Natives or Whites? Who were the greater victims?

[Canadian_NewDemocrat]

this question may be naiive and a bit out of nowhere, I had always pictures the Native Indians of North America as some of the greatest victims of the past few hundred years in the course of history. Yet sources tell me it may not have been so...I thought this forum and it's members might help shed some light on the subject, thanks...

[racaulk]

1. ???

Just curious, how have "Whites" ever been victimized in North America?

Did you mean to say "Blacks"?

[silverojo]

13. White Irish people were frequently victimized here

They were discriminated against ("No Irish need apply" signs)...made to work in mines because black slaves had monetary value and Irish people didn't...Irish girls and women, against their will, had their long hair cut short so the long hair would be sold for wigs...were forced to live in filthy parts of cities because "good" landlords wouldn't rent to them..."little" things like that.

The whole reason the Irish came here in the first place was to escape persecution in their homeland. There was no real "famine"--the Brits simply wouldn't allow the Irish to keep the crops they raised. No, the Brits forcibly took the crops from Irish farmers and sold them for profit...and if an Irish person dared try to sneakily take some of their own crops to eat, he/she would be shot on sight. The Brits forced the Irish to stop using their own language IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, and made them speak English instead. When the Irish fled to this land, they traveled on ships with conditions so bad, they were known as "coffin ships".

And shall we discuss how white Jews have faced discrimination here? (I think it can safely be said that, in the history of the world, no race has suffered more from bigotry than Jews who were persecuted and murdered en masse during WWII.)

Where is it written that white people have never suffered? Contrary to popular (racist) belief, ALL people have suffered from persecution at some point, hence the many wars we have faced throughout history.

[blonndee]

27. The consistent theme is that they were victimized by WHITES. n/t

[uppityperson]

32. OP is comparing indians to whites during N.Am settling by whites

not if any whites have ever suffered.

[laruemtt]

69. italians too - just ask my ma

how she didn't get jobs in nyc because they wouldn't hire WOPs....

[uppityperson]

80. native american/indians wouldn't hire WOPs?

edited to add, please read original posters reply#4.

[Deja Q]

2. Whites. Soon to be eclipsed by Indians and Chinese.

Is it possible that the "handful of beads" could have been diamonds that the Native Americans took?

And the slavery of blacks... everything for nothing and the chicks for free. Literally. x( But I digress and, (on edit), "Blacks" is a category (as has been said) you should consider too.

America now has 300,000,000 people. Being decimated by offshoring. Originally to the Chinese and now the Indians. And once the situation becomes ripe, they too will be readily discarded. Once a cheater, always a cheater. If it's happening to us, it's gonna happen to them.

Meanwhile, we end up so dependend on government and corporations that we forget to turn to eaach other in times of crises. Ask Katrina. She knows a thing or two...

[Canadian_NewDemocrat]

4. no, no,

I think you may have heard me wrong. I am referring to the native americans, the aboriginal peoples of North America. I remember as a child I watched Cowboys and Indians movies and never sympathized with the Indians as they were portrayed as brutal and savage. Then years later I saw them as a misunderstood people who were wronged sorely by European settlements and even attempted to been wiped out by government of America. Yet, lately I've been doing some readings and think otherwise. I mean, Wikipedia sites statistics that more natives killed whites than vice versa during the native wars, etc. and that they made a habit out of never sparing non-combatants, etc....I am just wondering if anyone here is familiar with frontier history and such. Aboriginal studies I find most fascinating and to learn the truth is most important.

[tocqueville]

5. if that was right the natives would have won...

figures talk for themselves

[blonndee]

9. You're way off.

WAY off. Remember who it is that writes mainstream history. I also thought I knew a lot about native Americans/indigenous people and history until I came to Oklahoma and realized I didn't know shit. No offense, and I still don't know nearly ENOUGH, but if you think that white settlers were predominantly "victims," you're reading the wrong kind of sites and not nearly enough books.

But I do agree that "to learn the truth is most important." It seems to take a while, though, and I myself have a long way to go.

[silverojo]

15. Easy for you to say

You weren't living on the prairies, having to worry about Indian massacres. Has it ever occurred to you that one reason our government fought the "Indians" was because they were attacking the whites? And no, they did not spare the women and children. Hence the term "massacre", as opposed to "war".

It's easy for us, sitting in relative safety, to be judgemental. But if you'd had to worry about "Indians" launching an attack on your towns and families, you'd realize that they were playing pretty dirty, too. I mean, if you object to how the government was handling land treaties, attack the people responsible--NOT women and children who were powerless to defend themselves.

