1805: Indian Chief sets white missionary straight (1 Viewer)

[adonis]

The honesty and clarity of this speech really struck me, as did the message and the spirit of the message. Basically everything he said is what I believe, and he makes SUCH good points, in such a great way.Post any thoughts you have on this, I'd actually like to discuss it with Christians and non-christians alike. Don't just skip to them though, read it all in context .

Friend and Brother: It was the will of the Great Spirit that we should meet together this day. He orders all things and has given us a fine day for our council. He has taken his garment from before the sun, and caused it to shine with brightness upon us. Our eyes are opened, that we see clearly; our ears are unstopped, that we have been able to hear distinctly the words you have spoken. For all these favors we thank the Great Spirit; and him only.Brother: This council fire was kindled by you. It was at your request that we came together at this time. We have listened with attention to what you have said. You requested us to speak our minds freely. This gives us great joy; for we now consider that we stand upright before you, and can speak what we think. All have heard your voice, and all speak to you now as one man. Our minds are agreed.Brother: You say you want an answer to your talk before you leave this place. It is right you should have one, as you are a great distance from home, and we do not wish to detain you. But we will first look back a little, and tell you what our fathers have told us, and what we have heard from the white people.Brother: Listen to what we say. There was a time when our forefathers owned this great island. Their seats extended from the rising to the setting of the sun. The Great Spirit had made for the use of the Indians. He had created the buffalo, the deer, and other animals for food. He'd made the bear and the deer, and their skins served us for clothing. He had scattered them over the country, and had taught us how to take them. He had caused the earth to produce corn for bread. All this He had done for his red children, because He loved them. If we had any disputes about hunting grounds, they were generally settled without the shedding of much blood.But an evil day came upon us. Your forefathers crossed the great waters and landed on this island. Their numbers were small. They found friends and not enemies. They told us they had fled from their own country for fear of wicked men, and had come here to enjoy their religion. *They asked for a small seat.* We took pity on them, granted their request, and they sat down amongst us. We gave them corn and meat; they gave us poison in return.The white people had now found our country. Tidings were carried back, and more came amongst us. Yet we did not fear them. We took them to be friends. They called us brothers. We believed them, and gave them a large seat. At length their numbers had greatly increased. They wanted more land; they wanted our country. Our eyes were opened, and our minds became uneasy. Wars took place. Indians were hired to fight against Indians, and many of our people were destroyed. They also brought strong liquors among us. It was strong and powerful and has slain thousands.Brother: Our seats were once large, and yours very small. You have now become a great people, and we have scarcely a place left to spread our blankets. You have got our country, but you are not satisfied; you want to force your religion upon us.Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.Brother: the Great Spirit has made us all, but He has made a great difference between his white and red children. He has given us a different complexion and different customs. To you He has given the arts. To these He has not opened our eyes. We know these things to be true. *Since He has made so great a difference between us in other things,* why may we not conclude that He has given us a different religion *according to our understanding?* The Great Spirit does right. He knows what is best for his children; we are satisfied.Brother: We do not wish to destroy your religion, or to take it from you. We only want to enjoy our own.Brother: You say you have not come to get our land or our money, but to enlighten our minds. I will now tell you that I have been at your meetings, and saw you collecting money from the meeting. I cannot tell what this money was intended for, but suppose it was for your minister, and if we should conform to your way of thinking, perhaps you may want some from us.Brother: We are told that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors. We are acquainted with them. We will wait a little while, and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, and makes them honest, and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will then consider again what you have said.Brother: You have now heard our answer to your talk, and this is all we have to say at present. As we are going to part, we will come and take you by the hand, and hope the Great Spirit will protect you on your journey, and return you safe to your friends.

 

[The Dweeze]

Where did you find this. I am interested to find out more about this.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[redman]

Where did you find this. I am interested to find out more about this.

Thanks for sharing.

More info

 

[perry147]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.

Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

 

[jonessed]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

Why wouldn't Christians respond? It was a good speech.

