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

[Genedoc]

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"?

I am aware of the difference in war and genocide, and there was a good deal of genocide, particularly as westward expansion occurred.

 

[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.

That is such an effing cop-out.

Why? There have been countless wars throughout history in which various people have lost property (to say nothing of lives). I don't think it's a good idea to constantly demand compensation for events that took place well before anybody currently living was born.Example: Suppose I got into geneology and I discovered that my great-great-great grandfather was killed by Indians while peacefully crossing the countryside. Should I be able to sue a modern-day Indian tribe for compensation on his behalf? If not, how is this substantially different from my refusal to give land to Indian tribes?

 

[NCCommish]

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"?

Acrually war can be genocidal. And it is clear that the war against the Indians in this country was. Further as to getting lands the Indians were willing to negotiate therefore without killing old people, woman and children land could have been bargained for. But every treaty the US signed it broke. Don't give me this there was no other way but to rape and pillage our way across the nation. There was.

 

[Sweet J]

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.

It was not "righteous." It just is. It is human nature to take what we can. And yes, if our country could "get away" with taking something from another county, we would do it. In this day and age, the concept of "getting away" with it is very complex, so it is hard to conceptualize. Military might isn't enough, because there are negative consequences that go beyond the military.

 

[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.

Why? There have been countless wars throughout history in which various people have lost property (to say nothing of lives). I don't think it's a good idea to constantly demand compensation for events that took place well before anybody currently living was born.Example: Suppose I got into geneology and I discovered that my great-great-great grandfather was killed by Indians while peacefully crossing the countryside. Should I be able to sue a modern-day Indian tribe for compensation on his behalf? If not, how is this substantially different from my refusal to give land to Indian tribes?

I completely agree with your first paragraph. War is war. Whether we want to admit it or not, we (early America) were in a "war" with the Indians. I don't think we should give it back. But I also am judicious in the type of criticism I lay.

 

[perry147]

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.

It was not "righteous." It just is. It is human nature to take what we can. And yes, if our country could "get away" with taking something from another county, we would do it. In this day and age, the concept of "getting away" with it is very complex, so it is hard to conceptualize. Military might isn't enough, because there are negative consequences that go beyond the military.

So according to your statement then the Nazis wanted the Jews gold, land, property, or whatever so it was inevitable that the genocide happened - it was destiny.If I am wrong please tell me.

 

[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"?

Acrually war can be genocidal. And it is clear that the war against the Indians in this country was. Further as to getting lands the Indians were willing to negotiate therefore without killing old people, woman and children land could have been bargained for. But every treaty the US signed it broke. Don't give me this there was no other way but to rape and pillage our way across the nation. There was.

I agree with you the most out of all the responses. There is no question that we were going to take this land. It would have been great if we could have done it without such great pain to the Indians. I am truly curious about how we could have gone about it without giving them so much pain.

 

[NCCommish]

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"?

Acrually war can be genocidal. And it is clear that the war against the Indians in this country was. Further as to getting lands the Indians were willing to negotiate therefore without killing old people, woman and children land could have been bargained for. But every treaty the US signed it broke. Don't give me this there was no other way but to rape and pillage our way across the nation. There was.

I agree with you the most out of all the responses. There is no question that we were going to take this land. It would have been great if we could have done it without such great pain to the Indians. I am truly curious about how we could have gone about it without giving them so much pain.

We could have lived with in the very generous (to us) treaties we signed.

 

[Sweet J]

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.

It was not "righteous." It just is. It is human nature to take what we can. And yes, if our country could "get away" with taking something from another county, we would do it. In this day and age, the concept of "getting away" with it is very complex, so it is hard to conceptualize. Military might isn't enough, because there are negative consequences that go beyond the military.

So according to your statement then the Nazis wanted the Jews gold, land, property, or whatever so it was inevitable that the genocide happened - it was destiny.If I am wrong please tell me.

Not really applicable. You have one faction within a country killing/stealing from another within that country. I have a longer answer, but I have to get somethign out the door. Will answer later.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

A couple random comments:

1. I can't recall ever doing a thread on manifest destiny before. This might be a first for the FFA. Hooray, us!

2. Is it just me, or did Sweet J get really cynical all of the sudden, like in the past couple of months? He used to be all cuddly and liberal, but all of the sudden he's like Machiavelli and Hobbes rolled together.

