Tuesday, June 12, 2007
White people suck
Finally watched "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" last night, from HBO.
It's a lightly dramatized account of Sitting Bull's resistance after Custer's demise, Sitting Bull's flight to Canada, eventual surrender and murder -- I use the term deliberately -- on the Pine Ridge Reservation in 1890.
Most of the M.A. in the header was earned studying 19th-century American Indian history. Most of my work had to do with the Five Civilized Tribes, but I spent a semester reading about 40 books, plus numerous primary documents, on the Indian wars and the Custer debacle and aftermath. The government considered sending the Sioux to reservations in Indian Territory, now Oklahoma.
"Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee," based on part of the book by the same name by Dee Brown, seemed dead-on accurate, historically. I'm sure some of the personal aspects of Charles Eastman's life were contrived, specifically, the movie said he was a warrior during the Battle of the Little Big Horn -- was he? -- but, hey, it's a movie.
I watched it to get in the mood to write a short proposal for a history conference in November. All it did was depress me.
Y'all godfearing neo-America-Firsters, if you read some actual history, would realize that this country was never blessed by God as much as by technology and the clash of cultures that allowed Europeans to roll over this continent. I mean, unless you believe that *was* the blessing of God: enabling whites to kill, steal, cheat, swindle and otherwise run roughshod over native peoples. Which some do believe.
Hey, I'm not saying the Indians were all sweetness and light, and Big Evil Americans just wantonly raped, pillaged and burned their way across -- although very many did.
Some of the natives were wretched, by any standard, and some were savages, by any standard -- not just "differently cultured" or whatever -- and many were wretched savages.
And some were just bad, scalping, mutilating, bloodthirsty sumbitches.
White people suck, but no more than some and no less than most. What gets me is the claims of God's blessing on the American enterprise, based on outcome, when some of the most blessed people I've ever known were poor as dirt and abject failures.
Success is no indication of blessing, despite what the Prosperity Gospelers say on late-night TV. And success can be fleeting, as we're finding out -- a couple hundred years being a blink in time.
Wovoka, the Paiute prophet, was right: The white man, and his ways, are disappearing. White settlement? The Winning of the West, as it was known in an earlier generation?
Native Americans saw it as illegal immigration.
What goes around comes around.
--ER
It's a lightly dramatized account of Sitting Bull's resistance after Custer's demise, Sitting Bull's flight to Canada, eventual surrender and murder -- I use the term deliberately -- on the Pine Ridge Reservation in 1890.
Most of the M.A. in the header was earned studying 19th-century American Indian history. Most of my work had to do with the Five Civilized Tribes, but I spent a semester reading about 40 books, plus numerous primary documents, on the Indian wars and the Custer debacle and aftermath. The government considered sending the Sioux to reservations in Indian Territory, now Oklahoma.
"Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee," based on part of the book by the same name by Dee Brown, seemed dead-on accurate, historically. I'm sure some of the personal aspects of Charles Eastman's life were contrived, specifically, the movie said he was a warrior during the Battle of the Little Big Horn -- was he? -- but, hey, it's a movie.
I watched it to get in the mood to write a short proposal for a history conference in November. All it did was depress me.
Y'all godfearing neo-America-Firsters, if you read some actual history, would realize that this country was never blessed by God as much as by technology and the clash of cultures that allowed Europeans to roll over this continent. I mean, unless you believe that *was* the blessing of God: enabling whites to kill, steal, cheat, swindle and otherwise run roughshod over native peoples. Which some do believe.
Hey, I'm not saying the Indians were all sweetness and light, and Big Evil Americans just wantonly raped, pillaged and burned their way across -- although very many did.
Some of the natives were wretched, by any standard, and some were savages, by any standard -- not just "differently cultured" or whatever -- and many were wretched savages.
And some were just bad, scalping, mutilating, bloodthirsty sumbitches.
White people suck, but no more than some and no less than most. What gets me is the claims of God's blessing on the American enterprise, based on outcome, when some of the most blessed people I've ever known were poor as dirt and abject failures.
Success is no indication of blessing, despite what the Prosperity Gospelers say on late-night TV. And success can be fleeting, as we're finding out -- a couple hundred years being a blink in time.
Wovoka, the Paiute prophet, was right: The white man, and his ways, are disappearing. White settlement? The Winning of the West, as it was known in an earlier generation?
Native Americans saw it as illegal immigration.
What goes around comes around.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
I first read Dee Brown's book when i was in college, and have re-read it since. I am as interested in contemporary Native-Anglo relations as the tortured history, so my reading list on that score includes Vine Deloria's Custer Died For Your Sins and Peter Matthiesen's In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, the latter convincing me wholeheartedly of the innocence of Leonard Peltier.
Yes, indeed - white people suck. To quote Thomas Jefferson, when he was discussing slavery, in a thought that can be extended to the entire history of Caucasian extermination projects from Africa and the Americas to New Zealand and Australia and beyond, "I shudder when I consider that God is just."
Yes, indeed - white people suck. To quote Thomas Jefferson, when he was discussing slavery, in a thought that can be extended to the entire history of Caucasian extermination projects from Africa and the Americas to New Zealand and Australia and beyond, "I shudder when I consider that God is just."
I've not read Custer Died, or very much contemporary stuff, which shouldn't surprise. Hard not to have been exposed to some of the Leonard Peltier stuff -- I remember watching the latter-day Wounded Knee stuff on the news when I was a little ER.
Note that your comment and some additions to this post crossed in the mail, so to speak.
Note that your comment and some additions to this post crossed in the mail, so to speak.
Arrrgh! When did I get to be such a putter-offer?!? It's 8 a.m. and all I've done is write the cover letter! Arrrgh!
I don't know that you'd find too many who don't acknowledge the varied and regretful actions by certain Americans. But it's hard not to get a feeling of "therefor, the Indians were better" kinda attitude despite your statements to the contrary. It's only natural with a title like "White people suck". What else would be the natural conclusion?
At the same time, it's hard NOT to feel such if the focus is on the plight of the noble red man. I think while some suffer from white guilt, the rest ackowledge how we've overcome much of the bigotry for which we are still too often accused as a race. You know, ER, you've made statements regarding your view of the term "sin" and one or two others, and how you prefer not to think in those terms. I feel exactly that way with regards to the word "race" or any of it's derivitives. How can we ever get past it if we continue to focus on the least important aspects of the other guy?
But back to the point. We have stumbled along the way, but I think a case can be made that it was the Godly among us who have righted the course and continue to do so. Thus, claims of God's blessings are intact. But yes, financial success is but one manifestation.
At the same time, it's hard NOT to feel such if the focus is on the plight of the noble red man. I think while some suffer from white guilt, the rest ackowledge how we've overcome much of the bigotry for which we are still too often accused as a race. You know, ER, you've made statements regarding your view of the term "sin" and one or two others, and how you prefer not to think in those terms. I feel exactly that way with regards to the word "race" or any of it's derivitives. How can we ever get past it if we continue to focus on the least important aspects of the other guy?
But back to the point. We have stumbled along the way, but I think a case can be made that it was the Godly among us who have righted the course and continue to do so. Thus, claims of God's blessings are intact. But yes, financial success is but one manifestation.
I never believed for a minute that America is Gods chosen land, or for that matter that God blesses any one group any more than any other.
I appreciate Geoffrey's quote of Jefferson.
I appreciate Geoffrey's quote of Jefferson.
Good headlines get attention: White people suck. Then I elucidated what I meant.
Re, race: Hmm. Maybe I should have said European-Americans suck. Oh, well. I don't think of the various and sundry Indian tribes as "races" or as a "race." I think of them as peoples -- and, the thing is, it's not "white guilt" that haunts me: It's the idea that our system of government is based on a theory of organic law, so while the people who made the decisions in the 1900s are long gone, it's the same government that persists -- and that's us, we who have inherited both the historical legacy and the material benefits of conquest.
It's dishonest, in my view, for people living today to say: "I didn't have anything to do with that." Yes, you did, because now you do because you enjoy the spoils.
Note: it was the godly of the day who insisted on assimilation and individual land allotment. I think their heart was in the right place, but, as usual, as in the very present, those whose hearts were soft were regarded as likewise softheaded by the powers that be, and were taken full advantage of, along with the tribes.
Indian Rights Association? Dupe of the railroads? Focus on the Family? Taken for a ride by the GOP?
What goes around comes around.