 

[redman]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

Link to where Christians are sinless or claim to be. Very few Christians are going to defend the treatment of the Native Americans in history. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

5 stars

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

 

[perry147]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

 

[jonessed]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

Why would that bother Christians?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

That's fine, but there's nothing distinctly "Indian" about that part. We've discussed everything in that quote, I think, at one time or another around here already. And I can't even begin to imagine how the No True Scotsman thing would apply to any response a person might make to that quote. I know you're excited because you found a hammer and now you're running around looking for nails, but I think you're reaching here. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[perry147]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.

Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.

Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

Why would that bother Christians?

You do not find the bolded part at all questioning religion? It is amazing that in 1805 this was discussed by an Indian chief.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Oh and by the way, I don't think you'll find any Christian on this board who seriously faults the Indian chief for this attitude. The behavior of white people toward Indians definitely made any missionary work more difficult than it might have been had white people, including white Christians, set a better example through their actions. This is something Christians can learn from. Again, sorry to disappoint you.

 

[sho nuff]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

I think it was very central.But does not pertain to just Christians.How many times are there threads by non-Christians on this board telling Christians that their ways are wrong?It goes both ways.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.

Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.

Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

Why would that bother Christians?

You do not find the bolded part at all questioning religion? It is amazing that in 1805 this was discussed by an Indian chief.

Oh my. Are you also impressed by articulate black people?

 

[jonessed]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.

Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.

Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

Why would that bother Christians?

You do not find the bolded part at all questioning religion? It is amazing that in 1805 this was discussed by an Indian chief.

He's not questioning religion. He states his people have their own religion. He's not even questioning Christianity. He just wants to be left in peace.

 

[Please See Mine]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.

Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.

Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

Why would that bother Christians?

You do not find the bolded part at all questioning religion? It is amazing that in 1805 this was discussed by an Indian chief.

Oh my. Are you also impressed by articulate black people?

Please, you are also impressed that such wisdom could come from a bloodthirsty savage ignorant in the ways of the world.

 

[perry147]

We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Oh and by the way, I don't think you'll find any Christian on this board who seriously faults the Indian chief for this attitude. The behavior of white people toward Indians definitely made any missionary work more difficult than it might have been had white people, including white Christians, set a better example through their actions. This is something Christians can learn from. Again, sorry to disappoint you.

The Christian Religion was used by the settlers for justification of taking of Indian land "Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." This is exactly what the Indian Chief was alluding with the speech. Sorry to throw another stone at your lovely cross, but the more you study history the more you see religion being used this way.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.

Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.

Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

Why would that bother Christians?

You do not find the bolded part at all questioning religion? It is amazing that in 1805 this was discussed by an Indian chief.

Oh my. Are you also impressed by articulate black people?

No. He's just amazed that he's not the first atheist/agnostic/non-Christian to question religious beliefs in that manner.

 

[RudiStein]

Hold on, Kemosabe...I ain't reading all that.

 

[perry147]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.

Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

:X It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.

Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

Why would that bother Christians?

You do not find the bolded part at all questioning religion? It is amazing that in 1805 this was discussed by an Indian chief.

Oh my. Are you also impressed by articulate black people?

No. He's just amazed that he's not the first atheist/agnostic/non-Christian to question religious beliefs in that manner.

 

[perry147]

Hold on, Kemosabe...I ain't reading all that.

I said Posse you stupid horse!!!Bring back the POSSE!!!

 

[DanFouts]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.

Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.

Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

:X You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

I think it was very central.But does not pertain to just Christians.

How many times are there threads by non-Christians on this board telling Christians that their ways are wrong?

It goes both ways.

Spreading religion through missionary work and breaking down other cultures = to forum threads ?????

 

[Genedoc]

I had to take a Religion or Philosophy class in college to get my BS degree. I took native American history and religion, and I've never regretted it. I encourage anyone who is interested in who the Indians were and what they believed to delve deeper into the various tribes. Every tribe had unique culture and customs, but there was also a lot of shared ideology. A fascinating topic...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The Christian Religion was used by the settlers for justification of taking of Indian land "Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."

If somebody seriously interpreted Matthew 5:5 that way, they were laughably wrong. Good luck finding somebody to argue that point with you.