We denounce terrorists (with good reason) when they harm innocent people over land disputes. Well, these Native Americans were doing just that. I know our government didn't abide by the treaties, and that was reprehensible...however, you don't just go out and kill somebody's wife and kids, just because the man screwed you over on a business deal. You go after the man.

Unless you're a total coward.

So, IMHO, both sides were pretty despicable in their actions.

[ComerPerro]

17. ITS THEIR LAND

[Rosemary2205]

91. It's their land?

I could be wrong but I don't think any of the Native Americans groups here at that time had any concept of land ownership and they had no problem fighting each other over rights to sacred sites and hunting grounds.

In addition, I would add, that despite our own "ownership" of land, this chunk of what we call America will be here and likely populated long after the US of A is but a story in the history books. Someone, at some point, will run us off "our land".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

95. Funny.

they "fight each other over rights to sacred sites and hunting grounds" yet they have no concept of land ownership.

This "indians didn't understand the concept of land ownership" business is the sort of nonsense a person uses to justify the genocide.

[uppityperson]

96. good call on the double talk

fighting over land rights but have no concept of land ownership. They might not have had pieces of paper declaring absolute rights to 1 person in particular to a bit of land, but they sure as heck knew whose land it was.

[uppityperson]

18. Are you series?

Indians were attacking because they were getting their land, their food, their everything taken away from them. Would you defend your home?

[blonndee]

20. You're right, easy for me to say. And easy for you as well.

To side with the colonial power, that is. To compare oppressed people with terrorists, that is.

If I lived on the prairies illegitimately and had to "worry about Indian massacres," well, I guess I shouldn't have stolen land that didn't belong to me and sided with those who did so by means of numbers, firepower, and disease.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Asgaya Dihi]

25. "you'd realize that they were playing pretty dirty, too"

There's one small difference here. That business deal you talk of wasn't a business deal, it was generally a robbery by force. What was lost wasn't something of "value", it was their home, their hunting grounds, their way of life. Their wives and kids did die for that. Either fast when we raided a camp to make them move or slow of starvation and exposure in a strange land where you can't find the resources you need fast enough. And as someone else already said, it was their land we were fighting for in the first place, not ours.

We toss words like "terrorism" around as if it means something and we ignore our own history for it. We didn't fight the British straight up, we fought them in sometimes dishonorable ways for the time and standards of the period, we won our country with a terrorism of our own. Only since we won they weren't criminals to be hung but heroes to name cities after. In what way were we not terrorists to the natives and why when we were killing their wives and kids to make our homes on their land do we claim they were wrong to do the same to us? I'm pretty sure I might have and it's the same type of thing that motivates much of the violence around the world today. To some it's just business, to others it's their whole way of life and its being taken by force. If we could be honest about it we'd at least admit we'd have fought too if we were them, by whatever means it took to get a chance to win.

[Union Thug]

28. I have no sympathy for the 'whites' on the prairie

Small pox, genocide, theft of traditional lands, attempts to wipe out their traditional religion..etc.... I have no tears for the invading white, xtian hoards.

[bicentennial_baby]

56. oh that is TOO fucking funny...

You simply cannot be serious, right?.... :rofl:

"We denounce terrorists (with good reason) when they harm innocent people over land disputes. Well, these Native Americans were doing just that. I know our government didn't abide by the treaties, and that was reprehensible...however, you don't just go out and kill somebody's wife and kids, just because the man screwed you over on a business deal. You go after the man."

Omg, it's too much... :rofl:

[LostinVA]

66. O.M.G.

[lukasahero]

72. "You weren't living on the prairies, " I think what you meant to say is

You weren't living on land you stole from them... :eyes:

[Asgaya Dihi]

11. Wiki is more a source for what people think than facts

It's corrected when an obvious problem occurs but since it's user edited and the popular opinion becomes "fact" we don't always get the accurate one. They are pretty good sometimes, but not on this one.

You can find examples of the later years of the indian wars where there were atrocities on both sides but the vast majority of it was against the natives. The eastern natives such as the Cherokee tried hard as hell to live with us, they just got stabbed in the back for it. Do a google search for the term "Trail of tears". The US Supreme Court actually ordered Jackson to stop and he responded with something like "Thurgood Marshall has given his order, now let's see him enforce it". We either butchered them or they died on the trail west.

If they were less than friendly by the time we got out west ourselves, maybe they'd heard about us already. The tribes that tried peace with us were all but destroyed, some actually were.

