What you call "hate", I call critical reflection. Whether about our society or ourselves, I think most good deeds--like ending slavery and providing some relief to displaced American Indians--come from it. The idea that we can't be critical of America's past policies and actions because we might hurt our confidence or pride in America—or something like this, is not that far off the neo-Nazi movements saying the Holocaust is mythical. It is almost laughable to say the Europeans (British, Spanish, and/or French) were taught in how to be brutal or genocidal by American Indians. Regarding the habits/tactics of most Indians, contrary to Rich’s implications that most native people were like Committees or that fear striking Galveston area group (can’t remember the name off hand), most tribes in current US lands before Europeans arrived lived largely without violence (within the trade as well as directed to other groups) and formed sustainable-agriculture based societies. Now certainly there were some tribes that were brutal and warring, especially as you talk about those in current Mexico, but to lump all American Indians peoples together does just as much disservice of reality as lumping Nazis with WASP America because of their common European origins. To conclude, I would think we (America today) still has a lot of good things we could learn from many of the peaceful, nonviolent and farming based native peoples we largely extinguished. Admitting this, or that we in effect raped their peoples some 100-300 years ago is not “shot” at America, or devalues any of the technological and commercial achievements lead by Western civilizations. It is simply being a critical realist.
<b>Desert Scar</b>: "...contrary to Rich’s implications that most native people ... lived largely without violence (within the trade as well as directed to other groups) and formed sustainable-agriculture based societies. Now certainly there were some tribes that were brutal and warring, especially as you talk about those in current Mexico, but to lump all American Indians peoples together does just as much disservice of reality as lumping Nazis with WASP America because of their common European origins." <b>RR</b>: This whole argument is a generalization; thewhole liberal guilt trip lumps people of different persuasions together with people of different centuries in a bath of guilt! Most of the settlers were equally peaceful. I don't think I ever said that "most native Americans" were violent. I only stipulated I thought that our settlers learned to be violent from the practices of the native American Indians. Certainly, on both sides the violent ones were a minority. Unfortunately we chronicle the atrocities better than do the Indians.
"Bath of guilt", gosh, I guess I call it the study of history, using critical reflection, and having a little humilty. Should all we do is think of us and our societies infallable--to just focus on the positives and feel good events? That doesn't sound very healthy to me. I agree with this, and it is a vitally important point. It is very easy for peoples to fall into a trap that all whatevers (Americans, Europeans, Indians, Spanish, Arabs, Israelies, and even Nazis) were/are always the good/bad guys. We certainly well chronicle the "atrocities" of Indians to European Americans. Why do you think we sent the US Army westward to start mopping them up until late in the 19th century (when they were decimated and isolated)?. Further, it wasn't until towards the middle of the 20th century the Indians were portrayed in mainstream history books or media as more than savages ruthlessless targeting White peoples. I think trying to be a bit more balanced in today's history books and media provides very little threat to American culture or American confidence. I can think of very few examples where individuals or peoples--including Americans--have too much humility.
I've acknowledged wrongdoing committed in the past, I just don't immerse myself in it... thus the bath imagery. I think that we have done a decent job of chronicling the atrocities which were committed by both sides... otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about how terrible we were to the native Americans, would we? I am not anti-Indian. Rumor has it that I have some of the blood. My orphaned dad grew up on a Blackfoot Indian reservation. I simply think that there was ugliness going in both directions but I refuse to feel bad because the Europeans triumphed.
Reviewed this thread: Let me try and state my position a little bit more clearly RE:Indians Say, my father breaks into a man's house and steal a priceless 1st edition Guttenberg Bible. Then, years later, my father gives it to me. One night I'm out drinking at a bar and start bragging to my friends about this bible and the original owner's son happens to be in the same bar and overhears me. When he takes me to court, If he can stand up in court and prove that it was his fathers, that my father stole it and gave it to me, and I knew it was stolen, he'd get his bible back, and if It'd somehow gotten destroyed, I be forced to pay it's value. I submit that, no less than the the Guttenberg, the culture of the Indians was a tangable object that was stolen from them by our 'fathers', the progenators of American culture. Our 'fathers' attempted destroyed the culture of the Native American, with the result being a depressive, culture, so convinced that they will never succede if they leave the reservation that they might as well never try. Again, unless you argue that the Indian's are somehow geneticaly inferior (I.E. Wir sind die Ubermenchen! Heil!), or genetically flawed (I.E. Shewt, dem boys is jes lazy). I don't see how you can argue that these effects were not the result of our fathers' destruction of their culture and way of life. The statistics prove that out. Indians have much higher rates of unemployment and a rediculously low percentage of college graduates. The forensic evidence is there. You might try to argue, also, that the debt has been repayed. We did some stuff to pay for what we did. It just wasn't enough. I'd argue that the end result the determining factor in whether we'd payed them back. While it might be much more expensive to make restitution, as they say 'Can't do the crime, don't do the time.' People get 10+ years for stealing pocket change. Then, you might say "Well, if we'd never destroyed their culture, I bet they would have been a bunch of lazy worthless reservation-sitting bums anyway! Therefore there is no debt!" This is irrelevent. You can't prove with certanty what might have been, only what was, and the before and after picture ain't pretty. Finally,you might say, "They'd have done us worse, so screw 'em." I find this obscene. Our American beliefs and culture are centered around fairness and justice for all. If we don't act consistantly to our beliefs, how can you argue that it even deserves 'saving'? I really don't understand how some people can't see what I see. I really can't, unless they're just pretending to not see what's sitting on the end of their noses. As far as this guilt, I feel none whatsoever. I can, however look at my mistakes and the mistakes of my 'side' objectively, and accept responsability for my/their actions. In my mind, this self-monitoring behavior is what seperates me from the bin Ladens of the world: those who will always let their passions and desires rule their actions and will always seek to warp the justifications to fit what they've done afterwards. When you've done something mean or wrong, are you willing to come clean and pay for it?
