Am I a racist ?

[kiwitt]

At the moment we have an election campaign going on and one party's policy is to treat all people equally. This policy is being deemed by some as "Racist".

Now in NZ we had a race of people called "Maori", who controlled most of the country before the Europeans arrived (e.g. similar to Native Indians in America). This race eventually merged into the European race due to marriage, etc., so that now the majority of people who call themselves "Maori", are less "Maori" then they are English, Scottish or other races.

It would appear that some significant wrongs were done to these people, well over 150 years ago and we are working through righting those wrongs, with the tribes. However, who is going to have to pay for these wrongs; the people who aren't "Maori", but all New Zealanders, including "Maori".

Now, I have a problem with this. Like Maori, I have a mixture of races in me, including one that was seriously wronged in the past. My grandfather had to work as a slave laborer in Germany, because he was a part "Jew". I think a 1/4 was. My grandmother on the otherside was "German". Now this would make me 1/4 German. Do I now sue my 1/4 German side that my 1/16 Jew side was wronged. Of course not.

That is why I think paying compensation to a race that is represented by people who are less of that race than they are other races is really wrong. People who are of this race can also claim special benefits, like free education, etc, even though they are less than 10% of that race.

I prefer helping people based on "need" as opposed to their "race" or "color".

Does this make me a Racist ?

[Goofball]

I prefer helping people based on "need" as opposed to their "race" or "color".

Does this make me a Racist ?

Certainly not. But one thing must be recognized: Past treatment of aboriginal populations by European settlers/colonists/pillagers/murderers (call us what you will) created a situation for these people where they have a great "need" for our continued help today.

So, it does not make you a racist if you want to deny the need to help them, but it may mean that you need to add a bit more depth to your analysis of the situation and your willingness to "help."

And please believe that I am not trying to insult you with my response. You have asked a very valid question, and it's something everybody in your situation should spend a little time reflecting upon.

[Tribesman]

What is the money for ? Is it penalties for breaches or infringements of the peace treaties that were signed with the Maori ?

[econ21]

I prefer helping people based on "need" as opposed to their "race" or "color".

Does this make me a Racist ?

No, it does not make you a Racist. But it does not necessarily make you right.

Outside of a socialist utopia (where I confess I might feel at home), entitlements are not solely based on "need".

Bill Gates is not rich because he needs to be, but because he earned it and he is entitled to keep what he earns (thankfully, he's giving a lot of it away to needy causes but I'm going off on a tangent here...).

If you take something from someone else by force, one might be forgiven for thinking they have some right to restitution. You mentioned the example of Jews and Germans - most people accept that returning expropriated property or making equivalent recompense to Jews surviving Nazi Germany would be wholly legitimate whether or not those surviving Jews actually needed it.

Now, yes, this does get awfully muddled when so many years have passed. No, we can't give America back to the Native Americans etc. Yes, we do have to draw the line somewhere. So we're not going to give NZ back to the Maoris, but I personally don't feel too aggrieved if the NZ government does give their ancestors some payback above and beyond what they "need".

[I confess your specific point about the fraction of Maori in a person does not really engage me. We presumably don't want to get into detailed and intrusive genetic examinations, so treating all people of Maori descent equally does not seem too offensive to me.]

Sorry if this seems all wishy-washy bleeding heart liberal. We live in a messy, imperfect world - the NZ government's actions seem a pretty decent stab at doing the right thing, subject to the realities on the ground.

[Papewaio]

What is the current ratio to be considered a Maori in NZ? At least 1/8 or more?

The Treaty of Waitangi is still applicable to the Maoris of the time and their descendents. That should be enforced.

As for on a needs basis that should be done as well. Unfortunately that will also cover a lot of Maori... maybe more, maybe less if the Treaty of Waitiangi is properly enforced and then the monetary benefits handled well.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hehe, you guys are seriously considering reparations! Dont let the aptly named African-Americans in this country hear about that.. ~:eek:

[Strike For The South]

No Kiwitt you are not a racist and I believe you are right in not giving them money. What we (the white folk) did to these people was wrong but in this day and age it is sort of irrelaavent I mean its sort of like me going to denmark and saying you pilligad my lands raped my women and took my sofa give me money. Id get laughed at then get kicked in the teeth these men shouldn't be given a freehandout just because of there skin color

[Papewaio]

Hehe, you guys are seriously considering reparations! Dont let the aptly named African-Americans in this country hear about that.. ~:eek:

There is a treaty that the British/Kiwis made with the Maoris many many moons ago:

Treaty of Waitangi (http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/)


In response to a perceived threat of French annexation, Busby drew up, without authorisation from his superiors, a Declaration of Independence, which was signed by 34 northern chiefs. Additional signatures, including some from further south, were added over the next four years. This group referred to themselves in the Declaration as the Confederation of Chiefs of the United Tribes of New Zealand, although there is no evidence that the confederation was ever convened again, except at the time of the signing of the Treaty in 1840. It received a puzzled and rather lukewarm reception at the Colonial Office in England, which was well aware that New Zealand was not a British possession and did not want to take responsibility for it. The Colonial Office, advised by the missionary societies, was by no means convinced that there was a viable political authority in New Zealand with which it could form diplomatic relations. The Declaration was, however, acknowledged by the British Government. Some historians suggest it was not taken seriously until it proved to be an impediment to the annexation of New Zealand. It is thought that for this reason the document was used for calling up chiefs to sign the Treaty of Waitangi on 6 February 1840. Other experts view the Declaration as an embryonic expression of Māori nationhood, which, in conjunction with other events in the 1820s and 1830s, shows that the Treaty of Waitangi was part of a negotiated relationship and not the beginning of European power and the end of Māori sovereignty.


In the English text of the Treaty, Māori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed and guaranteed "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties".

In the Māori text of the Treaty, Māori were guaranteed "te tino rangatiratanga" – the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands "wenua", villages "kainga", and all their property/treasures "taonga katoa".

In the English text of the Treaty, Māori yielded to the Crown an exclusive right to purchase their land.

Māori agreed to give the Crown the right to buy land from them should Māori wish to sell it.
In the English text of the Treaty, Māori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed and guaranteed "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties".

In the Māori text of the Treaty, Māori were guaranteed "te tino rangatiratanga" – the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands "wenua", villages "kainga", and all their property/treasures "taonga katoa".

In the English text of the Treaty, Māori yielded to the Crown an exclusive right to purchase their land.

Māori agreed to give the Crown the right to buy land from them should Māori wish to sell it.

The Treaty of Waitangi is in fact a joint of the Maori joining with the British Pakeha in declaring Independance for New Zealand.

[Aenlic]

New Zealand is keeping it's treaties? That's refreshing. The U.S. government violated every single treaty it signed with native tribes up until the 1930's.

[kiwitt]

What is the current ratio to be considered a Maori in NZ? At least 1/8 or more?There is no real defined measure. All you need (according to Social statisticians) to do is have a "Maori" ancestor, to call yourself a "Maori". I think one of my ancestors was a "Prince" in the 1600-1700's, however, I can't call myself a "Royal". Or more recently "Jew", and I don't think I can call myself one.

This is my real problem with the current "Policy" towards Maori. These people get special treatment, because they have declared themselves to be Maori, not because they need it or because they are "Maori". There are many other races in NZ, including a growing number or Refugees that are more in need than these people.

[PanzerJaeger]

New Zealand is keeping it's treaties? That's refreshing. The U.S. government violated every single treaty it signed with native tribes up until the 1930's.

It doesnt seem to have turned out so badly for the US.

[Strike For The South]

It doesnt seem to have turned out so badly for the US.

only if youre in indian :dizzy2:

[Redleg]

It doesnt seem to have turned out so badly for the US.

Try stepping foot on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico - or even some others that I know of.

The tribes are doing better then in the past - but they have a long way to go both in thier own internal managment of their people and lands, getting the Federal Government to honor the current treaties to the full extent of what was negotated many years ago.

[PanzerJaeger]

Throughout history civilizations have had to be brought into the present - sometimes kicking and screaming. If it wasnt the US government, it would have been another. At least America didnt treat them like Spain. :thinking:

[Productivity]

Throughout history civilizations have had to be brought into the present - sometimes kicking and screaming. If it wasnt the US government, it would have been another. At least America didnt treat them like Spain. :thinking:

So that makes a wrong ok then? That someone else would have done something worse? :dizzy2:

[Aenlic]

Well, I'll give you that one, PJ. The U.S. government didn't cut one foot off like Spainish and Portuguese did so that the "heathens" in South America couldn't run away. ~:)

And we didn't steal quite as much wealth from them as the Spanish did; although, the BIA is certainly making a good attempt at it.

[Papewaio]

Does the civil rights movement in the USA count as one of these acts of dragging a country in modern life?

I do think in some cases people are confusing technology and civilisation.

Germany needed a few stiff kicks to the nuts and head after the Nazis got to power. It was technological advanced, but it was certainly a distasteful form of civilisation.

[Azi Tohak]

I do not owe anyone anything on the basis of what color they are. I do not care what happened to their ancestors a hundred and fifty years ago. Or two hundred, or a thousand. Why do I care what happened to person X ancestor, 7 times removed?


If you take something from someone else by force, one might be forgiven for thinking they have some right to restitution. You mentioned the example of Jews and Germans - most people accept that returning expropriated property or making equivalent recompense to Jews surviving Nazi Germany would be wholly legitimate whether or not those surviving Jews actually needed it.

I have never taken anything from anyone by force. Okay... so that cookie from my sister 10 years ago is an exception... But mommy! She stuck her tounge out at me!

Sure, slavery is evil, though our modern, Western eyes. But going around trying to make amends for every instance of slavery in the world (to make it fair, why should only blacks get money they didn't earn afterall?) is insane.

I am no more guilty of slavery than I am of murder, rape, pillage, carousing than any other blue-eyed, blonde person.

So no, you are not racist. Calling you a racist is an attempt to use the strongest word (how many other words can destory a man?) in the English (or American) language to smear you and get a point across.

Azi

[Productivity]

strongest word (how many other words can destory a man?)

I would say peadophile is a worse word - if it gets out that you are a suspected paedophile then you can kiss your life good by.

[Aenlic]

And just to get back on topic.. mostly... I think the Maori people deserve whatever they can get from the government. But that's only because I really know very little about the entire situation. But since Once Were Warriors is one of my top 20 favorite movies, I'm going to side with the Maori, just because.

[PanzerJaeger]

I fail to see the demise of the American natives or the natives of any other country as a bad/good thing. A culture that is several thousand years behind the civilization curve must modernize or face extinction, that’s just nature.

We see this from the animal kingdom to the Roman Empire to the British Empire. Even today there are those who say American culture is "destroying native habits". Is that bad? No. Is that good? No. Its simply the way things work on this planet.

Consider the alternatives. Europeans would still all be living in Europe and the rest of the world would be in several different stages of development. How long would that last? How long could even the most enlightened Europeans hold back the inevitable human desire for cultural advancement? How long could an ever-expanding European population be expected to live in squalor while vast lands with relatively tiny populations lay just beyond the horizon? It simply ignores basic human nature.

Dominant cultures, whether intentionally or unintentionally, will progress. It’s unstoppable. The real question, which pertains to the original post is: Is that such a bad thing? Are the natives of today who are asking for compensation for things that occurred hundreds of years ago really that worse off than their ancestors, or have they benefited from the culture that surpassed that of their ancestors?

[Productivity]

Well I get the impression that you're arguing htat it isn't such a bad thing.

What about dominant people then? If I can beat you around can I take your land? Is armed robbery at a micro level immoral, but wholesale moral?

I quite frankly like my neighbours property - can I take it by force because I am more powerful than them?

[PanzerJaeger]

Well I get the impression that you're arguing htat it isn't such a bad thing.

What about dominant people then? If I can beat you around can I take your land? Is armed robbery at a micro level immoral, but wholesale moral?

I quite frankly like my neighbours property - can I take it by force because I am more powerful than them?

Just as in economics, macro and micro are two different things. In the case of micro, both you and your neighbor are living under the same government, whereas there is no governing authority and no common laws recognized between two cultures as different as those found in the time we are talking about. Thats a major difference. In the abscense of man-made laws, natural laws come into play.

[Papewaio]

However there was a treaty signed so surely that puts them under the same law...

[Roark]

Heh...

Let's examine some well-known historical massacres, and we can try to figure out if they were "legal" or not...

[Productivity]

Just as in economics, macro and micro are two different things. In the case of micro, both you and your neighbor are living under the same government, whereas there is no governing authority and no common laws recognized between two cultures as different as those found in the time we are talking about. Thats a major difference. In the abscense of man-made laws, natural laws come into play.

I am fully aware that macro and micro are different things, however you will find that most macro economic theory is derived at least in part from microeconomic theory. In fact, I have a macroeconomics test in two days, and the page I am open at now has a diagram on it, showing utility curves! Utility curves! One of the most microeconomic tools there is. They look at individual conusmers - yet here they are in a high level macroeconomics book.

So what does this say to me? It says to me that you are just chucking economics in for the sake of it. So do laws function at a macro level? Does a society have an obligation to follow it's own rules at a macro level or not? What are natural laws? Are natural laws simply might is right?

[PanzerJaeger]

So do laws function at a macro level? Does a society have an obligation to follow it's own rules at a macro level or not?

That’s subjective and up to you to decide on your own based on your own moral code.

I am trying to point out to you that cultural progression has never and will never respect the boundaries of a substandard culture for any length of time. It is not a matter of whether this is good or bad, as it is simply a natural occurrence.

And example..

A Nike factory is built in Africa. Are the corporate execs making a conscious decision to ruin the native culture of the area, or are they thinking about the best way to run their company? Now the Africans start to wear Nike clothes they are given at the factory instead of the traditional dress and now they are forced to work in the factory to keep up economic status with all the others. In that tiny microcosm, a culture was lost. There was no malice toward the Africans by the Nike corporation, they simply didn’t have a society strong enough to resist the benefits of working at the factory and the negatives of not working at the factory. Its simple progression.