[uppityperson]

29. smallpox blankets. wiping out buffalo. trail of tears. reservations.

the attempt at genocide is worse than their attempt to avoid it. Indians were not all happy skippy Pocohantas/Disneyland stuff. It was a hard life, but it was their life and they got killed, tortured, raped, starved, driven onto reservations of land that whiteman didn't want. If whiteman decided he wanted it, they got moved to land less likely to be able to do any more than survive (Black Hills, SD>>> Pine Ridge. Have you ever visted either of these places? Which is nicer, more condusive to a good life? Where is the reservation now?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

44. you've been reading slop

try this..."1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus" by Charles C. Mann
Lots of new info gathered from several studies.

There were a several million natives here, before diseases (primarily) decimated the population. By the time substantial numbers of whites came to the Americas, the Indian population was a fraction of pre-1491 numbers. It's estimated that 1 of 10 survived the diseases the white man introduced. The "native wars" were the end of the tragedy, not the beginning.

edit for clarity

[cynatnite]

46. Even the movies more sympathetic to the Native Americans...

aren't all that accurate.

The one that came probably closest was 'Into the West'. In fact, it's the only movie I've ever seen that did an adequate recreation of Little Big Horn.

I recommend 'The Native Americans: An Illustrated History'. It has a rich compilation of information that could help quite a bit. You also get a very good idea of their cultures.

[tocqueville]

3. your sources are either nuts or racists

The indigenous populations of the Americas sharply plummetted following the arrival of Europeans from 1492 onward. Not all the mortality was consciously inflicted: disease, hardship, and the severing of social ties all took their toll, although diseases were also sometimes introduced for the purpose, amounting to biological warfare. The native tribes of the Caribbean were eliminated like the Guanches in the Canary Islands the previous century (Crosby 1986). Central Mexico, with an estimated pre-Conquest population of 25 million, was reduced to a residual population of a million in the 17th century. In 1790, when the first U.S. census was executed, there were 300 Indians left in Pennsylvania, 1500 each in New York and Massachusetts, and still some 10,000 in the Carolinas (Braudel 1984 p 393). See cultural genocide.

The long-term decimation, sometimes by government policy and sometimes not, of the Natives of South and North America by Europeans is estimated to be one of the largest and longest in history.<2>

Various estimates of the pre-contact Native population of the continental U.S. and Canada range from 1.8 to over 12 million. Over the next four centuries, their numbers were reduced to a low of 237,000 by 1900. It has been estimated that the Native population of what is now Mexico was reduced from 30 million to only 3 million over the first four decades of Spanish rule.

European persecution of Natives started with Christopher Columbus' arrival in San Salvador Island in 1492. Native population dropped dramatically over the next few decades. Some were directly exterminated by Europeans. Others died indirectly as a result of contact with introduced diseases for which they had no resistance.

Over the next four centuries, European settlers would systematically displace Native American peoples, from the Arctic to South America. This was accomplished through varying combinations of warfare, the signing of treaties (of which the Natives may not have fully understood the consequences at times), forced relocations to barren lands, destruction of their main food supply -- such as the bison -- and the spread of European disease, notably smallpox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

while they are at it your sources can deny the holocaust too... and slavery...

[Igel]

75. Even many of the

'smallpox blankets' instances have been seriously called into question.

Certainly suggested once, but no evidence it was actually done. And in another instance the sources the allegations were based on show the smallpox mini-epidemic almost certainly wasn't intentional.

[niyad]

6. read "a people's history of the united states" by howard zinn for starters

then read "bury my heart at wounded knee" by dee brown, and then google "sand creek massacre". you can also watch "into the west", a steven spielberg production for tnt, and "the west" a ken burns production for pbs.


oh, and one other thing--if, in fact, the natives had killed more whites, why are the NATIVES on reservations, aka camps? why were THEIR languages and cultures almost wiped out?

I don't know what the hell you have been reading, but I urgently recommend that you read the above mentioned, because what you have been reading is pure, unadulterated ROT.

[silverojo]

21. Reality check!

<<if, in fact, the natives had killed more whites, why are the NATIVES on reservations, aka camps?>>

Because the US government finally got tired of those people going around, killing innocent people in villages, perhaps? There's just so many massacres a government is going to tolerate, before they have to get tough on the problem. As I mentioned before, the Native Americans had every right to object to our government and go to war over land disputes, etc. Killing innocent women and children isn't war, it's cowardly terrorism.

There was a huge influx of white people heading west, yet their death rates were quite high. Hint: Aside from disease and accidents, what--or, rather, who--do you think was killing them?

<<why were THEIR languages and cultures almost wiped out?>>

That's what's known as "losing the war". It's happened many times in history, all over the world. Many languages have died out for just this reason.

Instead of reading books and watching TV shows, maybe you should talk to the descendants of people who were really there for the event. People lived in mortal terror of these tribes' merciless attacks.