Re, race: Hmm. Maybe I should have said European-Americans suck. Oh, well. I don't think of the various and sundry Indian tribes as "races" or as a "race." I think of them as peoples -- and, the thing is, it's not "white guilt" that haunts me: It's the idea that our system of government is based on a theory of organic law, so while the people who made the decisions in the 1900s are long gone, it's the same government that persists -- and that's us, we who have inherited both the historical legacy and the material benefits of conquest.
It's dishonest, in my view, for people living today to say: "I didn't have anything to do with that." Yes, you did, because now you do because you enjoy the spoils.
Note: it was the godly of the day who insisted on assimilation and individual land allotment. I think their heart was in the right place, but, as usual, as in the very present, those whose hearts were soft were regarded as likewise softheaded by the powers that be, and were taken full advantage of, along with the tribes.
Indian Rights Association? Dupe of the railroads? Focus on the Family? Taken for a ride by the GOP?
What goes around comes around.
Ahhhh.
TITLE OF PAPER:
“Counting Sioux: Contemporary Perspectives on Proposed Lakota Removal to Indian Territory, 1876.”
In autumn 1876, Lakota Chief Sitting Bull was on the run and in the news, giving U.S. Generals George Crook, Alfred Terry and Nelson A. Miles fits. The campaign irritated Americans and many mixed-heritage Indians in Indian Territory. They were already chagrined, this centennial year, by the flamboyant General George A. Custer’s demise by Lakota Sioux and Northern Cheyenne that summer. Meanwhlile, Spotted Tail, Red Dog, Man-Afraid-of-His-Horse and other Lakota trekked to Indian Territory, which some people called “Oklahoma,” Choctaw for “red people.” Was Indian Territory to be the new home of the Sioux? A federal commission had negotiated yet another Indian trade: the Sioux’s beloved Black Hills for residency in Indian Territory or along the Missouri River in Dakota Territory, where they were to take up the plow. Some of the Lakota party liked what they saw, but Spotted Tail was not impressed by what he saw in the Creek Nation. Nonetheless, the Creeks and Cherokees were gracious hosts and Spotted Tail was genial. Friendly, too, was most of the American Indian editorial commentary about the trip and the larger issue of Sioux removal to lands near the Five Civilized Tribes. The lone exception was the raving of The Oklahoma Star, edited by Granville McPherson, a white Choctaw citizen, and supported by Elias Cornelius Boudinot, a renowned journalist, politician -- and notorious renegade Cherokee – who trumpeted white settlement and dismantlement of the Indian nations, and who had no use for more “wild” Indians from the Northern Plains.
TITLE OF PAPER:
“Counting Sioux: Contemporary Perspectives on Proposed Lakota Removal to Indian Territory, 1876.”
In autumn 1876, Lakota Chief Sitting Bull was on the run and in the news, giving U.S. Generals George Crook, Alfred Terry and Nelson A. Miles fits. The campaign irritated Americans and many mixed-heritage Indians in Indian Territory. They were already chagrined, this centennial year, by the flamboyant General George A. Custer’s demise by Lakota Sioux and Northern Cheyenne that summer. Meanwhlile, Spotted Tail, Red Dog, Man-Afraid-of-His-Horse and other Lakota trekked to Indian Territory, which some people called “Oklahoma,” Choctaw for “red people.” Was Indian Territory to be the new home of the Sioux? A federal commission had negotiated yet another Indian trade: the Sioux’s beloved Black Hills for residency in Indian Territory or along the Missouri River in Dakota Territory, where they were to take up the plow. Some of the Lakota party liked what they saw, but Spotted Tail was not impressed by what he saw in the Creek Nation. Nonetheless, the Creeks and Cherokees were gracious hosts and Spotted Tail was genial. Friendly, too, was most of the American Indian editorial commentary about the trip and the larger issue of Sioux removal to lands near the Five Civilized Tribes. The lone exception was the raving of The Oklahoma Star, edited by Granville McPherson, a white Choctaw citizen, and supported by Elias Cornelius Boudinot, a renowned journalist, politician -- and notorious renegade Cherokee – who trumpeted white settlement and dismantlement of the Indian nations, and who had no use for more “wild” Indians from the Northern Plains.
"It's dishonest, in my view, for people living today to say: "I didn't have anything to do with that." Yes, you did, because now you do because you enjoy the spoils."
That is white guilt. The feeling that somehow we must atone for the sins of our fathers, or that the lives with which we are blessed we don't deserve due to past wrongs comitted by people we don't even know. For my part, no one in my family had anything to do with the troubles of indigenous peoples. My grandparents came over the pond (through proper channels as far as I can asertain) and I am only second generation. The reverse side, of course, is the attitudes held by some of those indigenous and shared by descendants of slaves, that they are deserving of handouts or apologies from me (or you) because of what someone did to their great-great-grandparents.
I'm all for helping the poor and needy and do so to the best of my ability as should all citizens in my opinion. Should the needy demand it, they'll get a swift "no". So will any who demand on their behalf.
But in all this talk of the way life sucked for the Indians during that time, remember that it was still a time when territory was had mostly be taking it, by force if necessary, and claiming as belonging to the taker. It's how such things were done back then. It's how it's done in some parts of the world now, but not around here. What we have instead is opportunity that is open to any who choose to grab it and make of it what they will. It does little good to focus on what can't be changed. Focus instead on what can.
That is white guilt. The feeling that somehow we must atone for the sins of our fathers, or that the lives with which we are blessed we don't deserve due to past wrongs comitted by people we don't even know. For my part, no one in my family had anything to do with the troubles of indigenous peoples. My grandparents came over the pond (through proper channels as far as I can asertain) and I am only second generation. The reverse side, of course, is the attitudes held by some of those indigenous and shared by descendants of slaves, that they are deserving of handouts or apologies from me (or you) because of what someone did to their great-great-grandparents.
I'm all for helping the poor and needy and do so to the best of my ability as should all citizens in my opinion. Should the needy demand it, they'll get a swift "no". So will any who demand on their behalf.
But in all this talk of the way life sucked for the Indians during that time, remember that it was still a time when territory was had mostly be taking it, by force if necessary, and claiming as belonging to the taker. It's how such things were done back then. It's how it's done in some parts of the world now, but not around here. What we have instead is opportunity that is open to any who choose to grab it and make of it what they will. It does little good to focus on what can't be changed. Focus instead on what can.
Um, no it's not. (I LOVE that rejoinder!)
Apparently you skipped over this part:
"It's the idea that our system of government is based on a theory of organic law, so while the people who made the decisions in the 1900s are long gone, it's the same government that persists -- and that's us, we who have inherited both the historical legacy and the material benefits of conquest."
As far as the "land was here for the taking" bit. Actually, only in the movies. And, oh, OK, within the mythology of the founding and settling of this country.
Look -- and my Indian friends will have to forgive me the comparison because it's fair, considering what the whites of those times thought of Indians -- your might enables you to take candy from a child who might scream and yell but does not know his rights. It does not make it the moral thing to do.
The rest of your comment makes sense, but is off topic. Not talking about poor people, not even poor Indians. Talking about justice in an intergenerational system of organic law.
There is a case for reparations -- more for them, INHO, even than for former slaves.
Apparently you skipped over this part:
"It's the idea that our system of government is based on a theory of organic law, so while the people who made the decisions in the 1900s are long gone, it's the same government that persists -- and that's us, we who have inherited both the historical legacy and the material benefits of conquest."
As far as the "land was here for the taking" bit. Actually, only in the movies. And, oh, OK, within the mythology of the founding and settling of this country.
Look -- and my Indian friends will have to forgive me the comparison because it's fair, considering what the whites of those times thought of Indians -- your might enables you to take candy from a child who might scream and yell but does not know his rights. It does not make it the moral thing to do.
The rest of your comment makes sense, but is off topic. Not talking about poor people, not even poor Indians. Talking about justice in an intergenerational system of organic law.
There is a case for reparations -- more for them, INHO, even than for former slaves.
No, I think it's a pretty accurate statement to say that the idea of expansion by taking was still in practice at the time. Certainly land deals existed (i.e. Loisiana Purchase), but generally the land in question was considered open territory (rightly or wrongly), and I think it was Tecumsah who questioned the ability of anyone to actually "own" land (he thought the concept as silly as owning air), so that it depends on which chief you're talking to to determine exactly what HE thinks is theirs. (I'm talking real general here. I've not studied the topic as you have.)
But it's a moot issue as things are as they are and each of us finds ourselves where we are and must then deal accordingly. Your taking candy from a child analogy isn't quite on the mark. While it may be true that I could take said candy (I hope it's Twizzlers. I like Twizzlers.), the fact that I wouldn't makes my point. Today, there isn't the same attitudes towards people who are different, not in a public way, and as long as everyone has the unfettered ability to seek a better life (their starting point notwithstanding), it's all golden.
