So you're calling the natives mexicans? We are not Indians or first Americans we have tribal names Comanche Apache Cherokee etc. It's like calling all the southern American continent mexicans. American is the name of that Italian dude that traveled with Columbus. Indian is a mistaken voyage that landed the conquistadores here instead of india. And you are a white Anglo-Saxon your tribal names are German French English Spanish Irish Scottish and so on. Basically you fuckers are mexicans a mix of
The first Americans were from eastern europe. American indians are decended from asians and they mated with the people that were already here. They have asian and european blood.
One of the BIG PROBLEMS with it is the shovelled teeth issue of asians. Out of Africa claims that about 100,000 years ago (or so) the modern africans eliminated all previous peoples in Asia and Europe. In asia the older peoples (Homo erectus) had shovelled shaped teeth. OoA theory claimed that everyone of those older asians was eliminated and replaced by a modern african who then evolved shovelled teeth (LOL!)
yout theory is as stupid as you are the Homo Sapien Sapiens evolved from the Homo Erectus inside of africa completely. They did not begin to truly migrate and populate until they were well on their way to being the modern Homo Sapien Sapien
My princeton professor confirms this
AND before we CARRY ON i request THAT you PLEASE STOP capitilizing RANDOM words.
now lets carry on
you have added no additional evidence to prove your case all you have done is repeat facts
and actually Homo Erectus was known to have long skulls in Africa and (going along with the migration) they moved northeast and some settled along the way
it is widely accepted that Africa is the cradle of civilization and you cannot argue that with your own pyschotic personal theorems
DNA clearly shows that Asians are clearly the same species as us and your racist theory they are less evolved than us is foolish
And the modern african did not migrate around the world
Migration was completed about 8,000 years ago, that was when the agricultural Revolution occured giving them great reason to settle
And it is not called the "out of africa theory" it is actually named Homo Sapien Sapien Migratorial Tracking and is accepted as fact by almost all modern scientists and professors and they never "eliminated" them since Homo Erectus came from africa and they evolved into Homo Sapien Sapiens!
Argueing with you is a lost cause and i will not waste my time with foolish individuals when many people accept that Europeans were not those who settled in the Americas
i reject your ignorant theorems and replace them with accepted facts
Look Folks...The SCIENTIFIC REALITY is that we now have..3 Totally DIFFERENT BRANCHES of SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that..ALL..SHOW that the FIRST AMERICANS were WESTERN EUROPEAN PEOPLES
1) ALL of the Ancient Skeletons found in the new world are..ALL..of the LONG SKULL WESTERN EUROPEAN TYPE (NOT Asia)
2) the OLDEST DNA line of the "Indians" is actually the EUROPEAN FACTOR X
3) the OLDEST HLA Blood Antigen Markers of the "Indians" is ALSO of WESTERN EUROPEAN TYPE
..GENETIC RESEARCH has Shown CLEARLY that the FIRST AMERICANS were...CAUCASIANS..Peoples (probably from Western European Irish/Spanish/Scottish/Basque Tribes
The OLDEST DNA line of the "indians" is now KNOWN to be the CAUCASIANS "Factor X"
The OLDEST HLA BLOOD ANTIGEN MARKERS of the "Indians" is now KNOWN to be of "ANCIENT WESTERN EUROPEAN DNA TYPE"
Many "Indian" Men decend from the "Q" Type DNA line..thats a EUROPEAN DNA LINE (Found in Scottland)
im afraid you do have some of your facts wrong as well as your idea that it is from western europe
As im sure you already know South-eastern africa is the cradle of civilization and the people migrated around the world from there
The first indians were indeed lightskinned but they were not europeans they were the Trans-siberian immigrants who came across the land bridge from modern day russia and they came from somewhere around the Aegean sea and they came from northern africa and so forth
and i myself have an indian father and he is a Cherokee with relations from several other tribes and Indian history, im afraid, does not confirm your theories in fact it denounces several of them quite strongly and if you are to call me anti-white don't even try it because i am "white" but i respect cultures of all kind and i wrap them around me like a quilt of beauty and harmony
To truly love the world around you takes time and Ooloo if you want to come back from your racist ignorance, reply
ooloo in your reply to me you simply repeated the things you said and the DNA is not Asian and please stop capitilizing randoms words. And Indians live in India not the Americas
Also your facts are all quite incorrect
scientists have mapped the immigration and evolution of early humans and those who eventually became western european stay in that general area and did not migrate very far until about the christian churches time of 1600's
Im actually not talking about the Clovis's im talking about the one formulated in 2005 it is based on several skeletons of varying age shown to be related. your "long skull type" was actually a late form of the Homo Erectus and not one of he Homo Sapien Sapiens so it cannot be used in this discussion for they were very migratory and to track them would be almost impossible. and 25,000 years ago the land bridge was still forming so how would they have gotten here?
Not only that there is great amounts of evidence (in my College textbook for my history class too) It shows that humans slowly migrated over about 200,000 years across the earth
the first homo sapiens evolved around 200,000 years ago in southeast africa and there they slowly spread
There were 2 main branches when they got to northern africa
on towards europe and italy and the other towards modern day Pakistan
From pakistan some of them moved to modern day china and mongolia then into russia
From there they discovered the land bridge and followed the animals they hunted into modern day canada(the western coast looked slightly different than it does not) and once again they branched off
some went north and settled it the Archipelago which was mostly frozen over
Several went farther south into modern the modern day United States
there some went southwest and became the hopi and some went straight south and became the pueblo some stayed where they were to hunt animals (mainly buffalo) and some went west to the forests and mountains of the Appalachian
Some when farther and farther south still but we are not focusing on them and that is how the america's were settled and after time they began to be more brown-skinned Scientists and Historians speculate this happened somewhere on the Indian Subcontinent
..Where did you come up with the "Theory" that all of the Ancient Skeletons found in the new world were Homo Erectus?
Homo Erectus was NOT a LONG SKULL
Rather Homo Erectus was a BROAD SKULL
..Its the ASIANS who are probably a "Late form of Homo Eretus. Not only do they have the same LOW BROAD SKULL SHAPES but they also share the SAME TEETH STRUCTURE
Go do some research on the TEETH of Asians they ODDLY have the EXACT SAME..TEETH..As Homo Erectus had
And we could have still have been the first americans but you land hungry europeans have to come and take are land from us... We didnt want this we were completely happy they way we were living... We had the resources form the earth we ate animals and berries formt eh earth we used the fur from the animals we killed for clothing we used the bones for spears nothing was wasted untill you french and english people came along and completely changed are life...Go back to where you came from
they did commit genocide blur880 u fucking idiot. There intentions were to steal everything from the land and if the natives were in there way they slaughtered them. Man woman and child
Who the fuck are you!? You think your degree, private schooling, and your lack of melenin make you smart? Are we supposed to be quiet and listen to your text book view of the world? There's obviously a world out there that you know nothing about college boy!!! Before you comment on a topic or insult people why don't you learn something about the real world the rest of us live in!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, be definition going to school for many years makes you smarter. Although you can go to school and still not be the smartest; and, you can not go to school and still be smart. Me being smart was not the point. I stated that I went to private school because I was pointing out that I was not educated by the U.S. government or its employees. I was pointing out that my education was independent adn that panchov27 was wrong. You, like panchov27 are too quick to judge people.
My textbook view? What does that even mean. People learn from books. Just because a black man didn't grow up during the Civil Rights movement, does that mean that he can't talk about it. That makes no sense. And, I've studied much more than text books my friend.
"At least Obama has, hailing from my hood, Nebraskan and boy genius Warren Buffett. I think everyone else is just for showor to get Warren coffee."
You can be anti-academic if you want, but that really is just silliniess.
Learn something about the real world? I'm in the real world. I have been in the real world. I'm not a college student. I was. I have had many jobs, I have lived all over the country. I have traveled all over. I own a nice old home, have a wife, and a dog. Try not to convince yourself that I just sit in a class room all day.
I'm attacking no one. And, I know a lot about what I talk about. You are just too racist or close-minded to try to speak civil with me. You just yell your hate.
unless you live or come from the reservation....you know nothing...who wrote the history books ummmm the white man.....we have a diff history than you.......celebration of murder...thanks giveing...columbus day
How can Indians be the first Americans when there was no such thing as "America" until it was named after the Italian explorer Amergo Vespucci? Indians migrated from Asia.
They call themselves native Americans, as do English, German, Italian and every other hyphenated American. All human beings in North America live on the The North American Plate which is a tectonic plate covering most of North America. People are what they say they are, their choice.
Thats just it, to me an American is an American citizen which makes no reference to tribe, race religion or ancestry, if you're refering to Indian tribes I prefer specifics (Choctaw, Mohawk, Arapaho, Dakota, etc) because each tribe is uniquely different.
Scientists,anthropologists...ect=" EDUCATED DAMM FOOLS"!!!! I have FORMAL EDUCATION, and personal knowledge of where my ancestors come from don't need yours or anyone elses approval!!!! Take off the blinders.
They may be your ancestors, but they are not mine! To the Native Indian they are relatives, Not Ancestors!! Believe what ever the scientists say, because They are always Right????
Well, I understand that in your religion and culture ancestors are very different than in my culture. However, to me, it doesn't really matter if they are relatives or ancestors--we all came from the same original people.
I don't always believe what scientists say. However, in the scientific community there is no real debate about whether we all came from the same people. Therefore, yes, I believe them on this issue--just like I believe in gravity, the sun, and the moon.
Well, you seem like the unreasonable, closed-minded person who wouldn't care what anyone else things. You don't are to grow in any understand or learn anything from others. I guess you can keep your ears shut, eyes closed, and continue living in your own world of opinions.
You don't have to reply, I'm not interested in close-mindedness. :)
to blur880 and espada 9: Be so kind and do not pass scientists theories off as the reality. It is only theory and I can bet on, that after 50 years there will be another theory. Nobody knows where Native Indians came from. It is a mystery and so it is allright. Isn't it Whasicu ?
Everything in science is a theory. Gravity is only a theory, but I still believe in gravity. Relativity is only a theory, but I believe in relativity.