BOTH sides were at fault. Period.

[uppityperson]

30. That would be me.

My ancestors lived on the plains, homesteaded there, did not live in any mortal terror of any tribes' merciless attacks. On the contrary, they felt taken by the offers of free land, discovering when they got there what was going on and were unable to leave since it took all the money they had to get there. They had to go to the school several times, per my parent's report, when the local indians were upset about something that happened. Usually some governmental bs or someone doing a bigotted act against them.

What did white people moving west die from? Disease, accidents, poor food, weather. Yes, some were killed by indians, but the majority that died weren't.

Indian languages and cultures were almost wiped out by a concerted effort to do so. Children of a generation above me and mine were removed from their homes, sent to boarding school with other indian kids, forced to speak English, whipped when they talked their native language. There has been another effort in the last 10 yrs to have young indians get together with the very old indians and relearn, pass on culture and language before the elderly die.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

47. that would be me too

My ancestors were settlers, and Natives.

Half of my family was intent on taking from the other half. We have stories from both sides. You, obviously, have only heard the stories from one side.

[uppityperson]

81. OMG! no wonder you terrify me, or terrify me 1/2 the time

those merciless attacks and all

[bicentennial_baby]

57. oh man, you are killing me!!

or should that be "oh white man"... :rofl:

it's called fucking colonization...it ain't right...sorry 'bout that.

[niyad]

62. so the effort at extermination of an indigenous peoples is okay by you

because the VICTORS say it is okay? I guess in your case the kool-ade tastes pretty good, too.

just because the victor writes the history, and gets to make the rules for the vanquished, does not make it right.

[cynatnite]

63. Just how many massacres of whites were there?

Estimates were in the 10-12 million range as Native Americans roamed the country previous to whites coming here. Now, there are less than two million. At it's lowest it was less than a million. Either way, compared to the hundreds of millions of white Americans alive today, it sure doesn't seem like our population numbers have suffered much over the years.

Between the whites' mass killings, disease, starvation and other tragedies inflicted on these people it seems that it's sorely one-sided in favor of the whites. Were it not for that, we'd have a much larger Native American population with a much louder voice.

Now, I don't have to read books or watch movies. My husband's grandmother, before she passed away, told the story of a white man who threw her mother into a raging river and killed her because she wouldn't have sex with him. There are a few other stories told to my husband and his brothers including some 'Indian on Indian' violence. With any society, you'll find that.

No one is denying the atrocities on both sides, but to try to equalize it is a distortion of Native American history.

[LostinVA]

67. One of the worst -- if not THE worst -- revisionist history posts

I have EVER seen on DU.

Unbefrigginglivable...

[minkyboodle]

76. this place has gone to the dogs

I mean this whole thread is blowing my mind!

[LostinVA]

78. It is just... just.....

[Generic Other]

7. Read the history. And weep.

In 1853, the Governor of the State of California declared extermination of all Indians in the State of California.

In 1856, the State of California issued a bounty of $0.25 per Indian scalp.
In 1860, the State of California increased the bounty to $5.00 per Indian scalp

http://www.tachi-yokut.com/history2.html


One state. One example.

[Canadian_NewDemocrat]

8. oh

I own Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and intend to read it once I am done reading Little Big Man...the movie always brought me to tears, but the book itself gives a somewhat less sympathic view towards the Indians...

[uppityperson]

14. You do realize Custer was an egocentric self righteous fool?

He got his people killed due to his incompetance, ignoring information and thinking he was on a mission from god (summarizing here). Thinking of LIttle Big Man that was fictionalized history, rather a satire, at least the movie was.

Bad me for my bad manners. Welcome to DU, I am taking this topic as a true question, wanting to learn. Asking questions to learn is a good thing. Asking questions to stir up trouble isn't. Welcome and feel free to ask, read and learn.

[ComerPerro]

19. Not even a real General, either

[Viva_La_Revolution]

50. another suggestion...

read "Custer died for your sins" by Vine Deloria, Jr.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

26. I think you confuse cause and effect

cause: stealing land, raping women, murdering women children elderly, destroying the food
effect: harm the invaders, try to drive them off using violence against their women and children
further effect: kill more indians, detroy more food, etc etc.

Did you know that little indian children, indian women, elderly indians were killed by the invaders?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

53. and they have back up

Why do they insist on tag-teaming? Like we can't spot them a mile away....

[bicentennial_baby]

58. ding! fries are done! ding! fries are done!