But it's a moot issue as things are as they are and each of us finds ourselves where we are and must then deal accordingly. Your taking candy from a child analogy isn't quite on the mark. While it may be true that I could take said candy (I hope it's Twizzlers. I like Twizzlers.), the fact that I wouldn't makes my point. Today, there isn't the same attitudes towards people who are different, not in a public way, and as long as everyone has the unfettered ability to seek a better life (their starting point notwithstanding), it's all golden.
"That is white guilt. The feeling that somehow we must atone for the sins of our fathers, or that the lives with which we are blessed we don't deserve due to past wrongs comitted by people we don't even know."
The Bible tells us:
"for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me"
Exodus 20:5, among other places with a similar idea.
Now, for those who suggest they take the Bible literally literally, this would suggest the time limitation for the sin in question has expired - and indeed seems a bit unfair.
But for those of us who are trying to discern the Truth of the Bible, this passage suggests that our actions have consequences - and those consequences are upon those around the sinner, and those descending from the sinner, as well as the sinner.
In other places in the Bible, it tells us that the son shall not be punished for the sin of the father, so I see no reason to think we should beat ourselves up over the sins of our forebears.
BUT, what folk like ER and I are saying is NOT that we ought to feel "white guilt" - that's just a term by those who are attempting to side step consequences, it seems to me.
What we're saying is that those actions back then had consequences and are still having consequences. You can't enslave a people for generations and split up their families and treat them as subhuman and not mess up those people for years to come.
You can't take a people's land without having consequences years to come. And the consequences for the sins of the father can be terrible to sort out. We certainly don't want to punish the innocent child of the sinner, but the innocent victim and his descendents will have far-reaching issues and it is a shirking of personal and societal responsibility to pretend that they don't.
Seems to me.
The Bible tells us:
"for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me"
Exodus 20:5, among other places with a similar idea.
Now, for those who suggest they take the Bible literally literally, this would suggest the time limitation for the sin in question has expired - and indeed seems a bit unfair.
But for those of us who are trying to discern the Truth of the Bible, this passage suggests that our actions have consequences - and those consequences are upon those around the sinner, and those descending from the sinner, as well as the sinner.
In other places in the Bible, it tells us that the son shall not be punished for the sin of the father, so I see no reason to think we should beat ourselves up over the sins of our forebears.
BUT, what folk like ER and I are saying is NOT that we ought to feel "white guilt" - that's just a term by those who are attempting to side step consequences, it seems to me.
What we're saying is that those actions back then had consequences and are still having consequences. You can't enslave a people for generations and split up their families and treat them as subhuman and not mess up those people for years to come.
You can't take a people's land without having consequences years to come. And the consequences for the sins of the father can be terrible to sort out. We certainly don't want to punish the innocent child of the sinner, but the innocent victim and his descendents will have far-reaching issues and it is a shirking of personal and societal responsibility to pretend that they don't.
Seems to me.
I love it when people throw "white guilt" around - as if guilt were an imaginary thing. Taking responsibility for one's actions is a sign of maturity, a recognition that one can seriously mess up, and has a duty, if at all possible, to make things right.
The question of responsibility for our actions towards those who originally lived here, and whom we systematically dispossessed, went to war with, and occasionally committed genocide against, does not simply devolve to issues of who owns the land (I'm not sure if it was Tecumseh who wondered about owning land, but the point is moot; the Natives were restless precisely because we were taking their land and don't kid yourself about that). We continue to treat our Native American population as fourth-class citizens, and arguing over issues such as "white guilt" and making ridiculous non-sequiturs such as, "Well, we can't give the land back," ignores the broader issue of our duty to make recompense to those whom we have injured.
The question of responsibility for our actions towards those who originally lived here, and whom we systematically dispossessed, went to war with, and occasionally committed genocide against, does not simply devolve to issues of who owns the land (I'm not sure if it was Tecumseh who wondered about owning land, but the point is moot; the Natives were restless precisely because we were taking their land and don't kid yourself about that). We continue to treat our Native American population as fourth-class citizens, and arguing over issues such as "white guilt" and making ridiculous non-sequiturs such as, "Well, we can't give the land back," ignores the broader issue of our duty to make recompense to those whom we have injured.
So, what Geoff, are you like, 240 years old or something? Just what have you been doing to the people of the indigenous tribes for which you feel such a strong need to give compensation? Why are you treating them like second class citizens? Have you been refusing to employ them at your place of business? What's the deal?
As I said, neither I, nor anyone in my family had anything to do with any suffering inflicted upon Native Americans. Thus, I reject your use of the term "we" as it relates to the people who are actually guilty. And if you're going to talk about all those who have treated them badly, you'll have to include their own selves. A recent read of mine was "1491" by Charles C. Mann, and apparently the indigenous peoples weren't above warring and driving each other off of the old homestead either. Perhaps one tribe needs to siphon some of that casino money to another tribe to make up for what they did to each other.
Oh yeah, it's white guilt alright. These people live somewhat autonomously on the lands set aside for them, given to them for the very purpose of making up for some of the past wrongs. They are allowed to generate revenues through casinos and are more free to sell their handmade jewelry and crafts on "our" land than we are to set up a booth on "their" land. Is the system perfect? Hell no, but since they are somewhat responsible for insisting on running their communities their own way, perhaps they also bear responsibility for the overall state of their nations. As it stands, any who seek assistance is part of that unfortunate group of citizens we call the needy. That is if they want to be citizens, I have no idea about that. They could also assimilate into this great American experiment. White guilt is a term referring to the angst felt by some who can't stand having while others have not and when it comes to minorities the guilt is unbearable. Fine. Then give more of your own dough. This country is loaded with opportunity. Everyone, including Indians, are encouraged to grab it.
As I said, neither I, nor anyone in my family had anything to do with any suffering inflicted upon Native Americans. Thus, I reject your use of the term "we" as it relates to the people who are actually guilty. And if you're going to talk about all those who have treated them badly, you'll have to include their own selves. A recent read of mine was "1491" by Charles C. Mann, and apparently the indigenous peoples weren't above warring and driving each other off of the old homestead either. Perhaps one tribe needs to siphon some of that casino money to another tribe to make up for what they did to each other.
Oh yeah, it's white guilt alright. These people live somewhat autonomously on the lands set aside for them, given to them for the very purpose of making up for some of the past wrongs. They are allowed to generate revenues through casinos and are more free to sell their handmade jewelry and crafts on "our" land than we are to set up a booth on "their" land. Is the system perfect? Hell no, but since they are somewhat responsible for insisting on running their communities their own way, perhaps they also bear responsibility for the overall state of their nations. As it stands, any who seek assistance is part of that unfortunate group of citizens we call the needy. That is if they want to be citizens, I have no idea about that. They could also assimilate into this great American experiment. White guilt is a term referring to the angst felt by some who can't stand having while others have not and when it comes to minorities the guilt is unbearable. Fine. Then give more of your own dough. This country is loaded with opportunity. Everyone, including Indians, are encouraged to grab it.
No offense. Really. But I can confidently say that you actually have no idea what you're talking about, historically. Sorry.
On top of my studies, there are 67 tribes, with tribal governments, in the state of Oklahoma, and I've lived here most of my life. You can't sling a cat and not hit an Indian around here. I've got a little Cherokee in me, myself. There are radio spots running right now for a Cheyenne & Arapaho tribal election. I know of which I speak.
And again, what I'm talking about is the concept of government that my family has enjoyed since at least the 1700s and yours has enjoyed since whenever:
"It's the idea that our system of government is based on a theory of organic law, so while the people who made the decisions in the 1900s are long gone, it's the same government that persists -- and that's us, we who have inherited both the historical legacy and the material benefits of conquest."
Disagree with that if you want to. But that ain't "white guilt."
And don't look now, but it ain't over till it's over -- and it ain't over. Cases continue in the courts that will result in either land, or money, being turned over to tribes for past wrongs.
On top of my studies, there are 67 tribes, with tribal governments, in the state of Oklahoma, and I've lived here most of my life. You can't sling a cat and not hit an Indian around here. I've got a little Cherokee in me, myself. There are radio spots running right now for a Cheyenne & Arapaho tribal election. I know of which I speak.
And again, what I'm talking about is the concept of government that my family has enjoyed since at least the 1700s and yours has enjoyed since whenever:
"It's the idea that our system of government is based on a theory of organic law, so while the people who made the decisions in the 1900s are long gone, it's the same government that persists -- and that's us, we who have inherited both the historical legacy and the material benefits of conquest."
