I said that what most Native Americans want is not so much a settlement as respect, at least on this side of the border. They want to have rights entitled to them as the entities they are... sovereign nations. Most Americans don't understand that is the current state of affairs for tribes recognized by the US Gov't. They are soverign nations. Most Americans also don't seem to realize that nearly every treaty ever made with the natives (natives who were not so foolish that they didn't understand "keeping one's word") were made and then broken, remade and rebroken.
What I said was "wrong" and would always be wrong was the horrific fighting and slaughter that went on as European descendants saw land they wanted... and took it. Glossing over that, saying it was "Manifest Destiny" and likening it to the extinction of the dinosaur... is an extension of the wrongness.
Is there a right way? Yes, the right way would have been to accept what the natives could offer, which was to live with them in mutual respect. Most natives warred with each other, but in all their battles very few were killed. They believed and practiced "counting coup" showing that it was possible to kill the enemy, but refraining from killing.
Let's see, how would we feel if a more powerful group, say the Chinese, developed a much better way to control people face-to-face and sent forays into Canada where they took whatever land and property they wanted, saying it was their Manifest Destiny. How could we change that to being a "right way?" Hmmm. Make them stop?
The greatest gap in understanding between Indians and whites were their attitudes and beliefs about land - about Mother earth. To the Indian land was a gift from the Great Spirit given to all men for their common good. The thought that a human being could "own" land was unthinkable. Even the narrow plots of land around their towns and villages used for growing crops were kept at a minimum. Each family used what land they needed to feed their families - and not an inch more. A family would gather their harvest, but no one claimed ownership of the land or raised more than they needed for the winter. The wilderness that stretched out from their villages was considered the rightful hunting ground of the tribe. The raids and skirmishes with their neighbors were usually fought over hunting rites. It had nothing to do with ownership. This Indian concept of land slammed head on into the European passion for "owning" land. After centuries of being crammed into small plots, most often owned by avaricious absentee landlords, the immigrant saw the vast wilderness in the New World as opportunities to "own" land - something they and their ancestors in Europe could never do. They saw a land sparsely occupied by indolent, "uncivilized savages" who didn't use the land properly. To Europeans with a Calvinist bent, to live on land not cultivated was a sin against God. They set out to save the souls of the ignorant savages by stealing, taking, usurping or cheating them out of their tribal lands. The ends justified the means, if it was done "in the Lord's name for the salvation of savage souls".
http://www2.whidbey.com/jerod/stmind.htm
And you may easily find 100's of other similar references.
This reminds me greatly of an argument I used to have on-going with a University of Illinois sports fan. He thought that "the Chief" mascot was perfectly fine and honored the "Indian spirit". I thought that a mascot is a cartoon, a cartouche and a stereotype of a thing or animal, neither of which is honoring a human being, ethnicity or race.
His coup de grace (he thought) was "the Indians lost! Losers lose because they were not the best. The winners take control. The end." Well, that may be 'history' and the usual order of things, but I can never accept from my own beliefs and values that because might may "win", might is the same as "right". Condescending attitudes seem to drip from words that one may not ever have a clue is patronizing and very, very "white of you". The concept of "land" is pretty well understood by students of American history as to be that interpretation brought to North American lands from Europe. A native may have laughed to have profited by what may seem paltry payment to us now - for how could inhabitants sell what is not theirs to those who cannot own what belongs to Earth.
Piffka says,
"Most Americans also don't seem to realize that nearly every treaty ever made with the natives (natives who were not so foolish that they didn't understand "keeping one's word") were made and then broken, remade and rebroken."
And that still exists today. The American Government owes and has continued to owe Billions of dollars (without an accumulated interest - which would make this money grow tremendously, but for some reason, interest doesn't apply to money owed to Indians by the US government) to the AMerican Indian. The Interior Department and BIA continue to renegotiate and fight in courts these treaty obligation. This is money promised and due.
It is unconsciousable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
here in Colorado at Univ of Northern Colorado a group of amerinds started up a basketball league to play on sats for recreation. as there is a near by town with the high school mascot being a Indian, in a sense of humor (not totally) this group called themselves "the fighting whites" and their logo was a white man in a busines suit carrying a brief case. none of this was taken seriously but word got out and now they are selling "fighting white" tee shirts etc all over the world and donating the $$ for educational scholarships to native americans.
Nearly sixty years ago, Ashley Montagu wrote Man's Most Dangerous Myth: the fallacy of RACE, a book in which he wrote a revolutionary theory for that time when Nazism was at its peak. The jacket of Ashley Montagu's book states: "Breaking the link between genetics and culture, he argued that race is largely a social construction, and not constitutive of significant biological differences between people." * Scientists today appear to understand what Ashley Montagu understood decades ago. Human beings, based purely upon genetics, are very similar to one another and not much different from one another at all.