OMG...wow. :wow:

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Canadian_NewDemocrat]

12. I mean by no means to seem racist

I loathe prejudice in all forms, I simply wish to learn more about native culture through asking such questions...history is so tainted and much of the indigenous culture and lore been destroyed, distorted in positive and negative ways, just wondering opinions here on this delicate matter...sorry if I ever seemed the wrong way...my best friend is native btw

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Broken_Hero]

23. The subject is very hazy,

when dealing with main stream education devices. In high school, the only mention, i remember of american indians..

1. Thanksgiving

2. Lewis and Clark, the Sacajewa tour...

3. Pocahontas

4. Little Big Horn...

But, what they leave out of the mainstream is amazing...

I recommend

God is Red by Vine Deloria Jr.

Black Elk Speaks-by John C. Neidhardt

Son of the Morning Star by Evan S. Connell

The other books mentioned, above thread are good as well. Also, check this site out

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/

Oklahoma State, and Oklahoma University have very good archives/reading on indian treatties, and other matters...:)

[blonndee]

31. Indeed, University of Oklahoma is a good

source of such studies. That's where I attend grad school. Their Native American studies program is flourishing.

[Broken_Hero]

33. yes,

it is. I went to college at Haskell Indian Nations University, up in Lawrence Kansas, and both OU and OSU's indian archives, we had to study a bunch. My BA program was American Indian Studies, with emphasis on Social Work

[The Straight Story]

35. Both sucked, Am Indians were not nice, neither were we (euros)

The indians were brutal towards each others over the years, and we were to them as well.

Indians wiped out tribes of fellow indians, we wiped them out, and so on.

Indians were victims - of each other and us.

I don't see them having any more moral highground than the europeans did.

On the other side of that, we screwed em over good with lies - shame on us for that.

They sucked, we sucked, Europeans won. Simple and straight forward history.

[blonndee]

36. Not that simple. This was their land and "we" had no

right to claim it. What "they" did before "we" arrived has nothing to do with it.

[The Straight Story]

38. Explain 'their' land

There was not much of a cohesive govt with the varied tribes.

They warred with each other often and this land was up for grabs from one tribe to the next, or from euro folks.

They killed one another for land, we did as well - we just did it better (or worse I guess).

Point is, there was no moral high ground.

[blonndee]

39. Simply...they were here and "we" weren't.

The lack of a "cohesive government" doesn't negate anything, to me. Perhaps they did war with one another; others didn't see the land as "belonging" to anyone. I see where you're coming from; however, the "euros" had even LESS of a right to any disputed land there MIGHT have been. As I said earlier, I have a lot to learn about the exact history among the different tribes, but I do know who was here first and from long, long ago...and so I don't think any fighting amongst various tribes can be determined to be equivalent to Euro invasion.

[The Straight Story]

40. From a liberal textook on history I had

(and worth noting, was one of the first liberal texts on American History, circa 1935) Indians would capture other tribes in the ohio valley and the males would made to act like women and serve the male tribe members who had defeated them.

And it goes on and on.

This was not a land governed by one people. Each tract was fought for and many died for. There was no consensus among the Indians here. They took sides in the whole thing.

Sure - they got screwed by us. And it was certainly wrong IMHO. But overall, things were up for grabs and the euro folks grabbed em. How they did it and why might well be wrong, but I think it was par for the course back in the day.

[blonndee]

41. Well, I disagree that things were "up for grabs."

I don't believe that "we" had any right to seize what didn't belong to us, and especially that land to which we had no historical claim. And I still maintain that whatever native peoples may have done amongst themselves has nothing to do with what Euro invaders did, as horrible as those acts may have been. THOSE aren't my business, although they're interesting to read about and may be historically important to some people.

I also don't go for the "back in the day" claims, because there were a hell of a lot of things that were done "back in the day" that we now see as being morally reprehensible. Don't you? To me, it all comes down to colonialism, which is basically the idea that "might makes right." I find that unacceptable and racist at the heart of it, and can never accept it.

[The Straight Story]

45. What is a historical claim to land anyway?

Might made right with the indians, they took land, we took it, and who the hell knows who had a legitimate claim to it?

Sure, we can see our actions as morally reprehensible - but do they as well? They should as they engaged in the same acts for some time before we came here. Are they apologizing and trying to make it right? Or do they just see that as a part of history?

Indians really screwed over each other - but I don't see much hand wringing about it. Things were as they were. They help land, they took more land, they fought and killed each other, all to survive. It just was what it was then. We were but one more tribe that claimed land - only difference is we had better weapons and organization then most the fractured tribes that existed.

Sure - we DO owe them and apology for our being assholes. They owe each other the same as they were cruel to each other as well.