Disagree with that if you want to. But that ain't "white guilt."
And don't look now, but it ain't over till it's over -- and it ain't over. Cases continue in the courts that will result in either land, or money, being turned over to tribes for past wrongs.
Marshall, unless you somehow have not benefited from the US physical expansion, and the rising standard of living we have all shared due to that expansion, I say "we" because of the historical continuity of the United States government. It is ignorant in the extreme to claim that simply because neither I nor my immediate family have been directly involved we are free from responsibility for the atrocities our country has committed and refuses to accept.
Part of being a mature adult is accepting responsibility. Part of that process is recognizing our corporate culpability as citizens of a country that has done horrible things, said horrors having benefited all of us in the long run. It is this kind of reasoning that lies behind the demand the corporations that exist now that materially benefited from slavery have a fiduciary responsibility to the descendants of slaves. I am quite sure you do not accept that, either, but simply because you don't accept it makes it neither untrue nor unbinding.
I wouldn't be sitting where I am today, not just physically, but materially as well, if not for an abundance of actions on the part of our national government and its colonial ancestors, not the least of which included various genocides (giving smallpox infected blankets to various tribes in MA during the seventeenth century was the first in a long history of American biological warfare against our Native brothers and sisters). I would be remiss in my moral duty not only not to acknowledge that, but to do what is within my power to rectify the situation.
It isn't white guilt, MA. It's called being an adult, and having a certain sympathy for, and empathy with, the victims of American success.
Part of being a mature adult is accepting responsibility. Part of that process is recognizing our corporate culpability as citizens of a country that has done horrible things, said horrors having benefited all of us in the long run. It is this kind of reasoning that lies behind the demand the corporations that exist now that materially benefited from slavery have a fiduciary responsibility to the descendants of slaves. I am quite sure you do not accept that, either, but simply because you don't accept it makes it neither untrue nor unbinding.
I wouldn't be sitting where I am today, not just physically, but materially as well, if not for an abundance of actions on the part of our national government and its colonial ancestors, not the least of which included various genocides (giving smallpox infected blankets to various tribes in MA during the seventeenth century was the first in a long history of American biological warfare against our Native brothers and sisters). I would be remiss in my moral duty not only not to acknowledge that, but to do what is within my power to rectify the situation.
It isn't white guilt, MA. It's called being an adult, and having a certain sympathy for, and empathy with, the victims of American success.
ER-- The attitude of nineteenth century white people sucked.
And yes, Geoff, it is white guilt. You're just not willing to admit it. But it is also as you stated... 'Being Responsible'. But being responsible and accepting that our forebears were in many respects less civilized than the Indian nations they wiped out doesn't mean we today are in any way culpable. The nations deserve every bit of financial support we've given them, and more. We OWE them, but we are not responsible for the sins of men four and five generations removed from us.
Remember the Nez Perce? Hunted down and chased within a few miles of the Canadian border?
"I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. Toohulhulsote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led the young men is dead.
It is cold and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are--perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children and see how many I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead.
Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever."
--Chief Joseph
October 5, 1877
Bears Paw, Montana
Also from Heinmot Tooyalaket "Chief Joseph", Nez Perce...
"Perhaps you think the Creator sent you here to dispose of us as you see fit. If I thought you were sent by the Creator, I might be induced to think you had a right to dispose of me. Do not misunderstand me, but understand fully with reference to my affection for the land. I never said the land was mine to do with as I choose. The one who has a right to dispose of it is the one who has created it. I claim a right to live on my land and accord you the privilege to return to yours.
Brother, we have listened to your talk coming from the father in Washington, and my people have called upon me to reply to you. And in the winds which pass through these aged pines we hear the moaning of their departed ghosts. And if the voices of our people could have been heard, that act would never have been done. But alas, though they stood around, they could neither be seen nor heard. Their tears fell like drops of rain. I hear my voice in the depths of the forest, but no answering voice comes back to me. All is silent around me. My words must therefore be few. I can say no more. He is silent, for he has nothing to answer when the sun goes down."
...
"If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian, he can live in peace....Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The Earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it....Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade....free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself, and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty."
-----
Said the great John Steinbeck...
"The Indian survived our open intention of wiping them out. And since the tide turned they have even weathered our good intentions toward them, which can be more deadly."
from "America and Americans"
One good thing that came out of my two years at a Catholic High School was an intensive focus on American History, particularly the plight of the American Indian. For myself it was all summed up by the surrender of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce.
And yes, Geoff, it is white guilt. You're just not willing to admit it. But it is also as you stated... 'Being Responsible'. But being responsible and accepting that our forebears were in many respects less civilized than the Indian nations they wiped out doesn't mean we today are in any way culpable. The nations deserve every bit of financial support we've given them, and more. We OWE them, but we are not responsible for the sins of men four and five generations removed from us.
Remember the Nez Perce? Hunted down and chased within a few miles of the Canadian border?
"I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. Toohulhulsote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led the young men is dead.
It is cold and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are--perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children and see how many I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead.
Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever."
--Chief Joseph
October 5, 1877
Bears Paw, Montana
Also from Heinmot Tooyalaket "Chief Joseph", Nez Perce...
"Perhaps you think the Creator sent you here to dispose of us as you see fit. If I thought you were sent by the Creator, I might be induced to think you had a right to dispose of me. Do not misunderstand me, but understand fully with reference to my affection for the land. I never said the land was mine to do with as I choose. The one who has a right to dispose of it is the one who has created it. I claim a right to live on my land and accord you the privilege to return to yours.
Brother, we have listened to your talk coming from the father in Washington, and my people have called upon me to reply to you. And in the winds which pass through these aged pines we hear the moaning of their departed ghosts. And if the voices of our people could have been heard, that act would never have been done. But alas, though they stood around, they could neither be seen nor heard. Their tears fell like drops of rain. I hear my voice in the depths of the forest, but no answering voice comes back to me. All is silent around me. My words must therefore be few. I can say no more. He is silent, for he has nothing to answer when the sun goes down."
...
"If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian, he can live in peace....Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The Earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it....Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade....free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself, and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty."
-----
Said the great John Steinbeck...
"The Indian survived our open intention of wiping them out. And since the tide turned they have even weathered our good intentions toward them, which can be more deadly."
from "America and Americans"
One good thing that came out of my two years at a Catholic High School was an intensive focus on American History, particularly the plight of the American Indian. For myself it was all summed up by the surrender of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce.
I accept responsibility for my actions. I accept responsibility for the actions of my kids while they are underage and under my authority. I accept resonsibility for the actions of any who live in my home under my authority. I accept no responsibility for the actions of my parents, grandparents or ancestors, as I've had no authority over them whatsoever. I accept responsibility as a Christian and United States citizen to support the needy to the best of my ability. I reject any demand that I atone for the sins of people I've never met, demands that come from people who are not now oppressed by those long dead. I do not oppress them. I do not hold with those who do, if any exist. I reject the notion of "Indian land" in a nation that is being pulled apart by multi-culturalism and pride in origins rather than pride in citizenship. I hold with the sentiment of JFK to ask not what your country can do for you, etc. I reject the notion that some company that may have built it's early success through slavery or exploitation of any kind needs to cough up funds now, a century or two later, if they have long since rejected those attitudes and now offer jobs to qualified applicants regardless of race, color or creed. And I reject the audacity and arrogance of those who are neither exploited or exploiter when they demand that I conform to their skewed sense of justice.
"Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade....free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself, and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty."
I'm more than down with that. I have NO responsibility or obligation to provide any more.
"Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade....free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself, and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty."
I'm more than down with that. I have NO responsibility or obligation to provide any more.
Y'allses' individualism is blinding you to the truth. Neither you, nor I, are individually responsible for the offenses of our forbears. But all of us, in fact, are collectively morally responsible -- and will adjudicated legally collectively responsible for our nation's previously actions. It will happen. It is happening. It is right to happen.
I will repat this until I choke, because no one has seen it:
"It's the idea that our system of government is based on a theory of organic law, so while the people who made the decisions in the 19th century (and before, corrected) are long gone, it's the same government that persists -- and that's us ..."
BTW, MA, it doesn't matter what *your* notion of Indian land is, MA. The law is the law. Unless you're an outlaw.
The federal definitions of Indian country:
Page 1 of 2
DEFINITION OF “INDIAN COUNTRY”
What is “Indian Country”?
Indian country includes:
1. All land within the limits of an Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States government;
2. All dependent Indian communities, such as the New Mexico Pueblos; and
3. All Indian allotments still in trust, whether they are located within reservations or
not.
