Did you know about the Indian Act?
Yes
37.8% (14)
37.8% (14)
No
62.2% (23)
62.2% (23)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: On the subject of Racism

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

thaluikhain:

Gold:

manic_depressive13:
Stuff about Australia

Australia is surely one of the most racist countries in the world. It seems to be pretty much accepted to hate on asians, "boat people", "abos", "lebs" and I'm sure there's another race we all seem to hate but I can't for the life of me remember it. Probably because they're insignificant, the dirty minorities that they are.

Indians, perhaps? Or maybe arabs or persians (if people bother to make a distinction).

That's right, Indians.

thaluikhain:
I wouldn't say that makes Australia one of the most racist countries, though, and I don't mean that as a defense. Australia does treat aboriginal people particularly horribly, much worse than most minorities, it seems.

Aboriginals cop a massive amount of hardcore racism, but other races cop a lot of casual racism too. From bitching about telemarketers always being Indian, the Lebanese always being gang members, some people call Sunnybank "Yellowbank". Just stuff like that which is actually pretty unacceptable when you think about it.

EDIT: OH and "the boat people". Good fucking god it's made Facebook a pain in the ass to check.

Gold:
Aboriginals cop a massive amount of hardcore racism, but other races cop a lot of casual racism too. From bitching about telemarketers always being Indian, the Lebanese always being gang members, some people call Sunnybank "Yellowbank". Just stuff like that which is actually pretty unacceptable when you think about it.

Oh certainly, yeah. Didn't mean to imply only Aboriginal people receive racism, just that they seem to receive the worst of it.

Particularly annoying when the Green or someone try to be helpful and support Aboriginal people's rights to their land, but then turn around and fight to stop them doing anything with it because it's not "aboriginal" enough to actually do anything with your land.

Gold:
EDIT: OH and "the boat people". Good fucking god it's made Facebook a pain in the ass to check.

Heh, I know what you mean.

darlarosa:
Well the thing is then inform people when they make ignorant comments. Things that happened to Natives in the Americas tend to go unnoticed because well...most people don't have contact with Native Americans(in the continental context) and in both Canada and the US,as I understand it, there's always been this kind of seclusion forced or others. That and numbers. The descendants of black slaves outweigh the descendants of Natives who acknowledge or have proof of the fact. In the US a lot of...natives outside of certain areas were kind of bred out, as horrible as it sounds, their heritage hidden/lost/unacknowledged, and their culture suppressed. For those reasons and more Native Americans are over looked.

The most you can do is inform people of it. I do that when people are ignorant about black people...I also inform people that some Native Americans were captured and taken as slaves because no one cared (My great grandmother was descended from enslaved native americans though we think its possible her one or both of her parents were half black or bi-racial)).

That's what the point of this thread was, or is, to inform people that not only did it exist, it still exists. It's a topic worthy of discussion and I intend to attempt to teach anyone who cares to listen.

Gold:
I get most (lol all) of my knowledge about tribes from games and books, and in said games and books it seems like they consider the land their home or something like that. If the Government has given them this piece of "public property" as their home to make reparations for the damage that's been done, I think that's okay.

While the sentiment of "let's forget past grievances and fix the problems at hand!" is so very admirable coming from the people who weren't and aren't the ones receiving the constant effect of extreme racism, I don't think it really flies considering the scope of what's been done.

I think if you take peoples homes away from them, you give them a new one, not offer ten out of a hundred children a scholarship to university and call it a victory for equality.

On the issue of keeping people out of said home/community. I'm going to say I hesitantly agree with it. If they view the land as their home then anyone of any race just wandering into said home uninvited seems pretty fucked.

I really don't know enough about tribe culture or what was done in Canada to say this is anything other than opinion though.

P.S. If someone quotes me just to bang on about the actual number of people given scholarships for Affirmative Action I'll cut you. So not the point.

Edit: Lol Quoted the wrong part ><_><

That's basically hitting the nail on the head. One of my biggest issues with modern day world is that everyone is treated 100% exactly the same, regardless of heritage, bloodlines etc.