Desert Scar: You appear to be almost entirely focused on the evils committed by the European settlers, and that's the problem. You state that you're just engaged in a fair critical analysis, and yet you focus on only one party? Why? And how fair is that? Spread the love around a little if you want to be "fair". BTW, no one - no one - here is saying that America is infallible and that we can do no evil. All anyone is saying is that taken in the context of things, America hasn't been any more evil than the rest of humanity. Not the same thing as believing that we've always been the good guys. Ottomaton: So, the child is responsible for the sins of the father, in other words? Again, what do you expect us to do? Move to Europe? Or just pay them a s*itload of money? I didn't do anything to any "Native Americans" (and from what I know of my family's history, neither did my ancestors), and they're not getting a penny out of me that the Federal govt isn't already giving them. I am not going to pay for sins someone else committed. And as I said before, they've already got their casinos and turnpikes...
Excellent post Ottomaton! I agree. We should not feel guilt for what happened, but we should certainly learn from history and address injustices that have occurred in the past. It is to our benefit as a society to do so. Even if we don't explicitly "accept responsibility" why would we not take steps to help rectify an injustice? We have such concerns, and funds, for third world countries. Why would we not do it for our own citizens? The form of redress that has been most effective here, IMO, (actually it may have been a treat condition and nat a redress at all) has been education. Give a man a fish ... teach a man to fish etc. This has been combined with classes in first nations culture and language, which went a long way to rebuilding the pride of the people, and gave them the will and confidence to pursue a better lifestyle. And this, btw, is hilarious! (twisted sence of humour I guess) RR: Blackfoot?! The Blackfoot are from around this area. They were the people who used the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo jump, in fact. Are you from Alberta or Montana?
Otto, I can see this is a real question of morality for you. You seem convinced that our "side" stole something tangible from the Indians. What percentage of your income will you be giving to the Indians this year?
<b>Grizzled</b>: My dad grew up in Idaho. His sister lived in Blackfoot, Idaho until she died in 1999. They both were raised on the Hall Indian Reservation in the Blackfoot-Pocatello vicinity. My dad passed in the summer of 2001. My dad and I took a trip back there about 1993 to see his old stomping grounds. What a memorable time we had together. I L-O-V-E that part of the world.
RR: I've never been to Idaho, but I spent some time just north of the line in the Cranbrook/Creston area, and it is very beautiful country. Sorry to hear about your father's passing. It sounds like you had a great trip out here with him. I didn't grow up by the mountains, and when I came here I found it simply amazing too. To have your father show you all the back roads and hidden lookout spots of his youth must have been quite something.
I apologise: I had a real long retort writen up, all elqoquent and stuff, but my boss PCAnywhered into the server that I was writing it up on to check on my progress. I had to close that sucker down real quick. I find it intresting to see that the two people who responded negatively to my post were most concerned with the financial aspects. My observation: Spending more money seems to be the unimaginative solution for liberal politicians and the knee jerk-red herring call to arms for beligerant conservatives. Where, praytell, did I recomend spending any more money than is currently spent? My point is that their culture has been devistated, and they were left to wander in a proverbial daze. 'Casinos and Turnpikes' do nothing to remedy this. Casinos, if anything, are a source of cultural decay, despite the financial benefits. The concept of 'giving a handout' to Indians seems to me to potentaly do more harm than good. It reinforces the idea that Indians can more or less stay on the reservation and get a handout, thus insuring that there's a strong self-reinforcing base for the current culture of melencholy that has characterized some reservations to date. In theory, part of me feels that cutting off some of the cash into the reservation, provided that you provide a clear and easy to follow path to 'higher ground' might have some benefit. This idea, however, would probably not be feasable in practice. I can't help but imagine that your schema for the world around you involves everybody grabbing for everything they can, constantly paranoid that someone's going to try to rook you out of something. I hope that this isn't really the case. As for what I'm 'giving' to the Indians, my mother is a big Indian history buff and every year I try to purchace for her some sort of traditional indian art from Oklahoma. This would seem to me to be a much more beneficial way to help the Indians than 'giving a handout'. I hope you can understand the logic behind this, cmrockfan, despite what I sense to be a scynicism on your part about whether I practice what I preach.