The term includes land owned by non-Indians, as well as towns incorporated by non-Indians if
they are within the boundaries of an Indian reservation.
It is generally within these areas that tribal sovereignty applies and state power is limited.
What is the difference between Indian country and an Indian reservation?
A reservation is an area of land “reserved” by or for an Indian band, village, or tribe (tribes) to
live on and use. Reservations were created by treaty, by congressional legislation, or by
executive order. Since 1934, the Secretary of the Interior has had the responsibility of
establishing new reservations or adding land to existing reservations.
Indian country encompasses reservations.
What is the ownership status of land within Indian Country?
There are three basic categories of land tenure in Indian country; tribal trust lands, allotted trust
lands, and fee lands.
Tribal trust lands are held in trust by the United States government for the use of a tribe. The
United States holds the legal title, and the tribe holds the beneficial interest. This is the largest
category of Indian land. Tribal trust land is held communally by the tribe and is managed by
the tribal government. Tribal members share in the enjoyment of the entire property without
laying claim to individual parcels. The tribe may not convey or sell trust land without the
consent of the federal government. Tribes may acquire additional land and have it placed in
trust with the approval of the federal government.
Page 2 of 2
DEFINITION OF “INDIAN COUNTRY” (continued)
Allotted trust lands are held in trust for the use of individual Indians (or their heirs). Again, the federal
government holds the title, and the individual (or heirs) holds the beneficial interest.
During the assimilation period, Congress enacted the General Allotment Act of 1887, also known as the
Dawes Act. The ultimate purpose of the Dawes Act was to break up tribal governments, abolish the
reservations, and assimilate Indians into non-Indian society as farmers. To accomplish this goal,
Congress decided to divide tribal lands into individual parcels, give each tribal member a parcel, and
sell the “surplus’ parcels to non-Indian farmers.
The Act authorized the President to allot reservation land to individual Indians. Title to the land
remained in the United States in trust for 25 years, or longer if extended by the President, then was
conveyed to the Indian allottee in fee, free of all encumbrances. The trust period was intended to protect
the allottee from immediate state taxation and to allow an opportunity to learn farming. Upon receiving
the allotments (or after amendments in 1906 for fee title), allottees became U.S. citizens and were
subject to state criminal and civil law. The Dawes Act also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to
negotiate for acquisition by the United States of the so-called “excess” or “surplus” lands remaining
after allotment. These “surplus” lands were to be opened to non-Indian settlement.
Although the sponsors of the Dawes Act believed that it would help Indians prosper, the effect on
Indians and Indian lands was catastrophic. Most Indians did not want to abandon their culture to pursue
farming. Because much of the land allotted to Indians was unsuitable for small-scale farming, Indians
sold their parcels to settlers or lost land in tax foreclosure when, upon receiving a patent after 25 years,
the land was subjected to state taxes.
The result was a checkerboard pattern of land ownership within many reservation that were allotted
either under the Dawes Act or under the other specific allotment acts, with much of the allottee land
passing out of trust status and Indian ownership. While not all reservations were allotted, the declined
from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million acres in 1934 when the allotment system was abolished.
Fee lands are held by an owner, whether Indian or non-Indian.
Other lands in Indian country can be held by federal, state, or local (nontribal) governments. These
lands include such areas as national wildlife refuges and state parks.
I will repat this until I choke, because no one has seen it:
"It's the idea that our system of government is based on a theory of organic law, so while the people who made the decisions in the 19th century (and before, corrected) are long gone, it's the same government that persists -- and that's us ..."
BTW, MA, it doesn't matter what *your* notion of Indian land is, MA. The law is the law. Unless you're an outlaw.
The federal definitions of Indian country:
Page 1 of 2
DEFINITION OF “INDIAN COUNTRY”
What is “Indian Country”?
Indian country includes:
1. All land within the limits of an Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States government;
2. All dependent Indian communities, such as the New Mexico Pueblos; and
3. All Indian allotments still in trust, whether they are located within reservations or
not.
The term includes land owned by non-Indians, as well as towns incorporated by non-Indians if
they are within the boundaries of an Indian reservation.
It is generally within these areas that tribal sovereignty applies and state power is limited.
What is the difference between Indian country and an Indian reservation?
A reservation is an area of land “reserved” by or for an Indian band, village, or tribe (tribes) to
live on and use. Reservations were created by treaty, by congressional legislation, or by
executive order. Since 1934, the Secretary of the Interior has had the responsibility of
establishing new reservations or adding land to existing reservations.
Indian country encompasses reservations.
What is the ownership status of land within Indian Country?
There are three basic categories of land tenure in Indian country; tribal trust lands, allotted trust
lands, and fee lands.
Tribal trust lands are held in trust by the United States government for the use of a tribe. The
United States holds the legal title, and the tribe holds the beneficial interest. This is the largest
category of Indian land. Tribal trust land is held communally by the tribe and is managed by
the tribal government. Tribal members share in the enjoyment of the entire property without
laying claim to individual parcels. The tribe may not convey or sell trust land without the
consent of the federal government. Tribes may acquire additional land and have it placed in
trust with the approval of the federal government.
Page 2 of 2
DEFINITION OF “INDIAN COUNTRY” (continued)
Allotted trust lands are held in trust for the use of individual Indians (or their heirs). Again, the federal
government holds the title, and the individual (or heirs) holds the beneficial interest.
During the assimilation period, Congress enacted the General Allotment Act of 1887, also known as the
Dawes Act. The ultimate purpose of the Dawes Act was to break up tribal governments, abolish the
reservations, and assimilate Indians into non-Indian society as farmers. To accomplish this goal,
Congress decided to divide tribal lands into individual parcels, give each tribal member a parcel, and
sell the “surplus’ parcels to non-Indian farmers.
The Act authorized the President to allot reservation land to individual Indians. Title to the land
remained in the United States in trust for 25 years, or longer if extended by the President, then was
conveyed to the Indian allottee in fee, free of all encumbrances. The trust period was intended to protect
the allottee from immediate state taxation and to allow an opportunity to learn farming. Upon receiving
the allotments (or after amendments in 1906 for fee title), allottees became U.S. citizens and were
subject to state criminal and civil law. The Dawes Act also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to
negotiate for acquisition by the United States of the so-called “excess” or “surplus” lands remaining
after allotment. These “surplus” lands were to be opened to non-Indian settlement.
Although the sponsors of the Dawes Act believed that it would help Indians prosper, the effect on
Indians and Indian lands was catastrophic. Most Indians did not want to abandon their culture to pursue
farming. Because much of the land allotted to Indians was unsuitable for small-scale farming, Indians
sold their parcels to settlers or lost land in tax foreclosure when, upon receiving a patent after 25 years,
the land was subjected to state taxes.
The result was a checkerboard pattern of land ownership within many reservation that were allotted
either under the Dawes Act or under the other specific allotment acts, with much of the allottee land
passing out of trust status and Indian ownership. While not all reservations were allotted, the declined
from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million acres in 1934 when the allotment system was abolished.
Fee lands are held by an owner, whether Indian or non-Indian.
Other lands in Indian country can be held by federal, state, or local (nontribal) governments. These
lands include such areas as national wildlife refuges and state parks.
I still have to agree with Marshall. This nation is certainly culpable, but this government changes every election, the Constitution remains, but you can't sue the Constitution. And you can't sue the governments of the nineteenth century.
I'm all for apologizing as a nation. Reparations, however, are another matter altogether, because I DO believe reparations are owed the Indians. But I do not believe they are owed to the descendants of slaves... for reasons I'd just as soon not get into on this thread.
The Nations are largely kept on Reservations; we set ourselves up as their benefactors and they are our responsibility because we took it upon ourselves to BE responsible for them. If Nineteenth Century America could've seen what would become of the Reservations a century and a half later perhaps they would have shucked the whole thing as a very bad idea... who knows, it's pointless speculation. But one good thing has come of the Reservations and that has been the preservation of Culture, what little there remains of it.
But the descendants of slaves are another matter altogether in that they are not "kept" but have instead been given a wealth of support and opportunity to better themselves, despite racism.
I should not be made to pay a fine my great great great grandfather incurred. THAT is not justice. But we do owe Native Americans by simple virtue of the fact that we ALREADY care for them, to the extent that we do.
I have no problem with the idea of 'Indian Lands' either, though I suspect men like Chief Joseph would balk at the suggestion: these men did not OWN the land, they (as Kansas so eloquently lyricized) "...wed this land and pledged our souls to meet its end."
They have been allowed to preserve their culture on reservations for more a century. A culture that is both ancient and rich. The same cannot be said for other groups, who have all but forgotten their cultures and make little effort to re-establish such. For this reason alone (despite many more equally valid ones) we. still. owe. them.