Now, I am open to other scientific theories and discoveries, but all science I have ever read says that everyone in North America migrated from Asia--though how or when they migrated is still disputed.
There might still be mysteries, but it is far from complete mystery.
I tell you another theory - Indians are descendants of lost Jewish tribes coming from pre-biblical times - this theory is supported by several thinkers as well - have you ever heard about it? I think the right answer may know, or feel only Indians, the ones who know and are able to feel heritage of their ancestors. I am not surprised, that it is likely to be their mystery and they do not like to speak about it, as not every one is capable, ready and willing to comprehend it.
That theory was started hundreds of years ago by Spanish missionaries and it was only later supported by other missionaries. It has no scientific basis at all. It was used to justify religious dogma.
It is quite clearly that we all migrated to North America from somewhere at some time-most likely 9000-11000 b.c. The details might be debated, but it is not a very disputed theory in the scientific community.
cheyen, sorry i'm a very busy person! 2months later I answer!! Yes my friend you are right, about the theorys, and these theories are passed off as facts!! To us Indians it is no mystery where we came from! I admire your ability to talk to these people with such rigid ideas, based in theory!!
I really do knot know what are you speaking about. Whites barbarously occupied the land of Native Americans and named the land America. Am. Natives named themselves surely otherwise, but now majority does not care about it, as Am. Natives are nearly foreigners in their own land. Please do not replace scientist theory by reality. You had better excuse for that, rather than pass yourself off as the "clever one".
Scientific FACTS are reality; fire side stories and your cult of victimization are fantasy.
You whine like a weak minded loser about being "oppressed" but in reality ALL cultures and races at one time or another conquered and subjugated their rivals and neighbors, its part of life, the ebb-tide flow you should understand this. Or do you find it easier feeling sorry for yourself over something you didn't have to endure?
All cutures did ? Let me know whom Indians from North America conquered ? If somebody comes and ejects personally you and your family from your house, than you say it is only ebb-tide flow ? Sorry, but I absolutely does not believe you - you are hypocrite having different standards for yourself and the other - the other are Indians.
Read "War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage" and get back to me regarding your revisionist history bull shit.
YOU have different standards by using technology, systems of government and economic prosperity invented and maintaind by the people you seem to hate so much.
To be quite frank, discussion with you decrease its level quite fast. You replace lack of arguments by offences. I can recommend you many books about Indians and their philoshophy, but for you it makes no scence, as you're not seeking truth. I get, that my standards are different than yours, as in my opinion Indians are people as everyone else,having the same rights as everyone else. If somebody stole their land, it's not ebb-tide flow, it's crime! I do not feel hate, I regret people like you.
Practice your English, and then get back to me. You are confused and know nothing about which you seem.
I enjoy Indian history. I studied their law in school. I want equality for all. But, you know nothing about Indian-U.S. relations. It was nothing like the Nazis. It was not genocide. AND, while U.S. actions were far from always the morally right thing to do, you Europeans have done much more evil things! We didn't try to colonize the world like you people did.
Besides English I can speak German and how about you? Wir konnen auch Deutsch sprechen was sagen Sie dazu? But as far as I got in touch with Americans,they cannot speak foreign languages at all. You still need argue with the Jews, not me. I only said, that situation of Jews is better than situation of Indians, that's all. Some your sentences are really "interesting"-let me know, which land did Czechs tried to colonize? Bigger nonsence I have never heard.
I can speak Italian and some Spanish and French. Lots of Americans can speak foreign languages. But it is more practical for Europeans to learn more languages because Europe is a bunch of very small countries with different languages. All of North America speaks English and Spanish, with the exception of Quebec.
I said Europe not Czech. You guys are a young country. You have been ruled by the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Communists.
When 90% of the Indians were killed or died of plague,it was not genocide? When e.g. regular american army slaughtered more than 300 disarmed and peaceable Indians, first of all babies and women at Wounded Knee it was not genocide? Reservations, where Indians died of starvation and plague, were predecessors of Nazi concentration camps. Dear Blur, face the facts and reality and avoid living in illusion!
"About all this there is no essential disagreement. The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby, "but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath." It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers."
Sure, there were some army attacks that were horrible. But, some Indians attack were horrible, too. Wounded Knee was not the normal state of affairs. That is why it is so well remembered. Still, it was not genocide. You don't know what genocide is. Plague is not genocide. It is immune system problems. Starvation is not genocide.
You are the European that doesn't understand U.S. history. You live in a dream world.
Reparations are not an apology! You told, that only some tribes get reparations, but all Indians were afflicted by genocide. Only your prezident, being authorized by Congress, can apologize on behalf of USA to all Indians! As far as I know, within several years whites will become a minority in USA. Even now there's a tension in the air. I only wish you Blur, that you did not result in the same way, as Indians did after genocide caused by your ancestors! I mean this frankly, not ironical.
You need to read some U.S. history so that you can actually understand what you are talking about. In my Indian Law class we laughed about how Europeans come over to American and want to go out on the plains to see Indians in tepee. Generally, Europeans just don't understand. It is funny how little you know.
Whites exterminated bisons,destroyed Indian's life environment,transfered them into reservations, ordered them how to live and where to live-not being allowed to hunt, not being allowed to migrate. It must have been big shock and they were desperately unhappy. They couldn' hunt,at the same time they did not get regularly meal,or must have lined up for meal in a very humbling way. Then they suffered and died of starvation and nobody took care as they were only dirty Red Men, who were in the way.
When did I told,that Indians lived in tepee? I told, that it's their dream, that would not come true in this society. Do not distort what I told! I know what negatives happen in reservations now(e.g. an Indians is shacking with several women etc.) but it's not essence of the problem. You yourself told,that you hate general comments,so desist from general funny comments on Europeans.You know nothing about me.I don't show off how"educated" I am. I can rate your comments too,but I've never done it.
I didn't distort what you said, but I can barely understand your English. I said that Europeans commonly know nothing about American Indian history. And, from listening to you speak, I think you also know nothing about American Indians.
"an Indians is shacking with several women"
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have never rated any of your comments. And, I never said anything about your education. You just don't speak English very well.
"an Indian is shacking with several women" means, that there is an Indian man, who lives with several Indian women in one shack - something like polygamy - is this clear now?.
If this happens to a free person,there is no wonder,that such a person is desperately unhappy and must have weakened,nearly destroyed own immune system-it contributed to high numbers of diseases victims among Indians. Mr. Crosby didn't probably know, what immune system was, when he wrote a book you quoted. My statement is according to last scientists researches - and you like scientists. Even smaller troubles, than above mentioned,can cause death !
It is only genocide if you do not know what genocide is. People dying from disease is not genocide. Was the Black Plague in Europe genocide. There has been much much much more genocide in Europe than in America. Compared to you Europeans, we are cute little school children.
I am very late in responding to this as I try to stay away from detractors!! I must say though, you know nothing of what you speak!! Genocide it was! The Military, gave smallpox infested blankets to my People, in order to irradicate them!! Unfortunately, there are too many fools, who believe as you do!! Time will show, and all, who do not believe that the Indian was nearly exterminated by european man, will, get a rude awakening!!!!
I know a lot about what I speak of. I was an American History major, and I'm in law school and have studied Federal Native American Law. I am no fan of how American Indians have been treated--that's why I studied it in school. However, as a historian I try to be objective and I seek out the truth.
Many horrible things happened, but it wasn't genocide. If you classify that as genocide than anything is genocide.
Sure, in some isolated instances small pox were spread, but more Indians there killed by the normal diseases that Europeans brought over. Indians had no immune defense to common European diseases like the flu.
Also, Indians throw flaming branches of poison ivy into military forts--it was the first biological warfare. Indians also owned black slaves. I'm aware that you can't generalize about all Indians. But they were not pure victims. However, many died, and they were often mistreated.
I totally agree with you, not all Indians were as "innocent" as some people make them out to be. Early Indians, not all of course, pretty much paved the way for civilization by allying with Europeans against other tribes and against other European nations. Other tribes pretty much over hunted beavers and other animals for fur. They are not innocent I agree, but I feel that the Europeans introduced something disastrous to these tribes that upset a perpetual balance.
Oh there is no question that Europeans messed up the way things were. Some Native Americans embraced change more than others. But, from a non-emotional standpoint, it is evolution. And, evolution isn't always happy or pretty.
Well, I dont know if it was evolution, it was change no doubt, but generally evolution is brought about by natural cause. The Indians had no reason to change, some just got greedy, plain and simple.
It was a very natural cause. Evolution doesn't require "reason[s] to change." And, it was far from just greed. You can't just simplify things like that. U.S./Indian relations were and are quite complicated, and you can't just generalize like that.
Weaker societies always fall, regardless of whether it is good or right. And, good comes with the bad.
Well, I guess it depends on your definition of natural. I suppose literally everything that is possible within the universe, is natural, even if influenced by man, or it wouldn't exist. The other definition of natural, however, is changes brought about by our environment. Environmentally, Indians did not have any reason, or "natural influence" to be more accurate, to change because there was virtually no famine, plague, or habitat destruction in the New World; unlike in Europe.
Well, I think it is the most common definition of natural. Less powerful societies always lost out to more powerful societies just like the zebra never kills the lion.
Again, "having a reason to change" means nothing. The zebra has not "reason" to beat eaten. Survival of the fittest--evolution. Sad but true.
Well, technically, Native Americans were more athletic and physically fit that the early Europeans who were malnourished and suffered from an array of diseases. Science will tell that the best evolved organisms live in biological harmony with its host, which Natives were like with the Earth. Unsuccessful and less evolved organisms destroy their host and ultimately kill it, thus killing themselves, as can be seen in early Europe.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Well, technically, Native Americans were more athletic and physically fit that the early Europeans who were malnourished and suffered from an array of diseases."
That is just stereotyped history. You're talking of some pilgrim colonies, not the English colonies or the U.S.
Evolution isn't harmony. Mutualism is harmony. Evolution has nothing to do with being good stewards. Evolution isn't "hosts"--that's mutualism. Lions and men rule the earth because of power and might.
I believe it fits well with early Europe, where 95% of the pop. were peasants & where famine was taking place during this time.
