The United States vs. Native Americans

[Ryder]

Uhhhh Genocide? That sounds like a weeee bit too strong a word for the odd relocation.

 

[stray bullet]

They have a way of overexaggerating things.

 

[stray bullet]

The idea of comparing today's injustices to yesterday's only diminishes the past struggles. Comparing what was done to millions of people, the genocide, to Native Americans moving for whatever reason (I have yet to determine the legality or if the move was ethical) is a pretty poor way to observe their struggles of their ancestors.
I'm not going to diminish the struggles of my ancestors by comparing them to trivial matters of today. I wouldn't compare my helping of my nation to my Confederate ancestors that died in battle for their country. I'm not going to compare my voting or pursuit of my political ideas to the horrible things part of my family went through during the revolutionary war.

Bad things are happening, but let's not compare them to the horrible things of the past.

 

[Ryder]

I'm still not even sure what he (two feathers) wants done exactly either ???

Edit - (for clarity)

 

[Brimshack]

Sources on the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute:

Emily Benedick, The Wind Won't Know me.
David Brugge, The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute.
Many Beads, v. United States, 730 F. Supp. 1515 (D. Ariz. 1989).
Parlow, Anita. "Cry Sacred Ground: Big Mountain, U.S.A." American Indian Law Review. 14 (1989) 301-22.

Any generic book on the contemporary history of th Navajo Nation will have sections on it.

 

[Brimshack]

On Genocide, I agree that the term is over-used. If, however, you think that there are no genuie examples of genocide in the history of Indian-white relations, then you ae quite wrong. And if mass relocations with no pressing government interest (and inadequate compensation) do not constitute a civil rights violation (odd relocation?) in themselves in anyones view, then I fail to see how adding the word 'genocide' to it will help much.

As to Blood Quantum, that is an explicitly racist concept. So if low blood quantum memberships bother anyone here, then perhaps they should contact the KKK about it.

And talking about casinos, etc. may be an enjoyable way of expressing your pet peaves and while about yet another minority that is supposedly getting the upper hand, but it does absolutely nothing to address questions about attrocities.

As for time, I always find it amusing what people are willing to admit about the past these days, so long as one can put the whole acount in past tense I guess it's safe to aknowledge the crimes of American Indian policy. Just so no-one pays attention to current issues or asks for something to be done about it.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by Brimshack
On Genocide, I agree that the term is over-used. If, however, you think that there are no genuie examples of genocide in the history of Indian-white relations, then you ae quite wrong. And if mass relocations with no pressing government interest (and inadequate compensation) do not constitute a civil rights violation (odd relocation?) in themselves in anyones view, then I fail to see how adding the word 'genocide' to it will help much.

As to Blood Quantum, that is an explicitly racist concept. So if low blood quantum memberships bother anyone here, then perhaps they should contact the KKK about it.

And talking about casinos, etc. may be an enjoyable way of expressing your pet peaves and while about yet another minority that is supposedly getting the upper hand, but it does absolutely nothing to address questions about attrocities.

As for time, I always find it amusing what people are willing to admit about the past these days, so long as one can put the whole acount in past tense I guess it's safe to aknowledge the crimes of American Indian policy. Just so no-one pays attention to current issues or asks for something to be done about it.

Actually, (edit) I wasn't ignoring the past injustices, I was demanding they not be diminished by comparing them to less tragedic current events.
The problems with the casions as so forth was the fact it wasn't even run by real Native Americans, they're all more white than Indian, like most people running around calling themselves members of tribes and getting the benefits from it.

When someone white guy (127/128 white, 1/128 Native) owns a casino, has a car with a tribal plate on it to avoid paying taxes and drives it over to the Indian hospitals to receive free care, something is seriously wrong.

Letting this bozo continue doing it won't bring anything back and won't make up for anything.

 

<I wasn't rude, ???>

 

[Brimshack]

I wasn't accusing you of ignoring pasrt injustices Stray; I was asserting that it is very convenient to admit to past injustices while ignoring current ones, which appears to be exactly the approach you are advocating.

As for white guys running Indian casinos, you see that here in the Southwest too, but it has nothing to do with blood quantum, and everything to do with the often exploitive agreements necessary to raise the capital. Complete outsiders run the casinos, and natives don't get the benefits. Blood quantum remains a racist formula, and if that is how you judge tribal membership, then you are advocating an explicitely racist position on the subject.

 

[Dewjunkie]

The fact that current tribes are self destructing in misery and poverty is a direct result of the past atrocities, so to say they are not related or comparable is incorrect. True, living in a shanty on the Rez may not be a physically torturous as marching The Trail of Tears, but it no less demeaning and certainly no less preventable. Unless it continues to be ignored. The "it doesn't directly affect me" attitude contributed to the beginning of these atrocities, and will allow them to continue. Our nation protects animals that are endangered, but seemingly welcomes the extinction of beautiful, long established cultures that helped our nation become what it has. Sad.

 

[two feathers]

Under the United Nations Declaration on Genocide, Article II states that genocide constitutes, among other things, deliberate inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about it's physical destruction in whole or in part. I think in the case of the Dineh, genocide is the correct term to use. They are a people who are facing serious health concerns resulting from existing mines; their water sources have been poisoned and are depleting; because of the relocation, their livestock(the primary source of their survival) are either killed or taken from them and impounded. They are not being rightfully reimbused for their loses; are constantly harrassed by governmental law enforcement; and their religious and civil rights have been violated. I believe these mistreatments fall under the UN's definition of genocide, especially if you take into account past atrocities(including extermination policies) that were unleashed on the Dineh Nation by the United States of America.