[blonndee]

48. But that's none of "our" business. How they would have worked

out their disputes is none of the Euros' concern, and certainly shouldn't be seen as an excuse to take over the land. I will judge my own "people's" behavior. My ancestors were NOT here first. How the people who were here before chose to settle their disagreements is none of my business, nor was it the business of my ancestors. Who owes who an apology is neither my concern, nor my business, save for what my own ancestors did, for which they surely owe apologies and certainly reparations beyond the "reservations" they allotted.

[The Straight Story]

52. I AGREE that they got screwed by us

But I see them as screwing each other as well for many years. So we should apologize and make right - I am more than ok with that. But I think they should do the same with each other as their treatment of one another was not much better.

[blonndee]

54. Maybe so, but that is between/among THEM, not

the invaders. It's not up to "us" to decide.

[uppityperson]

82. not just screwed, screwed is too light of a term

Screwed is when you buy a piece of property, move your stuff in, then find out that the title isn't clear and it costs a whole bunch in legal fees to straighten it all out.

They got murdered, starved, tortured, herded into camps, marched across the continent to foreign lands (to oklahoma from thousand of miles away) attempts were made at genocide, attempts at wiping out entire cultures. Goes way beyond screwed.

[Broken_Hero]

92. A lot of warring tribes, of the past

work together in the present day, and have quite a bit of the same goals. My tribe, fought against Tlingets, and Tsimpsians(along with other Pacific NW tribes), and in the present day, all of those tribes are cohesive, and work together...:)

[hfojvt]

65. when I read Memoirs of a Sauk Swiss

about the Swiss invasion (settlement) of Sauk County in the 1840s, the author makes very little mention of Indians. The land was almost vacant. However I am not sure how many had been forced out by previous wars. I just read about the Blackhawk war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_War

Interesting that Blackhawk's group was only about a thousand. You'd think they could easily be accomodated with half a dozen townships or so. I mean if Wisconsin accepted thousands of Swiss, why couldn't Illinois accept a thousand Native Americans?

[cynatnite]

51. As with the evolution of any people...

of course they find some of the things they did horrible. The difference you're ignoring is the fact that their culture and thought was radically different. So much of it has been lost over the years and even the best of books highlighting Native American history from thousands of years ago to the introduction of the white man in this country will never be complete because of what was done to them.

I spent a few years on a reservation and my husband's family has a rich Blackfoot Sioux history. Many of these people are trying desperately to save what little is left of their culture. Nowhere will you find such an inhuman attempt to destroy the cultures as you will the Native Americans. Entire tribes, along with their history, are gone because of white man.

[cynatnite]

43. You need a good course on Native American History

Another point:

When tribes sued for peace, they kept their word to keep that peace...unlike the whites that continued to break treaties regularly.

[cynatnite]

42. No moral high ground?

Are you kidding me?

Let's see....

How many died on the Trail of Tears?
How many families were separated by force in order to 'civilize' the children by cutting their hair, denying them their religion and not allowing them to speak their language?
How many died from disease the whites brought over?
How many died because whites destroyed their land and food supply?

Yes, before we came here they warred over land and other issues, but nowhere in their history will you find the same kind of decimation of an entire race of people that was done to them.

Go to some of the poorer reservations and tell me it's still equal.

What happened was inevitable...how it happened was unconscionable.

[The Straight Story]

49. You mean like Entire tribes wiped out in Ohio by other tribes?

They did wipe out entire tribes of other folks.

My point is, Indians here were no more moral than we were (many, not all). We sucked, they sucked. We had good traits, they had good traits.

Personally, I love the American Indians and have a lot of respect for them. From my travels to Gallup, NM, to the border of AZ and beyond I have always held a deep respect for them and their beliefs - I just don't paint them as innocent victims. They were guilty as were the europeans of similar things.

They WERE and ARE victims of lying bastards in our Govt. And that was damned wrong. Still is to me as well, which is why I try to keep up with news from the reservations, indian nation, et al. They got screwed over by our lies - but I also see them as screwing over their own people/fellow indians.

Wrong is wrong, and it should all be addressed. I have no problem addressing our wrongs towards them - but they need to address the wrongs they committed as well towards each other. That is growing and learning - just looking at our faults is one sided and not learning.

[cynatnite]

55. I got my first degree at Salish Kootenai College in Pablo, MT..

It's an Indian college on the reservation of the same name. Guess who are teaching the courses on Native American History? Native Americans are and in the three years we lived there, they all were very aware of the history prior to the white man coming to this country. They're not in denial about their culture and never have been....well, what little culture is left.

What sort of mea culpa are you looking for here?

[The Straight Story]

60. All I am basically saying is

The europeans who came here were not any more 'evil' than the indians were to each other.