This is a dangerous mentality, "Lions & men rule the earth." Lions represent rulers and kings. Hell, this is what Europe was trying to escape. U dont think that the early natives were thinking, "I am superior to these poor people." No. They didnt have kings, instead they took them in and taught them their ways; influencing US government, agriculture, moral beliefs...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"I believe it fits well with early Europe, where 95% of the pop. were peasants & where famine was taking place during this time."
But that is the case with almost any group of people. 1% of white Americans control most of what all white Americans control.
"This is a dangerous mentality, "Lions & men rule the earth.""
It isn't a mentality, and it is nothing I like. You keep mistaking that. It is just a simple fact. Show me a zebra or a deer that trumps a man or a lion. Evolution.
Regarding treaties. Indians thought of treaties differently. The U.S. sometimes went back on its word. However, it wasn't always because the government was lying or trying to cheat the Indians. European treaties are based on contract theory. All contracts are negotiable documents, not permanent. The U.S was in the position of power, so they simply had more "negotiating" power. Also, it was often the U.S. gov. trying to protect Indians from U.S. pioneers.
Just imagine,that somebody moves you into unknown location,orders you how to live, gives you nearly no meal as it happened to Apache tribe e.g. You can be sure,that your immune system will be so harmed,that you can die even of ordinary flu!That's exactly what Whites caused to Indians.I speak about Prairie Indians and Indians of deep forests located in nowadays Canada,who I like and admire very much for their living philosophy and way of life.
O.K. Blur, I respect your opinionS although they are different than mine. I am glad to have an occasion to speak to you and to change our perceptions. I wish you had a good time !
I'm not passing myself off as "clever." I wouldn't generalize about whites though. Some whites did horrible things to the Indians. Some whites were very good to the Indians. Some whites fought for the Indians. Some Indians slaughtered whites and owned slaves. Some Indians were victims.
I don't justify anything that has been done to the Indians. Much of it is a sad story. But, I hate generalizations about whites being barbarians. All races are barbarians at times.
Indians as a race are victim. Whites as a race invaded the America. I obviously agree with you, that there were good whites and bad indians. But I speak about the result, not about every single person - it is not possible as you surely know.
Sure. But my people were victims long ago too. My people were slaves at one time. My people were beat and kill during history. The Indians are no more victims then everyone else in the world. Sure, during the last few hundred years Europeans did a lot of wrong things. But, in modern history blacks are more victims than American Indians. Hell, I'm Irish and my people were persecuted in the U.S. 150 years ago. All races have been aggressors and victims.
I have to disagree, Indians get it pretty bad. Statistically, they have the nation's lowest life expectancies, highest infant mortality rates, highest rates of violent victimization, diabetes, highest suicide rates, I believe two or three of the nation's poorest counties are in South Dakota Reservations, and though they get free health, Indian Health coverage provides each Indian $1500 yearly, US prisoners get $4000 yearly. Some reservation parts lack running water and electricity...
Well, you are free to disagree. First, I never said Indians don't have it pretty bad--quite the conterary. I am very aware of the statistics. The Indiana situation is often sad, and it is unique; but they face the same problems minority groups face. (Indians aren't considered minorities. Just a side note.) Historically speaking, blacks have had it much worse.
And, to offset the negative stats, many Indian tribes are very wealthy. Research who owns the Hard Rock Cafe.
That is interesting, I didn't know that they aren't considered minorities. What are they considered?
And when you say Blacks have it worse, do you mean globally or just nationally, because nationally, Indians have it worse hands down, but that is my opinion. But I dont like to judge these sort of things because I know Blacks went through hell, no doubt. The fact is that Indians only make up 2% of the US pop. Blacks make up, 15% was it? As of wealthy tribes, most reservations are poor.
They just have never been considered minorities. Historically Indian nations were treated like a hybrid between foreign nations and states.
I'd argue that historically blacks had it worse nationally and internationally. Indians were treated much better. The U.S. help set up Indian government, and Indians were allowed their own society--regardless of whether many reservations sucked. Meanwhile, blacks were enslaved, bread, and beaten. Indians owned black slaves.
True, but as we can see, Indian Government is having tough times. Within Pine Ridge, this wonderful tribal government can hardly enforce its own laws because of the checker board jurisdiction that exists. The sole income from 40% of tribes is gaming, but this is overrated. 12% of gaming tribes make 65% of the total profit, and these are small tribes. And Indians were slaves too, but mostly they were just killed. On the contrary, many tribes provided protection to runaway Blacks, i.e. Seminoles
Again, who said Indians weren't having tough times. I never did. Gaming income is not overrated. Many tribes make millions and billions from gaming. Indian gaming brings in much much more money than Las Vegas does. It is far from overrated.
Also, Native Americans were never slaves in the United States, Blacks were. Lastly, most Indians were not just killed. Massacres happened, but you really need to read some history. You need more than stereotypes.
Stop over exaggerating. Yes, there are a few rich tribes, but like I revealed with my earlier stats, most tribes are extremely poor. Thus, this is the reason they are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in the US, this is fact. And I applaud you for learning about these cultures, but lets not throw low blows, i.e. "you need to read some history." This wont get us anywhere.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm not over exaggerating. I live close to a number of poor tribes. But, if you go to the East or the South, the average tribe is quite well off. In the Northeast tribes own luxury resorts, in the South too. In the Midwest many tribes do well with casinos because the government gives Indians the advantage. Indian gaming revenues exceed all state lottery revenues combined. But, by stating this I don't belittle Indian troubles. You just misunderstand me. I'm just being objective.
The southern tribes that I know of which are poor are the Navajo, Comanche, Apache, To'hono Odum, Kiowa, Hau, Pawnee, Hopi, and Zuni. I am sure there are richer tribes, but not these. I dont know about the condition of the eastern tribes. Like I said though, 40% of tribes have gaming, 12% of those rake in 65% of the profit.
Sure, the U.S. government renegotiated treaties time after time, and there were a number of military attacks on Indians. They were moved here and there and then onto reservations. It is a sad story. But, at the same time, Indians were murdering other Indians, and Indians were slave owners just like whites. Thousands of years ago whites were slaves. Hell, in modern history the Jews have had it worse than anyone.
Germany invaded my country before the 2.World War. After the war Nazi leaders were punished, the world said it was terrible crime, Germany apologized. Now Germany is our good neighbour and there is no problem. Jews suffered similar losses as Indians. But now Jews have own state, everybody knows their bad lot, Germany apologized them. Do you feel the difference? Indians have no state, nobody apologized. You even go on telling me "it was normal in fact"! I feel like in Middle Ages, sorry.
Well, first of all Nazi/Jew and American/Indian relations were nothing alike. Many actions taken by the Americans against the Indians were not honorable, but it was not genocide. It wasn't ethnic cleansing. It was a land conflict. Hell, Indians had more political power than blacks and women. The government action against Indians shifted during different periods. Historically and even at present, Indians rights often supersede other American's rights.
Also, many Indian tribes are now getting rich from the natural reasources they have, and casinos and gaming is huge. Indians make more than 1/5 of the entire U.S. gaming revenue--and that includes Las Vegas. The Seminoles now own the Hard Rock Restaurant and Hotel chain. A number of tribes are making millions and millions of dollars. Still, other tribes still have many problems and are poor.
Also, Germany never gave the Jews anything. It wasn't Germany that created a Jewish state. So you make no good point.
Also, America has apologized to the American Indians. They have and still do get reparations. And, contrary to what you say, reservations are quite state-like. They have their own government, and they mainly only answer to the federal government.
Problem is-Indians would like to live as in the past-to hunt bizons,live in teepee,be free in the middle of nature.Instead they were pushed in reservations, must have coped with living in society based on profit, which's extraneous to them and ruins them till now!To compare reservation with state's funny.Imagine somebody pushes you in some bad land,order you how to live and says you have own state-cruel!Information,that USA apologized's new for me-can you tellme who apologized on behalf ofUSA?
You obviously know little about reservations and Indian law and legal systems. Some reservations are bigger than European countries. And, they are like states. They are political entities--but you don't know what you are talking about.
The information is new because you don't know anything about what you are talking about. What do you think Reparations are? Lots of people have apologized.
Sure it hasn't always been great--but you Europeans conquered and killed millions of people.
I still didn't learn from you,who apologized on behalf of USA-it can be done by prezident only. I am not going to discuss if some reservation is bigger or smaller,or which nation killed more or less people-it makes no scence and is waste of time.From your reaction I get, that you know nothing about Indians philosophy, way of life and their longings-here lies essence of the problem, which has not yet been touched in our discussion. So we can our discussion bring to an end.
It can be done by presidents only?? You are some Czech that knows nothing about U.S. history and American Indians. We apologized to the Hawaiians in 1993. Congress has been working on a formal apology for 15 years. But, reparations are an apology.
Well, you no nothing about U.S. history and American Indians. And, you can barely speak English. You have nothing intelligent to say.
I've studied American history; I've studied Native American Law.
You speak with forked tounge blur880, you claim to know about and have studied Indians???? I think Not!! If you really want to know something of Indians yesterday and today, I suggest you check out rednationsociety,com!!!! Get yourself educated by the very People who Lived it!!!!
Hey, like I said, I took Native American Law to help fight for American Indian rights. I support strengthen Reservation economies and fixing the problems Indians have been given for the last year hundred years. I'm simpathetic, but I'm not interested in bias history.
Both white men and Indians did horrible things throughout history. Just like Asians and blacks have done horrible things. Humans are flawed.
The Indians were not vitims of genocide. They were victims of a number of things. Initially the American government tried to hold back Americans and keep them east. But the population grew, and the American people, not the government, fought to move West. That started it all. Indians were trusting with treaties, and the government made new treaty after new treaty. Usually, when there was a land conflict between pioneers and Indians the Indians lost, but the Indians lost legal battles.
Eventually the shit hit the fan. It was a complicated legal/political mess. It wasn't genocide. But, there were horrible acts of violence. The Americans of course were more powerful and won most of the battles, and it is always a said story for the less powerful. That is always true.