 

[jonessed]

We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Oh and by the way, I don't think you'll find any Christian on this board who seriously faults the Indian chief for this attitude. The behavior of white people toward Indians definitely made any missionary work more difficult than it might have been had white people, including white Christians, set a better example through their actions. This is something Christians can learn from. Again, sorry to disappoint you.

The Christian Religion was used by the settlers for justification of taking of Indian land "Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." This is exactly what the Indian Chief was alluding with the speech. Sorry to throw another stone at your lovely cross, but the more you study history the more you see religion being used this way.

People manipulate whatever they can to gain power. Religion is not immune, nor is the fight against religion for that matter.

 

[perry147]

The Christian Religion was used by the settlers for justification of taking of Indian land "Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."

If somebody seriously interpreted Matthew 5:5 that way, they were laughably wrong. Good luck finding somebody to argue that point with you.

Seriously Ivan - that Biblical quote was used for that reason.I can google it for you if needed.

 

[RudiStein]

Hold on, Kemosabe...I ain't reading all that.

I said Posse you stupid horse!!!Bring back the POSSE!!!

Back in the 1880s a tribe of Indians had been relocated off of their land and were forced to encamp just outside an army fort. Every day the C.O. of the fort, a colonel, would ride past the Indian's tepees. Every day as he passed by the home of the old, grizzled chief the chief would give the colonel the finger. After a second or two the chief would then turn his hand sideways so the middle finger was now pointing horizontally. After a few weeks the colonel couldn't stand it any longer. He had to know why the chief gave him the horizontal finger. He pulled aside one of the half-breed scouts and asked him: "Why does the old chief do that with his finger?"The scout answered "He doesn't like you."The colonel replied "I know that. I understand him flipping me the bird...but why does he turn it sideways too?"The scout said "He doesn't like your horse either."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The Christian Religion was used by the settlers for justification of taking of Indian land "Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."

If somebody seriously interpreted Matthew 5:5 that way, they were laughably wrong. Good luck finding somebody to argue that point with you.

Seriously Ivan - that Biblical quote was used for that reason.I can google it for you if needed.

I'm moderately skeptical of that claim on several dimensions, but it doesn't matter. Anybody who thinks the message of the Beautitudes is to kill Indians and steal their land has serious reading comprehension problems. If somebody once used that passage to justify atrocities against Indians, they were wrong to do so.

 

[perry147]

Hold on, Kemosabe...I ain't reading all that.

I said Posse you stupid horse!!!Bring back the POSSE!!!

Back in the 1880s a tribe of Indians had been relocated off of their land and were forced to encamp just outside an army fort. Every day the C.O. of the fort, a colonel, would ride past the Indian's tepees. Every day as he passed by the home of the old, grizzled chief the chief would give the colonel the finger. After a second or two the chief would then turn his hand sideways so the middle finger was now pointing horizontally. After a few weeks the colonel couldn't stand it any longer. He had to know why the chief gave him the horizontal finger. He pulled aside one of the half-breed scouts and asked him: "Why does the old chief do that with his finger?"The scout answered "He doesn't like you."The colonel replied "I know that. I understand him flipping me the bird...but why does he turn it sideways too?"The scout said "He doesn't like your horse either."

A nice looking girl was out of gas in the middle of nowhere, but fortunaately a red indian came riding and said:"Jump in front of me, I´ll ride you to a gas station that is two miles away." Everything was ok, but now and then the indian let go a "war scream".At the station the owner asked the girl: "How is it that you did not fall off the horse, because the indian was really riding at very high speed?"Girl: "I hold a firm grip with both hands of the saddle knob all the time and just gripped it tighter when he went faster.!"

 

[phthalatemagic]

Thank goodness the founders weren't Christian, and instead Deists.

 

[Foosball God]

What in the hell is going on in here???

 

[Sweet J]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

Very few Christians are going to defend the treatment of the Native Americans in history.

I'm not sure how else we could have treated them. This is a serious point. I guess we could have not given them smallpox-infested blankets. That would have been nice to refrain from doing. But other than that, I'm somewhat shuked. They had land that we wanted, and we were more certainly going to take. How do you take the land without killing the people who live there? I guess you could go send them to live somewhere else, but we pretty much did that.