I'm all for apologizing as a nation. Reparations, however, are another matter altogether, because I DO believe reparations are owed the Indians. But I do not believe they are owed to the descendants of slaves... for reasons I'd just as soon not get into on this thread.
The Nations are largely kept on Reservations; we set ourselves up as their benefactors and they are our responsibility because we took it upon ourselves to BE responsible for them. If Nineteenth Century America could've seen what would become of the Reservations a century and a half later perhaps they would have shucked the whole thing as a very bad idea... who knows, it's pointless speculation. But one good thing has come of the Reservations and that has been the preservation of Culture, what little there remains of it.
But the descendants of slaves are another matter altogether in that they are not "kept" but have instead been given a wealth of support and opportunity to better themselves, despite racism.
I should not be made to pay a fine my great great great grandfather incurred. THAT is not justice. But we do owe Native Americans by simple virtue of the fact that we ALREADY care for them, to the extent that we do.
I have no problem with the idea of 'Indian Lands' either, though I suspect men like Chief Joseph would balk at the suggestion: these men did not OWN the land, they (as Kansas so eloquently lyricized) "...wed this land and pledged our souls to meet its end."
They have been allowed to preserve their culture on reservations for more a century. A culture that is both ancient and rich. The same cannot be said for other groups, who have all but forgotten their cultures and make little effort to re-establish such. For this reason alone (despite many more equally valid ones) we. still. owe. them.
And no. I do not accept that White People suck. Some certainly do, but you can't characterize an entire race of people in such a way... Anymore than you can characterize an entire native culture as 'murderin' savages' simply because some of them were... anymore than you can say the favorite food staple of all Black Folk are Moonpies and RC Colas, simply because you may have met a few who loved them.
'Stereotyping', or the more PC, "Racial Profiling' does not become you, ER.
'Stereotyping', or the more PC, "Racial Profiling' does not become you, ER.
ELAshley - our government does not change, because we are not a parliamentary democracy. Out government is continuous because of the Constitution; it is Administrations that change with each election cycle. Because of the "full faith" clause, which initially was intended to show that the Constitution had not abrogated the obligations the United States had incurred under the Articles of Confederation, an understanding has come about whereby the laws and actions of previous Administrations are binding upon current ones, unless specifically overturned. Unlike Britain, where, for example treaties were understood to cease to be binding once a new government was seated, it is stated in the Constitution that treaties are the law of the land - no different than acts of Congress. Such "full faith" includes not just the good stuff, but the bad stuff as well.
And 21st century white people suck just as much.
And 21st century white people suck just as much.
Thanks for the info, it was very enlightening. But I maintain my position as to what "I" am responsible for, either tangibly or emotionally. It seems that the concept of setting aside lands hasn't been such a great idea, though they have the oppporunity to do some things, like casinos, that we can't without great legislative trouble. Casinos don't seem to be the great help they've been made out to be, either within Indian land or elsewhere. Thus, what else has their segregation done for them? Preserve the culture? If that's a worthy goal, it will happen no matter where they live. So my point is that the reserving of land for compensation for past wrongs hasn't achieved it's goals either, so I maintain that the best solution is assimilation and to take part in American life more fully. Unless they insist on participating in loin clothes, I don't suspect they'll encounter massive discrimination and they'll finally begin to really prosper as Americans, not separate peoples within the United States. Think of it. Do YOU want to be "taken care of" or free to make your own mark?
EL, I'm glad you studied American history. Even gladder that you remember it.
I also respect the decision the Nez Perce were forced to make. Forgive my cynicism, though; it reminds me of Clayton Williams' infamous remark about rape, stupidly uttered in his 1990 race against Ann Richards for Texas governor: "as long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."
Also, the Nez Perce were one of hundreds of distinct peoples with distinct experiences. Their experience was their own.
I also respect the decision the Nez Perce were forced to make. Forgive my cynicism, though; it reminds me of Clayton Williams' infamous remark about rape, stupidly uttered in his 1990 race against Ann Richards for Texas governor: "as long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."
Also, the Nez Perce were one of hundreds of distinct peoples with distinct experiences. Their experience was their own.
I note for the record that Oklahoma tribes are not on reservations. It's so complicated I can't begin to explain it here. But there are places where federal, state, county, local and TRIBAL jurisdictions all overlap. Not just in law enforcdement. The jurisidiction of the Osage Nation, in northeast Oklahoma, which is part and parcel of the state of Oklahoma and Osage County, is on the verge of being treated AS A STATE by the EPA, which will allow it to develop its own environmental regulations. Don't know whether that's right or not. But there it is.
On stereotypes, I repeat:
"Good headlines get attention: White people suck. Then I elucidated what I meant."
"Good headlines get attention: White people suck. Then I elucidated what I meant."
BTW, I took some heat for putting "sucks" in a headline over an editorial in my college paper, just about 20 years ago. I have a history with the legitimization of the former obscure vulgarity.
"it is white guilt. You're just not willing to admit it."
Once again, Marshall is showing that he knows better than we ourselves what we think and believe.
Thank you, Marshall, for sharing of your omnipotence with us poor delusional idiots. All praise be to Marshall...
Once again, Marshall is showing that he knows better than we ourselves what we think and believe.
Thank you, Marshall, for sharing of your omnipotence with us poor delusional idiots. All praise be to Marshall...
Peace out Dan. You're the only one engaging in hyperbolic histrionics here.
Or are you looking to cause trouble? It tends to be your modus operandi of late.
Until your comment the discussion here had been rather civilized for a change. If you disagree (and I know you do) please make an effort to be more couth.
Or are you looking to cause trouble? It tends to be your modus operandi of late.
Until your comment the discussion here had been rather civilized for a change. If you disagree (and I know you do) please make an effort to be more couth.
My apologies to Marshall for misquoting him.
EL, I've made one comment here that was reasoned and mild. Only to be told by you (not Marshall) that what I thought was being responsible was in fact white guilt.
I don't mind that sort of mistake ocassionally, but it seems that you and your friends repeatedly tell us what we think and so, I responded with one smart alecky response to tell you that I don't think you're omniscient enough to know what I think.
How is that "looking to cause trouble"? It's merely looking to ask you NOT to assume you know what we think, in a smart-alecky way.
EL, I've made one comment here that was reasoned and mild. Only to be told by you (not Marshall) that what I thought was being responsible was in fact white guilt.
I don't mind that sort of mistake ocassionally, but it seems that you and your friends repeatedly tell us what we think and so, I responded with one smart alecky response to tell you that I don't think you're omniscient enough to know what I think.
How is that "looking to cause trouble"? It's merely looking to ask you NOT to assume you know what we think, in a smart-alecky way.
Because it has been my and others experience that you tend to wade in like a bull in a china shop and wreak havoc with your sarcasms wrapped in "Hyperbolic Histrionic" shells. Those nuts are rarely palatable. And mostly unwelcome.
I do not think of myself as omniscient; and neither, I dare say, do many who echo my ideological bent. But I'm not offended. I'm through being offended by you. I merely asked you to chill.
But hey! This isn't my forum! Be as sarcastic as you like! For myself, I refuse to play ball. I have no desire to give you any opportunity to beat dead horses.
I do not think of myself as omniscient; and neither, I dare say, do many who echo my ideological bent. But I'm not offended. I'm through being offended by you. I merely asked you to chill.
But hey! This isn't my forum! Be as sarcastic as you like! For myself, I refuse to play ball. I have no desire to give you any opportunity to beat dead horses.
I see that you all have taken on an impossibly complex subject with your usual gnotisism of facts.
Eastman did not fight at the Little Big Horn, so you were right ER. His father did fight in and was covicted to hang for th Sioux uprising in minn. in the 1860s. He was commuted to prison instead and that's how Eastman became a Christian.
American Indians, are all members of soverign nations. It is these nations that the U.S. Government owes reparations and payments of debts encurred under Senate approved treaties.
The concept of the American Indian needing to be assemalated into the general American culture is an anathama to logic and arrogance at its worst. They didn't chose to become "americans" we took them by force or arms, stealth, and politics.
Generally speaking when you see "whites" fighting Indians you see other Indians along side the whites fighting those indians as well. This was especially true of the battles in the "old west" ie the west east of the mississippi.
White people don't suck ER. People suck. All People.
Didn't see the HBO movie. Did it show Sitting Bull as part of the Buffalo Bill Old West Show?
Eastman did not fight at the Little Big Horn, so you were right ER. His father did fight in and was covicted to hang for th Sioux uprising in minn. in the 1860s. He was commuted to prison instead and that's how Eastman became a Christian.