Ashley Montagu
Ashley Montagu's reply when asked for his definition of our species:
"Man is the only one-hundred-and-fifty pound non-linear servo
mechanism that can be wholly reproduced by unskilled labor."
The Fallacy of Race
Montague's thesis is that we all, all of us, eminate from the center of Africa and that we were all black, even insects and other animals turning whiter and lighter as we migrated away from the equater. I believe this to be true and thus we are all natives of the planet.
Obviously, many Americans still cling to manifest destiny, which is but another incarnation of imperialism. Social Darwinism - gorillas beating back their opponents in a slaughter game of king of the hill may prevail for the nonce - Survival of humankind depends on a better way. The novel ON THE BEACH is written with the social Darwinists in mind.
A better way for the early settlers would have been to recognize the symptoms of manifest destiny early on and root it out. Then they would have built towns, cities and farms, in a natural progression that would have allowed incorporation of Indians and Indian rights as the nation grew. There is every chance we would not be the imperialist of the new millennium, and we might also have built a less blood tainted society. Perhaps the USA would be a lesser factor in world politics; perhaps not. No one can ever know for sure.
SECRETARY NORTON - UNFIT TO BE A TRUSTEE
By Elouise Cobell
U.S District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth's historic decision on September 17, 2002, held Secretary Gale Norton along with Assistant Secretary Neal McCaleb in contempt of court for (1) engaging in litigation misconduct by failing to comply with the Court's Order of December 21, 1999, to initiate a Historical Accounting Project; (2) committing a fraud on the Court by concealing the Department's true actions regarding the Historical Accounting Project during the period from March 2000, until January 2001; (3) committing a fraud on the Court by failing to disclose the true status of the TAAMS subproject between September 1999 and December 21, 1999; (4)committing a fraud on the Court by filing false and misleading quarterly status reports starting in March 2000, regarding TAAMS and BIA Data Cleanup; and, (5) committing a fraud on the Court by making false and misleading representations starting in March 2000, regarding computer security of IIM trust data.
Judge Lamberth stated, "The agency (Department of Interior) has indisputably proven to the Court, Congress, and the individual Indian beneficiaries that it is either unwilling or unable to administer competently the IIM trust. Worse yet the Department has now undeniably shown that it can no longer be trusted to state accurately the status of its trust reform efforts. In short, there is no longer any doubt that the Secretary of Interior has been and continues to be an unfit trustee delegate for the United States."
Characteristically, the Bush Administration now seeks to enact legislation to pay for the private attorneys representing government officials who have perpetrated these malfeasances and aided and abetted the Secretary in the commission of these frauds. Yes, this money will come out of the pockets of taxpayers and individual Indian trust beneficiaries most victimized by this misconduct.
in 1953 the Bureau of Indian Affairs embarked on a new program of disengaging native americans from Reservations established by treaty dating from the late 1800's. althought full citizen had been granted to Native Americans in 1924, the anti-communist movement of the late 1940's and early 50's viewed the Resverations as potention threats and the "Termination and Relocation" was begun by capping water wells, confiscation of livestock and notices to vacate homes within reservations was given along with essentially a bus ticket and one months housing allowance in cities such as Minneapolis and San Francisco. Although this was defined as "voluntary" and signatures of cooperation were required there was no option allowed, thus negating the "volunteer"status of these evictions. This process continued until the november 9, 1969 takeover of Alcatraz island and the creation of the American Indian Movement The takeover can be traced to the 1950s when Congress passed the Relocation and Termination Acts, laws designed to "terminate" tribes and treaty rights and to "relocate" tribal members from reservation land to urban centers. after 19 months of occupation President Richard Nixon accepted the claims of the indians and B.I.A relocation programs were terminated.
Looks like Dubya's cabinet is really a kitschen cabinet.
Well, I finally came back in here and read through it all. I must say its a very interesting topic for me I shall do my best to simply say a few words and keep it at that.
It is all well and good that things are on the reform, items are being looked into, and more and more people are being educated in the way in which they can see reality...not someones idea of reality or right.
It will not however make up for, change, or bring back those nations of peoples who could give us, educate us, and enlighten us as to how bad we were and still are. You cannot go back and change the past but, by working forward we can change the future. Still, all that was certainly is lost by and large. The small fractions left can build themselves up but, for what?
I think there are many things that most people cannot understand, or ever even comprehend about American Indians....and the peoples they truely still are even today. However, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and no matter what happens, how the world is viewing them, or viewed by them, it can never be the same. You can say that is way of things, that is just how it happens to be and go on with it but, I really dont belive that. That is how we made it and we need to realize that more seriously.