 

[Genedoc]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

Very few Christians are going to defend the treatment of the Native Americans in history.

I'm not sure how else we could have treated them. This is a serious point. I guess we could have not given them smallpox-infested blankets. That would have been nice to refrain from doing. But other than that, I'm somewhat shuked. They had land that we wanted, and we were more certainly going to take. How do you take the land without killing the people who live there? I guess you could go send them to live somewhere else, but we pretty much did that.

Been a while since I've heard a good old fashioned Manifest Destiny argument. Thanks for sharing.

 

[RudiStein]

Hold on, Kemosabe...I ain't reading all that.

I said Posse you stupid horse!!!Bring back the POSSE!!!

Back in the 1880s a tribe of Indians had been relocated off of their land and were forced to encamp just outside an army fort. Every day the C.O. of the fort, a colonel, would ride past the Indian's tepees. Every day as he passed by the home of the old, grizzled chief the chief would give the colonel the finger. After a second or two the chief would then turn his hand sideways so the middle finger was now pointing horizontally. After a few weeks the colonel couldn't stand it any longer. He had to know why the chief gave him the horizontal finger. He pulled aside one of the half-breed scouts and asked him: "Why does the old chief do that with his finger?"The scout answered "He doesn't like you."The colonel replied "I know that. I understand him flipping me the bird...but why does he turn it sideways too?"The scout said "He doesn't like your horse either."

A nice looking girl was out of gas in the middle of nowhere, but fortunaately a red indian came riding and said:"Jump in front of me, I´ll ride you to a gas station that is two miles away." Everything was ok, but now and then the indian let go a "war scream".At the station the owner asked the girl: "How is it that you did not fall off the horse, because the indian was really riding at very high speed?"Girl: "I hold a firm grip with both hands of the saddle knob all the time and just gripped it tighter when he went faster.!"

I think you left out the part where the station owner says "Umm...Indians around here don't use saddles."

 

[EYLive]

Christianity isn't a white religion. It was founded in the Middle East. The book of Acts repeats many times that Christianity is for Jews as well as Gentiles.

 

[Sweet J]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

Very few Christians are going to defend the treatment of the Native Americans in history.

I'm not sure how else we could have treated them. This is a serious point. I guess we could have not given them smallpox-infested blankets. That would have been nice to refrain from doing. But other than that, I'm somewhat shuked. They had land that we wanted, and we were more certainly going to take. How do you take the land without killing the people who live there? I guess you could go send them to live somewhere else, but we pretty much did that.

Been a while since I've heard a good old fashioned Manifest Destiny argument. Thanks for sharing.

It's great to have sarcasm and type your answer while you sit on stolen lands. You want to poo-poo manifest destiny? Find an indian to give your house to.

 

[perry147]

Hold on, Kemosabe...I ain't reading all that.

I said Posse you stupid horse!!!Bring back the POSSE!!!

Back in the 1880s a tribe of Indians had been relocated off of their land and were forced to encamp just outside an army fort. Every day the C.O. of the fort, a colonel, would ride past the Indian's tepees. Every day as he passed by the home of the old, grizzled chief the chief would give the colonel the finger. After a second or two the chief would then turn his hand sideways so the middle finger was now pointing horizontally. After a few weeks the colonel couldn't stand it any longer. He had to know why the chief gave him the horizontal finger. He pulled aside one of the half-breed scouts and asked him: "Why does the old chief do that with his finger?"The scout answered "He doesn't like you."The colonel replied "I know that. I understand him flipping me the bird...but why does he turn it sideways too?"The scout said "He doesn't like your horse either."

A nice looking girl was out of gas in the middle of nowhere, but fortunaately a red indian came riding and said:"Jump in front of me, I´ll ride you to a gas station that is two miles away." Everything was ok, but now and then the indian let go a "war scream".At the station the owner asked the girl: "How is it that you did not fall off the horse, because the indian was really riding at very high speed?"Girl: "I hold a firm grip with both hands of the saddle knob all the time and just gripped it tighter when he went faster.!"

I think you left out the part where the station owner says "Umm...Indians around here don't use saddles."

I thought everyone knew that,

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.

Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

Very few Christians are going to defend the treatment of the Native Americans in history.

I'm not sure how else we could have treated them. This is a serious point. I guess we could have not given them smallpox-infested blankets. That would have been nice to refrain from doing. But other than that, I'm somewhat shuked. They had land that we wanted, and we were more certainly going to take. How do you take the land without killing the people who live there? I guess you could go send them to live somewhere else, but we pretty much did that.

The clever use of flags.

 

[Dr. Watson]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.

Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.

Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

Why would that bother Christians?

You do not find the bolded part at all questioning religion? It is amazing that in 1805 this was discussed by an Indian chief.

You are confusing "Bible beaters" with Christians. Any true Christian would recognize a firm faith and leave it at that, IMHO.

 

[Genedoc]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

Very few Christians are going to defend the treatment of the Native Americans in history.

I'm not sure how else we could have treated them. This is a serious point. I guess we could have not given them smallpox-infested blankets. That would have been nice to refrain from doing. But other than that, I'm somewhat shuked. They had land that we wanted, and we were more certainly going to take. How do you take the land without killing the people who live there? I guess you could go send them to live somewhere else, but we pretty much did that.

Been a while since I've heard a good old fashioned Manifest Destiny argument. Thanks for sharing.

It's great to have sarcasm and type your answer while you sit on stolen lands. You want to poo-poo manifest destiny? Find an indian to give your house to.

There's a pretty wide chasm between stating MD as a historical fact and excusing it. Like many other systemic genocides before and since, it is a historical fact. That doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it excusable.

 

[turleyfan]

Brother: We are told that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors. We are acquainted with them. We will wait a little while, and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, and makes them honest, and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will then consider again what you have said.

This is my favorite part. Thanks for this.

 

[Sweet J]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

Very few Christians are going to defend the treatment of the Native Americans in history.

I'm not sure how else we could have treated them. This is a serious point. I guess we could have not given them smallpox-infested blankets. That would have been nice to refrain from doing. But other than that, I'm somewhat shuked. They had land that we wanted, and we were more certainly going to take. How do you take the land without killing the people who live there? I guess you could go send them to live somewhere else, but we pretty much did that.

Been a while since I've heard a good old fashioned Manifest Destiny argument. Thanks for sharing.

By the way, I wasn't giving a manifest destiny argument. People conquer. That's what we do. The only reason we didn't conqure Mexico is because we couldn't, or it wasn't efficient, or it was too much, or whatever. Same with any other country. The strong take from the weak when they can, when it will cause them more pleasure than pain. I'm not saying that it is right. That is just how the world works, and I expect nothing less from human kind. So, the American settlers could take from the Indians. And they did. I guess you could argue that we could have been nicer about it, but there is really no argument that we shoudn't have done it. At least not a credible one. If there was really a strong argument that this land was *improperly* taken, than the solution is to give it back. We are not going to give the land back (are you?), therefore you can't sit there and say "we shouldn't have taken it." How hard of a concept is that, really?

 

[sho nuff]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.

Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

It was an interesting speech, and the speaker has a good point. It's not like white settlers treated the Indians well or anything.

Edit: Okay, reading ahead now I realize that everybody else jumped on this point too.

You didn't think this part of the article was central to it:

Brother: Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to His mind. And if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did He not give to our forefathers knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white man?

Brother: You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

Brother: We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down -- father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.

I think it was very central.But does not pertain to just Christians.

How many times are there threads by non-Christians on this board telling Christians that their ways are wrong?

It goes both ways.

Spreading religion through missionary work and breaking down other cultures = to forum threads ?????

It was one example.Its part of the central theme of the chief saying why can't we just let them be.

For the same reason that some feel the need to try and bash others here for their beliefs (without all of the killing of indigenous people that is...)

 

[Sweet J]

There's a pretty wide chasm between stating MD as a historical fact and excusing it. Like many other systemic genocides before and since, it is a historical fact. That doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it excusable.

No, it is not like a "systematic genocide." It is like a war. A genocide is killing someone for no particular reason. War is killing someone because they live on a place that you want. Two completely different concepts.And how do you *not* excuse it if you enjoy the spoils of the very thing that you call "inexcusable"?

