics of a time or situation are colored by that particular time or situation. This is neither right nor wrong, it simply is how it is, has been, and shall be. It is discontent with things as they are which brings about change. Perhaps the best then, in that light, that may be said about mankind is that it is never satisfied.



timber

Mapleleaf introduced this topic and therefore is its guide. The attitude toward the American Indian does identify what side of the political spectrum a person is on. It's a gauge that can't be ignored. You're right, timber, that mankind is never satisfied and we live in a culture of complaint. I don't believe we've washed ourselves clean of what we did to the American Indian and it's something everyone should read about. Those who still believe it was a "natural" ethnic cleansing have themselves to live with.

I beg to differ - anthropology does take into account social and political structures.

LW

You wrote: Those who believe it was an act of "Natural" ethnic cleansing, still have themselves to live with."

That was a clever shot----I'll have revise my estimate of you upwards.

I can "live with it" because in my heart I believe it's just an example of pragmatic reality.

littlek -- I was speaking in this instance of tring to compare what happened to the American Indian with extinctions of the past. Surprise -- the American Indian isn't extinct although I'm sure there are those that would still have it that way.

Pragmatic reality? You aren't an objectivist out of control are you,
prag?

I believe perception is the one to thank for that comment. And i do.

Short anecdote: a very close friend of mine bought a lot on the river outside of Laughlin. Turned out the developer and the realtor knew that the river had changed course after the building of Parker Dam and that was now Indian Territory! He got a letter from the government that he had to relinquish the land to the Indians. He vowed to stand fast on the land with a scalping knife (!) Eventually, he got an attorney and sued the developer and realtor who, it was revealed, were just innocent white people trying to make a buck. It was proved in court that they knew the survey had revealed it was Indian land before they sold it. I went to court with him as a witness but I was not needed except somehow I still can't keep from laughing just thinking about it.

From time immemorial it has been survival of the fittest. The meek shall inherit the earth is just a myth. And so it was with the native Americans Vs the European invaders. Throughout human history the story has been repeated over and over.

Congratulations LW, you just took your first step down from your Ivory Tower into the real world.

I've taken more than my share of jabs from you so don't take offense.