This is what happened on a much larger scale all around the world. Native cultures simply were not able to compete with that of Europe. Was it wrong to break treaties and such, of course, but im talking about the much larger culture wars that were fought all over the world, and have been since the mankind has existed. The broken treaties and even the genocides were simply results of two cultures competing.

In an atmosphere where cultures have been allowed to grow so separately, the results when they meet are often violent. Today, in a much more globalized world, cultural progression is much more subtle, but very much the same.

It really does not matter if specific treaties, laws, or morals were respected or ignored; the native cultures and way of life could not compete and ceased to exist. This is a natural occurrence.

That is why I am against all of this talk of reparations and the guilt trip modern day "natives" try and push. They are essentially advocating the end of cultural progression, which has been nothing but a positive for the human race as a whole. To bring economics into it again, the world operates on a form of "cultural capitalism". Those cultures which are strong relative to the others survive and grow while those that cannot compete on any measure of standards fail. There is no reason to compensate the relatives of a failed people.

I don’t know about the natives around your part of the world, but over here they never even came up with the wheel. They were destined for the cultural trash heap. I say - get over it. Its been centuries.. :shrug:

[Roark]

What are your thoughts on atrocities that occurred in the 20th century, PJ? Mass alcoholism, disease, kidnapping, rape and mass poverty as a result of European interaction etc...

I mention these things because these are the specifics of the situation with the Australian Aborigine, and the consequences are widespread to this day.

I agree with you that, at some point in history, reparation would become ridiculous (imagine the mess in Europe, haha...), but at what point would you draw the line?

[Roark]

"Get over it"?

[doc_bean]

I fail to see the demise of the American natives or the natives of any other country as a bad/good thing. A culture that is several thousand years behind the civilization curve must modernize or face extinction, that’s just nature.


You're confusing things here. That the Native American culture is disappearing because of the strong influence of the USA is quite normal, and while maybe not the best thing ever, isn't something that should be compensated.

That problem however is that the US breaks its treaties with he Natives. Imaging buying a piece of land only to have it taken away a couple of years later because the government has found a better use for it. Everyone got very upset about the SC verdict in the New London case, but that is what has been happening to the Natives for generations (actually they got it even worse).

If you feel the US has the right to break the treaties just because it wants to, than there is little I can say to convince you other<wise I guess. But then I feel you reject the basic idea of law, and the very foundation of what we call civilization. For someone who doesn't like the theory of evolution much (iirc) you certainly seem to think about humans as if they were merely animals.

[English assassin]

But one thing must be recognized: Past treatment of aboriginal populations by European settlers/colonists/pillagers/murderers (call us what you will) created a situation for these people where they have a great "need" for our continued help today.

To which I would only add, yes, provided that assertion is proved rather than merely asserted. (OH, and yes to SA's point that to need we have also to add consideration of expropriation. (of personal property anyway. I don't think it is either practical or theoretically correct to try to apply the idea to whole territories) After all, many surviving jews may not "need" the return of looted property but it is clearly right that they should have it. However )

Where I think the question becomes difficult is in a third possible reason for compensation, which we might call "unjust enrichment". I will never be persuaded that there is a person alive today who has themselves suffered because of the slave trade. Nor am I at all convinced that the dreadful state of most of Africa has even the remotest connection to events some two hundred years ago. However, it seems to me there is a case that could be made that certain countries did derive economic benefits from that trade, and that they still enjoy those benefits today. (As I say, this would have to be proved, and the second limb in particular strikes me as contentious, but it can't be dismissed out of hand).

That it seems to me would form a perfectly valid argument for compensation. To be claer, it would not be compensation for any particular individual, none of whom have themseves suffered, and you may take the view that in providing overseas aid the developed countries have already in effect paid that compensation, but in principle and subject to proof I think the argument is valid.

[Del Arroyo]

Throughout history civilizations have had to be brought into the present - sometimes kicking and screaming. If it wasnt the US government, it would have been another. At least America didnt treat them like Spain. :thinking:

Hate to burst your bubble, but we massacred villages pretty regularly. As in, in every single Indian War, and sometimes in between Indian Wars, pretty much whenever it suited our fancy.

We also made sure to execute any whites who turned native.

At any rate, the main reason you don't hear so much about the atrocities is that there simply was not as great a population density in North America. We didn't enslave our Injuns because they weren't civilized enough-- we just killed their women and children, marched them Westward to their deaths, etc.

DA

[Aenlic]

When we found someplace that looked reasonably inhospitable and uninhabitable, we shunted them off to reservations from which they weren't allowed to leave - even to hunt for food. In the case of the plains tribes; since they couldn't follow the buffalo herds, they couldn't eat. They subsisted entirely on what were often starvation level government supplies. We removed their children and educated them to be good little Christians (a practice some in Australia might be familiar with, I think). And then, when we found something of worth on the land, we kicked them all out - again. As in the case of the Black Hills. Worthless in the eyes of the Europeans. So they settled many Lakota tribes there. Then someone discovered gold there. So much for that treaty. The military was sent in to remove them pesky Injuns who had the gall to be living (at our insistence in the first place) on land we now wanted. That led to many of the massacres. It happened like that all over America from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific, over and over. A not-so-proud heritage. But people like to feel good about themselves. They like to think their "civilization" is more advanced and better. So the realities are ignored if they are in any way negative. Cognitive dissonance sets in. It's so much easier to wave your flag about in happy ignorance than with a healthy dose of reality to leaven the nationalism.

[Brenus]

“Are the natives of today who are asking for compensation for things that occurred hundreds of years ago really that worse off than their ancestors” I have to say, I agree with that. I don’t often agree with PzJg, but my ancestors gained nothing on slavery. They were more slaves themselves than the rich merchants involved the triangular trade. So, in case of compensations who will pay? As French, I don’t see why France should pay for Lorient, St Malo and other towns involved in the trade.
Or will France be able to seek compensations to Italy for half of the Gaul population slaughtered and enslaved by Caesar? When the lines have to be drawn? Will Serbia be compensated by the modern Turkey for 500 years of occupation and the slaves sent to Istanbul? ~:confused:

History is history and yes, we have to be aware of what happened before, but I should prefer we concentrated on actual slavery than on the past one. :book:
By the way, if century ago somebody paid a piece of land peanuts (or equivalent) is a society entitle for some compensations? Because I thing that the US paid a real ridiculous price for Louisiana (which was much bigger than the actual state)? ~D

[Redleg]

Hate to burst your bubble, but we massacred villages pretty regularly. As in, in every single Indian War, and sometimes in between Indian Wars, pretty much whenever it suited our fancy.

Hold on cowboy - massacring of native villages did happen - but it was not pretty regularly.



We also made sure to execute any whites who turned native.


Again incorrect - was Kit Carson executed. There are so many more that were not executed that went native or were completely for insuring Native Americans were protected. And I would not be alive since at least one relative on both sides of my family went Native.




At any rate, the main reason you don't hear so much about the atrocities is that there simply was not as great a population density in North America. We didn't enslave our Injuns because they weren't civilized enough-- we just killed their women and children, marched them Westward to their deaths, etc.

DA


Revision is taking hold I guess. And I guess you believe that the Native American's went quietly to the west. Massacres happen on both sides - the difference is that the Whites were a more successful and had a larger population base which was organized. You might want to brush up on a few of the Indian Wars before making such statements as this. Were many caused by the White's you betcha - however try researching this little one for instance.

1862 Sioux Uprising.



The story goes that the four braves came upon the property of Mr. and Mrs. Robinson Jones, who ran a combined store and post office on their land. Near the fence that marked the boundary of Jones’s land, the four Indians found some eggs in a hen’s nest. Being hungry, one of the braves picked up the eggs.
After doing this he was advised by another one of the Indians not to take them. An argument then started between the two, the former calling the latter a coward. Angered by this charge the latter offered to show that he was anything but a coward.

He was going to do this by going onto Jones’s land and killing him. At this time Jones was in his store so that is where the Indians went. When the four Indians got there, they tried to act tough. However, Jones saw them as no threat and he left to go to the house of his brother-in-law, Howard Baker.

The Indians followed him there, and offered to play a game of target practice, which was common during those times. So Jones, Baker, and his friend Webster took turns with the Indians firing at a block of wood sitting on a tree stump. Then suddenly, all four Indians turned on Jones and shot him. Then they took aim at the men’s wives, who were watching on the porch. Baker saw this and jumped in front of the women, taking a bullet to the chest. The Indians then quickly brought down Webster and Mrs. Jones.

The Indians fled immediately, realizing what would happen if they were caught. As they were leaving, Clara Wilson, one of Jones’s adopted children, saw them from the doorway and she was gunned down as well, bringing the death count to five.

When the Indians arrived back at Rice Creek they immediately told Chief Shakopee what they had done. Excited Shakopee advised they go and tell Little Crow the news. On Monday, August 18, 1862, the four braves and Shakopee told Little Crow about the murder of the five whites and how a full-blown war should be started. Little Crow was reluctant considering how he was trying to keep peace with the whites. However, he could not hold back the chance and the rest is history.

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/tbacig/studproj/a1041/siouxup/Howitstarted.htm

Of course the whites had a hand in the mistreatment of the Indians that often caused the uprisings and masscares

[Redleg]

When we found someplace that looked reasonably inhospitable and uninhabitable, we shunted them off to reservations from which they weren't allowed to leave - even to hunt for food. In the case of the plains tribes; since they couldn't follow the buffalo herds, they couldn't eat. They subsisted entirely on what were often starvation level government supplies. We removed their children and educated them to be good little Christians (a practice some in Australia might be familiar with, I think). And then, when we found something of worth on the land, we kicked them all out - again. As in the case of the Black Hills. Worthless in the eyes of the Europeans. So they settled many Lakota tribes there. Then someone discovered gold there. So much for that treaty. The military was sent in to remove them pesky Injuns who had the gall to be living (at our insistence in the first place) on land we now wanted. That led to many of the massacres. It happened like that all over America from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific, over and over. A not-so-proud heritage. But people like to feel good about themselves. They like to think their "civilization" is more advanced and better.

This in not completely true Aenlic Several tribes had free roaming hunting abilities even within the constraints of their treaties with the Whites. The Black Hills were unceded to the Latoka because of the war fought and won by Red Cloud.


The Sioux War of 1866-68 clearly established the dominance of the Oglala Sioux over U.S. forces in northern Wyoming and southern Montana east of the Bighorn Mountains. The treaty of 1868 between the Sioux nation and the United States thereby recognized the right of the Sioux to roam and hunt in the areas depicted in gray on the map. This territory was called unceded in recognition of the fact that although the United States did not recognize Sioux ownership of the land, neither did it deny that the Sioux had hunting rights there. The treaty also established a reservation in Dakota Territory wherein "the United States now solemnly agrees that no persons except those herein designated and authorized so to do ... shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article ... and henceforth the [Indians] will, and do, hereby relinquish all claims or right in and to any portion of the United States or Territories, except such as is embraced within the limits aforesaid, and except as hereinafter provided." This provision clearly established the solemn rights of the Sioux to perpetual ownership of the reservation

Now that comes from this site:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/sioux/sioux.asp#The%20Sioux%20War%20of%201876-1877

But I can find other sources that say pretty much the same thing.

Then to the other part of your statment - which again is not completely correct in reference to the Black Hills.

The problem stems from the non-enforcement of the treaty by the United States government on the white settlers encroaching on the land.



In the spring of 1874, General Philip H. Sheridan, commanding the Military Division of the Missouri, directed his subordinate, Brigadier General Alfred H. Terry, commanding the Department of Dakota, to send a reconnaissance party into the Black Hills to ascertain the suitability of establishing an Army garrison there. This reconnaissance party, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel George A. Custer, not only determined the adequacy of the ground for a garrison but found evidence of gold. The news flashed through the nation, triggering a gold rush to the Black Hills of what is now South Dakota. The difficulty was that the Black Hills region was squarely inside the territory reserved to the Sioux in the treaty of 1868. But no American government, no matter how progressive, would have attempted to restrain such a great number of citizens in their pursuit of happiness (as manifested by their dreams of gold). The predicament faced by President Ulysses S, Grant was that he could not prevent Americans from entering the Black Hills; at the same time, he could not legally allow them to go there.

Rationalizing an excuse for war with the Sioux seemed to be Grant's only choice to resolve the matter. If the government fought the Sioux and won, the Black Hills would be ceded as a spoil of war. But Grant chose not to fight the Sioux who remained on the reservations. Rather, he was determined to attack that portion of the Sioux roaming in the unceded land on the pretext that they were committing atrocities on settlers beyond the Indians' borders. Accordingly, Grant ordered the Bureau of Indian Affairs to issue an ultimatum to the Indians to return voluntarily to their reservation by 31 January 1876 or be forced there by military action.

There were two categories of roamers outside the reservation, most of whom ignored the ultimatum. One category, called winter roamers, spurned all sustenance from the white man and lived in the unceded area. Those in the other category, called summer roamers, took the white man's dole in the winter but pursued their old ways in warmer weather. When Sheridan received the mission to mount a campaign against the Indians in the unceded area, he believed he would be fighting the winter roamers only. As the weather turned warmer, however, the number of summer roamers grew in the unceded area, creating a greater threat to the soldiers.

In this instance General Custer - looking for glory and a last Indian Campaign sort of lied about the gold found in the Black Hills.



So the realities are ignored if they are in any way negative. Cognitive dissonance sets in. It's so much easier to wave your flag about in happy ignorance than with a healthy dose of reality to leaven the nationalism

The problem comes from both poles of prespective - even in your statement you show ignorance of what actually happened and gognitive dissonance seems to be setting in.

Now if you just stick with the Sand Creek Massacre - you see evidence of the White Man's desire to just rid the west of the Indians and is a prime examble of masscaring for no good reason - and it had some bad consequences for the United States and Native Americans several years latter. However while this happened - it was not near as regular as some would like to image. Most times the masscaring was done to small groups of Indians by Whites - and the reverse is true small groups of Indians massacring small groups of whites. Evidence of this is found in studying the conflicts from a neutral viewpoint.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/four/sandcrk.htm

[KafirChobee]

Compensation for past wrongs to a race, indiginous populace, or religious group; by a government thats former rulers permitted, allowed or encouraged their murder, rape of their lands or subjecting them to crimes against humanity (slavery, concentration camps, theft of ancestoral lands, etc.) seems politically correct in todays social arena. Didn't we just payoff the Japanese-Americans we sent to Zanadune (ms) for the property confescated, and their loss of moneys; what was wrong with that?