 

[Genedoc]

You will not get a christian to respond to this.Or you might and l get the "Real Scottsman" reply.

Very few Christians are going to defend the treatment of the Native Americans in history.

I'm not sure how else we could have treated them. This is a serious point. I guess we could have not given them smallpox-infested blankets. That would have been nice to refrain from doing. But other than that, I'm somewhat shuked. They had land that we wanted, and we were more certainly going to take. How do you take the land without killing the people who live there? I guess you could go send them to live somewhere else, but we pretty much did that.

Been a while since I've heard a good old fashioned Manifest Destiny argument. Thanks for sharing.

By the way, I wasn't giving a manifest destiny argument. People conquer. That's what we do. The only reason we didn't conqure Mexico is because we couldn't, or it wasn't efficient, or it was too much, or whatever. Same with any other country. The strong take from the weak when they can, when it will cause them more pleasure than pain. I'm not saying that it is right. That is just how the world works, and I expect nothing less from human kind. So, the American settlers could take from the Indians. And they did. I guess you could argue that we could have been nicer about it, but there is really no argument that we shoudn't have done it. At least not a credible one. If there was really a strong argument that this land was *improperly* taken, than the solution is to give it back. We are not going to give the land back (are you?), therefore you can't sit there and say "we shouldn't have taken it." How hard of a concept is that, really?

You gave a text book MD argument, and then clarified it above into an even more clear MD argument - that the taking of the land was certain (Manifest) and righteous (Destiny).There were more than enough resources, and more than enough available land that a better attempt at coexistence could have been made. By your logic, we should take over Canada tomorrow simply because we have the military might to do so.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So, the American settlers could take from the Indians. And they did. I guess you could argue that we could have been nicer about it, but there is really no argument that we shoudn't have done it. At least not a credible one. If there was really a strong argument that this land was *improperly* taken, than the solution is to give it back. We are not going to give the land back (are you?), therefore you can't sit there and say "we shouldn't have taken it." How hard of a concept is that, really?

Your use of the word "we" is problematic. "We" didn't any take any land from any Indians. People who lived several hundred years ago did. This is important, because I can argue that settlers improperly took land from Indians, and simultaneously argue that we shouldn't give it back. Why punish some homeowner in New Jersey over something that they had nothing to do with?

Another argument along those lines could also be based on the same justifications given for adverse possession. It's not generally a good idea to constantly be revisiting titles.

 

[Sweet J]

There's a pretty wide chasm between stating MD as a historical fact and excusing it. Like many other systemic genocides before and since, it is a historical fact. That doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it excusable.

Serious question, then: What could/should we (the settlers) have done differently? Looking back, how should things have gone? Should we have just stopped settling anything east of say, Indiana?

 

[Foosball God]

There's a pretty wide chasm between stating MD as a historical fact and excusing it. Like many other systemic genocides before and since, it is a historical fact. That doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it excusable.

No, it is not like a "systematic genocide." It is like a war. A genocide is killing someone for no particular reason. War is killing someone because they live on a place that you want. Two completely different concepts.And how do you *not* excuse it if you enjoy the spoils of the very thing that you call "inexcusable"?

It was not like a war fought between two countries though. There was an element of genocide going on when women and children were being killed indiscriminantly as well as the Indian warriors.

 

[Sweet J]

So, the American settlers could take from the Indians. And they did. I guess you could argue that we could have been nicer about it, but there is really no argument that we shoudn't have done it. At least not a credible one. If there was really a strong argument that this land was *improperly* taken, than the solution is to give it back. We are not going to give the land back (are you?), therefore you can't sit there and say "we shouldn't have taken it." How hard of a concept is that, really?

Your use of the word "we" is problematic. "We" didn't any take any land from any Indians. People who lived several hundred years ago did. This is important, because I can argue that settlers improperly took land from Indians, and simultaneously argue that we shouldn't give it back. Why punish some homeowner in New Jersey over something that they had nothing to do with?

Another argument along those lines could also be based on the same justifications given for adverse possession. It's not generally a good idea to constantly be revisiting titles.

That is such an effing cop-out.