 

[Sweet J]

We could have lived with in the very generous (to us) treaties we signed.

I'd probably disagree, because looking back, there was probably no way that we were going to comply with the treaties in the first place (although we'd have to look at them treaty-by-treaty). So it would have been best to only sign treaties that we knew we could comply with, and then lived with them.

 

[Sweet J]

A couple random comments:1. I can't recall ever doing a thread on manifest destiny before. This might be a first for the FFA. Hooray, us!2. Is it just me, or did Sweet J get really cynical all of the sudden, like in the past couple of months? He used to be all cuddly and liberal, but all of the sudden he's like Machiavelli and Hobbes rolled together.

First. Second -- I really have to finish some work. But I do want to reply. A short answer is that I read Guns, Germs, and Steel about 6-12 months ago, and it has definitely given me a different worldview.

 

[NCCommish]

We could have lived with in the very generous (to us) treaties we signed.

I'd probably disagree, because looking back, there was probably no way that we were going to comply with the treaties in the first place (although we'd have to look at them treaty-by-treaty). So it would have been best to only sign treaties that we knew we could comply with, and then lived with them.

There is not a single treaty the US signed where the US didn't rob the Indians blind. We didn't want to deal with these savages, they were below us and keeping our word to them meant nothing. There is no justification large enough to cover the total of the USs attitude, duplicity and violence towards the American Indian.

 

[jonessed]

A couple random comments:1. I can't recall ever doing a thread on manifest destiny before. This might be a first for the FFA. Hooray, us!2. Is it just me, or did Sweet J get really cynical all of the sudden, like in the past couple of months? He used to be all cuddly and liberal, but all of the sudden he's like Machiavelli and Hobbes rolled together.

First. Second -- I really have to finish some work. But I do want to reply. A short answer is that I read Guns, Germs, and Steel about 6-12 months ago, and it has definitely given me a different worldview.

Great book

 

[Chaka]

Mmmmmmmmmmmm...cornbread.

 

[Sweet J]

We could have lived with in the very generous (to us) treaties we signed.

I'd probably disagree, because looking back, there was probably no way that we were going to comply with the treaties in the first place (although we'd have to look at them treaty-by-treaty). So it would have been best to only sign treaties that we knew we could comply with, and then lived with them.

There is not a single treaty the US signed where the US didn't rob the Indians blind. We didn't want to deal with these savages, they were below us and keeping our word to them meant nothing. There is no justification large enough to cover the total of the USs attitude, duplicity and violence towards the American Indian.

I struggle with this issue personally. Part of my new job is working with Indian Tribes to find out exactly how much, financially, the government owes them for certain things. I have therefore been reading up a bit (not as much as I should) about Individual Tribes, and it has got me to thinking -- aside from the truly evil things (raping, pilliging, etc.), what could we, as a country, have done differently. (again, this is starting with the assumptions that we *were* going to go from NY to CA. I mean, we have to start with that assumption, right? Should we have just stopped at Missouri? "Ok, that's far enough. Let's leave them alone from this point on."

 

[DrJ]

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?

We did conquer Mexico, we just decided to take half of their land rather than all of it. I guess that was the compromise, since some people wanted to take all of it, and others considered it completely unjust for a country as powerful as ours to take any of Mexico's land to begin with.That's what makes illegal immigration kind of amusing in some regards - the areas they tend to flock too were kind of their land to begin with.

 

[NCCommish]

We could have lived with in the very generous (to us) treaties we signed.

I'd probably disagree, because looking back, there was probably no way that we were going to comply with the treaties in the first place (although we'd have to look at them treaty-by-treaty). So it would have been best to only sign treaties that we knew we could comply with, and then lived with them.

There is not a single treaty the US signed where the US didn't rob the Indians blind. We didn't want to deal with these savages, they were below us and keeping our word to them meant nothing. There is no justification large enough to cover the total of the USs attitude, duplicity and violence towards the American Indian.

I struggle with this issue personally. Part of my new job is working with Indian Tribes to find out exactly how much, financially, the government owes them for certain things. I have therefore been reading up a bit (not as much as I should) about Individual Tribes, and it has got me to thinking -- aside from the truly evil things (raping, pilliging, etc.), what could we, as a country, have done differently. (again, this is starting with the assumptions that we *were* going to go from NY to CA. I mean, we have to start with that assumption, right? Should we have just stopped at Missouri? "Ok, that's far enough. Let's leave them alone from this point on."