However, it wasn't genocide. In fact, it was quite unique that at that time the U.S. government even made treatings with Indians. Other countries would have just slaughtered the "lessor beings."
It wasn't unique that the US government created treaties with the Natives. The US took advantage of the fact that Natives were very honest, so they created treaties and gave them the false implication that the US had their best interests in mind. Still goes on today. My point is that if the US came out as being tyrannical and didnt create treaties with the Natives, there would have been a lot more conflict between the US and the tribes, which ultimately would have been more costly for the US.
Well, if you have paid attention to anything I've written you know that I don't contend that the U.S. government was an angel. But let's be objective here. You stereotype Native Americans as "honest" and the U.S. government as dishonest. Neither was always the case. U.S. Indian policy has been a pendulum. And, Native Americans weren't a morally superior people. They had their share of murders and horse thieves--and they owned black slaves, too.
And again, treaties were horribly unique if you have studied history and law. I never said they were always fair, but they were very unique.
Well, many treaties, during certain periods, didn't end up holding water, you generalize horribly about the great body of treaties. Today many of those old treaties give the Indians special rights and other advantages. That said, I don't pretend that many Indian tribes aren't in a sad and sorry state. But, you need a more objective understanding.
Damn, my last comment didnt show up. I will repeat.
Genocide did happen. By definition, genoc. is "the deliberate... extermination of a religious, political, racial, or cultural group." Forcing children into boarding schools (which were comparable to slavery), missions, & outlawing native lang. & ceremony is genoc; not to mention germ warfare in brdng schls & rezes, sterilization of native women, the killing of AIM members (a political group) in 1973 wounded knee, to name a few, also counts.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
First, you missuse the term genocide. The jews faced genocide, the Indians did not. The Indians were victums of getting raw deals, disease, and isolated massacres (which were not sanctioned by high goverment authority). Plus, you are again just speaking of U.S./Indian relations like they were always the same. 1800 was way different from 1875, which was different from 1930, which was way different from 1960 to present.
I don't see how you can compare the boarding schools to slavery.
Indians did face genocide, one good example is boarding schools. Here is a quote from an authoritative figure during this era. "I believe the conditions are being deliberately created in our residential schools to spread infectious diseases. The mortality rate in the schools often exceeds fifty percent... This is a national crime." --Dr. Peter Bryce, 1907
Dont act like the same didnt happen here. Bryce was a rarity in a country that is known historically as being more lax on its Indian Policies than the US, & lost his job because of his stance. This is the reason the Sioux and Nez Perce fled there. Children here were beat, raped, undernourished, and overworked. "Child discusses how overcrowded dormitories, poor sanitation, and undernourishment contributed to the spread of trachoma, tuberculosis, influenza, and other inflictions." (US account)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Dont act like the same didnt happen here."
I didn't act like anything. You were just using the wrong facts to prove your point. Plus, they weren't even facts, just opinions.
Again, you are just cherry picking facts though. That was just the termination period. Have you studied the different periods of U.S./Indian relations. Can you name them? Your generalizations and stereotyped history is just as bad as me saying all Indians scalp and steal horses.
So you say that the US didnt ever sanction genocide. First, why would they openly admit that genocide was their motive. Canada, didnt admit that it happened in their schools. Second, agents of the US act in behalf of the US. U cant just amputate the actions of a US agent from US responsibility.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't know who "they" are, but the U.S. government never had a genocide policy. You just totally misused the term "genocide." Hitler conducted genocide. In genocide the killing is the ends. With U.S/Indian relations the killings and abuses that occurred were the means, not the ends. Plus, much U.S. policy was intended to help the Indians, but often it backfired because the U.S. was dealing with people they didn't understand. I amputate nothing. Do you know respondeat superior theory?
I dont know if you realize that these children, ages as young as 6, were put to work, and not just little jobs here and there. Many of these children were literally overworked, and many died due to this. Among other things, undernourishment, disease, sexual abuse, suicide, exposure (from running away and dying), just to name a few. To say this isnt genocide is just nuts. These schools were comparable to boots camps, they were militarily run after all.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Look I know the facts. I studied Native American/U.S. history in college and law school. I'm not justifying anything. But, you can't just talk about stereotypes and generalizations. You can't just blur 250 years all together.
Sure, small pox blanks are often talked about. But they weren't all that common. Still it was a shit thing to do. Still, Indians threw flaming poison ivy into U.S. forts, killing people with the first biological warfare. You, however, present subjective history.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Just like white men, some Indians were noble, some were not. Some Indian tribes were mostly just horse thieves. Some tribes mostly waged wars. They too, raped and slaughtered; they had slaves. Hell, right now Indian tribes are fighting in court so that they don't have to give money to black Indians that used to be their slaves. History was messed up, & no peoples are saints. I just have problems with people stereotyping Indians as morally superior and whites as devils. It is bad history.
I agree with you, there were bad people on both sides. As for the Cherokees decision to not adopt the freedmen, that, in my mind is wrong. But you have to look at the issue from the other side. We are a consumer nation, they simply don't want to finance these people because of money. I don't know enough about this topic though. Borderline racism is it? I don't know. I commend the Seminole (runaways) tribe though for taking slaves in, as well as the Creek, Arikara and Hidatsa peoples, and others.
Well, it's not consumerism. It is greed; and, it's not financing, it's sharing the wealth. The tribes want to exclude people so individuals will get larger shares. Well, it is some racism. Indians are racist just like whites and blacks. But, it is more just double-crossing and corporate greed. I commend anyone who helped the slaves. But that is just my point. Whites and Indians are both equally good and evil peoples. No ethnicity has the moral high ground.
But, history of U.S./Indian relations is a sad story, but it isn't any sadder than any of the many other sad stories in history. Hell, Africans are killing each other by the millions in Africa right now. They are raping and hacking each other with knives. They are killing small children and cutting them to pieces.
During World War II the Germans and the Japanese each murdered tens of millions and only in a few years. History is full of crappy events, and no race is free from guilt.
Good song, good portraits and pictures, though don't ever make the mistake of thinking that Redmen no longer walk. There are great Red Men and Women walking now, even if they may not make the press as much as their forefathers. Those trying to help their people, those doing the best they can to maintain. The blood may be diluted across many streams, but it's still strong.
It was okay for the different Indian tribes to kill each other off and take each others land as their own.
renrakali 9 months ago
So you're calling the natives mexicans? We are not Indians or first Americans we have tribal names Comanche Apache Cherokee etc. It's like calling all the southern American continent mexicans. American is the name of that Italian dude that traveled with Columbus. Indian is a mistaken voyage that landed the conquistadores here instead of india. And you are a white Anglo-Saxon your tribal names are German French English Spanish Irish Scottish and so on. Basically you fuckers are mexicans a mix of
TheEver41 10 months ago
The first Americans were from eastern europe. American indians are decended from asians and they mated with the people that were already here. They have asian and european blood.
biscayne63 1 year ago
Read "Erectus walks among us"
The "Out of Africa Theory" is Clearly wrong
One of the BIG PROBLEMS with it is the shovelled teeth issue of asians. Out of Africa claims that about 100,000 years ago (or so) the modern africans eliminated all previous peoples in Asia and Europe. In asia the older peoples (Homo erectus) had shovelled shaped teeth. OoA theory claimed that everyone of those older asians was eliminated and replaced by a modern african who then evolved shovelled teeth (LOL!)
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
yout theory is as stupid as you are the Homo Sapien Sapiens evolved from the Homo Erectus inside of africa completely. They did not begin to truly migrate and populate until they were well on their way to being the modern Homo Sapien Sapien
My princeton professor confirms this
AND before we CARRY ON i request THAT you PLEASE STOP capitilizing RANDOM words.
now lets carry on
you have added no additional evidence to prove your case all you have done is repeat facts
please read next comment
Smehrf 2 years ago
now on to the asian dental evidence
Your "shoveled teeth" idea
and actually Homo Erectus was known to have long skulls in Africa and (going along with the migration) they moved northeast and some settled along the way
it is widely accepted that Africa is the cradle of civilization and you cannot argue that with your own pyschotic personal theorems
DNA clearly shows that Asians are clearly the same species as us and your racist theory they are less evolved than us is foolish
next comment
Smehrf 2 years ago
And the modern african did not migrate around the world
Migration was completed about 8,000 years ago, that was when the agricultural Revolution occured giving them great reason to settle
And it is not called the "out of africa theory" it is actually named Homo Sapien Sapien Migratorial Tracking and is accepted as fact by almost all modern scientists and professors and they never "eliminated" them since Homo Erectus came from africa and they evolved into Homo Sapien Sapiens!
Smehrf 2 years ago
Argueing with you is a lost cause and i will not waste my time with foolish individuals when many people accept that Europeans were not those who settled in the Americas
i reject your ignorant theorems and replace them with accepted facts
good day
Smehrf 2 years ago
LOL where did you get that from?
