[reply][reply][reply] what the whites did to the Indians is disgraceful.
Don’t pin this all on the “whites.” White people and rich white people are not the same bird!!! You should know this was all done by aristocrats and not common everyday white people.
Also, what do you mean “did” to native americans? don’t you mean “do?” We (USA) haven’t EVER kept our end of any treaty that we have ever had with Native Americans.
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]
Using the term “Whites”, though admittedly a generalisation (which I dont like using), is still fairly accurate in this context. Sure the “rich” or more correctly army and government folk were the ones who “broke” the treaties, but it was the common or “poor” folk who, through their expanse westward, actualised the displacement. With the help of the government and the army they were able to carry out the mass diplacement of the Indians. Now this is not to say that the common folk were murderous evil bastards, most of the time they were just looking to settle on the ‘land of opportunity’ and would use any means possible to achieve this. The analogy of the Germans and Nazis you use is correct in that they were following orders or moreso following advice, however government did not force whites to go west but heavily encouraged it to help make their nation. As with the Nazi German example it is not enough to say the ordinary folk’s wrongdoings are mitigated because they were following orders, you have to give the common man credit for his own actions, whether good or bad.
Also saying all this now is grand with the benefit of hindsight and so on but that does not mean that white people, rich and poor, were blameless.
The dilemna of the Indians is not over; land claims are still not sorted and many are still stricken with poverty, alcoholism and bleak futures so using the present term “do” is more accurate in that sense but to say whites still hold down Indians is not fair as some white Americans (most of the ones ive met anyway) do realise the plight of the Indians (though they may not do anything about it) and recognise the wrongs of the past but if it wasnt for those wrongs would they be here today? So its a clash of priorities decided by the swing of power.[/reply]
Jesus, that was well thought out, elequently written, and completely coherent! I agree with everything you have said except the idea that the common/poor whites deserve more blame than they get. I do beleive you are correct though when you say they were just moving westward as land grab oppurtunity, However, I think lack of a common knowldge boundaries in the west helped them encroach on Native lands… Had we have a 24 hour media cycle and mapquest and what not with (giving us no reason to not know anything) boundaries clearly defined, I wonder if the westward expansion would’ve slowed a bit…
AS far as currently holding indians down and what not, I think their plight would’ve been better had we not interfeared. The alcoholism and poverty come from not working, they stay on the Reservations and get subsidies from the government so that lends itself to alcoholism and poverty. Had we honored all of the treaties we had drawn up, the Native American Community could be thriving (and not just from the little casinos scattered about) and have larger numbers…
Good conversation!
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]
It can be boiled down to ignorance and opportunism. Also on the topic of money, it does not mean the same to many Indians as it does to white people; a good example can be seen with the refusal to accept the pay off offered to the Sioux in 1980 by the U.S. government over the Black Hills/Treaty of Fort Laramie debacle. They simply said they dont want money, they want their land back. Needless to say they didnt get their wish, largely because there’s a fuck load of corporate stake and interest in the area with the uranium deposits and such.
You should check out Tomahawk’s latest album (if you haven’t already): reworkings of Indians songs, most I think from 19th century. It works quite well.