If we had lived up to our promises in the East we could have easily dealt our way across the US. Very few tribes were really against the white settlement they just didn't want to get screwed and they wanted to keep their sacred places. That is until it became clear that white settlers, and the government supporting them, weren't interested in sharing, only taking.

 

[NCCommish]

By the way I am not for reparations. Despite my own Indian heritage. That is a non-starter. Just wanted to clear that up since some people keep mentioning it.

 

[Sweet J]

If we had lived up to our promises in the East we could have easily dealt our way across the US. Very few tribes were really against the white settlement they just didn't want to get screwed and they wanted to keep their sacred places. That is until it became clear that white settlers, and the government supporting them, weren't interested in sharing, only taking.

Interesting. I am not sure I understand the concept of the Tribe's not being "against" the white settlements. The Tribe certainly lived on land of their own, right? They wouldn't want someone setting up shop on their land. And what about the Nomadic tribes?

 

[Sweet J]

I also think I may have mis-stated my position. It is not that I think that the Indians were treated well. It is that we *can't* start with the assumption that the settlers should not have taken the land. If we shouldn't have taken the land, that means we should give it back. I just don't see any way around it.

And I understand Ivan's point, that this "taking" was years ago. But that still doesn't sit well with me. We are either living on stolen land or not, right?

 

[NCCommish]

If we had lived up to our promises in the East we could have easily dealt our way across the US. Very few tribes were really against the white settlement they just didn't want to get screwed and they wanted to keep their sacred places. That is until it became clear that white settlers, and the government supporting them, weren't interested in sharing, only taking.

Interesting. I am not sure I understand the concept of the Tribe's not being "against" the white settlements. The Tribe certainly lived on land of their own, right? They wouldn't want someone setting up shop on their land. And what about the Nomadic tribes?

The nomadic tribes would have wanted to have access to the winter and summer hunting grounds. Surely some accommodation could have been made. And while everyone wants something in a deal the fact is the Indians in general were very pragmatic and aware that a deal was a better choice for them than outright confrontation. Not every tribe for sure but the majority.

 

[cstu]

I find it sad and pathetic that Mexicans don't have more of this attitude about Catholicism.

 

[adonis]

Is this the first time ever in the FFA that a thread was started...on religion...and the argument ended up being about something secular like manifest destiny? Didn't see that one coming.

 

[perry147]

Is this the first time ever in the FFA that a thread was started...on religion...and the argument ended up being about something secular like manifest destiny? Didn't see that one coming.

Sorry man I tried - Honestly I did but certain posters just refused to believe that the topic was about religion.

 

[adonis]

To me, the interesting thing about this speech is the contrast of populations and their respective religions, and how the actions of the people reflect on the religion.

Now, I know many people don't believe the believers reflect on the beliefs, but I happen to think that you can judge a tree by its fruit, and if Christianity doesn't produce the quality of fruit it should, that reflects poorly on the tree.

These indians, by all accounts, were living pretty solid lives in a moral sense. They had conflicts, but they resolved them with "little bloodshed". They live in harmony with nature and others, and one day a white man shows up on the shores.

White man is welcomed with open arms, and says that he's there fleeing religious persecution, and wants to freely practice his religion. The indians are good people and treat them well (thanksgiving) and white man does not die, almost soley because of indian help.

Word gets out, and people come over in droves, people who also would like to practice their religion freely, a christian religion. They come here, proceed to corrupt the indians, turn them against each other, steal their land, kill many of them, and worse.

Then, after conquering the indians, after corrupting them, killing them, stealing their land, the white man has the audacity (my word) to try to convert the indians to the religion of the people who came over and caused so much trouble. How is that for irony?

Aside from the mere irony of it, the indian chief raises interesting points about "Why weren't our forefathers given this sacred book and the means by which to understand it?" Mormons may disagree, but that's another story. Obviously this guys lineage didn't have any of that message. Why not? Why would the great spirit not have given them the understanding the white man had? Why wouldn't the great spirit want to save the indians from eternal torment as well? This not only goes for the indians, but for all mankind except for the chosen race and those who have access to a bible.