DamienDragonetti 2 years ago
Look Folks...The SCIENTIFIC REALITY is that we now have..3 Totally DIFFERENT BRANCHES of SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that..ALL..SHOW that the FIRST AMERICANS were WESTERN EUROPEAN PEOPLES
1) ALL of the Ancient Skeletons found in the new world are..ALL..of the LONG SKULL WESTERN EUROPEAN TYPE (NOT Asia)
2) the OLDEST DNA line of the "Indians" is actually the EUROPEAN FACTOR X
3) the OLDEST HLA Blood Antigen Markers of the "Indians" is ALSO of WESTERN EUROPEAN TYPE
Thats REALITY
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
..GENETIC RESEARCH has Shown CLEARLY that the FIRST AMERICANS were...CAUCASIANS..Peoples (probably from Western European Irish/Spanish/Scottish/Basque Tribes
The OLDEST DNA line of the "indians" is now KNOWN to be the CAUCASIANS "Factor X"
The OLDEST HLA BLOOD ANTIGEN MARKERS of the "Indians" is now KNOWN to be of "ANCIENT WESTERN EUROPEAN DNA TYPE"
Many "Indian" Men decend from the "Q" Type DNA line..thats a EUROPEAN DNA LINE (Found in Scottland)
Indian History CONFIRMS THIS btw
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
im afraid you do have some of your facts wrong as well as your idea that it is from western europe
As im sure you already know South-eastern africa is the cradle of civilization and the people migrated around the world from there
The first indians were indeed lightskinned but they were not europeans they were the Trans-siberian immigrants who came across the land bridge from modern day russia and they came from somewhere around the Aegean sea and they came from northern africa and so forth
Smehrf 2 years ago
Your talking about the "Clovis theory" and its have been SHOWN TO BE WRONG (like 10 years ago) by several DIFFERENT FIELDS OF SCIENCE
1) We now have a large number of HUMAN SKELETONS..that a MUCH OLDER than "Clovis theory"
....and btw..ALL..(as in EVERY SINGLE ONE)..is of a NON-ASIAN TYPE
ALL of these Ancient Skeletons are of the WESTERN EUROAN "Long Skull" Type
Several have even been MATCHED to European populations (like Spirit Cave Man who was matched to NORDIC EUROEANS)
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
and i myself have an indian father and he is a Cherokee with relations from several other tribes and Indian history, im afraid, does not confirm your theories in fact it denounces several of them quite strongly and if you are to call me anti-white don't even try it because i am "white" but i respect cultures of all kind and i wrap them around me like a quilt of beauty and harmony
To truly love the world around you takes time and Ooloo if you want to come back from your racist ignorance, reply
Smehrf 2 years ago
...Uhhh "Racist ignorance"?? (lol)
How about..SCIENTIFIC FACT.
The OLDEST DNA line of the "Indians" is the..FACTOR X..DNA line and that DNA line is NOT "Asian"
Its EUROPEAN
and Mutation rate Study shows it came to the new world LONG BEFORE "Clovis" "indians" Showed up here (around 25,000 YEARS AGO)
Ohh and btw ANOTHER TOTALLY DIFFERENT BRANHC OF SCIENCE HAS FOUND THE SAME THING
The OLDEST "Indian" Blood Antigen HLA Markers have ALSO Been found to decend from WESTERN EUROPEANS
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
ooloo in your reply to me you simply repeated the things you said and the DNA is not Asian and please stop capitilizing randoms words. And Indians live in India not the Americas
Also your facts are all quite incorrect
scientists have mapped the immigration and evolution of early humans and those who eventually became western european stay in that general area and did not migrate very far until about the christian churches time of 1600's
im out of space read next comment
Smehrf 2 years ago
Im actually not talking about the Clovis's im talking about the one formulated in 2005 it is based on several skeletons of varying age shown to be related. your "long skull type" was actually a late form of the Homo Erectus and not one of he Homo Sapien Sapiens so it cannot be used in this discussion for they were very migratory and to track them would be almost impossible. and 25,000 years ago the land bridge was still forming so how would they have gotten here?
next comment
Smehrf 2 years ago
Not only that there is great amounts of evidence (in my College textbook for my history class too) It shows that humans slowly migrated over about 200,000 years across the earth
the first homo sapiens evolved around 200,000 years ago in southeast africa and there they slowly spread
There were 2 main branches when they got to northern africa
on towards europe and italy and the other towards modern day Pakistan
There they settled and some continued to move
next comment
Smehrf 2 years ago
From pakistan some of them moved to modern day china and mongolia then into russia
From there they discovered the land bridge and followed the animals they hunted into modern day canada(the western coast looked slightly different than it does not) and once again they branched off
some went north and settled it the Archipelago which was mostly frozen over
Several went farther south into modern the modern day United States
next comment
Smehrf 2 years ago
there some went southwest and became the hopi and some went straight south and became the pueblo some stayed where they were to hunt animals (mainly buffalo) and some went west to the forests and mountains of the Appalachian
Some when farther and farther south still but we are not focusing on them and that is how the america's were settled and after time they began to be more brown-skinned Scientists and Historians speculate this happened somewhere on the Indian Subcontinent
Smehrf 2 years ago
..Where did you come up with the "Theory" that all of the Ancient Skeletons found in the new world were Homo Erectus?
Homo Erectus was NOT a LONG SKULL
Rather Homo Erectus was a BROAD SKULL
..Its the ASIANS who are probably a "Late form of Homo Eretus. Not only do they have the same LOW BROAD SKULL SHAPES but they also share the SAME TEETH STRUCTURE
Go do some research on the TEETH of Asians they ODDLY have the EXACT SAME..TEETH..As Homo Erectus had
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
And we could have still have been the first americans but you land hungry europeans have to come and take are land from us... We didnt want this we were completely happy they way we were living... We had the resources form the earth we ate animals and berries formt eh earth we used the fur from the animals we killed for clothing we used the bones for spears nothing was wasted untill you french and english people came along and completely changed are life...Go back to where you came from
donmont10 2 years ago
u know wat it is mang
panchov27 2 years ago
fuk u blurr880
panchov27 3 years ago
the only thing u need to knoe about natives is they wher smarter abd more trusting than the white man. Ther downfall was ther deasency
panchov27 3 years ago
^I guess your writing skills validate that theory right?
LOL!!!!!! Ahhahahahahahahahah!
espada9 2 years ago
u fuckin cowards
panchov27 3 years ago
they did commit genocide blur880 u fucking idiot. There intentions were to steal everything from the land and if the natives were in there way they slaughtered them. Man woman and child
panchov27 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, you seem to lack an understand of what genocide is and/or you lack an understand of history.
Either way you don't come across as intelligent of any sort. Anyone can call anyone else names. It takes intelligent to reason and understand.
blur880 3 years ago
Who the fuck are you!? You think your degree, private schooling, and your lack of melenin make you smart? Are we supposed to be quiet and listen to your text book view of the world? There's obviously a world out there that you know nothing about college boy!!! Before you comment on a topic or insult people why don't you learn something about the real world the rest of us live in!!
ozelome 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, be definition going to school for many years makes you smarter. Although you can go to school and still not be the smartest; and, you can not go to school and still be smart. Me being smart was not the point. I stated that I went to private school because I was pointing out that I was not educated by the U.S. government or its employees. I was pointing out that my education was independent adn that panchov27 was wrong. You, like panchov27 are too quick to judge people.
blur880 3 years ago
My textbook view? What does that even mean. People learn from books. Just because a black man didn't grow up during the Civil Rights movement, does that mean that he can't talk about it. That makes no sense. And, I've studied much more than text books my friend.
"At least Obama has, hailing from my hood, Nebraskan and boy genius Warren Buffett. I think everyone else is just for showor to get Warren coffee."
You can be anti-academic if you want, but that really is just silliniess.
blur880 3 years ago
Learn something about the real world? I'm in the real world. I have been in the real world. I'm not a college student. I was. I have had many jobs, I have lived all over the country. I have traveled all over. I own a nice old home, have a wife, and a dog. Try not to convince yourself that I just sit in a class room all day.
I'm attacking no one. And, I know a lot about what I talk about. You are just too racist or close-minded to try to speak civil with me. You just yell your hate.
blur880 3 years ago
these men are the true definiton of warriors
panchov27 3 years ago
unless you live or come from the reservation....you know nothing...who wrote the history books ummmm the white man.....we have a diff history than you.......celebration of murder...thanks giveing...columbus day
3indians4u 2 years ago
Don't use the internet or a PC you whining hypocrite.
Use some "smoke signals" instead fuck head.
espada9 2 years ago
no wht ii think yew all should shut the fcuk up
cuz yew knw y
native american r da best peeps tht r in dis world
so dnt go dissin my culture iight
ashlenne 3 years ago
How can Indians be the first Americans when there was no such thing as "America" until it was named after the Italian explorer Amergo Vespucci? Indians migrated from Asia.
espada9 4 years ago
They call themselves native Americans, as do English, German, Italian and every other hyphenated American. All human beings in North America live on the The North American Plate which is a tectonic plate covering most of North America. People are what they say they are, their choice.
2164th 4 years ago
Thats just it, to me an American is an American citizen which makes no reference to tribe, race religion or ancestry, if you're refering to Indian tribes I prefer specifics (Choctaw, Mohawk, Arapaho, Dakota, etc) because each tribe is uniquely different.
But yea, we are all Americans.
espada9 4 years ago
How do you know we came from asia, WHERE YOU THERE???? Get A CLUE.
whasicu 4 years ago
It's called SCIENCE, you know, DNA sequencing, anthropology, genetic markers, etc. Get an EDUCATION!
espada9 4 years ago
Scientists,anthropologists...ect=" EDUCATED DAMM FOOLS"!!!! I have FORMAL EDUCATION, and personal knowledge of where my ancestors come from don't need yours or anyone elses approval!!!! Take off the blinders.
whasicu 4 years ago
We all came from northeastern Africa.
blur880 3 years ago
They may be your ancestors, but they are not mine! To the Native Indian they are relatives, Not Ancestors!! Believe what ever the scientists say, because They are always Right????
whasicu 3 years ago
Well, I understand that in your religion and culture ancestors are very different than in my culture. However, to me, it doesn't really matter if they are relatives or ancestors--we all came from the same original people.
I don't always believe what scientists say. However, in the scientific community there is no real debate about whether we all came from the same people. Therefore, yes, I believe them on this issue--just like I believe in gravity, the sun, and the moon.
blur880 3 years ago
ok whatever you say, now don't bother to reply! don't really care what you believe. not interested!!!!
whasicu 3 years ago
Well, you seem like the unreasonable, closed-minded person who wouldn't care what anyone else things. You don't are to grow in any understand or learn anything from others. I guess you can keep your ears shut, eyes closed, and continue living in your own world of opinions.
You don't have to reply, I'm not interested in close-mindedness. :)
blur880 3 years ago
to blur880 and espada 9: Be so kind and do not pass scientists theories off as the reality. It is only theory and I can bet on, that after 50 years there will be another theory. Nobody knows where Native Indians came from. It is a mystery and so it is allright. Isn't it Whasicu ?
cheyen123 3 years ago
Everything in science is a theory. Gravity is only a theory, but I still believe in gravity. Relativity is only a theory, but I believe in relativity.
Now, I am open to other scientific theories and discoveries, but all science I have ever read says that everyone in North America migrated from Asia--though how or when they migrated is still disputed.