Blablahb:

Ninmecu:
But I don't see you bitching at farmers now allowing you on their land.

That's is because they purchased that land, and tend to use it. Many farmers don't fence most fields other than pastures, and entering generally isn't a problem unless you're damaging something. Heck, most drinking back in the day was done in shacks put in a field for two to three weekends, after which you often moved it to avoid police finding out. But hey, beers costing € 0,70-1,00 as opposed to € € 2,00 - 2,50 in a bar where only old people go make that worthwhile.

In any case I'd frown upon farmers placing signs that said 'no Jews allowed' next to their fields, like those indian groups are doing.

Ninmecu:
I don't see you bitching at the forest industry not letting you walk into their woods that are designated for cutting/growing.

Actually, that's fully legal, and all production forest is open to the public. They place signs when logging works are underway and place one or two people to warn the odd passerby.

Ninmecu:
I don't see you complaining about the Gated Communities as I pointed out earlier.

And if you thought before you judged, you'd have known I am a critic of those, and can support that with decent scientific arguments too, because I spent three years studying topics related to that.

Ninmecu:
But, y'know what, for the sake of lowering myself to your level

Your second post and you're already out of ammo and resorting to insults? Winning this argument should be easy if your situation is already that desperate.

Ninmecu:
They aren't seen as "Land owned by the Country" they're seen as "Land Segregated from the rest of the country" and are treated as such, much lower financing, much lower healthcare, much lower everything, not by the choosing of the tribes, many would rather have a free and open market, especially my Generation

Then make it so and stop insulting others who in the meantime take offense to the apartheid and racist policies the indian tribes demanded.

The tribes were not and have never been in a position to " demand" anything. They have been the subject of foreign rule since the invasion, that has not ceased. The separation of the tribes initially was due to the people not having the stomach to continue the blatant extermination of the natives that had been taking place previously, and wanted to ensure the tribes would not "contaminate" their own people or settlements. The people did not want their own children " mixing with natives" and did not want the customs, religions, beliefs and ideas of Native culture undermining their own authority, so the government rounded the natives up and forced the remaining "injuns" to be segregated from their own people by limiting them to reservations. You really have this a bit backwards, and I have to wonder where you get your history from that has taught you that the natives have any power to demand anything. If the natives had authority and power to demand anything, do you seriously think that the kidnapping of native children to be placed in Christian homes and the boarding schools would still be in operation even in this day and age of " civil rights"? Do you think that they chose to be separated in the first place? If they are actually given authority over their land as others seem to have the false impression of it existing, it would be a first step in improving their living condtions that has yet to happen. The only "power" the natives have to change anything is beg, plead and bribe to get outside help to make the punishment stop. That is all they really can do. They are forced to seek out human rights groups that have the backing enough to make changes, that is the only " power" we can muster at this point.

thaluikhain:
Oh certainly, yeah. Didn't mean to imply only Aboriginal people receive racism, just that they seem to receive the worst of it.

Nah I know how you meant it, you're right, they certainly get the worst by far. .

thaluikhain:
Particularly annoying when the Green or someone try to be helpful and support Aboriginal people's rights to their land, but then turn around and fight to stop them doing anything with it because it's not "aboriginal" enough to actually do anything with your land.

I lol'd.

thaluikhain:
Heh, I know what you mean.

Yeah it's pretty bad.

Lil devils x:
The tribes were not and have never been in a position to " demand" anything. They have been the subject of foreign rule since the invasion, that has not ceased. The separation of the tribes initially was due to the people not having the stomach to continue the blatant extermination of the natives that had been taking place previously, and wanted to ensure the tribes would not "contaminate" their own people or settlements.

I'm really not interested in talking about fantasy histories put together to create a victim role. What you wrote is completely inaccurate, and doesn't account for the many cases where groups described under the common denominator of indians, made war on Europeans.

The notion of all people being described as indians being united as one untill the Europeans managed to sail across the atlantic is downright ludicrous, and I really have to wonder if you really believe such a notion yourself.