To deny the wrongs, or somehow justify them by saying "leave the past die" (so we can restart the attrocities at a later date) seems callous and based on the same ignorance that permitted them to begin with. An example is the idea that slavery has been ruled illegal for 140 years in America - so what do we owe former slaves? While ignoring that slavery was practiced, defended, and honored for over 300 years in this country, and that simply tossing a people the bone of freedom doesnot give them the same opportunities as those that had once owned them - and that, continued to oppress them, deny them the same libertys, encouraged the economic seclusion of them, and continue the practice of a giving them a 3rd rate eductaion (if one is allowed at all).

Do we owe a people the same opportunity to flurish as all others, or continue a repressive policy created 400 years ago?

Sure, things have changed. But, not enough - not nearly enough. If you believe our education system is "equal"? I suggest you visit a H.S. in SouthCentral LA - Compton for example, or some black neighborhood in the South where segregation is still being practiced and honored.

Indiginous populations that could not ward off the mighty have always been suppressed to make way for "the destiny of nations". It is our history, it is also our shame and our obligation to set things right by atleast creating a more level playing field for all to participate on. Rather than saying; that was then, this is now and lets just forget we have an obligation to compensate for our thievery and the murder of millions (10 million native indians were massacred in this country alone, the number of slaves killed is unknown), lets accept responsability and do something to change these peoples lives and aid them in participating in our "free society".

Only a racist would think otherwise. imo.
:shame:

[Tribesman]

Kiwitt , in your original post you say that the people who may benefit from these payments are not Maori enough, is there anything in the treaty that specifies racial purity as a neccesity for land rights ?
If not then the descendants of the Maori , no matter how much foriegn ancestry they may have , are entitled to what they are granted under the treaty .
If an Englishman were entitled to something , but when he went to claim it was told that he couldn't have it as his father was Greek and his mothers family were of German descent , yet there were no provisions which allowed for those facts to stop him claiming his entitlement then you cannot stop him claiming what was his due .
Likewise unless you want your government to renogotiate the treaty and bring in specifics on racial purity instead of descent as a provision of entitlement then you have to give what is due .
But of course , introducing a racial purity clause would make it a racist issue .

[Redleg]

Compensation for past wrongs to a race, indiginous populace, or religious group; by a government thats former rulers permitted, allowed or encouraged their murder, rape of their lands or subjecting them to crimes against humanity (slavery, concentration camps, theft of ancestoral lands, etc.) seems politically correct in todays social arena. Didn't we just payoff the Japanese-Americans we sent to Zanadune (ms) for the property confescated, and their loss of moneys; what was wrong with that?

So you believe in punishing the sons for the sins of the fathers.



To deny the wrongs, or somehow justify them by saying "leave the past die" (so we can restart the attrocities at a later date) seems callous and based on the same ignorance that permitted them to begin with. An example is the idea that slavery has been ruled illegal for 140 years in America - so what do we owe former slaves? While ignoring that slavery was practiced, defended, and honored for over 300 years in this country, and that simply tossing a people the bone of freedom doesnot give them the same opportunities as those that had once owned them - and that, continued to oppress them, deny them the same libertys, encouraged the economic seclusion of them, and continue the practice of a giving them a 3rd rate eductaion (if one is allowed at all).

One should never deny history - one should learn from it. So where in the United States is anyone being denied an education?



Do we owe a people the same opportunity to flurish as all others, or continue a repressive policy created 400 years ago?


We owe nothing to others because of any policy that was created and now done away with. If the actions of today's society has an unjust negative impact then the society must make admends - however once again should the sons be punished for the father's - or in most of our cases our grandfathers or greater



Sure, things have changed. But, not enough - not nearly enough. If you believe our education system is "equal"? I suggest you visit a H.S. in SouthCentral LA - Compton for example, or some black neighborhood in the South where segregation is still being practiced and honored.


Is that because of society - or is that because of the society in which that individual desires to partake in. Again name the state and the education system which is practicing and honoring segregation. I happen to go to a school system which was segregated back in the early 70's but the county was forced to build a new High School and reorganize the school district. Again don't spout provide evidence of segregation still being practiced by a school system - not segregation by choice of the people who live in an area.



Indiginous populations that could not ward off the mighty have always been suppressed to make way for "the destiny of nations". It is our history, it is also our shame and our obligation to set things right by atleast creating a more level playing field for all to participate on. Rather than saying; that was then, this is now and lets just forget we have an obligation to compensate for our thievery and the murder of millions (10 million native indians were massacred in this country alone, the number of slaves killed is unknown), lets accept responsability and do something to change these peoples lives and aid them in participating in our "free society".

10 million naive american were massacred - bull shit - that is not historically accurate nor is it the truth. Come on Kafir - if your going to make up number make it reasonable. More Native American's died from white man's dieseases from when the whites first began to cross the ocean from Europe to the New World. And in all those deaths there is only one documented case of small pox being given to the Natives on purpose - and that was done by an English Officer during the French-Indian War. Populations like the Chyenne who were estimated to have a population of around 100,000 reduced by 2/3 or more. And if you didn't know the Chyenne had a fairily large range of movement in the plains.



Only a racist would think otherwise. imo.
:shame:

Actually racists are the ones who think the sons should pay for the father's sins of injustice.

[yesdachi]

lets accept responsability and do something to change these peoples lives and aid them in participating in our "free society".
I accept responsibility for my actions. MY ACTIONS. Perhaps even my generations actions but what someone else’s great great grandfather did is not something I should be held accountable for.

Redleg is right on with the sins of the father statement.

I can’t do anything about the past; all I can do is offer everyone the same freedoms I have in the present. And honestly I am not willing to do more.

[Ser Clegane]

Actually racists are the ones who think the sons should pay for the father's sins of injustice.

Generally I would agree that sons should not be punished for the sins of the fathers.
However, if the sons to some degree still benefit from the sins of their fathers - and one could argue that this is the case - and the children of the victims still feel the effects of what happened to their ancestors, some form of compensation could be considered to be appropriate.

[yesdachi]

Generally I would agree that sons should not be punished for the sins of the fathers.
However, if the sons to some degree still benefit from the sins of their fathers - and one could argue that this is the case - and the children of the victims still feel the effects of what happened to their ancestors, some form of compensation could be considered to be appropriate.
How do you differentiate between those who benefit and those who do not? I live in the far north and so has my family for generations and have Native American heritage should my tax dollars go towards some kind of compensation for slavery?

[Ser Clegane]

How do you differentiate between those who benefit and those who do not? I live in the far north and so has my family for generations and have Native American heritage should my tax dollars go towards some kind of compensation for slavery?

I guess that's the price you have to pay when you benefit from being part of a society. Or do you otherwise have a say in where each and every of your tax dollars go?
By your logic, hardly any country as such could be held financially responsible for the misery it caused to others, as the financial burden for reparations/compensations would ultimately have to be paid with tax money from citizens who could not each individually be held responsible for what happened in the name of their country.

[Redleg]

I guess that's the price you have to pay when you benefit from being part of a society. Or do you otherwise have a say in where each and every of your tax dollars go?
By your logic, hardly any country as such could be held financially responsible for the misery it caused to others, as the financial burden for reparations/compensations would ultimately have to be paid with tax money from citizens who could not each individually be held responsible for what happened in the name of their country.


Well when England ponies up and pays for a significantly large portion of such "debts" then maybe I will think about it. Since some of my ancestors were indentured servants and convict labours.

Or that the English allowed slavery for the most part to be institutionalized in the United States over 100 years before the colonies became their own country.

Or the Spanish pony up and pay for all the Indians throughout the America's that they happily put to the sword.

When one starts speaking of the sins of the fathers and the debts of the sons because of the sins of the fathers how far are you wanting to go back. Its a vicous little circle is it not.

Again this statement in itself self defeating by itself


However, if the sons to some degree still benefit from the sins of their fathers - and one could argue that this is the case - and the children of the victims still feel the effects of what happened to their ancestors, some form of compensation could be considered to be appropriate.

By this logic Germany should be paying payments to the Jews and other races throughout Europe or any individual that can trace one family member to the concentration camps.

[Tribesman]

By this logic Germany should be paying payments to the Jews and other races throughout Europe or any individual that can trace one family member to the concentration camps.
Errrr???? They did , starting soon after the war , and they still are . As are corporations and institutions that benefited from those events .

Try again Redleg ~;)

[yesdachi]

I guess that's the price you have to pay when you benefit from being part of a society. Or do you otherwise have a say in where each and every of your tax dollars go?
By your logic, hardly any country as such could be held financially responsible for the misery it caused to others, as the financial burden for reparations/compensations would ultimately have to be paid with tax money from citizens who could not each individually be held responsible for what happened in the name of their country.
Perhaps, as a society we do have an obligation to make things right. As a democratic society if the majority voted to make financial reimbursements I would gladly contribute. Voting is about the only way we can control how our tax money is spent. But I think most people feel the same as I do and anything resembling slavery payback would never stand a chance on a ballot. My society today is far different than my great great grand pappys was. And it is just a sin of the father situation on a grander scale.

As I am not directly responsible for something my long gone relatives did I don’t expect society to be held responsible for past actions that have already been resolved. Todays society shouldn’t offer anything more than the freedom and equal rights it offers to everyone. If there are areas that are not getting fair treatment (schools, hospitals, hurricane victims, etc.) than the system should be properly implemented or changed if it cant offer everyone the same fair treatment.

If a country cant internally be held responsible for its decisions it would fall apart. Were a long way from falling apart and racial tension lessens every year and equality grows. I don’t think it is an issue that can be solved by throwing money at anyway.

[Aenlic]

This in not completely true Aenlic Several tribes had free roaming hunting abilities even within the constraints of their treaties with the Whites. The Black Hills were unceded to the Latoka because of the war fought and won by Red Cloud.

Now that comes from this site:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/sioux/sioux.asp#The%20Sioux%20War%20of%201876-1877

But I can find other sources that say pretty much the same thing.

Then to the other part of your statment - which again is not completely correct in reference to the Black Hills.

The problem stems from the non-enforcement of the treaty by the United States government on the white settlers encroaching on the land.

In this instance General Custer - looking for glory and a last Indian Campaign sort of lied about the gold found in the Black Hills.

The problem comes from both poles of prespective - even in your statement you show ignorance of what actually happened and gognitive dissonance seems to be setting in.

Now if you just stick with the Sand Creek Massacre - you see evidence of the White Man's desire to just rid the west of the Indians and is a prime examble of masscaring for no good reason - and it had some bad consequences for the United States and Native Americans several years latter. However while this happened - it was not near as regular as some would like to image. Most times the masscaring was done to small groups of Indians by Whites - and the reverse is true small groups of Indians massacring small groups of whites. Evidence of this is found in studying the conflicts from a neutral viewpoint.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/four/sandcrk.htm

OK, first, you need to reread your information and my post. There is a difference between the "unceded" terrorities and the exclusive territories. The reservation was "reserved" exclusively for their use in the Dakotas. This area included the Black Hills. The Black Hills were not in the unceded portion. They were given the Black Hills because the U.S. government considered the area worthless. As far as the U.S. was concerned they weren't giving away anything useful to the Lakota. ~D My statement still stands, inspite of your attempt to revise history.

Second, my statements about putting them into reservations from which they couldn't leave was separate from the statements about the Black Hills. I should have separated the two thoughts into two paragraphs. My mistake. Wounded Knee was a direct result of the tribe leaving the reservation because they were starving; but they were still not allowed to leave. My statement still stands, in spite of your attempt to revise history.

Third, the U.S. government was breaking the treaty which supposedly reserved the Black Hills and most of the rest of the Dakota territory by allowing unauthorized gold rushers. When the tribes objected, often violently, to the encroachment that was illegal by the treaty, the government moved in and moved them out of the Black Hills; instead of enforcing the treaty and removing the settlers as they should have done. My statement still stands, in spite of your attempt to revise history.

Fourth, just Sand Creek?

Pequot, Gnadenhutten, Chewaw, Black Hawk, Kaibai Creek, Humboldt County, Bear River and Keyesville all occurred before Sand Creek. After Sand Creek you have Washita, Marias and Wounded Knee. And those are just the large scale massacres, most of them of entire villages, mostly of old men, women and children. Were there massacres of whites? Absolutely. Except for the massacres instigated by the French or British in connection with European wars, the large scale massacres of whites were in response to the intentional abrogation of treaties. Now it's little more balanced, with the above included, rather than your attempt to portray things differently. The Pequot, Humboldt, Marias and Wounded Knee massacres were all larger than Sand Creek. Now that's balanced, and we haven't even discussed how many men, women and children died on the Trail of Tears after the whites decided they wanted the lands reserved by treaty for the Cherokee, have we? My statement still stands, in spite of your attempt to revise history.

Now, who is showing ignorance? And the word is cognitive not gognitive.

[yesdachi]

As are corporations and institutions that benefited from those events .
Corporations and institutions with records of involvement. I have no direct connection to gains from slavery neither does Hawaii (joined after slavery ended) but their citizens are taxpayers too, payback slaves descendants was not part of their deal when signing up for statehood.

There’s a big difference between killing a race and enslaving them and later freeing them IMO. Incidentally it just happened to be Americans who freed the slaves (speaking of the US slaves of course). We kind of had a little thing called the Civil War over it. Perhaps the sons of the freed slaves should be paying me back because I live in the north and we fought to free them. A ridiculous :dizzy2: statement I know but no more ridiculous than asking the country that fought for and won your freedom, to give you any payback.

[Tribesman]

When one starts speaking of the sins of the fathers and the debts of the sons because of the sins of the fathers how far are you wanting to go back.
Well since the Black Hills are mentioned lets see what your supreme court decided by an 8-1 majority .... The US government was wrong and it must make it right , so they offer a paltry $106 million of tax payers money , that money is still sitting in an account as the tribes don't want the money , they want the land . And they are still campaigning for the US government to obey its own laws (some hope eh ?) .
Interestingly Tom Daschle (what a nice politician) added a rider on to a defense funding motion (what patriotic politician is going to vote against defense ~;) ) which gave total immunity to the mining corporation that had been reaping profits for over 100 years from the land that it didn't actually own .