We could all volunteer our land back, pay them what is owed, make allowances to have their own land, make sure they receive adequate housing, education, medical facilities, and basically a good life. That however is a life viewed from our eyes, a life viewed quite differently.
Even today there are those who choose to live in squallor, choose to live amongst themselves without any outside influences if at all possible, choose to have less then you or I could comprehend, and they do that peacefully and happily because that is who and how they are, as well as how we have made them to be. Yes, there is a great sadness, there is a great defeat that hangs over their heads but, still it is unascertainable to others how this can be a life. It is how it is, it is living like that or living in the "white world" with the "white ways" and giving up all that is important, all that is marveled at. It is living with racism that began before slavery, was part of it, and still continues today. That alone is a hard pill to swallow.
Before the great flood of people into the Americas, there was a great peaceful and harmonious time of settlers and natives living beside each other for the most part. It wasnt until greed and religion entered the equasion, that it started getting messy. When it did get messy, it got really bad. And it hasnt gotten much better. No, we arent slaughtering the bodies but, we have certiainly dented the souls. Someone saw land and then saw a race on that land and said, how can I rise up against this and destroy so I can get this land. Well, you just throw religion in there and if you arent like us then you should be converted or killed. Smart men know this only leads to war, death, etc. Add the lack of knowledge or education in to the settlers/pioneers who were escaping for religious freedom <which is a whole nother what were you thinking? topic> along with greed being issued into them as well for the land, and you have death of civilizations. The radical nature of religion and greed in combination with civilizations of a peaceful people can only lead to destruction.
All this was put forth upon a great civilization of people, nations who deserve quite a bit more, a heck of a lot more actually.
Would I think of selling my land back to them? No, they dont want it, not this place...its white, its destroyed, and it has no worth.
Would I aid them in getting back some clean, unspoiled, and harmonious place to live? Yes, if they wanted it and it was possible then, most certainly.
Do I think it would change anything or be any better than currently?
It could be a better place to live their lives as they wish and is certainly better than living a life they dont wish for.
However I also have to say....I can hope that they could change that if they wanted to. Unfortunately, after all this time, I highly doubt it. It would take a long time. I think they will eventually find a way to live in harmony with it all. However so many years has its effects and I dont think it will ever be the same however, I do hope that someday it can be better.
That people can be better.
Well stated quinn, glad you gathered your thoughts and added to the discussion.
Something that blows my mind is that people do think of native americans as extinct. The guests I had from Italy thought they were. They're not all gone, they're not all slaughtered, they're not all incorporated. The Powwows and markets aren't staged by actors. The pottery isn't always made in modern kilns at the end of a long conveyor belt.
Here are two articles of many that show the amounts of money the US Government has agreed to pay in treaties but will not account for and pay.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0920/p10s01-comv.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Broken-Blackfeet-Promise.htm
Yeehaw! That's great reading BillW!
Don't forget, these are bills owed for over a hundred years - not reparations!
What does one expect when children were taught for decades to fear indians? Too often the media of film, the parents, and other forces trumped the teachers of American history in our schools tyring to debunk the stereotype. Actually, I don't know how much it has changed but in my memory of public schools, there wasn't enough emphasis on teaching tolerance as teaching a blind patriotism. That's one of my main reasons against private school government funding in that there could never be enough oversight to prevent teaching prejudices. It's just recently been on the news about the Saudi Arabian teachers instilling ideas about the ugly American in their young and impressionable students.
American Indians, despite legacy of abuse, call military service duty, honor
BY WILLIAM HAGEMAN
Chicago Tribune
CHICAGO - KRT NEWSFEATURES
(KRT) - As the Bush administration turns up the heat for action against Iraq and an increasing number of Americans grow wary of the possibility of war, there's one segment of the population that would seem to be unwavering in its patriotism. And it's one most people might not suspect: Native Americans.
Ron Jordan, for example, is a Korean War veteran who says supporting America - even with its less than shining record when it comes to American Indians - is a tradition among his people.
"Nobody ever backs down," said Jordan, a retired instrument-controls designer from Chicago, speaking of fellow American Indians. "Because, see, among Native American people, long before the white man came, warriors were revered among the tribe. It was the men who went out to protect
their families. They were the hunters, and they were the providers for the families. So veterans are pretty highly thought of in the Native American community."
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/4732312.htm
This is a rather one-sided conversation since there are no Native Americans contributing.
Makes one wonder why the US government never created a decent way of living for those conquered here, those losers the Native Americans, when the story was drastically different in Japan and Germany.
Makes one wonder if some of the opinions would change should those in the Middle East (or from Mars for that matter) decide they could do with more land. We are a rather small country and our forefathers should have cleaned up after themselves.