American Indians, are all members of soverign nations. It is these nations that the U.S. Government owes reparations and payments of debts encurred under Senate approved treaties.
The concept of the American Indian needing to be assemalated into the general American culture is an anathama to logic and arrogance at its worst. They didn't chose to become "americans" we took them by force or arms, stealth, and politics.
Generally speaking when you see "whites" fighting Indians you see other Indians along side the whites fighting those indians as well. This was especially true of the battles in the "old west" ie the west east of the mississippi.
White people don't suck ER. People suck. All People.
Didn't see the HBO movie. Did it show Sitting Bull as part of the Buffalo Bill Old West Show?
"Because it has been my and others experience that you tend to wade in like a bull in a china shop and wreak havoc with your sarcasms wrapped in "Hyperbolic Histrionic" shells."
I think perhaps you're finding hyperbolic histrionic shells where none exist. I tend to go in with an opinion and express it politely and only resort to sarcasm after multiple attacks upon my character or position, and even then it's usually light-hearted sarcasm, as in this case here (or at least it was intended as light-hearted...)
So perhaps you're mistaken for histrionics what is merely genial self-defense?
I think perhaps you're finding hyperbolic histrionic shells where none exist. I tend to go in with an opinion and express it politely and only resort to sarcasm after multiple attacks upon my character or position, and even then it's usually light-hearted sarcasm, as in this case here (or at least it was intended as light-hearted...)
So perhaps you're mistaken for histrionics what is merely genial self-defense?
Drlobo, Re, "when you see 'whites' fighting Indians you see other Indians along side the whites fighting those indians as well."
Yep. Which always further complicates things, as much as we'd like to reduce it to white-versus-Indian, or America-versus-tribes, or whatever.
About Bill Cody: The movie mentioned it a couple of times. One of the ways the Pine Ridge agent was shown punishing S.B. for not assimilating was by sending another dozen Lakota out to be in the show -- but not letting S.B. go again.
Yep. Which always further complicates things, as much as we'd like to reduce it to white-versus-Indian, or America-versus-tribes, or whatever.
About Bill Cody: The movie mentioned it a couple of times. One of the ways the Pine Ridge agent was shown punishing S.B. for not assimilating was by sending another dozen Lakota out to be in the show -- but not letting S.B. go again.
Drlobojo throws a historic wrench in to the works by reminding us that the US government practiced "divide and conquer" upon the native peoples, exploiting historic grievances and alcoholism to convince hesitant members of rival tribes and nations to assist the US government in fighting this or that or the other tribe or nation.
This does not, however, complicate the "white people suck" theory. And it renders irrelevant due to issues of power drlobojo's altered version, "people suck". The latter is most assuredly true, but irrelevant in this case because the only ones with power, the only ones who mattered, were white. Those Creek who joined the cavalry against one tribe, the Blackfoot (I believe) who were with Custer were as much victims of American imperialism and genocide as the targets they were employed to assist destroying. Like the Jews who helped out the Nazis at the death camps, their end was not denied, it was only delayed.
This does not, however, complicate the "white people suck" theory. And it renders irrelevant due to issues of power drlobojo's altered version, "people suck". The latter is most assuredly true, but irrelevant in this case because the only ones with power, the only ones who mattered, were white. Those Creek who joined the cavalry against one tribe, the Blackfoot (I believe) who were with Custer were as much victims of American imperialism and genocide as the targets they were employed to assist destroying. Like the Jews who helped out the Nazis at the death camps, their end was not denied, it was only delayed.
Perhaps even worse than 'divide and conquer' it seems the sucky whites weren't content to destroy a way of life and confine the red man on reservations... prisons, really... but these sucky whites insisted on taking native children away from the reservations and their families to put them in 'Christian' schools where they were forbidden to speak their native language, had to dress like whites, and were forced to answer to 'Christian' names. However good their intentions, they were misguided and cruel.
ER, was your "Ruh roh" because I violated Godwin's Law again? You know what? It's a stupid rule. Personally, I think the comparison is apt in a number of ways; after all Hitler borrowed the concentration camp idea from the Brits in the Boer War, who in their turn stole it and modified it from the US in their wars against the indigenous people of North America. The US did it again during Vietnam, describing forced resettlement in concentration camps as part of a policy of "strategic hamlets" (how nice that Shakespeare gave us a play of the same name for some unspoken commentary at this point . . .). Anyway, that's my position and I'm sticking to it.
LOL. No. The Creeks were nowhere near Custer. I figgered Drlobojo would've done skinned ya for that by now!
Not sure if white people 'suck', although surely some do. Here, where Chief Joseph came from, the
Nez Perce have been compressed into basically a couple of small towns. They remain a proud people, but continue to decline in numbers.
While they continue to be on the receiving end of threats from the state about gasoline taxes, excoriated for fishing under their treaty rights and victimized by pawn shops, they exhibit a humanity we could emulate: each year, monies are given out from their casino profits to local schools, thousands here for computers, thousands their for 1st year nursing, etc etc. These are white schools, shortchanged by the
white society. IMHO, the white culture and the native american culture define "share" in different ways.
Nez Perce have been compressed into basically a couple of small towns. They remain a proud people, but continue to decline in numbers.
While they continue to be on the receiving end of threats from the state about gasoline taxes, excoriated for fishing under their treaty rights and victimized by pawn shops, they exhibit a humanity we could emulate: each year, monies are given out from their casino profits to local schools, thousands here for computers, thousands their for 1st year nursing, etc etc. These are white schools, shortchanged by the
white society. IMHO, the white culture and the native american culture define "share" in different ways.
I humbly apologize for my historical ignorance in re who the Indians were with Custer on that fateful day. I do know the Seventh had some Native scouts, though. BTW, I mentioned the Blackfoot as those with Custer. The Creek, I know were used by various cavalry regiments. But I digress. Please, for my own sake, please point me to where I can learn the facts. The more I know, the better I feel.
BB: The tribes in Oklahoma are doing the same kinds of things with their largess. Building roads even!
Geoffrey: Some Crows were Custer's scouts. I think the link to the Little Bighorn battle field in this post might have some factlets, or some links thereto. :-)
I think some of the Creeks fought with Jackson in Florida, but I'd have to look that up. The Choctaws have always loved America. Lots of 'em are named Washington, because they especially revered Geo. A bunch of 'em marched in the parade in New Orelans to welcome Lafayette on the occasion of his vist in 1826.*
*Date uncertain, but that's close.
Geoffrey: Some Crows were Custer's scouts. I think the link to the Little Bighorn battle field in this post might have some factlets, or some links thereto. :-)
I think some of the Creeks fought with Jackson in Florida, but I'd have to look that up. The Choctaws have always loved America. Lots of 'em are named Washington, because they especially revered Geo. A bunch of 'em marched in the parade in New Orelans to welcome Lafayette on the occasion of his vist in 1826.*
*Date uncertain, but that's close.
"Marshall is showing that he knows better than we ourselves what we think and believe."
Now you're beginning to understand, Danny.
"Thank you, Marshall, for sharing of your omnipotence with us poor delusional idiots."
You're quite welcome. Any time.
"The concept of the American Indian needing to be assemalated into the general American culture is an anathama to logic and arrogance at its worst."
I disagree (what a surprise!). Although it can't be helped that the perception of arrogance is held by some, it's also a bit arrogant to assume that there cannot be a good idea from the other side. As to logic, I'm basing my suggestion on what all your (for lack of a better term) pro-Indian arguments have implied, that they, the indegenous people in general, if not totally, are not faring well under current policies and practices. If I suggest to someone, anyone, that to be a Christian, American or a Christian American is the better way to go, it's not arrogance, but a belief that it is indeed a better way to go. Nothing more or less than that. It has afforded anyone who wants to, to become all they are able to become. That does not seem to be the case with the tribes as you all describe it. Never once did I propose that they be forced, it was only a suggestion that is worthy of some investigation considering how much life sucks for them.
Now it was suggested that there is use of casino money being directed toward the greater good of the tribe. This was trumpeting as a wonderful thing and somehow unique. We do the same through taxation and direct contributions. How is it more wonderful when they do the very same thing? Actually, as it was said, the only thing that might make it better than how we do it is that it seems it's not forced, but volunteered, just like our direct contributions. It wasn't presented as if it was a tax. I like that. I support that. Democrats don't want us to do it that way.