[Papewaio]

And the word is cognitive not gognitive.

I like the word and will now make my own definition according to my reality:

Gognitive:
1) the sensation of being got by the balls.
2) the sensation of walking waist deep into cold water.
3) a heavenly experience of the Madonna like a prayer variety.
4) being aware of a situation, akin to a gut feeling.

See the root words Gonad and Cognitive. ~D

[Aenlic]

So gognitive dissonance would be a generalized feeling of disconnect and alienation from your gonads?

"Well, we used to get along; but we just don't communicate like we used to do."

"Nothing, not even a card for my birthday! I mean, what am I supposed to think? We used to be so close."

"I feel like we're not connected anymore."

"They just sort of drag me down."

"We're drifting apart and that's pretty painful."

[Tribesman]

yesdachi
payback slaves descendants was not part of their deal when signing up for statehood.
No , but that is not the issue here is it , all that stems from Panzers "don't tell the African Americans" post , which concerns a rather spurious class action suit by some dodgy lawyers(are there any other kind ~;) )who are looking to to fiddle themselves a masive fee .
The topic was a treaty involving land rights and a governments obligation to honour those commitments .
Kiwitt is complaining that he objects to the government honouring those commitments , yet those were in place when his grandparents moved to New Zealand , if you move somewhere then it is a good idea to ensure that you actually own the land that you intend to live on , if you don't own it then you must pay the rightfull owners , if they are willing to sell , if they are not wiling to sell then you must compensate them for your illegal use of their land and then vacate it if they tell you to .

As for the "corporations and institutions" quote of mine you posted , that is simply a direct rebuttal of Redlegs "By this logic" statement

[Papewaio]

So gognitive dissonance would be a generalized feeling of disconnect and alienation from your gonads?



And a euphemism for a vasectomy.

[Redleg]

OK, first, you need to reread your information and my post. There is a difference between the "unceded" terrorities and the exclusive territories. The reservation was "reserved" exclusively for their use in the Dakotas. This area included the Black Hills. The Black Hills were not in the unceded portion. They were given the Black Hills because the U.S. government considered the area worthless. As far as the U.S. was concerned they weren't giving away anything useful to the Lakota. ~D My statement still stands, inspite of your attempt to revise history.

Try again - my attempt is not one of revision - shall I continue with the discussion. It was a direct statement to one of your points - especially this one

When we found someplace that looked reasonably inhospitable and uninhabitable, we shunted them off to reservations from which they weren't allowed to leave - even to hunt for food. In the case of the plains tribes; since they couldn't follow the buffalo herds, they couldn't eat. They subsisted entirely on what were often starvation level government supplies. The unceded terrorities goes to show that the statement made by you is not completely accurate.




Second, my statements about putting them into reservations from which they couldn't leave was separate from the statements about the Black Hills. I should have separated the two thoughts into two paragraphs. My mistake. Wounded Knee was a direct result of the tribe leaving the reservation because they were starving; but they were still not allowed to leave. My statement still stands, in spite of your attempt to revise history.


Again with the revision history theory - you might want to check out when Wounded Knee happened before accusing me of revision - Black Hills and the Souix War that followed was in the 1876-1877 time frame - Wounded Knee happened in 1890. You made a typo mistake and I made a typo mistake - however it seems instead of pointing out the error - you chose to spout revision history - hell you got the events confused even worse then I did. LOL.




The Wounded Knee Massacre
White officials became alarmed at the religious fervor and activism and in December 1890 banned the Ghost Dance on Lakota reservations. When the rites continued, officials called in troops to Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations in South Dakota. The military, led by veteran General Nelson Miles, geared itself for another campaign.

The presence of the troops exacerbated the situation. Short Bull and Kicking Bear led their followers to the northwest corner of the Pine Ridge reservation, to a sheltered escarpment known as the Stronghold. The dancers sent word to Sitting Bull of the Hunkpapas to join them. Before he could set out from the Standing Rock reservation in North Dakota, however, he was arrested by Indian police. A scuffle ensued in which Sitting Bull and seven of his warriors were slain. Six of the policemen were killed.

General Miles had also ordered the arrest of Big Foot, who had been known to live along the Cheyenne River in South Dakota. But, Big Foot and his followers had already departed south to Pine Ridge, asked there by Red Cloud and other supporters of the whites, in an effort to bring tranquility. Miles sent out the infamous Seventh Calvary led by Major Whitside to locate the renegades. They scoured the Badlands and finally found the Miniconjou dancers on Porcupine Creek, 30 miles east of Pine Ridge. The Indians offered no resistance. Big Foot, ill with pneumonia, rode in a wagon. The soldiers ordered the Indians to set up camp five miles westward, at Wounded Knee Creek. Colonel James Forsyth arrived to take command and ordered his guards to place four Hotchkiss cannons in position around the camp. The soldiers now numbered around 500; the Indians 350, all but 120 of these women and children.

The following morning, December 29, 1890, the soldiers entered the camp demanding the all Indian firearms be relinquished. A medicine man named Yellow Bird advocated resistance, claiming the Ghost Shirts would protect them. One of the soldiers tried to disarm a deaf Indian named Black Coyote. A scuffle ensued and the firearm discharged. The silence of the morning was broken and soon other guns echoed in the river bed. At first, the struggle was fought at close quarters, but when the Indians ran to take cover, the Hotchkiss artillery opened up on them, cutting down men, women, children alike, the sick Big Foot among them. By the end of this brutal, unnecessary violence, which lasted less than an hour, at least 150 Indians had been killed and 50 wounded. In comparison, army casualties were 25 killed and 39 wounded. Forsyth was later charged with killing the innocents, but exonerated.


That is Wounded Knee - a completely different event from the 1876 Souix uprising




Third, the U.S. government was breaking the treaty which supposedly reserved the Black Hills and most of the rest of the Dakota territory by allowing unauthorized gold rushers. When the tribes objected, often violently, to the encroachment that was illegal by the treaty, the government moved in and moved them out of the Black Hills; instead of enforcing the treaty and removing the settlers as they should have done. My statement still stands, in spite of your attempt to revise history.



That is the only part you got right - however go back and read again what I wrote - since its all taken from source. Shouting Revision when I source my information smacks of something does it not.



Fourth, just Sand Creek?


Not at all there are others - but Sand Creek is the best examble since it shows the Military massacring a treaty tribe on reservation lands.



Pequot, Gnadenhutten, Chewaw, Black Hawk, Kaibai Creek, Humboldt County, Bear River and Keyesville all occurred before Sand Creek. After Sand Creek you have Washita, Marias and Wounded Knee. And those are just the large scale massacres, most of them of entire villages, mostly of old men, women and children.

Yep and you missed a few - but the point I was making about Sand Creek seemed to allude you.



Were there massacres of whites? Absolutely. Except for the massacres instigated by the French or British in connection with European wars, the large scale massacres of whites were in response to the intentional abrogation of treaties. Now it's little more balanced, with the above included, rather than your attempt to portray things differently.

LOL that was what you took it for - poor Aenlic your deluding yourself. What I am attempting to portray is balance and reality to the events of history - not just some spouting of one sided information - that you initially spouted - and you call my statements revision - all I said was yours were not completely correct.

You might want to check on the Indian Wars in the southwest - some of them were fought not because of some treaty violation by the United States. The Kiowa, Commache, and Apache Tribes fought sometimes just to fight. Leaving the reservation to conduct raids into Mexico, raiding settlements outside of reservations, and some other things.

Oh the whites did a lot of wrongs against the Native Americans - something you seem to miss in my writings - but don't kid yourself into thinking I am spouting revision when I source my information.



The Pequot, Humboldt, Marias and Wounded Knee massacres were all larger than Sand Creek. Now that's balanced, and we haven't even discussed how many men, women and children died on the Trail of Tears after the whites decided they wanted the lands reserved by treaty for the Cherokee, have we? My statement still stands, in spite of your attempt to revise history.

What statments stand - your confusing events and stouting that I am revising history. That is funny. Lets go back and review shall we. A friend of mine who is a Cherokee Indian did some research into the Trail of Tears you wont see in a lot of history books - it seems the chief of the tribe was not all that innocent in the force march of the tribe. He got corrupted and greedy in the white man way and decided to go along in screwing his people - some of the stravation according to his research was a direct result of the Cherokee Chief.

You stated this When we found someplace that looked reasonably inhospitable and uninhabitable, we shunted them off to reservations from which they weren't allowed to leave - even to hunt for food. In the case of the plains tribes; since they couldn't follow the buffalo herds, they couldn't eat. They subsisted entirely on what were often starvation level government supplies.

I stated this in response

This in not completely true Aenlic Several tribes had free roaming hunting abilities even within the constraints of their treaties with the Whites. The Black Hills were unceded to the Latoka because of the war fought and won by Red Cloud.

I was incorrect about the Black Hills - but am I wrong about several tribes having free roaming huniting?

I don't think so - since several sources mention the unceded lands. So am I guiltly of revision or correctly identifing where your statement was not completely true.


In that same paragraph you stated - So they settled many Lakota tribes there. Then someone discovered gold there. So much for that treaty. The military was sent in to remove them pesky Injuns who had the gall to be living (at our insistence in the first place) on land we now wanted. That led to many of the massacres. It happened like that all over America from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific, over and over. A not-so-proud heritage. But people like to feel good about themselves. They like to think their "civilization" is more advanced and better.

and I stated this

Then to the other part of your statment - which again is not completely correct in reference to the Black Hills.

The problem stems from the non-enforcement of the treaty by the United States government on the white settlers encroaching on the land.

Again am I revising history? Where is the revision in my statement.




Now, who is showing ignorance? And the word is cognitive not gognitive.

Well since you mixed Wounded Knee into the discussion about the Black Hills and the Souix War that followed - I would say you are. Oh by the way thanks for the insult at the spelling mistake.

Try reading what is written exactly - not what you want to interpet the words to mean. You did well in an earlier subject - but it seems you don't like correction of your understanding of what happen in history. And you call my interpatation (oh look a spelling mistake) based upon research and an intense interest in that period of our history as revision. LOL

Usually does who spout revision as much as you just did in this last post of yours are more guilty of it then the person they are accusing.

[Incongruous]

I'm sorry, but the Waihtangi Tribunal is a travesty. Right now a case is going on in Wellington, whereby if the Maoris win, the Government will forcibly by up peoples land and give this prime real estate to the Maoris. Now one of the shops that might be baought up is my uncles. I am all against it.
The seabed and Foreshore was simply outrageous, the fact that a minority believe they have the right to own a nations beaches and seabeds is shoking.
The Maori party is a party for rich Maori party, not wanting to help the real Maori who really don't care about treaty settlements.
I mean they pump out trash, like when they said "the majority of people in prison are Maori and Maori only make up a minority in this country, they can't all be bad people".
Its shoking!
As soon as National gets in and starts giving out ona a need not race basis I'll be happy.

[Redleg]

By this logic Germany should be paying payments to the Jews and other races throughout Europe or any individual that can trace one family member to the concentration camps.
Errrr???? They did , starting soon after the war , and they still are . As are corporations and institutions that benefited from those events .

Try again Redleg ~;)

Yes indeed it was a reach.

But so is your statement since everything I have read about German War repration payments to the Jews went to the state of Israel not to individual families - I am not to far off. That those reprations ended oh about 20 years ago means that the fathers paid for thier sins - since the payments by the German Government was agreed to in the 1950's. All other payments by corporations and institutions are a result of what - law suits if my memory serves me correctly.

Again forcing me to pay with my tax dollars for something 5 to 6 generations removed is something else beside equality and fair play. Forcing the government to give back lands to the natives who it was stolen from might be more in line - which is way as Aenlic pointed out the Souix have refused to take the money - they want their land back.

[Tribesman]

But so is your statement since everything I have read about German War repration payments to the Jews went to the state of Israel not to individual families - I am not to far off. That those reprations ended oh about 20 years ago means that the fathers paid for thier sins
Try again Red , they started up again in '98 as a result of reunification , also not all payments went to the State of Israel , they also went to the remaining communities in Europe . Austria has recently been making restitution as well , though they are experiencing some dificulties as the Nazis were quite thorough bastards when it came to exterminating people so they are having trouble finding any descendants .

Forcing the government to give back lands to the natives who it was stolen from might be more in line - which is way as Aenlic pointed out the Souix have refused to take the money - they want their land back.
I thought that was me , I must have missed Aelnics' post on the Supreme court ruling . Anyway as for the cash settlement offered , it was a bit of a piss take wasn't it , land values at 120 year old prices without the added value that the mineral deposits would have bought , and only simple interest at 5% , that untouched fund has since grown in the few years that it was awarded , with compound interest to over $500 million , I wonder how big the award would have been with 120+ years of compound interest ?

[Redleg]

But so is your statement since everything I have read about German War repration payments to the Jews went to the state of Israel not to individual families - I am not to far off. That those reprations ended oh about 20 years ago means that the fathers paid for thier sins
Try again Red , they started up again in '98 as a result of reunification , also not all payments went to the State of Israel , they also went to the remaining communities in Europe . Austria has recently been making restitution as well , though they are experiencing some dificulties as the Nazis were quite thorough bastards when it came to exterminating people so they are having trouble finding any descendants .

Learned something new - I thought the reprations were all done and only paid to the state of Israel. (the Israel part really should of stated mostly Israel - because it was my understanding that small payments went to other nations - but the sources I have read always stated that the reprations for the Jews went mostly to the state of Israel.




Forcing the government to give back lands to the natives who it was stolen from might be more in line - which is way as Aenlic pointed out the Souix have refused to take the money - they want their land back.
I thought that was me , I must have missed Aelnics' post on the Supreme court ruling . Anyway as for the cash settlement offered , it was a bit of a piss take wasn't it , land values at 120 year old prices without the added value that the mineral deposits would have bought , and only simple interest at 5% , that untouched fund has since grown in the few years that it was awarded , with compound interest to over $500 million , I wonder how big the award would have been with 120+ years of compound interest ?

It was you - I just got finished typing a response to Aenlic also. Must of mixed you two together. Happens when one is at work and typing on the internet at the same time.

Yes indeed if the Land was given back it would open up a whole kettle of worms about royalities and payments concerning things taken from the land from 1876 to present. At 120+ years of compound interest would make multi - millioniares of all the Souix nation's citizens.

[bubbanator]

Try stepping foot on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico - or even some others that I know of.

The tribes are doing better then in the past - but they have a long way to go both in thier own internal managment of their people and lands, getting the Federal Government to honor the current treaties to the full extent of what was negotated many years ago.

Well I wouldn't quite say that. Though it is true in some respects, they do have the highest obesity rate, highest suicide rate, and are some of the poorest areas in the U.S. with somewhere close to 80 percent living below the poverty line.

Though they do have many nice casinos where you don't have to pay taxes on what you win...

[Aenlic]

Redleg, have you been drinking today? You might want to lay off the sauce before responding to posts.

And the word you want is elude. Allude is something much different. :wall:

[Redleg]

Redleg, have you been drinking today? You might want to lay off the sauce before responding to posts.

And the word you want is elude. Allude is something much different. :wall:

Nope I don't drink - nor do I use spell check - especially when I am at work - I try to make my post quick so I can also manage my associates. However I see that you rather go down the path of making criticism of my use of misspelled words - incorrect word use verus responding to my post content and context.

You called me a revisionist in a previous post - which in essence is a lair - which is not an accurate statement on your part. However I have shown where you are confused about history and the facts surrounding the circumstances and the abuse of Native Americans by the United States Government and the white settlers. However I have hesitated in calling you a lair and a revisionist.

Shall I ask you if your drunk because you obviousily don't know the difference from Wounded Knee and the Souix Uprising of the 1870's. If you want to make it personal again - I am game - but are you going to run away like last time when I respond in the same manner in which you decided to treat me in your responses.

[GoreBag]

Well, your logic is based heavily on race, so yes, it is racist in a pure and literal meaning of the word. Are you a bigot? No. Not so far, at least - I don't really know you.

In any case, you wouldn't be paying reparations; the government would. Of course, the current administration gets its money from you and all the other taxpayers, but you lose your say as to what happens to your money after you elect someone and pay your taxes.

[Redleg]

Just because I feel like sharing a little more history that is balanced and shows both sides - here a site that lists many of the massacres. Oh by the way - I just love being called a rivisionist by someone who only views history from one narrow prespective.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Native:American:massacres.html


If we loosen our definition further and decide to count all people who died violently in the ongoing warfare between whites and Native Americans -- battle deaths as well as murders -- we can turn to the 1894 estimate by the US Census Bureau (cited in Russel Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival). There it was calculated that some 30,000 to 45,000 Native American men, women, and children died at the hands of whites in formal wars, 1775-1890, while some 14,000 white men, women, and children died at the hands of Native Americans. In addition to these, some 5,000 whites and 8,500 Native Americans were killed in smaller, unofficial fights between individuals up and down the frontier.

Neither side stands out as being more merciful or humane than the other. Both sides collected scalps and scrota as trophies. Both sides raped. Both sides would promise safe conduct to defeated enemies or non-combatants, and then massacre them as soon as they let their guard down. Both sides attacked easy targets (such as peaceful -- even friendly -- villages and settlements) as retaliation for hostile acts by totally unrelated war bands and militia units.

Oh wait just in case you want to claim that site is baised and nothing but revisionist history. Wikipedia also has almost the same information. There list is a little larger - listing some of the battles as massacres verus battles that resulted in the destruction of the whites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_massacres



March 22, 1622 - Jamestown Massacre - Powhatans kill 347 English settlers throughout the Virginia colony.
May 26, 1637 - In the Pequot War, English colonists, with Mohegan and Narragansett allies, attack a large Pequot village on the Mystic River in what is now Connecticut and kill perhaps 500 villagers.
February 8, 1690 - French and Iroquois destroy Schenectady, NY, killing 60, including 10 women and 12-17 children.
February 29, 1704 - Deerfield Massacre - Deerfield, Massachutsetts - As an action during Queen Anne's War, a force comprised of Abenaki, Kanienkehaka, Wyandot, and Pocumtuck Indians, led by a small contingent of French-Canadian miltia, sacked the town of Deerfield, Massachutsetts, killing fifty-six civilians and taking dozens more as captives.
August 1757 - 70-180 British and colonial prisoners killed by Indian allies of the French after the fall of Fort William Henry.
July 3, 1778 - Wyoming Valley Massacre -- Occurred during the American Revolutionary War; labeled a massacre but most deaths were in battle.
1778 - Cherry Valley Massacre, New York - over 30 settlers killed.
1782 - Gnadenhutten massacre - in the final stages of the American Revolutionary War, nearly 100 noncombatant Christian Delaware (Lenape) Indians (mostly women and children) are killed one at a time (with a hammer blow to the head) by Pennsylvania militiamen.
January, 1813 - River Raisin Massacre - 30-60 Kentucky militia killed after surrendering.
August 30, 1813 - Fort Mims Massacre - A band of Red Sticks, one of several warring factions of the Creek Nation (see Creek Civil War), retaliates for his defeat at the Battle of Burnt Corn by sacking a militia post at Fort Mims, Alabama. Over four hundred civilians were killed by the Indians, taking some 250 scalps. This action precipitated the Creek War.
April 22, 1818 - Chehaw Affair - United States troops attack a non-hostile village during First Seminole War, killing an estimated fifty men, women, and children.
1832 - Black Hawk War - 850 men, women, and children are slaughtered in Bad Ax, Wisconsin by white soldiers
1836 - Fort Parker Massacre - 6 men killed by a mixed group of Native Americans in Limestone County, Texas
October 5, 1838 - Killough Massacre - 18 members of the Killough extended family, one of the last massacred in Texas
1848 - Whitman massacre in Walla Walla, Washington
1854 - Kaibai Creek, California - 42 Winnemem Wintu men, women, and children are killed by white settlers
1855 - Grattan Massacre, Brule Sioux in Nebraska Territory.
February 26, 1860 - Humboldt County, California - upwards of 100 Wiyot men, women, and children are slaughtered by settlers.
1862 - As many as 800 settlers killed in uprising of Santee Sioux.
January 29, 1863 - Bear River Massacre - upwards of 200 men, women, and children are slaughtered by whites near Preston, Idaho.
April 19, 1863 - Keyesville Massacre - in Kern County, California - 35 Tehachapi men are killed by whites [1]
November 29, 1864 - Sand Creek Massacre - Sand Creek, Colorado - upwards of 160 Cheyenne men, women, and children are slaughtered by militiamen
December 21, 1866 - Fetterman Massacre - near Fort Phil Kearny, Wyoming - Lt. Col. William J. Fetterman and a compliment of 79 US soldiers were sent to relieve a train under attack by Oglala Sioux led by Crazy Horse and they were wiped out by an ambush. (Evidence suggests that, like Custer's Last Stand [see below], this should be more fairly considered a battle than a massacre.) See Red Cloud's War.
November 27, 1868 - Washita Massacre - Washita River, Oklahoma - 100 people killed. (This is often considered a battle, not a massacre.)
January 23, 1870 - Marias Massacre - 200 Piegans, mainly elderly, women, and children, slaughtered by whites
June 25, 1876 - Battle of the Little Big Horn - About two hundred fifty men of the US 7th Cavalry Regiment, under Lt. Col. George A. Custer, are wiped out in a battle against Sioux and Northern Cheyenne Indians. (Though widely considered a "massacre", Custer's men died fighting and in any case initiated the battle by attacking a nearby Sioux village.)
December 29, 1890 - Wounded Knee Massacre - Wounded Knee, South Dakota - up to 300 Sioux men, women, and children are killed by US soldiers.

[Aenlic]

Must be a bad week then, Redleg?

I'm having trouble deciding if you just don't read all of the cites you post here (which is possible considering that you misread my post - twice now) or if you are being deliberately obtuse.

First you post a link to a site that uses amateur historian Osborn's much disputed book, then you post a link to a Wikipedia article claiming that it has the same info. It has some of the same info. You apparently couldn't be bothered to read the fine print in the Wiki article, could you? This is from your link, by the way.


For example, Osborn does not count Indian deaths on the Trail of Tears (because these were allegedly unintentional), but he does count several episodes of post-mortem mutilation, even of combatants killed in open battle. Osborn's exact total of 16,349 killed on both sides can therefore be disputed.

You haven't recently struck me as being that stupid; so I have to assume that the above is merely a case of you being intentionally wrong to provoke an argument.

As for your spelling, you decided to call me ignorant. In the same sentence you then misspelled a word I'd spelled correctly for you at least three times previously. I find that rather ironic. If you want to pick a fight and call others ignorant, then you'd best use a spell checker. Otherwise I recommend taking to heart the ancient Chinese proverb: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Have a nice day. ~D

[KafirChobee]

So you believe in punishing the sons for the sins of the fathers.



One should never deny history - one should learn from it. So where in the United States is anyone being denied an education?



We owe nothing to others because of any policy that was created and now done away with. If the actions of today's society has an unjust negative impact then the society must make admends - however once again should the sons be punished for the father's - or in most of our cases our grandfathers or greater



Is that because of society - or is that because of the society in which that individual desires to partake in. Again name the state and the education system which is practicing and honoring segregation. I happen to go to a school system which was segregated back in the early 70's but the county was forced to build a new High School and reorganize the school district. Again don't spout provide evidence of segregation still being practiced by a school system - not segregation by choice of the people who live in an area.


10 million naive american were massacred - bull shit - that is not historically accurate nor is it the truth. Come on Kafir - if your going to make up number make it reasonable. More Native American's died from white man's dieseases from when the whites first began to cross the ocean from Europe to the New World. And in all those deaths there is only one documented case of small pox being given to the Natives on purpose - and that was done by an English Officer during the French-Indian War. Populations like the Chyenne who were estimated to have a population of around 100,000 reduced by 2/3 or more. And if you didn't know the Chyenne had a fairily large range of movement in the plains.



Actually racists are the ones who think the sons should pay for the father's sins of injustice.

After re-reading my post, I see how it could be misconstued to think I was calling for a compensation to be given to blacks for their ancestors being slaves. Not entirely true. I do call for an equal educational opportunity for them, and for further social assistance programs - which were promised, but somehow are still lacking. But, blacks were not my only point.

That Red persists in attempting to justify the genecide committed against the Native Americans - be it by disease or the knife, is really of no importance. That 8-10 million perrished is.

The arguement about ignoring the sins of the fathers, and we as individuals only being responsible to ourselves reeks of anarchy and self-importance. And of racism in this case.
Please, explain how those that feel a responsability for the failings of their fathers. And, whom ask that retribution in the form of equal education and opportunity are racists. It's quite a stretch - don't you think? Calling someone that asks for equality and justice for his felllowman, a racist?

Turn off the Carl Roves spin channell, and listen to the reality of it all.
If we persist in believing that all is well - simply because we have successfully suppressed a people for a time? Then believe. Believe the Watts riots are in the "distant past" - but, know that the new coming of a call for equality maybe right around the corner. Equality in education, in job opportunity, in housing, and in justice.

BTW, as for the orginal NZ issue. A compromise no doubt will be met. Be it monetary, or the granting of casino rights. What ever it is, I doubt anyone will lose a home or shop over it. Though they might.

[Don Corleone]

Actually, if I may (and I never thought I'd be saying this) Khafir has a good point. There's a 3rd (and a 4th, 5th and 6th option here) if we calm down and stop getting our backs up.

As a descendant of Irish immigrants who literally signed their lives away to escape the British (they sent 4 sons to the Union, 2 to the Confederacy... only one survived, which is why the clan is Yankee) on the one side, and Italian immigrants who took such beatings, they legally changed their name from "Calabrisi" to "Harris" on the other, I don't feel the least bit guilty about America's treatment of the Native Americans or African-Americans.

BUT. I do believe (and this is a capitalist speaking) it is incumbent on us a society to look around and see if any past ills of this society have caused a segment to fall behind the pack. When clear evidence can be presented that it has, we owe it to them, and as they are us, we owe it to ourselves to see to it that all are carried along together.

If a black, red, white, brown or yellow man is too lazy to go get a decent job, shame on them. If black men, red men, white men, brown men or yellow men have been put in a position where they cannot, shame on us.

[Redleg]

Must be a bad week then, Redleg? Nope its being called a revisionist by someone who has gotten their facts wrong.




I'm having trouble deciding if you just don't read all of the cites you post here (which is possible considering that you misread my post - twice now) or if you are being deliberately obtuse.


No more then you. Speaking of misreading - how else is one suppose to determine when one deliberatly uses the word revision effort. Hell Aenlic you got Wounded Knee confused with the 1876 uprising of the Souix, and you call my statements rivision. Yea right.



First you post a link to a site that uses amateur historian Osborn's much disputed book, then you post a link to a Wikipedia article claiming that it has the same info. It has some of the same info. You apparently couldn't be bothered to read the fine print in the Wiki article, could you? This is from your link, by the way.


Someone needs to read a little better himself. I stated Wikipedia also has almost the same information I guess you missed the word almost. But as for missing information I guess you missed the one that states
If we loosen our definition further and decide to count all people who died violently in the ongoing warfare between whites and Native Americans -- battle deaths as well as murders -- we can turn to the 1894 estimate by the US Census Bureau (cited in Russel Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival).

Which is the statement I used - regradless of the disputed work of the amateur historian being in the link. Which I don't agree with - therefor the use of the above mentioned following paragraph from that source.

Are you trying to say his work is false and revisionist? Or just that he was incorrect in his research and therefor his conclusion.



You haven't recently struck me as being that stupid; so I have to assume that the above is merely a case of you being intentionally wrong to provoke an argument.


Maybe so - but when some calls me a revisionist - I take it personal - especially when the information I cited in my initial post comes from easily reference sources. My only mistake was calling the Black Hill as part of the unceded land - the unceded land however happen to be on the border of the reservation. Shall I point out more of your mistakes on the history - which are more numerous then mine.



As for your spelling, you decided to call me ignorant. In the same sentence you then misspelled a word I'd spelled correctly for you at least three times previously. I find that rather ironic. If you want to pick a fight and call others ignorant, then you'd best use a spell checker. Otherwise I recommend taking to heart the ancient Chinese proverb: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Have a nice day. ~D

You actually might want to look at who called who a name first - and then look at how the sentence was used. What I stated was simply this The problem comes from both poles of prespective - even in your statement you show ignorance of what actually happened and gognitive dissonance seems to be setting in - shall I spell out for you what that means - showing ignorance of what actually happened is different from calling someone ignorant. You like to play word games - but don't want them used at you it seems.

Yes indeed you also need to pay attention to the ancient Chinese proverb.

[Aenlic]

Nope its being called a revisionist by someone who has gotten their facts wrong.

Except, if you'll look back, sport, you'll see that you entered the discussion on the topic of massacres by calling me ignorant first; to which I responded with the post calling you a revisionist. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. ~D Prior to that, I hadn't even directed a pst at you in this thread. You started it, now deal with it and quit whining. :bow:

At no point in this thread did I direct a post at you until you said this:


The problem comes from both poles of prespective - even in your statement you show ignorance of what actually happened and gognitive dissonance seems to be setting in.

"You" and "your" were directed at me specifically in a post directed at me specifically.

As for the use of the word revision. You accused Del Arroyo of it, before I accused you of it.

This isn't the first time you've pulled this crap. I guess it won't be the last. Next you'll start the usual rant that others are spuriously claiming the moral high ground after insulting you. I've seen better behaved children, Redleg. Really.

[Redleg]

After re-reading my post, I see how it could be misconstued to think I was calling for a compensation to be given to blacks for their ancestors being slaves. Not entirely true. I do call for an equal educational opportunity for them, and for further social assistance programs - which were promised, but somehow are still lacking. But, blacks were not my only point.

equal opportunity is exactly what should be in place. If its not then don't tell me about it - call the civil rights commissions and get the individuals responsible prosecuted for failing to honor the Civil Rights Act. Claiming there is still injustice and doing nothing about it is shameful.



That Red persists in attempting to justify the genecide committed against the Native Americans - be it by disease or the knife, is really of no importance. That 8-10 million perrished is.


LOL - again who justified what - I am correcting your faulty facts. You said 10 million were masscared - that is not correct. Most of the disease was not deliberate either - so it does not fit into the definition of genocide. Population estimates vary on what the total population of Native Americans were prior to the white man coming to the new world. You want to claim 10,000,000 deaths because of genocide - when that is not the case.



The arguement about ignoring the sins of the fathers, and we as individuals only being responsible to ourselves reeks of anarchy and self-importance.

So does blaming the sons for the sins of the fathers. We should not ignore the sins - but the future generations should not be blamed or held responsible for those sins.



And of racism in this case.


the same can be said of blaming the sons for the sins of the fathers.



Please, explain how those that feel a responsability for the failings of their fathers. And, whom ask that retribution in the form of equal education and opportunity are racists. It's quite a stretch - don't you think? Calling someone that asks for equality and justice for his felllowman, a racist?


That is not what was stated - calling for retribution is indeed racist in my opinion retribution requires a payment of some sort beyond what is already available.

Demanding the same equality for all is not racism.

When you attempt to blame the future for the past - well you get into something else don't you.



Turn off the Carl Roves spin channell, and listen to the reality of it all.

LOL - I don't listen to anything by Carl Rove - he is a spin master much like some others I know of.



If we persist in believing that all is well - simply because we have successfully suppressed a people for a time? Then believe. Believe the Watts riots are in the "distant past" - but, know that the new coming of a call for equality maybe right around the corner. Equality in education, in job opportunity, in housing, and in justice.


Equality is different then demanding retribution or reprations.



BTW, as for the orginal NZ issue. A compromise no doubt will be met. Be it monetary, or the granting of casino rights. What ever it is, I doubt anyone will lose a home or shop over it. Though they might.

Compromises always result from conflicting political viewpoints.

[Strike For The South]

It was wrong what we did to the indians and blacks and we need to learn from it but there is not one person today who makes off slavery or owned a slave or killed an idian just because he was an indian but if they get a handout so should I for a couple of reasons

1. The saxons kicked my celtic anscetors out of mainland britian to wales im going to go complain to Germany

2. The english reliougsly persecuted my ansectors forcing them to move to america after berlin onto london

3. My ansectors who fought for the confederacy who went to war not becuase they owned slaves (very few people actually did) but because they had to defend there homeland Im going to Washingtion

4. My Itilain heritage because they were persecuted espiacly down here in texas just for being Italian Im going to austin

5. My grand parents on my step dads side never gaduated high school hell my step Dad didn't graduate his parents worked 5 jobs combined to feed 7 kids and my dad for 20 years has had to bust his ass working in the grocery business to provide were the perfect family for free goverment handouts right lets go over the checklist

- Ansectors Raped Pillaged murdered check
- Ancestors forced to do things they wouldn't want to check
- Family not given a good position in the wrold because of this Check

alright wheres my fat check wait a second Im white this dosent apply to me although mu ansectors went through just as many hardships. If I asked for a check for the offenses listed above I'd get laughed at but switch my skin color and bravo suddenly Im eligible. What we did was wrong no doubt in my mind it was but you stand here and tell me my familys tax dollars should go to right the wrongs we never committed and were sometimes forced upon us. Save me the PC bullshit

[Don Corleone]

You're missing the point, Strike. If YOU weren't able to get a job because you're a stinking Celt, Welsh, Confederate... and more importantly an entire group of people likewise couldn't make headway, then I'd agree with you.

I don't agree with Affirmative Action or direct reparations, unless as in the case of the Maori, it's to honor a treaty. It's not equality, it's a vote-garnering fake-cure, and that's not what I'm talking about. But when you look and see 40% of Native Americans are illiterate and 70% question the value of an education (numbers created for the purpose of a hypothetical point, I have no idea what they truly are), primarily because it was by sending their kids to school in the past that cost them their language (Native children were beaten for speaking in any tongue but English) then yeah, we should stop and see what we can do to encourage education among Native Americans to counteract the affects of our past 'education'.

Make sense?

[Redleg]

Except, if you'll look back, sport, you'll see that you entered the discussion on the topic of massacres by calling me ignorant first; to which I responded with the post calling you a revisionist. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. ~D Prior to that, I hadn't even directed a pst at you in this thread. You started it, now deal with it and quit whining. :bow:

Again then you misread the statement - where did I call you ignorant - I stated simply this The problem comes from both poles of prespective - even in your statement you show ignorance of what actually happened and gognitive dissonance seems to be setting in

Here is the statement that refers to:

But people like to feel good about themselves. They like to think their "civilization" is more advanced and better. So the realities are ignored if they are in any way negative. Cognitive dissonance sets in. It's so much easier to wave your flag about in happy ignorance than with a healthy dose of reality to leaven the nationalism.

Shall I point out the errors in your initial post regarding history again in that same post which was all one paragraph. Maybe I should of split them in two and I would of understood your statements within the context of what you orginally meant - but I read the paragraph as the paragraph being all of one thought..


When we found someplace that looked reasonably inhospitable and uninhabitable, we shunted them off to reservations from which they weren't allowed to leave - even to hunt for food. Where you then went to refer to the Black Hills and the Souix Reservation and the resulting conflict because of the white intrusion onto the reservation because of Custer's scouting and actions.

Your initial paragraph was not true regarding the Souix of the Black Hills Reservation in the 1870-1875 time frame. Cheif Red Cloud won the tribe the rights to hunt in the unceded lands - something you seem to ignore or were ignorant of in your initial post.

Not once did I say you are ignorant - just that you have shown ignorance of what really happened in your statement.

Ingnorance of what actually happens could also be written as lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified (the thing specified being that some tribes were indeed allowed to hunt off of Reservation Lands)

Calling someone ignorant would imply something else. An direct insult meaning that one is destitute of knowledge or education. Which is not what I stated now is it.

By the way I can more then take it - but some things seem to be more of your misunderstanding of what is written and you having a thin skin when someone states your lack of knowledge concerning a given subject. You like to play little word games - but it seems you missed the intent and the context of my statment and took it for an insult. Laughable and sad at the same time.

The statement as used does not imply one is ignorant as an individual - just lacks knowledge or understanding of a particlur subject. I am ignorant of a few things - like how a submarine works under water. How to repair a nuclear power plant. That does not mean I am ignorant as an individual - just that I lack knowledge of those subjects.

Did you not in an earlier thread attempt to critize people for not reading what is written and seeing what they wanted to see. I suspect you wanted to see the statement as an insult - not for what it actually stated so that you can claim my statements were nothing but revision. However I haven't seen you address your conflicts about Wounded Knee and the 1876 Souix Uprising. Nor your other historical inaccuracies on the subject.

It seems again that instead of reading what is written you decided to assume that my statement was an insult - verus a simple statment.

Now the use of the word rivisionist is indeed a delibrate attempt at insulting a person with an opposing view. Where my use of the word ignorance was used correctly in the context of the statement - but I was ignorant is assuming that you were an educated individual who understood the finer points of the english language in a written discussion. I tell you what - I will attempt to use even simplier english and fewer bigger words so that my spelling mistakes don't confuse you.

Hell the use of the word ignorance was even about massacres but the whole jumbled paragraph that you initially written about the Black Hills and hunting. But a nice attempt to take the statement out of context of what was written.

[Azi Tohak]

I do call for an equal educational opportunity for them, and for further social assistance programs - which were promised, but somehow are still lacking.

Equal educational opportunities? Futher social assistance programs? Don't both already exist? Or do you want to continue to coddle the useless and make them even more dependant upon Daddy government? Think the programs might be lacking because it is easier to just sit and wait for the check (that I pay for) in the mail? There is no incentive towards productivity when everything you want will be given to you.


Calling someone that asks for equality and justice for his felllowman, a racist?

If I demand the abolishment of the race blocks from the national standardized tests... am I racist? If I demand the elimination of quotas... am I racist (or sexist)? Equality of justice, that is an admirable goal. But Cops do the best they can too. So do the courts.


If we persist in believing that all is well - simply because we have successfully suppressed a people for a time? Then believe. Believe the Watts riots are in the "distant past" - but, know that the new coming of a call for equality maybe right around the corner.

Successfully suppressed a people? Wouldn't that mean that no minorities are allowed to do anything beyond penal work? Like White-Australia right? What about the 'suppressed people' who have become something? Were they white enough that all us evil crackers allowed them to join our club? No. They earned it. I will never believe that useless people are useless because it is someone else's fault. Some people are born dumb, but there are (always) jobs for them. Some people are born useless... why are they still alive? 500 years ago they would die. Not in the wonders of today's welfare state though! Nope, they can continue to drain productive people. I miss the good old days for that anyway.


Equality in education, in job opportunity, in housing, and in justice.

Sounds lovely! When do we start? Get rid of affirmative action, to take care of the first two. Housing? What, you want everyone in a $100,000 home? You live in what you can earn. If you don't earn money, or don't earn much, what entitles you to live in my Mom's house? Justice... ah yes... Justice. I already dealt with this above, but basically, you are going to see racism if you want to find it. I don't believe there is any systematic racism in the courts or in Cops either.

Azi

P.S. Counting the minutes until someone calls me racist...

[Productivity]

We removed their children and educated them to be good little Christians (a practice some in Australia might be familiar with, I think).

Sadly true - I've heard people here still argue that it was a good policy :furious3: :shame: :no:

[Aenlic]

Again then you misread the statement - where did I call you ignorant - I stated simply this The problem comes from both poles of prespective - even in your statement you show ignorance of what actually happened and gognitive dissonance seems to be setting in

Here is the statement that refers to:

But people like to feel good about themselves. They like to think their "civilization" is more advanced and better. So the realities are ignored if they are in any way negative. Cognitive dissonance sets in. It's so much easier to wave your flag about in happy ignorance than with a healthy dose of reality to leaven the nationalism.

Shall I point out the errors in your initial post regarding history again in that same post which was all one paragraph. Maybe I should of split them in two and I would of understood your statements within the context of what you orginally meant - but I read the paragraph as the paragraph being all of one thought..

Well, it's becoming obvious that the problem is your ability to read. It shows in your ability (or lack thereof) to write. It's a problem with your comprehension of the English language.


Where you then went to refer to the Black Hills and the Souix Reservation and the resulting conflict because of the white intrusion onto the reservation because of Custer's scouting and actions.

Once again, you're misreading my post. I can try to use smaller words. Would misspelling them, using incorrect punctuation, and taking everything you say out of context help you to understand my posts? I'm trying to help you out here.


Your initial paragraph was not true regarding the Souix of the Black Hills Reservation in the 1870-1875 time frame. Cheif Red Cloud won the tribe the rights to hunt in the unceded lands - something you seem to ignore or were ignorant of in your initial post.

You almost had it within your grasp; and then you lost it. That portion in my post didn't refer to the Black Hills. As I tried to clarify for you later, I should have (please note: it's "should have" not "should of") split the paragraph there. When I wrote that portion, I was thinking of Wounded Knee. I then went on to describe another crime, which was in addition to forcing tribes onto unwanted land. That crime was removing tribes from lands we later wanted. I used the Black Hills as an example. Yes, I should have split those two thoughts up into separate paragraphs; so some dolt wouldn't come along and combine the two thoughts and then build a strawman to knock down. ~;)


Not once did I say you are ignorant - just that you have shown ignorance of what really happened in your statement.

This is rather sad. It is so very much like Clinton's pathetic "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is" statement. Coming from you, it's almost but not quite more ironic than idiotic.


Ingnorance of what actually happens could also be written as lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified (the thing specified being that some tribes were indeed allowed to hunt off of Reservation Lands)

At no point did I ever say that all tribes were not allowed to hunt off their lands. Again, you're making a strawman to knock down. Feel better?


Calling someone ignorant would imply something else. An direct insult meaning that one is destitute of knowledge or education. Which is not what I stated now is it.

