Am I a racist ?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

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.
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)?

[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 .

[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

[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/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 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/reso...ur/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. 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.

[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 .

[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]

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.

[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."

[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. 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.

[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