No one owned this continent, but many were fighting over it's land. Before we came here it was tribe vs tribe, we were but one more tribe (albeit a white one).

I don't see skin color, nation of origin, having a lot to do with it really. When one tribe took over another one I don't think they were very introspective of what their actions meant. They won, that was that.

It wasn't until they faced an enemy that could wipe them all out they came together (too little, too late sadly).

I think what we did sucked. Seriously. But I think what they did to each other sucked too. So why bitch about just one group and what they did? The core ideal here is that people killed each other and it was wrong. Wrong when they did it, wrong when we did it.

I am not against bringing up the faults of our people (as it were) but I think it is only fair to bring up all our faults and view them in toto for the sake of growth.

Had one major group of Indians won out and we never came here, would they be looking at their own actions as wrong? Because, morally, they were - just like our actions were.

[cynatnite]

61. I do understand what you're saying...

but the fact of the matter is with as little history as there is on the Native American's prior to our coming here, there really isn't much information to say how much tribal fighting was going on.

That's not to say it didn't happen. Stories are one of the backbones of many tribes and one story is that when Oklahoma was a territory and Native Americans were being forced onto reservations, the government put tribes side by side who were thought to be mortal enemies. In some cases, this is true. But you won't see this bit of history in textbooks mainly because the government still refuses to acknowledge their culpability in such horrendous acts.

Native Americans aren't in denial about their history...at least most of the ones I know aren't and I happen to be married into a family with a few stories that get passed down.

People do evolve over time and look back on their own history. While the vision may be colored to a certain degree, they do know that things like scalping, chopping the noses off their women, slavery and other acts of brutality are wrong. To deny the wrongs of their past would be a denial of who they are and few Native Americans will do that.

[uppityperson]

84. This is the problem "No one owned this continent"

Yes, some tribes were fighting other tribes. Of course it was not all peace and flowers and Disneyish Pocahantas singing to racoons. Of course. However, as far as anyone can own land, the people living here owned it, NOT the invaders from another continent. Just because there were many different groups, many times no 1 "chief leader personage", just because there was no paper trail of who owned what land, does not mean that no one owned this continent and therefor it was fine to do what happened.

[semillama]

86. What tribes are you talking about in Ohio?

I live in Ohio, and practice archaeology in Ohio, and to my knowledge, there was wasn't any wiping out of anyone, really. There were raids by the Iroquois and various migrations, but there wasn't full scall tribal warfare by any means.

Where are you getting your information from?

[The Straight Story]

100. Will dig up some quotes for you, as to where I got it from

Was an American history book from 1935, A new American History I think, and one of the first well known liberal views of our history.

I will dig up some info for you though (my recollection was it was in Northern Ohio, but the book is at work and I am at home right now).

Edit:
A little more info here:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/ohio/index.htm

(it's a start)

[TygrBright]

37. I'm sorry, I can't recall any mass genocides of whites...

...by more powerful, better-armed natives on the American continents.

Care to elaborate a little?

curiously,
Bright

[bicentennial_baby]

59. Thank You!!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Dinger]

71. Me Neither

Good response. And, as far as land "owndership," the Natives concept of the land was that land was not owned, but shared. Land was sacred to them. Many of the treaties they signed included rum as part of the "bargain." The Native Americans thought when they signed these treaties that the Europeans were agreeing to share the land, and then of course, tragically, they found out different. A People's History Of The United States by Howard Zinn goes into graphic detail about how the Native Americans were treated by the Europeans, and how most of them died as a result. And when Columbus came here, over 90% of the Natives here died, some from disease, and many from mass genocide. I am not Native American, but if I were, well, words seems to fail me. I'm sure I'd never celebrate Columbus Day or Thanksgiving.

[lukasahero]

73. Dear god, no kidding, huh?

What are we going to deny the Holocaust next? This place is getting really, really scary lately.

[LostinVA]

74. I know...

[mark414]

64. trail of tears. little big horn. smallpox. guns. alcohol.

countless other atrocities.

we completely decimated an entire civilization in the name of colonialism and manifest destiny.

my ancestors were among those irish immigrants that got shit on, but guess what, life is fine for me today BECAUSE I'M WHITE.

for the surviving generations of the native american population, in addition to having everything their ancestors worked for and stood for turned into a big concrete pile of shit, people STILL treat em like shit cause they're not as pale as me.

naive...yes. in modern, american history, i would never give any credence to any idea that white people as a whole can in any way be portrayed as victims.

[malaise]

70. I don't know whether to laugh

or cry at this historical ignorance. I do love how supporters of aggressors always make themselves and their ancestors victims.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. Yeah, the Native Americans treated the whites like shit.