In addition, nations were built through conquest all through human history. Assimilation was forced or death or slavery awaited. This was done by people of all colors and cultures. You history buffs should have some idea of this commonality. Tribes were conquered or destroyed by other tribes. Blacks sold blacks into slavery. Borders changed shape over and over. The "people suck" line is the more accurate one. It's regretable that we have the same game plan in our history as regards Indians. But it happened. I will say that if we have outstanding debts from treaties or contracts or any other form of covenant, we indeed should fulfill those obligations. I have no problem with negotiating a different deal if the treaty in question was made for a 19th century situation that no longer exists. I don't care if the re-negotiation goes in their favor. Debts must be paid. Beyond that, however, we are done. No payment for the sins of generations long dead who committed wrongs against a people long dead. The living of today are not entitled to any more than any other free born American, and yes, American they should be. It's better for them, it's better for us, to live within the same borders as one people, not separate entities.
And Dan, I insist you adopt every word I've ever said or will say from this moment forward.
Now you're beginning to understand, Danny.
"Thank you, Marshall, for sharing of your omnipotence with us poor delusional idiots."
You're quite welcome. Any time.
"The concept of the American Indian needing to be assemalated into the general American culture is an anathama to logic and arrogance at its worst."
I disagree (what a surprise!). Although it can't be helped that the perception of arrogance is held by some, it's also a bit arrogant to assume that there cannot be a good idea from the other side. As to logic, I'm basing my suggestion on what all your (for lack of a better term) pro-Indian arguments have implied, that they, the indegenous people in general, if not totally, are not faring well under current policies and practices. If I suggest to someone, anyone, that to be a Christian, American or a Christian American is the better way to go, it's not arrogance, but a belief that it is indeed a better way to go. Nothing more or less than that. It has afforded anyone who wants to, to become all they are able to become. That does not seem to be the case with the tribes as you all describe it. Never once did I propose that they be forced, it was only a suggestion that is worthy of some investigation considering how much life sucks for them.
Now it was suggested that there is use of casino money being directed toward the greater good of the tribe. This was trumpeting as a wonderful thing and somehow unique. We do the same through taxation and direct contributions. How is it more wonderful when they do the very same thing? Actually, as it was said, the only thing that might make it better than how we do it is that it seems it's not forced, but volunteered, just like our direct contributions. It wasn't presented as if it was a tax. I like that. I support that. Democrats don't want us to do it that way.
In addition, nations were built through conquest all through human history. Assimilation was forced or death or slavery awaited. This was done by people of all colors and cultures. You history buffs should have some idea of this commonality. Tribes were conquered or destroyed by other tribes. Blacks sold blacks into slavery. Borders changed shape over and over. The "people suck" line is the more accurate one. It's regretable that we have the same game plan in our history as regards Indians. But it happened. I will say that if we have outstanding debts from treaties or contracts or any other form of covenant, we indeed should fulfill those obligations. I have no problem with negotiating a different deal if the treaty in question was made for a 19th century situation that no longer exists. I don't care if the re-negotiation goes in their favor. Debts must be paid. Beyond that, however, we are done. No payment for the sins of generations long dead who committed wrongs against a people long dead. The living of today are not entitled to any more than any other free born American, and yes, American they should be. It's better for them, it's better for us, to live within the same borders as one people, not separate entities.
And Dan, I insist you adopt every word I've ever said or will say from this moment forward.
Marshall's latest riposte has many things in it that I think should be addressed. First, his defense of being "a Christian American" is perfectly acceptable; I would just counter that the two modifiers - "Christian" and "American" - are not co-terminous, and can be, and often are, at odds with one another.
As to the question of our on-going dealings with Native Americans, while they were granted citizenship in the 1920's, they are dual citizens, being members of their various sovereign nations which we continue to call "tribes".
Finally, I think Marshall is both right and wrong when he discusses renegotiating treaties. On the one hand, too many of our so-called "perpetual treaties" have been mooted by time and history. Such mooting, however, was too often the result of official American abrogation rather than the result of blind social or historical forces. Renegotiation should take that in to account as well.
As to the question of our on-going dealings with Native Americans, while they were granted citizenship in the 1920's, they are dual citizens, being members of their various sovereign nations which we continue to call "tribes".
Finally, I think Marshall is both right and wrong when he discusses renegotiating treaties. On the one hand, too many of our so-called "perpetual treaties" have been mooted by time and history. Such mooting, however, was too often the result of official American abrogation rather than the result of blind social or historical forces. Renegotiation should take that in to account as well.
"...and can be, and often are, at odds with one another."
Being a Christian and Being American are often at odds with one another? that makes no sense. We cannot choose where we are born, but we do choose to be Christian.
If any "odds" exist it's in the lack of moral integrity in TODAY"S America. Settlers at Jamestown 400 years ago were not at odds with their faith.
From the first charter of Virginia, 1607:
"Greatly commending ... their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God."
The second charter of Virginia, 1609:
"The principal Effect which we can expect or desire of this Action is the Conversion and reduction of the people in those parts unto the true worship of God and the Christian Religion... It shall be necessary for all such our loving Subjects ... to live together, in the Fear and true Worship of Almighty God, Christian Peace, and civil Quietness, with each other."
13 years later when the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth stated that their purpose was...
"...advancement of the Christian faith."
In 1643, the New England Confederation was formed, with this statement: "Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel, in purity, with peace."
The Declaration of Independence, which reads: "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
In the first 10 amendments, the drafters wrote that the government could not control or hinder the free worship of almighty God, nor could their beliefs be stifled simply because others may disagree.
George Washington said, "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."
None of these people were conflicted between their government and their faith. THAT aberration is a purely modern convention... thanks in large part to Liberalism and socialism in our government, in our public schools, in academia, in the mainstream media, in Planned Parenthood, the phantom constitutional doctrine of 'Separation of Church and State' and the godless ACLU.
Being a Christian and Being American are often at odds with one another? that makes no sense. We cannot choose where we are born, but we do choose to be Christian.
If any "odds" exist it's in the lack of moral integrity in TODAY"S America. Settlers at Jamestown 400 years ago were not at odds with their faith.
From the first charter of Virginia, 1607:
"Greatly commending ... their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God."
The second charter of Virginia, 1609:
"The principal Effect which we can expect or desire of this Action is the Conversion and reduction of the people in those parts unto the true worship of God and the Christian Religion... It shall be necessary for all such our loving Subjects ... to live together, in the Fear and true Worship of Almighty God, Christian Peace, and civil Quietness, with each other."
13 years later when the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth stated that their purpose was...
"...advancement of the Christian faith."
In 1643, the New England Confederation was formed, with this statement: "Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel, in purity, with peace."
The Declaration of Independence, which reads: "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
In the first 10 amendments, the drafters wrote that the government could not control or hinder the free worship of almighty God, nor could their beliefs be stifled simply because others may disagree.
George Washington said, "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."
None of these people were conflicted between their government and their faith. THAT aberration is a purely modern convention... thanks in large part to Liberalism and socialism in our government, in our public schools, in academia, in the mainstream media, in Planned Parenthood, the phantom constitutional doctrine of 'Separation of Church and State' and the godless ACLU.
Mmm-hmm. The Declaration and the Washington quote are applicable. The other references, being pre-Constitutional, are useful but off point -- if what is meant by "American" is "the United States," which is what most people mean by it.
Further, "being a Christian" and "being an American" are most often at oddss when it comes to public policy, especially now. The "Christian" president is either a fake or such a baby Christian no one should encourage him to flap his lips aboit his faith.
Further, "being a Christian" and "being an American" are most often at oddss when it comes to public policy, especially now. The "Christian" president is either a fake or such a baby Christian no one should encourage him to flap his lips aboit his faith.
Getting back into this late, but as I my own personal revenge on the status quo I used to run a program that helped finance law school for minorities in Oklahoma. Over the years, I helped create eight Indian lawyers. Now if that isn't perverse I don't know what is.
The white's Indian allies were almost always the tribe just to the East or North of the tribe being done in. (Geography ER, Geography) There was one consistant Indian tribe that helped us explore the West and fought alongside the Anglo/American/Whites many many times all the way across America. They were the Lenape (Delaware)who were basically betrayed by the U.S. in a series of 10 treaties, but served as scouts and explorers for over 200 years for the American Government.Damn interesting People they were.
Post a Comment
The white's Indian allies were almost always the tribe just to the East or North of the tribe being done in. (Geography ER, Geography) There was one consistant Indian tribe that helped us explore the West and fought alongside the Anglo/American/Whites many many times all the way across America. They were the Lenape (Delaware)who were basically betrayed by the U.S. in a series of 10 treaties, but served as scouts and explorers for over 200 years for the American Government.Damn interesting People they were.
<< Home