Isn't it? Oh, wait. There's that pesky word "is" again. I suppose it depends on what your definition of the word "is" is. You might also want to try using a "?" when asking a question. Not being able to spell or punctuate could be construed as a lack of knowledge or education. ~:)


By the way I can more then take it - but some things seem to be more of your misunderstanding of what is written and you having a thin skin when someone states your lack of knowledge concerning a given subject. You like to play little word games - but it seems you missed the intent and the context of my statment and took it for an insult. Laughable and sad at the same time.

Is that why you always get your panties in a wad when someone calls you on your inability to read and comprehend simple English? You insult others then play games trying to claim they insulted you first. Rather childish, don't you think?


The statement as used does not imply one is ignorant as an individual - just lacks knowledge or understanding of a particlur subject. I am ignorant of a few things - like how a submarine works under water. How to repair a nuclear power plant. That does not mean I am ignorant as an individual - just that I lack knowledge of those subjects.

Redefining ignorant again? Can you spell redundant too?


Did you not in an earlier thread attempt to critize people for not reading what is written and seeing what they wanted to see. I suspect you wanted to see the statement as an insult - not for what it actually stated so that you can claim my statements were nothing but revision. However I haven't seen you address your conflicts about Wounded Knee and the 1876 Souix Uprising. Nor your other historical inaccuracies on the subject.

You intended it as an insult. You're now attempting to claim it wasn't. Whatever you say. And which historical inaccuracies are you discussing? The ones you made up to make a point, after misreading my post?


It seems again that instead of reading what is written you decided to assume that my statement was an insult - verus a simple statment.

What is the definition of "is" anyway?


Now the use of the word rivisionist is indeed a delibrate attempt at insulting a person with an opposing view. Where my use of the word ignorance was used correctly in the context of the statement - but I was ignorant is assuming that you were an educated individual who understood the finer points of the english language in a written discussion. I tell you what - I will attempt to use even simplier english and fewer bigger words so that my spelling mistakes don't confuse you.

Well, we can agree on your first sentence here. You did indeed insult Del Arroyo when you said he was a revisionist, in the post you made right before insulting me. As for the finer points of the English language, I think perhaps you should rethink that statement; or perhaps buy a dictionary and a book on grammar and proper usage. It isn't just spelling mistakes. It's an entire record of a total inability to understand and use English, either written or read. While we're on the subject, when did a "-" become a period, a semi-colon, and a colon all rolled into one? There is a difference between a typo and ignorance. No wait. I meant lack of knowledge, not ignorance. Or did I? What is the meaning of the word "is" again?


Hell the use of the word ignorance was even about massacres but the whole jumbled paragraph that you initially written about the Black Hills and hunting. But a nice attempt to take the statement out of context of what was written.

Ah, finally we get to your favorite tactic. Now it's me taking entire statements out of context instead of you. Along with a good dictionary, a good thesaurus, a manual of punctuation, grammar and usage such as the Chicago Manual of Style and a refresher course in reading, I recommend that you seek professional help for this problem with projection. I'm using projection in the psychiatric sense, by the way. I wouldn't want to end up in a discussion of how you were accused of being bad at showing home movies or something equally asinine.

[Redleg]

Well, it's becoming obvious that the problem is your ability to read. It shows in your ability (or lack thereof) to write. It's a problem with your comprehension of the English language.

Blah blah blan



Its all really rather sad - your just spoiling for a fight.

I express my views the way I like to express them. You can believe what you want to believe - but once again before criticizing my use of language maybe you should read the statement again.

Since when is the use of the term ignorance an intended insult?

However telling me to see a professional - you might want to rethink that statement. You just went a little to far with that one.

[Aenlic]

I take it I won't be on your Christmas card list, then? I'm heartbroken.

[Redleg]

I take it I won't be on your Christmas card list, then? I'm heartbroken.

Since I don't send Christmas cards out - no need to be heartbroken

[Aenlic]

Oh, good. I won't be crushed then.

[Papewaio]

Since this is NZ we were talking about...

Can either A or R name the national sport er religion of New Zealand?

What special dance they do before proceedings begin in said religion?

The languages that New Zealands national anthem is sung in?

The name of the national sports team and its ethnic makeup?

The Waitangi Treaty is not the standard variety of treaty that may have cropped up elsewhere, nor is the level of racism as bad as I have seen in say Australia. There are definitly problems, and there are definitly people trying to take advantage or playing the role of victim to the point of self damage.

However it is not the same as the White Australia policy nor the same as the way American Indians have been treated.

It is not unique, but it certainly is different.

[Incongruous]

The name of the national sports team and its ethnic makeup?

What National team? We have loads.

[Redleg]

Since this is NZ we were talking about...

Can either A or R name the national sport er religion of New Zealand?

What special dance they do before proceedings begin in said religion?

The languages that New Zealands national anthem is sung in?

The name of the national sports team and its ethnic makeup?



Now ask me if I care.... :dizzy2:

[Aenlic]

Since this is NZ we were talking about...

Can either A or R name the national sport er religion of New Zealand?

Let me take a wild (OK, not so wild, since I know the answer) guess and say it involves the All Blacks in the Rugby Union. I might not have known, except that on a recent episode of the Antique Show on PBS, a guy in England had an All Blacks jersey and a cap, signed by the team, from the 1905 All Blacks team that conquered European rubgy. ~D


What special dance they do before proceedings begin in said religion?

Do you mean the Haka? ~;)

Ka mate! Ka mate! Ka ora! Ka ora!
Ka mate! Ka mate! Ka ora! Ka ora!
Tenei te tangata puhuru huru
Nana nei i tiki mai
Whakawhiti te ra
A upa ... ne! ka upa ... ne!
A upane kaupane whiti te ra!
Hi!


The languages that New Zealands national anthem is sung in?

I'll wager a guess and say English and Maori.


The name of the national sports team and its ethnic makeup?

See above. ~;)

As for ethnic makeup, you tell me. Here's the current team roster:

Forwards
Ali Williams, Carl Hayman, Chris Jack, Derren Witcombe, Greg Somerville, James Ryan, Jerome Kaino, Jerry Collins, John Afoa, Keven Mealamu, Marty Holah, Richie McCaw, Rodney So'oialo, Sione Lauaki, Tony Woodcock

Backs
Aaron Mauger, Byron Kelleher, Conrad Smith, Dan Carter, Doug Howlett, Joe Rokocoko, Kevin Senio, Leon MacDonald, Luke McAlister, Malili Muliaina, Piri Weepu, Rico Gear, Sitiveni Sivivatu, Tana Umaga

Brian Lochore - Selector
Graham Henry - Coach
Steve Hansen - Asst Coach
Wayne Smith - Asst Coach

You might have noticed earlier in this thread that I mentioned Once Were Warriors being one of my top 20 all-time favorite movies. It wasn't a great deal of trouble to find the answers to your questions. ~:)

[Tribesman]

Now ask me if I care....
Yet you are writing in a topic that was about that nation , that nations heritage , founding principles , ethnic make up and current politics ~D ~D ~D

[Ser Clegane]

Well when England ponies up and pays for a significantly large portion of such "debts" then maybe I will think about it. Since some of my ancestors were indentured servants and convict labours.

Or that the English allowed slavery for the most part to be institutionalized in the United States over 100 years before the colonies became their own country.

Or the Spanish pony up and pay for all the Indians throughout the America's that they happily put to the sword.

When one starts speaking of the sins of the fathers and the debts of the sons because of the sins of the fathers how far are you wanting to go back. Its a vicous little circle is it not.

Of course one has to decide on a case-by-base basis if and in which form a "compensation" is appropriate and feasible.

Hence my rather "vague" statement:

Generally I would agree that sons should not be punished for the sins of the fathers.
However, if the sons to some degree still benefit from the sins of their fathers - and one could argue that this is the case - and the children of the victims still feel the effects of what happened to their ancestors, some form of compensation could be considered to be appropriate.

I am not saying that the sons should always be held responsible for the sins of their fathers, but neither do I think that a certain responsibility should be categorically ruled out.
In the case of slavery several things of course need to be considered.
a) It is not a problem that ceased to exist many generations ago, legal disadvantages of the "former slaves" only dissappeared in the second half of the last century.
b) "Some form of compensation" does not mean that each and every descendant of former slaves should just receive a paycheck, as just giving money is hardly a meaningful way to even out the odds that grew over generations. "Affirmative action" actually is already a form of compensation (though I agree that in it's current form it's probably not the best way).

I am not claiming to have any perfect solutions (i.e., ideas for a good and appropriate way of compensation). What I am tyring to say, is that just stating "Slavery has been abolished for 150 years now - that's enough time to catch up already - and my family never had slaves anyway" seems to be a too easy way to avoid responsibility (not persoanlly but as a society).

I won't go into the second part of your post, as Tribesman already pointed out that we actually did pay for the sins of our fathers (and I consider this to be justified).

[Papewaio]

The name of the national sports team and its ethnic makeup?

What National team? We have loads.

Which game would you define as the national religion?

[Papewaio]

Now ask me if I care....
Yet you are writing in a topic that was about that nation , that nations heritage , founding principles , ethnic make up and current politics ~D ~D ~D

Precisely.

If you understand New Zealand you will understand that the All Blacks and sports in general are very important.

The All Blacks is a Pakeha, Maori and Islander (Fiji, Samoa etc) team that is highly respected in NZ.

New Zealanders as a whole have a lot of frictions, but sports has proven to be a valuable way to bind the nation.

[Aenlic]

Question for you, Papewaio, since I don't know and I'm too lazy to go look it up right now; in that list of the current team for the All Blacks which I posted above, are all those names Maori, Pakeha or Islander? The anglicized ones are just that? My impression was that the team was mostly Maori, etc. but it's all? I'm asking because I really don't know.

[Devastatin Dave]

Allow me to answer the "Am I a racist?" question. If you are white, then by default, then yes, you are a racist. That's just how it works, sorry.

[Papewaio]

They the team are a mix of all, and some of them individually are a mix of all.

Some Maori's have very British names, while others have Maori ones.

All Blacks Fansite (http://www.allblacks.com/team/)

For instance Tana Umaga is the Captain of the All Blacks and his parents are Samoan immigrants. In fact he even played against his brother in a New Zealand vs Samoa game.

Jonathan Falefasa "Tana" Umaga (http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Umaga_Tana.html)

[Aenlic]

Aha. Ok. Thanks for clearing that question up for me!

I couldn't find it on the web site, but on the PBS antiques show they were discussing the origin of the name All Blacks in reference to the old jersey and cap. The "expert" suggested that it wasn't just that the team wore all black uniforms; but that when they were asked what the team colors were in preparation for the 1905 European rugby events, they said "all black" and it stuck, even though they hadn't previously used all black. Occam's Razor would suggest that the simpler answer, that they simply wore all black, would be the case; but the other story is more interesting.

[Csargo]

I'm not Racist I hate everyone equally.

~D ~D ~D ~D ~D

[Papewaio]

Urban myths?

The tale that I heard was that instead of printing on the posters All Backs (as in all very skilled players) they printed it up with All Blacks...

Their first name was the Invincibles.

[KafirChobee]

The original post was absolutely(!) inacceptable and inexcusable - I don't want to see this kind of "post" again :stare:
- Ser Clegane

[Papewaio]

Kafir... I humbly suggest you remove that post.

Can you even name the ethnicity of Daves wife?

[KafirChobee]

Now ask me if I care.... :dizzy2:

Red. after reading all your posts here on the subject of racism; I agree, you do not care. Nor, do you understand it or appreciate the import of the consequences of ignoring that it is happening.

Still, I do know you are a basically caring person, that is simply trying to cover up the sins of his predicessors by blaiming everything and everyone else for their failings. While in the mean time accusing all others for being wrong for having alternative views yo their ancestors; or conceeding that they owe some form of payment (ergo, me) to their sins.

Accpeting that at their death the responsability of their crimes ends, is like saying that the crime never existed; and ergo, doesnot require compensation.

Red, generally you present an intelligent and well thought through arguement. In this case, you reveal your own prejudices and biases. Sorry mate, but you are a racist. Aren't you? Or, is it me - because I care about all mankind versus one race or one nation?
:balloon2:

[Xiahou]

Wow, Kafir calls 2 people bigots inside of 20 minutes. I'm impressed...:laugh:

[Redleg]

Red. after reading all your posts here on the subject of racism; I agree, you do not care. Nor, do you understand it or appreciate the import of the consequences of ignoring that it is happening.

You would be incorrect with this conclusion - but continue to delude yourself in thinking you understand me. Edit: Nice attempt to take a statement out of context - spin away my dear sir spin away.



Still, I do know you are a basically caring person, that is simply trying to cover up the sins of his predicessors by blaiming everything and everyone else for their failings. While in the mean time accusing all others for being wrong for having alternative views yo their ancestors; or conceeding that they owe some form of payment (ergo, me) to their sins.


You would be wrong again - my ancestors happen to include Navajo and Cherokee. I just find issue with incorrect history and a few other things that I might have carried to far in this discussion.

Care to guess how many times I have visited the reservations around New Mexico and Oklhoma researching some of my ancestors.

Or maybe you might want to explain why my First Sergeant, who also happened to be a tribal dancer for the Souix Nation, gave me a brave's feather when we served together. I could tell you that means - but I will let you attempt to figure it out.



Accpeting that at their death the responsability of their crimes ends, is like saying that the crime never existed; and ergo, doesnot require compensation.


Forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is criminal in my opinion - so I will always take that postion.



Red, generally you present an intelligent and well thought through arguement. In this case, you reveal your own prejudices and biases. Sorry mate, but you are a racist. Aren't you? Or, is it me - because I care about all mankind versus one race or one nation?
:balloon2:

Again you would be incorrect in trying to call me a racist - You might want to check and see what the term racist means. Pointing out errors in history and terms used is not racism. Pointing out that I don't agree with the use of the term genocide as it relates to the death of Native Americans as a result of diasease carried to the new world by Europeans does not make one a racist. Pointing out that I see no need for reprations to blacks because some stupid white men decided to own slaves does not make one a racist.

Oh by the way just love the overuse of the word by some. Try pointing out where I stated something that is racist on its face.