Lil devils x:
The people did not want their own children " mixing with natives" and did not want the customs, religions, beliefs and ideas of Native culture undermining their own authority, so the government rounded the natives up and forced the remaining "injuns" to be segregated from their own people by limiting them to reservations.

Or maybe they just wanted to get rid of a bunch of notorious troublemakers who had done more than their fair share of killing, banditry, and siding with enemies in wars.

And whatever (religiously inspired) racism played a role in that is not exclusive to one ethnic group. It's sadly universal across the globe, so blaming one specific ethnic group for that is ridiculous, and more than a little racist.


Let alone that any of that justifies blatant racism in the form of allowing people to bar ethnicities from entering huge swathes of land just because of their skin colour. That's an apartheid-based policy, and completely undefendable.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
The tribes were not and have never been in a position to " demand" anything. They have been the subject of foreign rule since the invasion, that has not ceased. The separation of the tribes initially was due to the people not having the stomach to continue the blatant extermination of the natives that had been taking place previously, and wanted to ensure the tribes would not "contaminate" their own people or settlements.

I'm really not interested in talking about fantasy histories put together to create a victim role. What you wrote is completely inaccurate, and doesn't account for the many cases where groups described under the common denominator of indians, made war on Europeans.

The notion of all people being described as indians being united as one untill the Europeans managed to sail across the atlantic is downright ludicrous, and I really have to wonder if you really believe such a notion yourself.

Lil devils x:
The people did not want their own children " mixing with natives" and did not want the customs, religions, beliefs and ideas of Native culture undermining their own authority, so the government rounded the natives up and forced the remaining "injuns" to be segregated from their own people by limiting them to reservations.

Or maybe they just wanted to get rid of a bunch of notorious troublemakers who had done more than their fair share of killing, banditry, and siding with enemies in wars.

And whatever (religiously inspired) racism played a role in that is not exclusive to one ethnic group. It's sadly universal across the globe, so blaming one specific ethnic group for that is ridiculous, and more than a little racist.


Let alone that any of that justifies blatant racism in the form of allowing people to bar ethnicities from entering huge swathes of land just because of their skin colour. That's an apartheid-based policy, and completely undefendable.

What on earth are you going on about?" Fantasy histories?" What is that supposed to mean? I really have to hear this one, because it is the first time I have actually heard anyone call the genocide carried out on the Natives in the Americas as a " Fantasy History" considering this is pretty much well known by all parties involved here.

Please show me where I stated all tribes were united prior to the European invasion? Oh yea I did not, nor have I alluded to such. Just as other nations conduct business and relations, so did the tribes expanding a vast trade network through both the North and south American continents and Islands. If you would like to re-read the actual documents from the time period, you can see very well how the people were afraid of the natives "contaminating" their settlements. Racism against the natives has been quite acceptable in public, endorsed by both religious leaders and politicians for a very long time here and only in recent times has it been seen in a bad light. There is no lack of documentation on the subject, so I would really like to know where you are getting your very misinformed and misdirected ideas from.

As for people keeping huge swaths of land to themselves and not allowing others who wish to enter, I would think that every "nation" has been doing this much moreso than the few government forced reservations. Is that not what " national borders" do? So if all Americans decided they wanted to come live in your country, they should just be able to invade and set up shop and if you fail to allow them to do so, then you would be racist, and you are not right if you attempt to defend yourself, as that would be a racist attack on " innocent invaders".
Tribes of North America:
http://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/native_american_tribes_map1.jpg
Small sample of the trade routes that existed prior to the invasion:
http://www.cradleboard.org/curriculum/powwow/supplements/images/a_trading.gif
Exactly where was this vast amount of non occupied unwanted territory that was not being used at the time of the invasion? Where exactly did these peaceful invaders settle, and who were they? I have yet to hear of them. Where did all the people go that were in the area when they moved in? Where are they now and why? Stating that the tribes declared war on the invaders is almost laughable, if it weren't for the millions of people who were exterminated from their actions and the survivors that are still suffering right now from this.

From the point in time the first Europeans arrived in the Americas, until present day the abuse has not ceased. This is well documented, well known, and I am quite curious as to why you are suddenly a "native american genocide denier". I have heard they exist, but have never had the liberty to actually speak to one.

