Is It Time To Cut Off Native Americans?

Exactly. They were prevented from who knows how many generations of existence.

My point is you b*tch about when enough should be enough. I ask, had their generations been allowed to survive (IE...not killed and their land taken), we wouldn't have to ask this question. So, I ask again, how much cash, or what kind of reparations would be acceptable to YOU, had your families past generations NOT have been allowed to live? What do you think that's worth exactly??

 

I see. Well the point of this thread that enough has been done so I believe I already answered your question. The majority of Indian deaths happened because their closed society was exposed to bacteria they were not accustomed too so that is really nobodys fault. The amount of Indian deaths from actual killing by Europeans is not a factor in their ability to reproduce. Out of 100 million if not more Indians the loss of thousands is not relevant to your point so nothing should be owed for that.

Also why do you say the land is theirs? Did it have a reserved sign for them on it or something? They migrated there from Asia and were not native to it. Just because they were the current resident when the Europeans came does not give them ownership. That's like saying the moon belongs to America because we were the first to stick our flag in it.

It is time to end the special considerations for Indian Tribes in my opinion.

 

Well, just contact your favorite GOP rep, and I'm sure they'll oblige, in return for your right wing vote of course. I think it's time to end corporations in America! How much do these fat cats need???? How many bonuses should be collected from other people's former jobs?

 

the world needs corporations you know. Are you going to build everything you need by yourself? Little Mom and Pop places will never be able to produce enough on their own. You may want them restructured in some way but we cannot get by without them if you wish to keep your current lifestyle.

 

I'd gladly give up my lifestyle to shut down ALL corporations TODAY. It would be the best thing to happen to our country since sliced bread.

 

We do NOT need corporations. The ultra rich need them, but the rest of society doesn't.

 

Who's going to make your car, and the oil and gas to run it? Who is going to produce all your food and the deliver it to the store? Who will make your medication if you get sick? If you hated corporations so much you would already be living off the grid. Odds are your entire lifestyle is surrounded with corporate produced items.

Its fun to whine about corporations but very few people would actually prefer to not have them here.

 

Huh? Can you really believe that garbage?

What tripe! Minorities, including Native Americans were not even human beings!

They were arrested for vagrancy, sentenced to 4 years hard labor as servants with NO pay, and then when the four years was up, were rearrested again and sentenced again.

Of course, treatment was usually so bad not many lived through very many "sentences" like that, assuming they didn't commit suicide anyway, or simply were killed by sadistic owners.

"Squaws" from 8 yo up, of course, were fair game for temporary use for sex and household chores for ANY white man who wandered by.

 

Businesses like mine, that don't hide behind phony legal shields from the consequences of my actions!

 

The majority of Native Americans in the U.S. do not live on Indian reservations.

The treatment of American Indians satisfies all the criteria of genocide as established in the UN General Assembly's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

This process began with Christopher Columbus's governorship of the island of Hispaniola (site of the modern countries of Haiti and the Dominican Republic):

http://www.lehigh.edu/~ejg1/doc/lascasas/casas1.jpg
http://www.manataka.org/images/columbus-taino-indians.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aPY0Q07JMjc/RZ0wDRc-zbI/AAAAAAAAAjQ/iqtYn599xYI/s320/casas2.gif

Many thanks to my Comrade PrairieFire for providing many of these links that I was able to use, and giving me the idea for others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_River_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyesville_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wa(*)(*)(*)(*)a_River
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marias_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Grant_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Robinson_tragedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre
http://www.danielnpaul.com/BritishScalpBounties.html
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Scalpin/oldfolks.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

http://www.bcmj.org/traumatic-pasts-...ceptualization

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal...lord_jeff.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...lo.html?cat=37

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

http://faculty.washington.edu/dianm/Sterilization.pdf

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...arding_schools

As for what you say of disease, consider that the most famous Holocaust victim is Anne Frank. She was not shot or gassed, nor was she even in a "death camp" such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka II, or Chelmno. She died of a typhus epidemic in a POW camp, Bergen-Belsen.