He pointed out that there was collection of money involved, obviously pointing towards ulterior motives for the missionary. Subtle.

And his closing was awesome. He said basically, "We'll see if what you preach has an affect on our neighbors, and if it does, we'll consider it." It was already obvious to him by how the white man acted when landing on the shores, "trying to find free practice of their religion", how their religion makes people act.

So essentially, if you look at how both races acted during this period, who exhibited the more "christian" attitude, and what does that say about their respective belief systems?

 

[redman]

I cannot read Adonis' post. It's too acedems-, acedem-, adacem-, it's too much like school.

 

[adonis]

I cannot read Adonis' post. It's too acedems-, acedem-, adacem-, it's too much like school.

Those there indians got screwed by them white men. Them white mens took advantij of dem injuns hospitality. Injuns welcomes white man into their teepee's and white man burns them down, kills injuns and takes their wives.Din, after all dat's done wit, dem white folk try to change them injuns into their realiggun, sayin' there's a better way and not to burn in hell fire forever, praise jesus.Then them indians said...thnx but no thnx white man...we like our dogmas better den yours. ours don't let us kill people who helped us, or steel tha land, or the wimminz. wee see what your religion does to y'all, so if it's all the same white man, we'll keep our own.

 

[redman]

I cannot read Adonis' post. It's too acedems-, acedem-, adacem-, it's too much like school.

Those there indians got screwed by them white men. Them white mens took advantij of dem injuns hospitality. Injuns welcomes white man into their teepee's and white man burns them down, kills injuns and takes their wives.Din, after all dat's done wit, dem white folk try to change them injuns into their realiggun, sayin' there's a better way and not to burn in hell fire forever, praise jesus.Then them indians said...thnx but no thnx white man...we like our dogmas better den yours. ours don't let us kill people who helped us, or steel tha land, or the wimminz. wee see what your religion does to y'all, so if it's all the same white man, we'll keep our own.

GB Redneck Cliffs Notes.

 

[adonis]

The more I think about this, and it's not really a new idea by any means and I've heard it many times before, but the concept that each nation has a religion that is customized for them makes a lot of sense. People are regionally split, have different lifestyles, have different traditions and heritages, have different concepts of justice (unfortunately), and one religion for all of them would be almost impossible to pull off, in the early years.

What it'll take is for all nations and people to have some basic form of education, and human rights, and have that serve as a basis for any understanding of religion. I would say that prosperity and peace is most necessary to accept christianity, long suffering jews, constant turmoil muslims, independent but peaceful lives hindu's and Buddhists, etc.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Personally, to me, I think we can say that not all Native Americans were truly "subjugated," they were defeated, it's true, but they have not been enslaved or subject to second class status a la Jim Crow. Their lands were largely often taken away, and yet today they have huge swaths of land in the US that are highly valuable and indeed are actually acquiring land. Their culture has not been truly destroyed either, it lives on, in them, in our American culture. Clearly what happened was not inevitable - there were examples of treaties that were kept, where Indians were integrated into our society, in many places like Louisiana and the northeast there were no Indian Wars, so it did not have to happen the way it did out west - but even though it did happen the way it did does not amount to genocide, though I think it's fair to call it ethnic cleansing. There were other factors like disease and the modern industrialization of the world, which was a global effect, unfortunately the American Indian came into contact with it.

The Chief's statement above is beautiful by the way.

It's funny to me how people are so wrapped up in the Redskin controversy, and so few actually want to talk about what happened to the Indians and what could be done about it. If you read articles about Indians who are asked about it they give a 'who cares' response because they are faced with so many more real life problems like poverty and alcoholism.

 

[Al O'Pecia]

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.

Guy says 'brother' more than Hulk Hogan.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

Guy says 'brother' more than Hulk Hogan.

SWC prefers 'brohan.' I like that.

 

[Godsbrother]

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.

Guy says 'brother' more than Hulk Hogan.

SWC prefers 'brohan.' I like that.

Do that and take away the punctuation and it IS a SWC post. one long paragraph

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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"?

I am aware of the difference in war and genocide, and there was a good deal of genocide, particularly as westward expansion occurred.

Genocide is the killing of a whole people, which requires identifying them ethnically, because of who they are as a people.

War is simply armed conflict between nations. Hence the atomic bombs were warfare, not genocide.