At first I started listing hundreds of links here from MIT to Cambridge on the subject, but then I decided to remove them, as I do not think you read the material you are given anyhow, I have given you information before. I am more curious as to what/ where you learned this misinformation on the current and past situations of the tribes.

This might be helpful to you though:
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Matter-Genocide-Holocaust-Americas/dp/0872863239

Blablahb:
I'm really not interested in talking about fantasy histories put together to create a victim role. What you wrote is completely inaccurate, and doesn't account for the many cases where groups described under the common denominator of indians, made war on Europeans.

The notion of all people being described as indians being united as one untill the Europeans managed to sail across the atlantic is downright ludicrous, and I really have to wonder if you really believe such a notion yourself.

Yes, humans have a habit of fighting to defend their land. The point of Lil's comment is simply to point out that the balance of power was completely one-sided. There is no atrocity the natives have committed that wasn't inflicted back on them a hundredfold.

Due to conflict, the British, French and so on usually signed treaties with many native American tribes guaranteeing them land rights where they could do their thing, so whites wouldn't bother them and they wouldn't bother whites. Treaties with real legal rights, and which (though re-formulated, and to the detriment of the natives) still largely exist today. It is nothing short of a tyranny for a government to arbitrarily and unilaterally steal land from people who legally hold it.

Agema:

Blablahb:
I'm really not interested in talking about fantasy histories put together to create a victim role. What you wrote is completely inaccurate, and doesn't account for the many cases where groups described under the common denominator of indians, made war on Europeans.

The notion of all people being described as indians being united as one untill the Europeans managed to sail across the atlantic is downright ludicrous, and I really have to wonder if you really believe such a notion yourself.

Yes, humans have a habit of fighting to defend their land. The point of Lil's comment is simply to point out that the balance of power was completely one-sided. There is no atrocity the natives have committed that wasn't inflicted back on them a hundredfold.

Due to conflict, the British, French and so on usually signed treaties with many native American tribes guaranteeing them land rights where they could do their thing, so whites wouldn't bother them and they wouldn't bother whites. Treaties with real legal rights, and which (though re-formulated, and to the detriment of the natives) still largely exist today. It is nothing short of a tyranny for a government to arbitrarily and unilaterally steal land from people who legally hold it.

Well yes, but I also would like to point out that it was the invaders who actually started the violence, due to their racist views of the people who inhabited these lands in the first place. The way the people living here were viewed in the eyes of the invaders was at the core. They started by kidnapping people, then came back to invade and proceded to brutally exterminate them in unspeakable ways. Some of these people actually escaped and made it to neighboring tribes to tell them of the atrocities that were commencing, many tribes viewed these things with their own eyes, and these histories are kept to this day in many tribes here. The tribes knew what was happening here from the beginning as the word spread. If such horrors are being told to you by refugees of long standing neighbors, how would you and your friends, family and neighbors respond when the invaders pouring people full of boiling soap and feeding nursing infants to dogs reached your doorstep? Watching people they have known their whole lives being forced to be worked to death and tortured and murdered. I would think they would be as terrified as the people who lived here were of such atrocities being carried out against them. Most tribes did not how to respond to such things, many were peaceful tribes that were not equipped for war. The treaties the invaders made later, they broke many times, also due to the lack of respect for the natives. If such violence was carried out against your people, and then the treaties made not worth the paper they are written on, what options are left for your people to survive?

Lil devils x:
What on earth are you going on about?" Fantasy histories?" What is that supposed to mean?

It means that your generalising view of history, using words like 'the invaders' or claiming that 'they' were always the ones to start violence, is completely historically inaccurate. I have just as little interest in a fabricated history like that, as I have interest in a history fabrication that goes 'So we landed in America, found godless savages there, and we brought them salvation!'.

Lil devils x:
I really have to hear this one, because it is the first time I have actually heard anyone call the genocide carried out on the Natives in the Americas as a " Fantasy History" considering this is pretty much well known by all parties involved here.