There might still be mysteries, but it is far from complete mystery.
blur880 3 years ago
I tell you another theory - Indians are descendants of lost Jewish tribes coming from pre-biblical times - this theory is supported by several thinkers as well - have you ever heard about it? I think the right answer may know, or feel only Indians, the ones who know and are able to feel heritage of their ancestors. I am not surprised, that it is likely to be their mystery and they do not like to speak about it, as not every one is capable, ready and willing to comprehend it.
cheyen123 3 years ago
That theory was started hundreds of years ago by Spanish missionaries and it was only later supported by other missionaries. It has no scientific basis at all. It was used to justify religious dogma.
It is quite clearly that we all migrated to North America from somewhere at some time-most likely 9000-11000 b.c. The details might be debated, but it is not a very disputed theory in the scientific community.
blur880 3 years ago
cheyen, sorry i'm a very busy person! 2months later I answer!! Yes my friend you are right, about the theorys, and these theories are passed off as facts!! To us Indians it is no mystery where we came from! I admire your ability to talk to these people with such rigid ideas, based in theory!!
whasicu 3 years ago
I really do knot know what are you speaking about. Whites barbarously occupied the land of Native Americans and named the land America. Am. Natives named themselves surely otherwise, but now majority does not care about it, as Am. Natives are nearly foreigners in their own land. Please do not replace scientist theory by reality. You had better excuse for that, rather than pass yourself off as the "clever one".
cheyen123 3 years ago
Scientific FACTS are reality; fire side stories and your cult of victimization are fantasy.
You whine like a weak minded loser about being "oppressed" but in reality ALL cultures and races at one time or another conquered and subjugated their rivals and neighbors, its part of life, the ebb-tide flow you should understand this. Or do you find it easier feeling sorry for yourself over something you didn't have to endure?
espada9 3 years ago
All cutures did ? Let me know whom Indians from North America conquered ? If somebody comes and ejects personally you and your family from your house, than you say it is only ebb-tide flow ? Sorry, but I absolutely does not believe you - you are hypocrite having different standards for yourself and the other - the other are Indians.
cheyen123 3 years ago
Read "War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage" and get back to me regarding your revisionist history bull shit.
YOU have different standards by using technology, systems of government and economic prosperity invented and maintaind by the people you seem to hate so much.
espada9 3 years ago
To be quite frank, discussion with you decrease its level quite fast. You replace lack of arguments by offences. I can recommend you many books about Indians and their philoshophy, but for you it makes no scence, as you're not seeking truth. I get, that my standards are different than yours, as in my opinion Indians are people as everyone else,having the same rights as everyone else. If somebody stole their land, it's not ebb-tide flow, it's crime! I do not feel hate, I regret people like you.
cheyen123 3 years ago
Practice your English, and then get back to me. You are confused and know nothing about which you seem.
I enjoy Indian history. I studied their law in school. I want equality for all. But, you know nothing about Indian-U.S. relations. It was nothing like the Nazis. It was not genocide. AND, while U.S. actions were far from always the morally right thing to do, you Europeans have done much more evil things! We didn't try to colonize the world like you people did.
blur880 3 years ago
Besides English I can speak German and how about you? Wir konnen auch Deutsch sprechen was sagen Sie dazu? But as far as I got in touch with Americans,they cannot speak foreign languages at all. You still need argue with the Jews, not me. I only said, that situation of Jews is better than situation of Indians, that's all. Some your sentences are really "interesting"-let me know, which land did Czechs tried to colonize? Bigger nonsence I have never heard.
cheyen123 3 years ago
I can speak Italian and some Spanish and French. Lots of Americans can speak foreign languages. But it is more practical for Europeans to learn more languages because Europe is a bunch of very small countries with different languages. All of North America speaks English and Spanish, with the exception of Quebec.
I said Europe not Czech. You guys are a young country. You have been ruled by the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Communists.
blur880 3 years ago
When 90% of the Indians were killed or died of plague,it was not genocide? When e.g. regular american army slaughtered more than 300 disarmed and peaceable Indians, first of all babies and women at Wounded Knee it was not genocide? Reservations, where Indians died of starvation and plague, were predecessors of Nazi concentration camps. Dear Blur, face the facts and reality and avoid living in illusion!
cheyen123 3 years ago
Obviously you don't know what genocide is.
"About all this there is no essential disagreement. The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby, "but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath." It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers."
Obviously your facts are wrong.
blur880 3 years ago
Sure, there were some army attacks that were horrible. But, some Indians attack were horrible, too. Wounded Knee was not the normal state of affairs. That is why it is so well remembered. Still, it was not genocide. You don't know what genocide is. Plague is not genocide. It is immune system problems. Starvation is not genocide.
You are the European that doesn't understand U.S. history. You live in a dream world.
blur880 3 years ago
Reparations are not an apology! You told, that only some tribes get reparations, but all Indians were afflicted by genocide. Only your prezident, being authorized by Congress, can apologize on behalf of USA to all Indians! As far as I know, within several years whites will become a minority in USA. Even now there's a tension in the air. I only wish you Blur, that you did not result in the same way, as Indians did after genocide caused by your ancestors! I mean this frankly, not ironical.
cheyen123 3 years ago
Over 500 tribes have gotten reparations. They get millions of dollars.
I have no fear of immigrants. Americans are not as racist as Europeans and Asians!
blur880 3 years ago
You need to read some U.S. history so that you can actually understand what you are talking about. In my Indian Law class we laughed about how Europeans come over to American and want to go out on the plains to see Indians in tepee. Generally, Europeans just don't understand. It is funny how little you know.
blur880 3 years ago
Whites exterminated bisons,destroyed Indian's life environment,transfered them into reservations, ordered them how to live and where to live-not being allowed to hunt, not being allowed to migrate. It must have been big shock and they were desperately unhappy. They couldn' hunt,at the same time they did not get regularly meal,or must have lined up for meal in a very humbling way. Then they suffered and died of starvation and nobody took care as they were only dirty Red Men, who were in the way.
cheyen123 3 years ago
Didn't Europeans exterminate wild animals? I don't see to many deer running around in Paris or London!
blur880 3 years ago
When did I told,that Indians lived in tepee? I told, that it's their dream, that would not come true in this society. Do not distort what I told! I know what negatives happen in reservations now(e.g. an Indians is shacking with several women etc.) but it's not essence of the problem. You yourself told,that you hate general comments,so desist from general funny comments on Europeans.You know nothing about me.I don't show off how"educated" I am. I can rate your comments too,but I've never done it.
cheyen123 3 years ago
I didn't distort what you said, but I can barely understand your English. I said that Europeans commonly know nothing about American Indian history. And, from listening to you speak, I think you also know nothing about American Indians.
"an Indians is shacking with several women"
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have never rated any of your comments. And, I never said anything about your education. You just don't speak English very well.
blur880 3 years ago
"an Indian is shacking with several women" means, that there is an Indian man, who lives with several Indian women in one shack - something like polygamy - is this clear now?.
cheyen123 3 years ago
Better English, yes. I still don't see your point though.
blur880 3 years ago
You may know some details, but you haven't yet grasped essence of the problem Whites - Indians conflict.I try to describe briefly what happened.
cheyen123 3 years ago
How many Indian reservations have you been to???? I live by many. I have studied American Indian History and Indian law. I am aware the the conflict.
blur880 3 years ago
It's genocide to all intents and purposes!
If this happens to a free person,there is no wonder,that such a person is desperately unhappy and must have weakened,nearly destroyed own immune system-it contributed to high numbers of diseases victims among Indians. Mr. Crosby didn't probably know, what immune system was, when he wrote a book you quoted. My statement is according to last scientists researches - and you like scientists. Even smaller troubles, than above mentioned,can cause death !
cheyen123 3 years ago
It is only genocide if you do not know what genocide is. People dying from disease is not genocide. Was the Black Plague in Europe genocide. There has been much much much more genocide in Europe than in America. Compared to you Europeans, we are cute little school children.
blur880 3 years ago
I am very late in responding to this as I try to stay away from detractors!! I must say though, you know nothing of what you speak!! Genocide it was! The Military, gave smallpox infested blankets to my People, in order to irradicate them!! Unfortunately, there are too many fools, who believe as you do!! Time will show, and all, who do not believe that the Indian was nearly exterminated by european man, will, get a rude awakening!!!!
whasicu 3 years ago
I know a lot about what I speak of. I was an American History major, and I'm in law school and have studied Federal Native American Law. I am no fan of how American Indians have been treated--that's why I studied it in school. However, as a historian I try to be objective and I seek out the truth.
Many horrible things happened, but it wasn't genocide. If you classify that as genocide than anything is genocide.
blur880 3 years ago
Sure, in some isolated instances small pox were spread, but more Indians there killed by the normal diseases that Europeans brought over. Indians had no immune defense to common European diseases like the flu.
Also, Indians throw flaming branches of poison ivy into military forts--it was the first biological warfare. Indians also owned black slaves. I'm aware that you can't generalize about all Indians. But they were not pure victims. However, many died, and they were often mistreated.
blur880 3 years ago
I totally agree with you, not all Indians were as "innocent" as some people make them out to be. Early Indians, not all of course, pretty much paved the way for civilization by allying with Europeans against other tribes and against other European nations. Other tribes pretty much over hunted beavers and other animals for fur. They are not innocent I agree, but I feel that the Europeans introduced something disastrous to these tribes that upset a perpetual balance.
akichita87 3 years ago
Oh there is no question that Europeans messed up the way things were. Some Native Americans embraced change more than others. But, from a non-emotional standpoint, it is evolution. And, evolution isn't always happy or pretty.
blur880 3 years ago
Well, I dont know if it was evolution, it was change no doubt, but generally evolution is brought about by natural cause. The Indians had no reason to change, some just got greedy, plain and simple.
akichita87 3 years ago
It was a very natural cause. Evolution doesn't require "reason[s] to change." And, it was far from just greed. You can't just simplify things like that. U.S./Indian relations were and are quite complicated, and you can't just generalize like that.