Do I have some baised views as it relates to history of some events - sure but who doesn't. Just look at your use of the term genocide - it shows an equal baised viewpoint does it not.

And you might want to check out what the term bigot really means.

Edit to help you out since you want to throw the terms around

Racist is defined in Websters as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Bigot is defined in Websters as a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Careful on throwing out the term bigot - certain people fall more in line with what the term actually means far more then I do.

[Tribesman]

Forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is criminal in my opinion - so I will always take that postion.
So Germanys reparations to holocaust and slave labour survivors or their descendants are a crime , as are Austrias , Australias awarding of land and mineral rights to its natives are a crime , New Zealand making efforts to abide by its treaty is a crime , the Supreme court awarding US tax payers money over broken treaties is a crime .
What a strange position to take Red .

[Redleg]

Forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is criminal in my opinion - so I will always take that postion.
So Germanys reparations to holocaust and slave labour survivors or their descendants are a crime.

Only if it comes now over 60 years after the events and after such reprations that Germany has agreed on paying. Notice the key words used force and agreed - however as you have already shown Germany agreed to pay the reprations in 1953 and East Germany agreed in, what was it, 1993 once they had re-unified. Now if say Israel was to claim Germany owed them more for the suffering and attempted to get it forced upon Germany - then yes that would be criminal in my opinion since Germany has already paid the reprations and had agreed on the amount.




, as are Austrias , Australias awarding of land and mineral rights to its natives are a crime , New Zealand making efforts to abide by its treaty is a crime , the Supreme court awarding US tax payers money over broken treaties is a crime .

Nice attempt to twist the statement. Notice your statement of abide by its treaty a big difference from forcing one to pay for the sins of the previous generation. Again notice what the Supreme Court actually did - not what you want to believe it did. It is forcing the government to abide to a treaty that was signed by both parties.



What a strange position to take Red .

Not at all when you place it into context of what I am saying, or in the way I orginally used the statement. But I do like your attempt at twisting it.

Should I be forced to pay additional tax dollars to give Americans of African descent who's ancestors might have been slaves as a form of repration for their being taken has slaves from Africa. Often not by American Slavers but many other countries as well.

Should I be penalized because my skin is white - by allowing less qualified individuals have the job because of their skin color.

If that is the case I can whip out my own race card and take my ancestors scroll number and put Native American on every application I fill out. But that would make me worse then a hypocrite in my opinion.

Equal opporunity means just that, equal opporunity based upon the merits of the individual - not the color of their skin. Were blacks mistreated because of the color of their skin by previous generations? Only a fool would deny it - however once again if equal opporunity and equal rights is what is being called for - one can not punish the next generation because of the errors and sins of the previous.

[Devastatin Dave]

Kafir... I humbly suggest you remove that post.

Can you even name the ethnicity of Daves wife?

My wife's 1/2 Thai, what did Kafir say?

[Redleg]

My wife's 1/2 Thai, what did Kafir say?

Something along the lines that we are both racist bigots because we don't see the issue exactly like he does. Edit forgot the smart-ass emoticon to be insert. ~:eek: :dizzy2:

[Devastatin Dave]

Something along the lines that we are both racist bigots because we don't see the issue exactly like he does. Edit forgot the smart-ass emoticon to be insert. ~:eek: :dizzy2:
Funny how those that scream racism so much are incapable of looking past skin color. Its a shame...

[Tribesman]

Now if say Israel was to claim Germany owed them more for the suffering and attempted to get it forced upon Germany - then yes that would be criminal in my opinion since Germany has already paid the reprations and had agreed on the amount.
But they didn't pay the amount that was claimed , and the only way you could force it for the full amount would be through the courts , so if the courts found the claim to be valid then they would be forced to pay . None of which would be criminal .

Again notice what the Supreme Court actually did - not what you want to believe it did. It is forcing the government to abide to a treaty that was signed by both parties.
No the payment is a sign of "goodwill" for breaches of obligation , while recognising the claim as legitimate it has no intention of honouriong it, what do you think I believed it was????

Should I be forced to pay additional tax dollars to give Americans of African descent who's ancestors might have been slaves as a form of repration for their being taken has slaves from Africa. Often not by American Slavers but many other countries as well.
Do you expect to ? As I said in my first reply to Panzers "don't tell the African Americans" it is a spurious claim being made by dodgy lawyers , it is completely different from all the others mentioned .
People are focusing on the ridiculousness of the dodgy claim to avoid addressing the legitimate claims .

So....Only if it comes now over 60 years after the events and after such reprations that Germany has agreed on paying.
What if it comes 130 years after the event and after agreed provisions have not been made ? What about after 170 years ?
Unless there is a time limit specified then it is not criminal .
If I had a 999 year lease on a property for a nominal rate and it was a fully legal contract , then the descendants of the owners contacted my descendants after realising that they could get a better deal elsewhere tried to break the contract what would be the legal outcome ? They would lose wouldn't they , as the original contract is still valid unless both parties agree to renegotiate or there is a clause that allows for such provisions.

BTW . back to reparations , it was only a couple of years ago that the Swiss were made to cough up the money to holocaust victims , yet they (like the Austrians ) are having difficulty finding them .
What is criminal is waiting 60 years to make the payments , not making a claim for the payments after 60 years .

[Redleg]

Now if say Israel was to claim Germany owed them more for the suffering and attempted to get it forced upon Germany - then yes that would be criminal in my opinion since Germany has already paid the reprations and had agreed on the amount.
But they didn't pay the amount that was claimed , and the only way you could force it for the full amount would be through the courts , so if the courts found the claim to be valid then they would be forced to pay . None of which would be criminal .

So then Germany is still not paying on the reprations that they agreed upon?



Again notice what the Supreme Court actually did - not what you want to believe it did. It is forcing the government to abide to a treaty that was signed by both parties.
No the payment is a sign of "goodwill" for breaches of obligation , while recognising the claim as legitimate it has no intention of honouriong it, what do you think I believed it was????

Well what did you think I meant with my statement? Which lead to this discussion - its really clear to me what I meant. Especially if one leaves the statement in the context in which it was made



Should I be forced to pay additional tax dollars to give Americans of African descent who's ancestors might have been slaves as a form of repration for their being taken has slaves from Africa. Often not by American Slavers but many other countries as well.
Do you expect to ? As I said in my first reply to Panzers "don't tell the African Americans" it is a spurious claim being made by dodgy lawyers , it is completely different from all the others mentioned .
People are focusing on the ridiculousness of the dodgy claim to avoid addressing the legitimate claims .


Not at all - I am not focusing on just that aspect - I am focusing on other aspects as well. But the statement you seem to take issue with does indeed focus on just that aspect.

Again forcing taxpayers to pay for sins of the past generations is all spurious claims. However again nice attempt at selective reasoning.




So....Only if it comes now over 60 years after the events and after such reprations that Germany has agreed on paying.
What if it comes 130 years after the event and after agreed provisions have not been made ? What about after 170 years ?
Unless there is a time limit specified then it is not criminal .

Agreed - but that is different then what you initial claimed my statement meant.



If I had a 999 year lease on a property for a nominal rate and it was a fully legal contract , then the descendants of the owners contacted my descendants after realising that they could get a better deal elsewhere tried to break the contract what would be the legal outcome ? They would lose wouldn't they , as the original contract is still valid unless both parties agree to renegotiate or there is a clause that allows for such provisions.


And that is what is happening in several courts in several lands - a far cry from forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is it not.



BTW . back to reparations , it was only a couple of years ago that the Swiss were made to cough up the money to holocaust victims , yet they (like the Austrians ) are having difficulty finding them .
What is criminal is waiting 60 years to make the payments , not making a claim for the payments after 60 years .

Then shame on the swiss for keeping their ill gotten gains - but again it seems the Swiss are not attempting to make the current generation pay for the sins of the previous now does it.

[ah_dut]

On this issue, I agree with Redleg. I mean if you've paid your dues (and sure as heck if it's agreed and from a previous generation or worse yet mroe than 5 generations removed) you must be insane to expect taxpayers money to compensate you. If for example, germany paid the amount it agreed to, you have no right to ask for any more...it's an agreed compensation that is/was agreeable to both parties and since it was agreed should not be changed.

And seriously, if we took their land and they want it back, they may have a point. but sometimes this goes too far. I refuse to accept that anybody deserves compensation for slavery in the 1800s....

[BDC]

On this issue, I agree with Redleg. I mean if you've paid your dues (and sure as heck if it's agreed and from a previous generation or worse yet mroe than 5 generations removed) you must be insane to expect taxpayers money to compensate you. If for example, germany paid the amount it agreed to, you have no right to ask for any more...it's an agreed compensation that is/was agreeable to both parties and since it was agreed should not be changed.

And seriously, if we took their land and they want it back, they may have a point. but sometimes this goes too far. I refuse to accept that anybody deserves compensation for slavery in the 1800s....
I demand reparations from the African slave dealers who sold other Africans into slavery, for making me liable for compensation claims.

[yesdachi]

~;)
I demand reparations from the African slave dealers
Yah, except that it would be their great great great grand kids. Lets hope one of them was related to Bill Gates. ~;)

[Tribesman]

Again forcing taxpayers to pay for sins of the past generations is all spurious claims. However again nice attempt at selective reasoning.



And that is what is happening in several courts in several lands - a far cry from forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is it not.
I don't get it at all Red forcing tax payers to pay is spurious unless it is courts that are forcing tax payers to pay ?????
So who other than the courts would be forcing tax-payers to pay ?

[Devastatin Dave]

Can I get reperations for how 10% of me that was repressed from the 90% of me?

[Devastatin Dave]

~D Oh and does Halle Berry's 50% gets reperations from the other 50% of her? (of course I wouldn't mind giving her 100% or my lovin', nyuck, nyuck, nyuck!!!)

[Redleg]

Again forcing taxpayers to pay for sins of the past generations is all spurious claims. However again nice attempt at selective reasoning.



And that is what is happening in several courts in several lands - a far cry from forcing one to pay for the sins of previous generations is it not.
I don't get it at all Red forcing tax payers to pay is spurious unless it is courts that are forcing tax payers to pay ?????


Yep you don't get it.



So who other than the courts would be forcing tax-payers to pay ?

It would be the courts if they decided to honor spurious claims for reprations. The courts telling the government they must abide by the agreed upon treaties is not spurious now is it?

It would be the government if say in the United States Congress some idiot of a representive or senator in an attempt to pander to one segment of the voting public attempt to get such spurious legislation through congress.

[Don Corleone]

Redleg, I might be mistaken, but I believe Tribesman is trying to make the point that if it's the court system that's ordering the payments, how could it be illegal.

To that, Tribesman, you're a slave to the lawyers in your country if you really honestly believe justice and what the judges say are one and the same.

[Redleg]

Redleg, I might be mistaken, but I believe Tribesman is trying to make the point that if it's the court system that's ordering the payments, how could it be illegal.

Well if that is his point - then I will have to concide that its not illegal.

[Tribesman]

Redleg, I might be mistaken, but I believe Tribesman is trying to make the point that if it's the court system that's ordering the payments, how could it be illegal.
WOOHOO Don gets it , congratulations you have just won a goldfish , well done (all prizes must be collected within 12 houirs of now , there is no cash alternative to your designated prize , if it is floating when you collect it , tough , we never told you it was a live goldfish did we ) ~;)

So in a nutshell if there is a reasonable legal case that can be brought forward then it is not criminal to make people pay , no matter how much time has elapsed .
If a government is deciding to pay up without a court ruling then you can be damn sure that they are paying because they know that they would lose any court case .

[Redleg]

Redleg, I might be mistaken, but I believe Tribesman is trying to make the point that if it's the court system that's ordering the payments, how could it be illegal.
WOOHOO Don gets it , congratulations you have just won a goldfish , well done (all prizes must be collected within 12 houirs of now , there is no cash alternative to your designated prize , if it is floating when you collect it , tough , we never told you it was a live goldfish did we ) ~;)

LOL




So in a nutshell if there is a reasonable legal case that can be brought forward then it is not criminal to make people pay , no matter how much time has elapsed .
If a government is deciding to pay up without a court ruling then you can be damn sure that they are paying because they know that they would lose any court case .

This is what you should of stated in the first place.

However once again you missed the important part of my point or most likely refused to ackownledge it.

Reasonable also does account for the amount of time elasped. For instance again the calling of reprations to the blacks because of the slavery issue.

Then their is an reasonable expectation of the amount of time someone or an organization should be able to asked for compensation from a precieved wrong.

Sometimes governments and organizations pay because its the the expedinent political thing to do - and not necessarily the right course of action in regards to justice. So the second part or your statement is not always necessarily correct.

[Tribesman]

This is what you should of stated in the first place.
~D ~D ~D Lets go all the way back to my first question in this topic....
Post #3What is the money for ? Is it penalties for breaches or infringements of the peace treaties that were signed with the Maori ? ~;)

[Redleg]

This is what you should of stated in the first place.
~D ~D ~D Lets go all the way back to my first question in this topic....
Post #3What is the money for ? Is it penalties for breaches or infringements of the peace treaties that were signed with the Maori ? ~;)

But then you must add what the discussion turned into in consideration. Especially when it turned into a discussion about other things.

Such as Kafir's post.

[Azi Tohak]

Rather than start a new thread, I figured I would use this one, as it is in the same vein I would have used (except about Bush, not me [I'm already convinced I am. A white male who is not self-loathing cannot be anything else in the USA.]).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucwb/20050914/cm_ucwb/isbusharacist;_ylt=Agw_TWJpj8BFfBWu7XmhQIn9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Azi

[GoreBag]

I find chopping wood rather fun.

I'm really not sure what the man is trying to say with this article, though.

[Franconicus]

Now, I have a problem with this. Like Maori, I have a mixture of races in me, including one that was seriously wronged in the past. My grandfather had to work as a slave laborer in Germany, because he was a part "Jew". I think a 1/4 was. My grandmother on the otherside was "German". Now this would make me 1/4 German. Do I now sue my 1/4 German side that my 1/16 Jew side was wronged. Of course not.
Of course! Your grandma has to pay money to your grandpa! ~;)