Uh... nope. Pretty much everyone who's even remotely respectable agrees on the causes of population decline being in large part disease.

Popular example that sold a ton of copies is Jared Diamond's Downfall. I think it's quite far fetched to claim that respected writers deny the role of epidemics and other causes, and instead lay the blame solely on some sort of fictional 'teh evil whites exterminated all the indians'. Name me a few examples of such denialists would you? Especially the part about disease not playing a role is important there, because that was the big killer.

Lil devils x:
Please show me where I stated all tribes were united prior to the European invasion?

"The separation of the tribes initially was due to the people not having the stomach to continue the blatant extermination of the natives that had been taking place previously" There you go.

Lil devils x:
As for people keeping huge swaths of land to themselves and not allowing others who wish to enter, I would think that every "nation" has been doing this much moreso than the few government forced reservations.

Oh really? Point out a few countries then where race is the sole determining factor if you're allowed to enter it then? Because to my knowledge, no such countries exist.

There's pretty much no country in the world that goes "You're white, therefore evil, so fuck off" like those racist tribes do. Except Zimbabwe of course, but if you want to compare a policy to those of Robert 'The African Hitler' Mugabe, I'd say I don't even need to attack that point.

Lil devils x:
From the point in time the first Europeans arrived in the Americas, until present day the abuse has not ceased. This is well documented, well known, and I am quite curious as to why you are suddenly a "native american genocide denier". I have heard they exist, but have never had the liberty to actually speak to one.

Are you quite done demonizing me because I don't buy into your bullshit victim role?

Maybe you should answer the question if you think you deserve punishment for the maltreatment of the Navajo instead?

Agema:
Yes, humans have a habit of fighting to defend their land.

So if I hate foreigners, and walk outside now to murder someone with a foreign appearance, I'm in the right and 'defending my land'?

Agema:
Due to conflict, the British, French and so on usually signed treaties with many native American tribes guaranteeing them land rights where they could do their thing, so whites wouldn't bother them and they wouldn't bother whites. Treaties with real legal rights, and which (though re-formulated, and to the detriment of the natives) still largely exist today. It is nothing short of a tyranny for a government to arbitrarily and unilaterally steal land from people who legally hold it.

To be able to steal something you've had to have a sovereignty claim first. Such a thing never occurred. Treaties have been made and broken many times.

The Peace of Münster settled land claims too. Does this entitle Spain to get all of Belgium and a part of the Netherlands today? No, because things change.

Likewise you can't just go generalising about landclaims by indian tribes, let alone claim that it entitles them in the present day and age, let alone that it entitles them to legalised apartheid against other groups.

For instance there's a few examples, like one in Australia, where settlers faced immediate agression from natives, and when the balance of power shifted, obviously the group under the common denominator of 'indians' got removed; people took offensive to getting attacked and killed merely for being there.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
What on earth are you going on about?" Fantasy histories?" What is that supposed to mean?

It means that your generalising view of history, using words like 'the invaders' or claiming that 'they' were always the ones to start violence, is completely historically inaccurate. I have just as little interest in a fabricated history like that, as I have interest in a history fabrication that goes 'So we landed in America, found godless savages there, and we brought them salvation!'.

Lil devils x:
I really have to hear this one, because it is the first time I have actually heard anyone call the genocide carried out on the Natives in the Americas as a " Fantasy History" considering this is pretty much well known by all parties involved here.

Uh... nope. Pretty much everyone who's even remotely respectable agrees on the causes of population decline being in large part disease.

Popular example that sold a ton of copies is Jared Diamond's Downfall. I think it's quite far fetched to claim that respected writers deny the role of epidemics and other causes, and instead lay the blame solely on some sort of fictional 'teh evil whites exterminated all the indians'. Name me a few examples of such denialists would you? Especially the part about disease not playing a role is important there, because that was the big killer.

Lil devils x:
Please show me where I stated all tribes were united prior to the European invasion?

"The separation of the tribes initially was due to the people not having the stomach to continue the blatant extermination of the natives that had been taking place previously" There you go.