It was totally messed up. Of course, that sort of genocide has a long history.

There was the internment of white Americans by the Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Jewish concentration camp prisoners were absolutely brutal to their German guards. They even said that it was OK because "the world's forgotten how mean the Armenians were to the Turks." Then there were the times the Aztecs oppressed the Spanish Conquistadors, and the times when those rotten, nazi heliocentrists oppressed the Spanish Inquisition.

[minkyboodle]

79. LOL

thanks that was well needed :)

[genie_weenie]

83. Why must questions be polarized like this?

IMO, the DU is stocked with enough intelligent people to realize it wasn't some large catergory as "Whites" every member of which shot Bison and stole a "Natives" land.

At one time or another every group of people's have been subjugated by some other group...

[Canadian_NewDemocrat]

85. native women

how did natives treat their women? I've heard from people that they were far more maternal oriented and respected their women more than Euros, but I've heard other sources that indians considered their women mere property...which is it?

[uppityperson]

87. Depends on the tribe, the time, etc.

There were/are many different nations in what is now 1 country, the USA. This is like asking about how women are treated in EurAsia. It depends.

[Broken_Hero]

88. It depends on the tribe...

my wife is keetowah band cherokee, and i'm haida, and both tribes are maternalistic, and respected the woman, highly...

[Canadian_NewDemocrat]

89. cool

that's one thing I always respected about native culture, or at least certain tribes, they treated the women well, or even higher than men, when so much of the rest of the world was all MAN-oriented. I think that's one thing they definately were right about. I mean, everyone comes from woman, think about it...only makes sense!

[Broken_Hero]

93. In both Haida and

Keetowah Band cherokee tribes, the woman's clan, carries through...for example...

My mother is Raven/Brown bear, and say she marries a eagle/killerwhale...all the kids, they have assume, the Raven/Brown bear clan....:) Same with Keetowah Band Cherokee...:)

[uppityperson]

94. that way also you would not marry close relatives, sort of

Let's see, your mother's sibs are same clan as she and you, you have to marry outside her clan (Raven). Your father's clan is other (Eagle). His female sibs stay Eagle, so you could marry into their family. His male sibs kids would be (Raven), so you could not marry into them. Means only 1/4 of close relatives would be opposite clan (if male/female were 50:50)

What is a haida/keetowah cherokee doing in Missouri? wow

[Broken_Hero]

97. Yeah, i never thought of it that way...:)

well, my wife and I both went to haskell indian nations university, which is is a federal funded all american indian university, with a faculty/staff that is damn near 100% american indian also...:) We both met there over ten years ago, and through life, I came back to finish my college, and she was from the area, and we both shared mutual friends, and hooked up, and got married...:)

The american indian community is rather small, and I need to find consensus of the 2 million number, someone posted above, because I thought for sure, the number was around 1.3 mil or so, but I could be wrong...:)

But yeah, weird how life works out! I have another alaskan living just up the road from me also, small world...:)

[uppityperson]

98. I spent a yr in Ketchikan, doing home health visits

got to meet the local "chief", a sweet little old guy, thinking Tlingit. Border of Haida/Tlingit. I'm glad that cultural stuff is upswinging a bit, learn it before grannies and grandfathers die, glad also that there is enough to do university stuff also. A huge amount of knowledge was almost wiped out.

[Broken_Hero]

99. I'm from Ketchikan...:)

Nice to meet other Duers. who have tred the same dirt, that I have...:) Ketchikan, and almost all of SE Alaska is very diversified...:) I swear, Ketchikan is damn near 40 percent, american indian...:) Its also a treat, having all that history, and other land marks to draw perspective from, especially when dealing with history, and diversity standpoints...

The upswing on cultural issues is on an upswing, which is a good thing, but on the other hand, it couldn't have gone down much further, so anything good, is a step above!...:) The language is very hard(for me at least), but the drawing/painting/dancing, i got...:)

My wife on the other hand, has the language...damn, a lot...:) She is rooted deeply in her keetowah band side....

[ismnotwasm]

90. I suggest a comprehensive review of treaties

Forget the actual wars for a moment. All history is subjective if you choose to look at it that way.

Read through some of the major treaties made by the US with certain bands. Pick randomly if you like. Examine the outcomes. Look at or follow the laws made in regards to Indian people.

And just for kicks, research the history of Indian women.

Another suggestion, research the history of the BIA. I direct your attention to the history of corruption that continues to this day.

It's not hard to find a paper trail that speaks loud and clear. The problem is, most people don't bother. Nor care.

If you care, you'll find the answer to your own question.