Your first line is a bit annoying (for the 3rd time..), did you read what I said it the quote above? Not 1 time in this post or any other post have I ever said or implied America has a unique place in history as far as dehumanizing, exploiting or being cruel to others. Did you not read that I pointed out great things societal, political, and technological that America has lead? History is about reporting the good and the bad, and doing your best to be objective about it, not trying to slant it one way or the other because you think you might hurt Americans pride. People are tougher than that, they can handle it. In my posts I also implied there were likely many European Americans and Indians who were humane and peaceful while others were brutal and cruel. History isn't so black and white. Also, RR essentially said the Spanish, British and French in the 1700s and 1800s learned brutality from the Indians. Talk about revisionist, or at least a very one-sided view of, history. After that comment, sure I may focused on misdeeds associated with US/Euro policies and practices toward the American Indians, but that was in the context of that topic. If someone has said all American Indians were princes or that America has done nothing good for minorities you can be sure I would respond to that biased view just as strongly (that is why I brought up the joke from TLofB).
<b>Desert Scar</b>: If you're going to slander me, at least start with what I actually said. I talked about the settlers of the Old West. I have family history there. I made reference to the mild Ohio schooteacher who was not a violent man making his way into the frontier-- sometime making it and sometime not-- if you know what I mean (see rimbaud re: scalping). Others took the conversation to the Colonial and post-Colonial periods. The settlers of the west were not military people-- they were Easterners. Remember how derogatory that word was in the cowboy movies-- kind of sissy-like you know! <b>subtomic</b>: "RR's claim was wrong - plain and simple. It completely whitewashes the fact that European settlers were encroaching on another people's land. <b>RR</b>: What about the picnics? You know, the ones with Columbus and the Indians on the beach. I thought the Indians were having a love-fest for the Europeans? This continent is huge, why couldn't/wouldn't the Indians share?! Whillickers!
The same reason Ted Turner doesn't "share" half of Georgia with me or you - it belongs to him. Same goes with the Native Americans. Also, many Native American tribes were willing to share with the settlers. The serious problems began when the settlers started pushing the Natives off their land.
Oh, no. You didn't really just say that, did you? 1) They very likely stole it from someone else (that Kennewick Man thing). That is still up for debate, but the evidence points to... (take your pick) 2) The "Native Americans" themselves generally (but not always) didn't believe in land ownership as a constant. It was never their land to steal, by their own customs. They got pushed into ever smaller enclaves which made life more difficult for them. They did not "own" the land - even by their own traditions/culture. They simply lost the fight and got pushed out of their living space. It's called ethnic cleansing nowadays, and it had been the "Native American" tradition long before the white man got here. Inter-tribal warfare was a fact of life for the "Native Americans" long before the settlers came. It was actually a seasonal - expected - outcome in most tribes. This winter, we all try to survive, next summer we all fight - that sort of thing. They didn't worry about things like land ownership - they thought the very idea of land ownership was preposterous, because they themselves were used to being forced out of areas they inhabited because of inter-tribal warfare. They themselves claimed to have "owned" land only after they learned the concept of land ownership from the Euros. Before that they were more honest about their position; dominance of a given territory was always deemed as temporary - they knew their own system. They always understood the concept of 'we fight war, we lose war, we leave and go somewhere else'. The concept of land ownership didn't arise until the white men showed up and started plopping flags down everywhere and writing contracts...
treeman; First off, your description of Native concepts of land could be applied to just about every society. Keep the land if you win the war and lose the land if you lose the war could in fact be the history of mankind. It isn't unique to America and it certainly doesn't excuse what happened. The Europeans insisted the Indians sign treaties and then promptly broke or disregarded them. Or they just took the land and then insisted the Natives respect their fences. Whether or not the Natives did this before the Europeans is completely irrelevant because the Europeans believed themselves to be a society of laws. Yet when it came to the Native Americans, the settlers felt that the law didn't apply. Andrew Jackson (with his famous"they've made their decision; now let them enforce it") even disregarded a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Natives. Whether the Natives "stole" the land is very much up in the air. But if it is true (and for argument's sake, let's assume it is) that does not mean that another group is justified in stealing the land again. