Am I a racist ?

[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

[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.

[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.

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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/resour...of%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/reso...ur/sandcrk.htm

[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

[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/tba...witstarted.htm

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

[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.

[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.

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/Nati...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.