Her death was similar to those of Indians that were subject to conditions very likely to cause their deaths or severe suffering, even if it was not a deliberately intended result, such as those created in the Trail of Tears, the Long Walk and subsequent imprisonment at Bosque Redondo, etc. She was a Nazi Holocaust victim as numerous (though not all) Indians that died of communicable diseases were American Holocaust victims.

The Nazi Holocaust and American Holocaust followed similar patterns. First, compulsory and semi-compulsory (in the sense of being de facto necessitated if not de jure mandated) expatriation was used as the mechanism of removing the target population. The Haavara Agreement that entailed the emigration of 60,000 ethnic Jews out of Germany into Palestine paralleled the Indian Removal policies of Europeans' occupation of the Americas. Extermination was the goal in reaction to perceived provocation; Hitler's regime instituted the Final Solution as an ostensible response to ethnic Jews' alleged instigation of the Second World War, while colonial governments posted scalp bounties on the most resistant Indians, such as the Chiricahua Apaches.

The "Indian Wars" in general are also remarkably similar to Generalplan Ost, which involved the Nazis' ethnic cleansing of the Slavic population in Eastern Europe in preparation for "Aryan" colonization.

What is your source for this statistic?

 

Very well done post. Here is my source for the casualties not brought on by disease.

Determining how many people died as a direct result of armed conflict between Native Americans, and Europeans and their descendants, is difficult as accurate records were not always kept.[47] Various statistics have been developed concerning the devastation of the American Indian Wars on the peoples involved. One notable study by Gregory Michno used records dealing with figures "as a direct result of" engagements and concluded that "of the 21,586 total casualties tabulated in this survey, military personnel and civilians accounted for 6,596 (31%), while Indian casualties totaled about 14,990 (69%)." for the period of 1850–90. However, Michno says he "used the army's estimates in almost every case" & "the number of casualties in this study are inherently biased toward army estimations"

You can look up casualty rates for Gettysburg at your leisure. As this study states, hard figures are difficult to obtain but actual armed conflict casualties are not that high.

I used this period as it contains the most cases of direct conflict between Europeans and Natives. You could take this all the way back to 1490 or earlier but statistics are almost impossible to find. Even doubling this number given those circumstances would still not put their casualty rate very high considering their population.

 

Forty years represents a mere 10% of the nearly four hundred year period between the European colonization of Hispaniola in 1492 and the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890. It's arguable that Indian genocide continued past that point, even until the present day, as with Efrain Rios Montt's administration's wholesale slaughter of much of the Guatemalan Mayan population.

However, the critical issue is that disease casualties cannot be completely discounted, because European colonists and colonial administrators often recognized the causal connection between their aggression and the disease-caused deaths of the Indian population.

Pedro de Alvarado, administrator of the destruction of the Maya, is reported to have recognized the connection between certain living conditions and proclivity to contract infectious disease, since he said this of a slave labor force that the colonial government wished to temporarily preserve: "Because measles has struck the Indians I order those who hold encomiendas and repartimientos, on punishment of forfeiting them lest they not comply, to care for and cure their charges without engaging them in any activity, for experience has shown in other similar epidemics that much territory has been depopulated."

This rudimentary awareness, if not a sophisticated scientific understanding of infection and disease transmission, is the key. Ward Churchill put it this way in his book A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present:

The Castilian expeditionary Bernal Diaz del Castillo, who was a participant in the destruction of the Aztec Triple Alliance, wrote that, "When the Christians were exhausted from war, God saw fit to send the Indians smallpox, and there was a great pestilence in the city." Pedro Cieza de Leon, participant in the conquest of the Inca Empire, echoed this comment, writing that, "[W]e, Christians, have destroyed so many kingdoms. For wherever the Spaniards have passed, conquering and discovering, it is as though a fire had gone, destroying everything in its path."