Weaker societies always fall, regardless of whether it is good or right. And, good comes with the bad.
blur880 3 years ago
Well, I guess it depends on your definition of natural. I suppose literally everything that is possible within the universe, is natural, even if influenced by man, or it wouldn't exist. The other definition of natural, however, is changes brought about by our environment. Environmentally, Indians did not have any reason, or "natural influence" to be more accurate, to change because there was virtually no famine, plague, or habitat destruction in the New World; unlike in Europe.
akichita87 3 years ago
Well, I think it is the most common definition of natural. Less powerful societies always lost out to more powerful societies just like the zebra never kills the lion.
Again, "having a reason to change" means nothing. The zebra has not "reason" to beat eaten. Survival of the fittest--evolution. Sad but true.
blur880 3 years ago
Well, technically, Native Americans were more athletic and physically fit that the early Europeans who were malnourished and suffered from an array of diseases. Science will tell that the best evolved organisms live in biological harmony with its host, which Natives were like with the Earth. Unsuccessful and less evolved organisms destroy their host and ultimately kill it, thus killing themselves, as can be seen in early Europe.
akichita87 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Well, technically, Native Americans were more athletic and physically fit that the early Europeans who were malnourished and suffered from an array of diseases."
That is just stereotyped history. You're talking of some pilgrim colonies, not the English colonies or the U.S.
Evolution isn't harmony. Mutualism is harmony. Evolution has nothing to do with being good stewards. Evolution isn't "hosts"--that's mutualism. Lions and men rule the earth because of power and might.
blur880 3 years ago
I believe it fits well with early Europe, where 95% of the pop. were peasants & where famine was taking place during this time.
This is a dangerous mentality, "Lions & men rule the earth." Lions represent rulers and kings. Hell, this is what Europe was trying to escape. U dont think that the early natives were thinking, "I am superior to these poor people." No. They didnt have kings, instead they took them in and taught them their ways; influencing US government, agriculture, moral beliefs...
akichita87 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I believe it fits well with early Europe, where 95% of the pop. were peasants & where famine was taking place during this time."
But that is the case with almost any group of people. 1% of white Americans control most of what all white Americans control.
"This is a dangerous mentality, "Lions & men rule the earth.""
It isn't a mentality, and it is nothing I like. You keep mistaking that. It is just a simple fact. Show me a zebra or a deer that trumps a man or a lion. Evolution.
blur880 3 years ago
Regarding treaties. Indians thought of treaties differently. The U.S. sometimes went back on its word. However, it wasn't always because the government was lying or trying to cheat the Indians. European treaties are based on contract theory. All contracts are negotiable documents, not permanent. The U.S was in the position of power, so they simply had more "negotiating" power. Also, it was often the U.S. gov. trying to protect Indians from U.S. pioneers.
blur880 3 years ago
Just imagine,that somebody moves you into unknown location,orders you how to live, gives you nearly no meal as it happened to Apache tribe e.g. You can be sure,that your immune system will be so harmed,that you can die even of ordinary flu!That's exactly what Whites caused to Indians.I speak about Prairie Indians and Indians of deep forests located in nowadays Canada,who I like and admire very much for their living philosophy and way of life.
cheyen123 3 years ago
Everyone died from "ordinary flu" back then!!! Pioneers died from flu all the time.
Again, nothing you speak of is genocide.
blur880 3 years ago
Just try to judge the problem independently,not as a descendant of white scouts-that's all.
cheyen123 3 years ago
I am. You are not. Most of what you say is one-sided and incorrect. He talk about of context because you don't understand the context.
blur880 3 years ago
O.K. Blur, I respect your opinionS although they are different than mine. I am glad to have an occasion to speak to you and to change our perceptions. I wish you had a good time !
Good Bye from the Czech Republic !
cheyen123 3 years ago
Well, I respect your opinions too. It is nice to know that you care about the Native American people. Enjoy summer.
blur880 3 years ago
I'm not passing myself off as "clever." I wouldn't generalize about whites though. Some whites did horrible things to the Indians. Some whites were very good to the Indians. Some whites fought for the Indians. Some Indians slaughtered whites and owned slaves. Some Indians were victims.
I don't justify anything that has been done to the Indians. Much of it is a sad story. But, I hate generalizations about whites being barbarians. All races are barbarians at times.
blur880 3 years ago
Indians as a race are victim. Whites as a race invaded the America. I obviously agree with you, that there were good whites and bad indians. But I speak about the result, not about every single person - it is not possible as you surely know.
cheyen123 3 years ago
Sure. But my people were victims long ago too. My people were slaves at one time. My people were beat and kill during history. The Indians are no more victims then everyone else in the world. Sure, during the last few hundred years Europeans did a lot of wrong things. But, in modern history blacks are more victims than American Indians. Hell, I'm Irish and my people were persecuted in the U.S. 150 years ago. All races have been aggressors and victims.
blur880 3 years ago
I have to disagree, Indians get it pretty bad. Statistically, they have the nation's lowest life expectancies, highest infant mortality rates, highest rates of violent victimization, diabetes, highest suicide rates, I believe two or three of the nation's poorest counties are in South Dakota Reservations, and though they get free health, Indian Health coverage provides each Indian $1500 yearly, US prisoners get $4000 yearly. Some reservation parts lack running water and electricity...
akichita87 3 years ago
Well, you are free to disagree. First, I never said Indians don't have it pretty bad--quite the conterary. I am very aware of the statistics. The Indiana situation is often sad, and it is unique; but they face the same problems minority groups face. (Indians aren't considered minorities. Just a side note.) Historically speaking, blacks have had it much worse.
And, to offset the negative stats, many Indian tribes are very wealthy. Research who owns the Hard Rock Cafe.
blur880 3 years ago
That is interesting, I didn't know that they aren't considered minorities. What are they considered?
And when you say Blacks have it worse, do you mean globally or just nationally, because nationally, Indians have it worse hands down, but that is my opinion. But I dont like to judge these sort of things because I know Blacks went through hell, no doubt. The fact is that Indians only make up 2% of the US pop. Blacks make up, 15% was it? As of wealthy tribes, most reservations are poor.
akichita87 3 years ago
They just have never been considered minorities. Historically Indian nations were treated like a hybrid between foreign nations and states.
I'd argue that historically blacks had it worse nationally and internationally. Indians were treated much better. The U.S. help set up Indian government, and Indians were allowed their own society--regardless of whether many reservations sucked. Meanwhile, blacks were enslaved, bread, and beaten. Indians owned black slaves.
blur880 3 years ago
True, but as we can see, Indian Government is having tough times. Within Pine Ridge, this wonderful tribal government can hardly enforce its own laws because of the checker board jurisdiction that exists. The sole income from 40% of tribes is gaming, but this is overrated. 12% of gaming tribes make 65% of the total profit, and these are small tribes. And Indians were slaves too, but mostly they were just killed. On the contrary, many tribes provided protection to runaway Blacks, i.e. Seminoles
akichita87 3 years ago
Again, who said Indians weren't having tough times. I never did. Gaming income is not overrated. Many tribes make millions and billions from gaming. Indian gaming brings in much much more money than Las Vegas does. It is far from overrated.
Also, Native Americans were never slaves in the United States, Blacks were. Lastly, most Indians were not just killed. Massacres happened, but you really need to read some history. You need more than stereotypes.
blur880 3 years ago
Stop over exaggerating. Yes, there are a few rich tribes, but like I revealed with my earlier stats, most tribes are extremely poor. Thus, this is the reason they are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in the US, this is fact. And I applaud you for learning about these cultures, but lets not throw low blows, i.e. "you need to read some history." This wont get us anywhere.
akichita87 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm not over exaggerating. I live close to a number of poor tribes. But, if you go to the East or the South, the average tribe is quite well off. In the Northeast tribes own luxury resorts, in the South too. In the Midwest many tribes do well with casinos because the government gives Indians the advantage. Indian gaming revenues exceed all state lottery revenues combined. But, by stating this I don't belittle Indian troubles. You just misunderstand me. I'm just being objective.
blur880 3 years ago
The southern tribes that I know of which are poor are the Navajo, Comanche, Apache, To'hono Odum, Kiowa, Hau, Pawnee, Hopi, and Zuni. I am sure there are richer tribes, but not these. I dont know about the condition of the eastern tribes. Like I said though, 40% of tribes have gaming, 12% of those rake in 65% of the profit.
akichita87 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, I said the South, with a capital "S". The Navajo and others live in the West.
"I dont know about the condition of the eastern tribes."
Well, you should read up on them. It will break your stereotypes and generalizations.
"Like I said though, 40% of tribes have gaming, 12% of those rake in 65% of the profit."
Again, this is just like the white man's world--or any civilized society. There are always few at the top. Still, Indians have a great deal of wealth.
blur880 3 years ago
Sure, the U.S. government renegotiated treaties time after time, and there were a number of military attacks on Indians. They were moved here and there and then onto reservations. It is a sad story. But, at the same time, Indians were murdering other Indians, and Indians were slave owners just like whites. Thousands of years ago whites were slaves. Hell, in modern history the Jews have had it worse than anyone.
blur880 3 years ago
Germany invaded my country before the 2.World War. After the war Nazi leaders were punished, the world said it was terrible crime, Germany apologized. Now Germany is our good neighbour and there is no problem. Jews suffered similar losses as Indians. But now Jews have own state, everybody knows their bad lot, Germany apologized them. Do you feel the difference? Indians have no state, nobody apologized. You even go on telling me "it was normal in fact"! I feel like in Middle Ages, sorry.
cheyen123 3 years ago
Well, first of all Nazi/Jew and American/Indian relations were nothing alike. Many actions taken by the Americans against the Indians were not honorable, but it was not genocide. It wasn't ethnic cleansing. It was a land conflict. Hell, Indians had more political power than blacks and women. The government action against Indians shifted during different periods. Historically and even at present, Indians rights often supersede other American's rights.
blur880 3 years ago
Also, many Indian tribes are now getting rich from the natural reasources they have, and casinos and gaming is huge. Indians make more than 1/5 of the entire U.S. gaming revenue--and that includes Las Vegas. The Seminoles now own the Hard Rock Restaurant and Hotel chain. A number of tribes are making millions and millions of dollars. Still, other tribes still have many problems and are poor.
blur880 3 years ago
Also, Germany never gave the Jews anything. It wasn't Germany that created a Jewish state. So you make no good point.