BTW, sorry, I just noticed the 'expensive' remark in my earlier thread. I intended this in sort of a social economy as in the 'expense of 10 years in jail'. I realise in retrospect, however, that it appears that I'm advocating a blanket campaign to throw money at the problem. Sorry.
Ottomaton: Let me get this straight - you want us to buy their art as a reparation??? I think they'll be happier with casinos and turnpikes. They like money just like everyone else. If your main thrust is to invest in their culture, I'd say we've already heavily done that. Their culture is now inseparable from ours (despite the efforts of some revisionists). I really don't see what you're getting at here.
No - I buy it both because my mother likes it and it helps preserve part of their culture. I think it's a much more thoughtfull gift than a VCR or something. If Indian culture is inseperable from ours, it's only because we need someone to stick between us and the ground. Try for a second to imagine what it's like, for a minute, to be a young american growing up on one of the less successfull reservations. You see that the redneck sherifs peer at your parents like they're going to steal something or get drunk or something. You turn on the TV and every time you turn on the TV your side is getting it's @ss kicked, and is depicted as lacking any redeeming qualities whatsoever, and everyone you know and love is dubious when you talk about leaving the reservation. Granted, this is not an entirely accurate picture and the case of some groups is even a complete distortion. I would say, however, that this was probably a much better characterisation of about 30 years ago. The point is that between 500 and 200 years ago, most of these indian groups were not the depressive, retreating, self-destructive people they have become. Why are they that way? They are that way because of the intro of our culture's foot into their culture's @ss. We beat them down. Even though we may not be beating them down anymore, as with an abused dog, the emotional scaring doesn't go away when the abuse stops. And, like emotional scar tissue on an old wound, if indians seem to be more sensitive to pain to percieved transgressions, with things like the heavy-foreheaded Redskins mascot, you should attempt make an attempt at empathy. Don't try to read too much into my posts. I'm making an attempt at generalizations and philosopical roadmaps.
America has done nothing for minorities!!. --No just kidding. The above sentence makes me think of the line from the Life of Brian that goes somthing like this, "Well then, aside from sanitation, roads, medicine, irrigation,.......and peace: WHAT have the Romans EVER done for us?" Hey I fully appreciate many of the scientific and technological and political (rights/freedoms) advancements and innovations associated with my country. But that doesn't mean I should overlook past misdeeds, mistakes or current inequilities so that we can become and even greater and more humane country. That is all I am saying. I wholly agree with the first part, America hasn't been any more evil than the rest of the humanity. I don't understand what you are getting at with the second part, understanding we haven't always been the good/bad guys in every situation is a key part of being historically fair.
Desert Scar: Again (for the third time, I think), when you focus only on America's past misdeeds, you paint it in a very bad light. Also again, no one is attempting to overlook any of its past misdeeds. We are not in denial about America's past, it is just pointless (and misleading, and anything but "fair") to attempt to paint our past misdeeds as anything special or out of the ordinary in the greater context of history. To do so is just US-bashing. Whether that is your intent or not I really do not know (only you know that). But as I said, spread the blame around if you want to be fair. It seems that RR's big crime in this thread was to point out that the Indians were just as bloodthirsty the settlers, and that was just being fair...
No, other poster and myself took exception to RR's insinuation that the settlers were violent against the Native Americans (only Columbus thought they were from India ) only because they Natives themselves were violent. No matter where you stand on historical reflection (criticizing the past is bad or criticizing the past is good), RR's claim was wrong - plain and simple. It completely whitewashes the fact that European settlers were encroaching on another people's land. Had the Native American tribes done the same to a preceding group? It certainly seems likely, but that doesn't give license to demonize all Native American tribes. RR's statement was hardly "fair." It's a cliche but those who neglect history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, establishing a free republic that has mostly been corruption-free over 200 years is something worth repeating, but there have been some missteps that we should always keep in mind. When something succeeds like the United States has, it's not really necessary to point out what's been done right because the evidence is right in front of you. It's easy to forget the mistakes. I think everyone can agree that the treatment of the Native Americans was a mistake, and by studying this mistake, we can avoid similar mistakes in the future.
Neglect history? Who's "neglecting" it? Again (I'm starting to sound like a broken record) no one is ignoring what happened. It's just pointless and misleading to focus on only a single side's misdeeds... It is very necessary when someone comes along and ignores all of the good deeds the US has done, and focuses entirely on a single monumental mistake it made. That paints it in an unfair and misleading light. The good deeds are not as obvious when they're ignored. It's pretty hard to forget the mistakes in a free society. I am not worried about that, myself. What worries me is that a revisionist history will conveniently omit all of the good deeds we have done in order to demonize the nation's culture; that is already in progress in today's schools - particularly the nation's universities. I don't like it one bit. And frankly, I'm not too worried about us making that same mistake in the future. For starters, there's no one left on this continent to ethnically cleanse... Unless the Mexicans start really pushing the Reconquista movement, and I would hope that they have enough sense not to try that. But on the whole, I think we're immune to the ethnic cleansing bug in ways that no society has ever been before. Mostly because we've learned from our mistakes...