Lil devils x:
As for people keeping huge swaths of land to themselves and not allowing others who wish to enter, I would think that every "nation" has been doing this much moreso than the few government forced reservations.

Oh really? Point out a few countries then where race is the sole determining factor if you're allowed to enter it then? Because to my knowledge, no such countries exist.

There's pretty much no country in the world that goes "You're white, therefore evil, so fuck off" like those racist tribes do. Except Zimbabwe of course, but if you want to compare a policy to those of Robert 'The African Hitler' Mugabe, I'd say I don't even need to attack that point.

Lil devils x:
From the point in time the first Europeans arrived in the Americas, until present day the abuse has not ceased. This is well documented, well known, and I am quite curious as to why you are suddenly a "native american genocide denier". I have heard they exist, but have never had the liberty to actually speak to one.

Are you quite done demonizing me because I don't buy into your bullshit victim role?

Maybe you should answer the question if you think you deserve punishment for the maltreatment of the Navajo instead?

Agema:
Yes, humans have a habit of fighting to defend their land.

So if I hate foreigners, and walk outside now to murder someone with a foreign appearance, I'm in the right and 'defending my land'?

Agema:
Due to conflict, the British, French and so on usually signed treaties with many native American tribes guaranteeing them land rights where they could do their thing, so whites wouldn't bother them and they wouldn't bother whites. Treaties with real legal rights, and which (though re-formulated, and to the detriment of the natives) still largely exist today. It is nothing short of a tyranny for a government to arbitrarily and unilaterally steal land from people who legally hold it.

To be able to steal something you've had to have a sovereignty claim first. Such a thing never occurred. Treaties have been made and broken many times.

The Peace of Münster settled land claims too. Does this entitle Spain to get all of Belgium and a part of the Netherlands today? No, because things change.

Likewise you can't just go generalising about landclaims by indian tribes, let alone claim that it entitles them in the present day and age, let alone that it entitles them to legalised apartheid against other groups.

For instance there's a few examples, like one in Australia, where settlers faced immediate agression from natives, and when the balance of power shifted, obviously the group under the common denominator of 'indians' got removed; people took offensive to getting attacked and killed merely for being there.

I have never met one person in my life that denied either, until now. Disease was only part of the extermination, the horrific unspeakable violence and enslavement was another.

"The separatation" of the tribes from the " white settlers" not the other tribes, L2R and put the rest of the sentence in the quote, and the details that further exlpained that statement to ensure it could not be taken any other way:
"The separation of the tribes initially was due to the people not having the stomach to continue the blatant extermination of the natives that had been taking place previously, and wanted to ensure the tribes would not "contaminate" their own people or settlements. The people did not want their own children " mixing with natives" and did not want the customs, religions, beliefs and ideas of Native culture undermining their own authority, so the government rounded the natives up and forced the remaining "injuns" to be segregated from their own people by limiting them to reservations."
If you are going to chop and paste, at least put the whole sentence in there.

FYI-white people can live on reservations, and do, they just have to be married in, as reservations are limited to native american families, this would include white people who married natives as well, and depending on the tribes situation these rules may vary. Some tribes have had serious issues with corruption, due to the mafia running the casinos, they became greedy and are actually kicking out actual native americans from their own reservations so they don't have to share the profits. Some of those in charge of these things are not even "Native American" to begin with.

In some tribes where they are actually facing complete extinction, the rules are more strict on who can enter, but that is more due to an "endangered species" policy rather than about race. So many tribes here have become extinct already, and we are fighting to keep some in existence. That is not an issue of " race" it is a matter of preventing an extinction.

Still funny you think you actually " have something" in regards to the Navajo-Hopi land dispute. Funny stuff there. Too bad the Navajo and Hopi still living in that zone throughout this entire time are not aware they were faulted for the problem caused by the US government and their cronies.

No sovereignty? The US courts disagree. So now that it has been ruled they have been given sovereignty as far back as when the settlers were under English rule, and extended that after they became the US, exactly why do they not get to receive the benefits of sovereignty?