 

[two feathers]

Originally posted by Dewjunkie
The fact that current tribes are self destructing in misery and poverty is a direct result of the past atrocities, so to say they are not related or comparable is incorrect. True, living in a shanty on the Rez may not be a physically torturous as marching The Trail of Tears, but it no less demeaning and certainly no less preventable. Unless it continues to be ignored. The "it doesn't directly affect me" attitude contributed to the beginning of these atrocities, and will allow them to continue. Our nation protects animals that are endangered, but seemingly welcomes the extinction of beautiful, long established cultures that helped our nation become what it has. Sad.

well said, dew.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by two feathers
and....?

I can see where you are going with this. Perhaps we can look at the bigger picture here.

Sure, Europeans expanded their territories in the Americas, by many battles with the natives of the land. But, why stop there? Let's go to the different native nations, who also did battle with each other, to expand their own territories, long before a single European stepped foot on this continent. We could go into great detail on the brutal savagery of such nations as the Iroquoi Nation, and how they expanded their territory, and what would happen to anyone they came across, who were not among the exclusive tribes of the great 5 nations. We could go into great detail on the sheer brutality the Mohicans practiced to expand their territories. Heck, we could go as far back as pre-Clovis man, before the last ice age. We can trace origins through Asia, Russia, across the Bering Strait, to the Eskimos of Alaska, and the southern migration from there, through Canada, south and east to America, further south to Mexico and to South America.

The blood of expansion, is on the hands of the ancestry of every origin of the world.....No exceptions. So, to look at one tiny snap-shot of the world history, and act like it is the pinacle of a cruel nation, is disingenuous, and is revisionist history.

That's what I meant by, "Yep".

 

[Brimshack]

Dew's post is on the mark.

And Bear, if your points are intended to demonstrate that other people's including Native Americans, then you are right as far as that goes. But the past injustices of one tribe against another are a bit abstract in comparison to the direct impact of U.S. Policies on Native Americans today.

Two Feathers: As a mere point of rhetoric, I don't know that I ould call the situation on the Hopi-partitioned lands genocide. The U.N. definition was deliberately constructed in the broadest terms possible, and there may be sound reasons for that, but the problem is it doesn't match most people's understanding of the word. Indigenous rights activists like to use U.N. policies as leverage against national bodies, but the actual impact of U.N. law within the U.S. is fairly negligible, and on a conservative board it is easily dismissed as a sort of New World Order thing. The end result is that you lose a lot of force, because people think they've got on vocabulary alone. The point is that people have been forced out of their homes in mass, others have been forced to live in deplorable conditions, and compensation for relocation has been woefully inadequate. The facts speak for themselves in a way that buzz terms like 'genocide' do not adequately convey. The actions in question do not become legitimate simply because they might not amount to genocide. So, I don't think anything is actually lost by arguing the point without the term.

 

[TheBear]

Brim,

My remarks only go to the initial occupations of this land. I have not addressed current US policies on Native Americans........yet.

 

[Brimshack]

Fair enough, …but the suspense is killing me.

 

[two feathers]

Originally posted by Brimshack
Two Feathers: As a mere point of rhetoric, I don't know that I ould call the situation on the Hopi-partitioned lands genocide. The U.N. definition was deliberately constructed in the broadest terms possible, and there may be sound reasons for that, but the problem is it doesn't match most people's understanding of the word. Indigenous rights activists like to use U.N. policies as leverage against national bodies, but the actual impact of U.N. law within the U.S. is fairly negligible, and on a conservative board it is easily dismissed as a sort of New World Order thing. The end result is that you lose a lot of force, because people think they've got on vocabulary alone. The point is that people have been forced out of their homes in mass, others have been forced to live in deplorable conditions, and compensation for relocation has been woefully inadequate. The facts speak for themselves in a way that buzz terms like 'genocide' do not adequately convey. The actions in question do not become legitimate simply because they might not amount to genocide. So, I don't think anything is actually lost by arguing the point without the term.

Excellent point, Brim.

 

[Brimshack]

Thanks Two feathers; keep up the good work.

 

[Kiwi]

in the past genocide was committed. Now it is 'ethnocide'. This means the erosion of a culture by replacing traditional culture with another culture's tradition. The 'killing' of the culture in other words, rather than the people of the culture. Ethnocide includes practises like forbidding or discouraging traditional language and/or practises, native dress and the like. When cultural practises and traditions are not allowed it often leds to the physical demise of the people through demoralisation, which leds to high alcoholism, suicide rates etc. An example of how this can be turned around is that here most schools (from kindergarten to high school) have bi-lingual classes, this means the students are taught mainly in Maori (the language of the original people of NZ) and English is the second language. The maori students in these classes do really well in school and often go on to university to high professions such as doctors, lawyers etc. The maori students in non-biligual classes often do not do so well. The difference is that the bi-lingual students feel affirmed in their culture and know who they are and where they come from. They are taught to be proud of their culture and to use it in the public arena. I think this is a good thing.

 

[two feathers]

Originally posted by TheBear
Sure, Europeans expanded their territories in the Americas, by many battles with the natives of the land.

You make it sound as though this country was awarded to the victors of an epic war. You seem to have forgotten all the lies, the ungodly amount of broken treaties, germ warfare, the murder of innocents...

...whatever it took.

 

[TheBear]

What are you going for here, two feathers? Are you trying to say that there were no broken treaties among the indigenous nations and tribes? That there was no deciet between the nations of the land? That before the Europeans arrived, no innocent had died, or been raped and tourtured at the hands of native american warriors, when fighting to expand their own territories? Are you trying to hold up native americans above reproach? That there was none of this going on, and every tribe and nation got along just fine until the Europeans arrived? That native nations did not do "whatever it took" to get what they wanted? Get real.

An epic war? Tell that to the Iroquois and the Mohicans.