In the sixteenth century, when the majority of fatalities occurred at the fastest rate, there was not sophisticated epidemiological knowledge that would have facilitated a detailed understanding of infectious disease. However, as indicated by the comments of numerous administrative personnel in command of colonial-imperial expeditions, there was a rudimentary knowledge of the effects of mass plague being related to invasion and subjection of Indians to substandard living conditions. They understood these epidemics as divine plagues of God sent to punish the idolatrous Indians.

 

Those 40 years are a good representation since thats the period of most interaction in conflicts. As for using disease as a weapon to wipe out the Native populations you may have to reconsider that. The Europeans were looking at a very viable slave trade and would not have jeopardized that in order for mass killing. The results of disease were unintentional for the most part.

 

You guys are pissing in the wind. No one will stop payments to Native Americans.

You can write a dissertation on what you think about cutting funding to Natives and it will mean nothing.

 

They're still hunter/gatherers although they don't do that as their main food source. But they still go out and collect cactus fruit, deer, buffalo and other plants and animals for food but they mostly eat McDonalds cheeseburgers these days. I am suggesting they stop being hunter/gatherers and become farmers and grow their own food on farms.

 

People would make what we need. People would reap the benefits from their own work and productivity.
I think your view of what a corporation actually is, needs some further consideration. Corporations are simply a vehicle for the ultra wealthy, rapist CEO's, and other profiteers to compensate themselves for other people's work. They are responsible only to their shareholders. Their only objective is to make PROFIT. None of their objectives involve the longevity of society or the people in it to thrive. The few controlling the many. No...we don't need them. In fact, without them, America could be reborn with a populous that would once again take pride in their work, and become a thriving world market competitor once again. Right now, we're just a numbers crunching, profiteering, corporate band of bandits, slicing our own throats, CEO after CEO, killing any life that still exists in America for profit (for themselves). They've effectively destroyed the country.

 

You make an awful lot of sense.

And then you follow it with this??

"I DESPISE republicans and people who are stupid enough to follow their ideology, or think Fox is actually a news network. I spit at their rotting corpses."

 

Yes. It is time to allow blacks, "native Americans" (who knows, maybe it was the Eskimos), and all other minorities the opportunity to be equal.

Giving them handouts pretty well denies them the opportunity to be truly equal.-as can be witnessed in how it's turned out for blacks and Indians after this many years.

I'm a little sick of us treating blacks and Indians as 2nd class citizens by providing them crutches instead of treating them equally.

 

Republicans are what they are....wealthy white men or religious southerners who strip mine society by voting republican (the party of the rich). Fox? Glenn Beck. Sean Hannity. Sarah Palin.....I rest my case.

 

Yes....we need to teach them to strip mine. To exploit for profit. They just don't get it, do they?

 

Why is it that the white settlers from Europe constantly get blasted for "invading and their lands and taking over," but nobody ever says (*)(*)(*)(*) about the Spaniards doing the exact same thing to Mexico? Hernan Cortez killed Aztec emperor Montezuma and overthrew the Aztec empire. And yet not even the Mexicans hate Spain like everybody hates America.

Talk about bigoted revisionist history.

 

The "he did it too" mentality? That supposed to alleviate everything? (I know...it's a popular republican tactic but it doesn't apply any better here than it does for them).

 

It's easier to blame a bigger target that speaks a different language.

If Spain was the most powerful nation, they'd probably take more blame.

 

I actually disagree. I think the native American culture is important---and in my neck of the woods......it is important to the Oklahoma Indians. They are "American" but the nations keep their language, dances, traditions and have pride in their heritage.

I don't feel like our government "owes" or is obligated to Indians. But I think our government should encourage and help Indian Nations keep their heritage and their people intact....because it is to the benefit of the United States of America.

I think the welfare aspect isn't the best situation. Welfare is always heart-breaking. But I know the Cherokee nation is wealthy enough to build bridges and actually give back to the community...but still receives help and support from the government in different ways where the money can be put to good use.

 

You're probably right. But it really speaks volumes about the selective focus some people have, doesn't it? It's like, there's the big picture overall, and then there's this tiny little piece within it that people are so obsessed with that they don't even see the rest of the picture anymore.