"States have tried to extend their power over the tribes in many other instances, but federal government ruling has continuously ruled in favor of tribal sovereignty. A seminal court case was Worchester v. Georgia. Chief Justice Marshall found that "England had treated the tribes as sovereign and negotiated treaties of alliance with them. The United States followed suit, thus continuing the practice of recognizing tribal sovereignty. When the United States assumed the role of protector of the tribes, it neither denied nor destroyed their sovereignty."[28]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States

Lil devils x:

Blablahb:
Snipper

Snipped

Just gonna interject here,

First off, the vast majority of deaths among the natives was due to diseases such as smallpox. The complex (for lack of a better term) civilizations such as the Mississippians, the Aztecs, and the Inca were brought down mainly by diseases that were unintentionally transmitted by explorers such as Hernando De Soto. While the Spanish certainly did act cruelly toward the Natives where they could, you see a similar collapse of social structures all over the Eastern US as well do to diseases. There certainly was a great deal of violence toward the Natives, but the majority of the genocide was unintentional though I doubt most of the early settlers would have it any other way.

As for access to reservations by non-tribe members I have been on reservations a few times both in the Eastern US and the West (Cherokee and Navajo if I recall) and there is no stopping those not in the tribe from entering and exiting at will. To my knowledge the only thing stopping whites from living there is that individual tribe's laws. They actually encourage tourism as it is a good economic boost to most tribes.

Just sayin'.

Shock and Awe:

Lil devils x:

Blablahb:
Snipper

Snipped

Just gonna interject here,

First off, the vast majority of deaths among the natives was due to diseases such as smallpox. The complex (for lack of a better term) civilizations such as the Mississippians, the Aztecs, and the Inca were brought down mainly by diseases that were unintentionally transmitted by explorers such as Hernando De Soto. While the Spanish certainly did act cruelly toward the Natives where they could, you see a similar collapse of social structures all over the Eastern US as well do to diseases. There certainly was a great deal of violence toward the Natives, but the majority of the genocide was unintentional though I doubt most of the early settlers would have it any other way.

As for access to reservations by non-tribe members I have been on reservations a few times both in the Eastern US and the West (Cherokee and Navajo if I recall) and there is no stopping those not in the tribe from entering and exiting at will. To my knowledge the only thing stopping whites from living there is that individual tribe's laws. They actually encourage tourism as it is a good economic boost to most tribes.

Just sayin'.

Yes, I agree with both parts. There are " white people" on reservations, as well as the terribly tragedy of the epidemics that killed so many here. However, there were many reports from those times that entire villages were massacred and they blamed disease to get away with the murders as well, even when there were witnesses of these accounts. Don't get me wrong, many died from the diseases, terrifying numbers, but there were many other actions taking place during this time as well. The written and oral accounts of what happened both disease and the actions taken against the natives during this time were disturbing to say the least.

Lil devils x:

Shock and Awe:

Lil devils x:

Snipped

Just gonna interject here,

First off, the vast majority of deaths among the natives was due to diseases such as smallpox. The complex (for lack of a better term) civilizations such as the Mississippians, the Aztecs, and the Inca were brought down mainly by diseases that were unintentionally transmitted by explorers such as Hernando De Soto. While the Spanish certainly did act cruelly toward the Natives where they could, you see a similar collapse of social structures all over the Eastern US as well do to diseases. There certainly was a great deal of violence toward the Natives, but the majority of the genocide was unintentional though I doubt most of the early settlers would have it any other way.

As for access to reservations by non-tribe members I have been on reservations a few times both in the Eastern US and the West (Cherokee and Navajo if I recall) and there is no stopping those not in the tribe from entering and exiting at will. To my knowledge the only thing stopping whites from living there is that individual tribe's laws. They actually encourage tourism as it is a good economic boost to most tribes.

Just sayin'.

Yes, I agree with both parts. There are " white people" on reservations, as well as the terribly tragedy of the epidemics that killed so many here. However, there were many reports from those times that entire villages were massacred and they blamed disease to get away with the murders as well, even when there were witnesses of these accounts. Don't get me wrong, many died from the diseases, terrifying numbers, but there were many other actions taking place during this time as well. The written and oral accounts of what happened both disease and the actions taken against the natives during this time were disturbing to say the least.