Also, America has apologized to the American Indians. They have and still do get reparations. And, contrary to what you say, reservations are quite state-like. They have their own government, and they mainly only answer to the federal government.
blur880 3 years ago
Problem is-Indians would like to live as in the past-to hunt bizons,live in teepee,be free in the middle of nature.Instead they were pushed in reservations, must have coped with living in society based on profit, which's extraneous to them and ruins them till now!To compare reservation with state's funny.Imagine somebody pushes you in some bad land,order you how to live and says you have own state-cruel!Information,that USA apologized's new for me-can you tellme who apologized on behalf ofUSA?
cheyen123 3 years ago
You obviously know little about reservations and Indian law and legal systems. Some reservations are bigger than European countries. And, they are like states. They are political entities--but you don't know what you are talking about.
The information is new because you don't know anything about what you are talking about. What do you think Reparations are? Lots of people have apologized.
Sure it hasn't always been great--but you Europeans conquered and killed millions of people.
blur880 3 years ago
I still didn't learn from you,who apologized on behalf of USA-it can be done by prezident only. I am not going to discuss if some reservation is bigger or smaller,or which nation killed more or less people-it makes no scence and is waste of time.From your reaction I get, that you know nothing about Indians philosophy, way of life and their longings-here lies essence of the problem, which has not yet been touched in our discussion. So we can our discussion bring to an end.
cheyen123 3 years ago
It can be done by presidents only?? You are some Czech that knows nothing about U.S. history and American Indians. We apologized to the Hawaiians in 1993. Congress has been working on a formal apology for 15 years. But, reparations are an apology.
Well, you no nothing about U.S. history and American Indians. And, you can barely speak English. You have nothing intelligent to say.
I've studied American history; I've studied Native American Law.
blur880 3 years ago
You speak with forked tounge blur880, you claim to know about and have studied Indians???? I think Not!! If you really want to know something of Indians yesterday and today, I suggest you check out rednationsociety,com!!!! Get yourself educated by the very People who Lived it!!!!
whasicu 3 years ago
Hey, like I said, I took Native American Law to help fight for American Indian rights. I support strengthen Reservation economies and fixing the problems Indians have been given for the last year hundred years. I'm simpathetic, but I'm not interested in bias history.
Both white men and Indians did horrible things throughout history. Just like Asians and blacks have done horrible things. Humans are flawed.
blur880 3 years ago
The Indians were not vitims of genocide. They were victims of a number of things. Initially the American government tried to hold back Americans and keep them east. But the population grew, and the American people, not the government, fought to move West. That started it all. Indians were trusting with treaties, and the government made new treaty after new treaty. Usually, when there was a land conflict between pioneers and Indians the Indians lost, but the Indians lost legal battles.
blur880 3 years ago
Eventually the shit hit the fan. It was a complicated legal/political mess. It wasn't genocide. But, there were horrible acts of violence. The Americans of course were more powerful and won most of the battles, and it is always a said story for the less powerful. That is always true.
However, it wasn't genocide. In fact, it was quite unique that at that time the U.S. government even made treatings with Indians. Other countries would have just slaughtered the "lessor beings."
blur880 3 years ago
It wasn't unique that the US government created treaties with the Natives. The US took advantage of the fact that Natives were very honest, so they created treaties and gave them the false implication that the US had their best interests in mind. Still goes on today. My point is that if the US came out as being tyrannical and didnt create treaties with the Natives, there would have been a lot more conflict between the US and the tribes, which ultimately would have been more costly for the US.
akichita87 3 years ago
Well, if you have paid attention to anything I've written you know that I don't contend that the U.S. government was an angel. But let's be objective here. You stereotype Native Americans as "honest" and the U.S. government as dishonest. Neither was always the case. U.S. Indian policy has been a pendulum. And, Native Americans weren't a morally superior people. They had their share of murders and horse thieves--and they owned black slaves, too.
blur880 3 years ago
And again, treaties were horribly unique if you have studied history and law. I never said they were always fair, but they were very unique.
Well, many treaties, during certain periods, didn't end up holding water, you generalize horribly about the great body of treaties. Today many of those old treaties give the Indians special rights and other advantages. That said, I don't pretend that many Indian tribes aren't in a sad and sorry state. But, you need a more objective understanding.
blur880 3 years ago
Damn, my last comment didnt show up. I will repeat.
Genocide did happen. By definition, genoc. is "the deliberate... extermination of a religious, political, racial, or cultural group." Forcing children into boarding schools (which were comparable to slavery), missions, & outlawing native lang. & ceremony is genoc; not to mention germ warfare in brdng schls & rezes, sterilization of native women, the killing of AIM members (a political group) in 1973 wounded knee, to name a few, also counts.
akichita87 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
First, you missuse the term genocide. The jews faced genocide, the Indians did not. The Indians were victums of getting raw deals, disease, and isolated massacres (which were not sanctioned by high goverment authority). Plus, you are again just speaking of U.S./Indian relations like they were always the same. 1800 was way different from 1875, which was different from 1930, which was way different from 1960 to present.
I don't see how you can compare the boarding schools to slavery.
blur880 3 years ago
Indians did face genocide, one good example is boarding schools. Here is a quote from an authoritative figure during this era. "I believe the conditions are being deliberately created in our residential schools to spread infectious diseases. The mortality rate in the schools often exceeds fifty percent... This is a national crime." --Dr. Peter Bryce, 1907
akichita87 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you aware that Bryce was a Canadian talking of Canadian conditions?
blur880 3 years ago
Dont act like the same didnt happen here. Bryce was a rarity in a country that is known historically as being more lax on its Indian Policies than the US, & lost his job because of his stance. This is the reason the Sioux and Nez Perce fled there. Children here were beat, raped, undernourished, and overworked. "Child discusses how overcrowded dormitories, poor sanitation, and undernourishment contributed to the spread of trachoma, tuberculosis, influenza, and other inflictions." (US account)
akichita87 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Dont act like the same didnt happen here."
I didn't act like anything. You were just using the wrong facts to prove your point. Plus, they weren't even facts, just opinions.
Again, you are just cherry picking facts though. That was just the termination period. Have you studied the different periods of U.S./Indian relations. Can you name them? Your generalizations and stereotyped history is just as bad as me saying all Indians scalp and steal horses.
blur880 3 years ago
So you say that the US didnt ever sanction genocide. First, why would they openly admit that genocide was their motive. Canada, didnt admit that it happened in their schools. Second, agents of the US act in behalf of the US. U cant just amputate the actions of a US agent from US responsibility.
akichita87 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't know who "they" are, but the U.S. government never had a genocide policy. You just totally misused the term "genocide." Hitler conducted genocide. In genocide the killing is the ends. With U.S/Indian relations the killings and abuses that occurred were the means, not the ends. Plus, much U.S. policy was intended to help the Indians, but often it backfired because the U.S. was dealing with people they didn't understand. I amputate nothing. Do you know respondeat superior theory?
blur880 3 years ago
I dont know if you realize that these children, ages as young as 6, were put to work, and not just little jobs here and there. Many of these children were literally overworked, and many died due to this. Among other things, undernourishment, disease, sexual abuse, suicide, exposure (from running away and dying), just to name a few. To say this isnt genocide is just nuts. These schools were comparable to boots camps, they were militarily run after all.
akichita87 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Look I know the facts. I studied Native American/U.S. history in college and law school. I'm not justifying anything. But, you can't just talk about stereotypes and generalizations. You can't just blur 250 years all together.
Sure, small pox blanks are often talked about. But they weren't all that common. Still it was a shit thing to do. Still, Indians threw flaming poison ivy into U.S. forts, killing people with the first biological warfare. You, however, present subjective history.
blur880 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Just like white men, some Indians were noble, some were not. Some Indian tribes were mostly just horse thieves. Some tribes mostly waged wars. They too, raped and slaughtered; they had slaves. Hell, right now Indian tribes are fighting in court so that they don't have to give money to black Indians that used to be their slaves. History was messed up, & no peoples are saints. I just have problems with people stereotyping Indians as morally superior and whites as devils. It is bad history.
blur880 3 years ago
I agree with you, there were bad people on both sides. As for the Cherokees decision to not adopt the freedmen, that, in my mind is wrong. But you have to look at the issue from the other side. We are a consumer nation, they simply don't want to finance these people because of money. I don't know enough about this topic though. Borderline racism is it? I don't know. I commend the Seminole (runaways) tribe though for taking slaves in, as well as the Creek, Arikara and Hidatsa peoples, and others.
akichita87 3 years ago
Well, it's not consumerism. It is greed; and, it's not financing, it's sharing the wealth. The tribes want to exclude people so individuals will get larger shares. Well, it is some racism. Indians are racist just like whites and blacks. But, it is more just double-crossing and corporate greed. I commend anyone who helped the slaves. But that is just my point. Whites and Indians are both equally good and evil peoples. No ethnicity has the moral high ground.
blur880 3 years ago
But, history of U.S./Indian relations is a sad story, but it isn't any sadder than any of the many other sad stories in history. Hell, Africans are killing each other by the millions in Africa right now. They are raping and hacking each other with knives. They are killing small children and cutting them to pieces.
During World War II the Germans and the Japanese each murdered tens of millions and only in a few years. History is full of crappy events, and no race is free from guilt.
blur880 3 years ago
Good song, good portraits and pictures, though don't ever make the mistake of thinking that Redmen no longer walk. There are great Red Men and Women walking now, even if they may not make the press as much as their forefathers. Those trying to help their people, those doing the best they can to maintain. The blood may be diluted across many streams, but it's still strong.
wallclaysd 4 years ago
Very moving. It bought tears to my eyes. I have this song on a CD I got and listen to it alot. Thank you for sharing with us all.
thundragon77 4 years ago
i love this cliping
kylemcivor 4 years ago
love it
rebel072162 4 years ago
BEAUTIFUL-thankyou!
gabriellemichaela 4 years ago