Oh I am not trying to deny the crimes of the Europeans. They're numerous and fairly well documented. However I would like to maintain that what killed a vast majority (Up to 24 out of 25 our of the total population) was disease. It wasn't European violence that destroyed the Native Peoples of the Americas; it was Afro-Eurasian diseases.

Shock and Awe:

Lil devils x:

Shock and Awe:

Just gonna interject here,

First off, the vast majority of deaths among the natives was due to diseases such as smallpox. The complex (for lack of a better term) civilizations such as the Mississippians, the Aztecs, and the Inca were brought down mainly by diseases that were unintentionally transmitted by explorers such as Hernando De Soto. While the Spanish certainly did act cruelly toward the Natives where they could, you see a similar collapse of social structures all over the Eastern US as well do to diseases. There certainly was a great deal of violence toward the Natives, but the majority of the genocide was unintentional though I doubt most of the early settlers would have it any other way.

As for access to reservations by non-tribe members I have been on reservations a few times both in the Eastern US and the West (Cherokee and Navajo if I recall) and there is no stopping those not in the tribe from entering and exiting at will. To my knowledge the only thing stopping whites from living there is that individual tribe's laws. They actually encourage tourism as it is a good economic boost to most tribes.

Just sayin'.

Yes, I agree with both parts. There are " white people" on reservations, as well as the terribly tragedy of the epidemics that killed so many here. However, there were many reports from those times that entire villages were massacred and they blamed disease to get away with the murders as well, even when there were witnesses of these accounts. Don't get me wrong, many died from the diseases, terrifying numbers, but there were many other actions taking place during this time as well. The written and oral accounts of what happened both disease and the actions taken against the natives during this time were disturbing to say the least.

Oh I am not trying to deny the crimes of the Europeans. They're numerous and fairly well documented. However I would like to maintain that what killed a vast majority (Up to 24 out of 25 our of the total population) was disease. It wasn't European violence that destroyed the Native Peoples of the Americas; it was Afro-Eurasian diseases.

Those numbers are actually disputed, and that is also what I was discussing here, there were deaths attributed to smallpox and other disease that were not actually the cause of the deaths, and there has been evidence that could suggest they did intentionally use the small pox epedimic as covering up other murders during that time as well, inflating that number. It is difficult to be sure of the actual numbers, as native beliefs in protecting their deceased prevent the exhuming of the bodies for further study. There was debate on this a while back when they had found mass graves that had the bodies dismembered that were misattributued to small pox originally. The numbers of death from disease was high, but we still are not sure how high.

"In Europe and Asia, mortality rates from smallpox were approximately 30%. In the Americas, mortality rates were higher due to the virgin soil phenomenon, in which indigenous populations were at a higher risk of being affected by epidemics because there had been no previous contact with the disease, preventing them from gaining some form of immunity. Estimates of mortality rates resulting from smallpox epidemics range between 38.5% for the Aztecs, 50% for the Piegan, Huron, Catawba, Cherokee, and Iroquois, 66% for the Omaha and Blackfeet, 90% for the Mandan, and 100% for the Taino. Smallpox epidemics affected the demography of the stricken populations for 100 to 150 years after the initial first infection."
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2007_summer_fall/native-americans-smallpox.html

Now even the numbers on the Taino are skewed as well, because they had written accounts from Spaniards of the Taino being slaughtered and starved to death as well that were also misattributed to small pox until they read the written accounts of their deaths.
http://history208sfu.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/bartolome-de-las-casas/
http://www.theinfidels.org/zunb-bartolomedelascasas.htm
Reports of the events from las casas, for example, conflicted with the reports that all taino were killed by disease.

Bottom line is the number of deaths from disease were staggering, however we do not have actual accurate information on which were killed by disease and which were murdered due to the lack of records being kept by those carrying out these acts, and the conflicting accounts of the deaths of different villages from multiple sources from both the tribes and the Europeans. They cannot even get the numbers straight on how many died, little lone how they died.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked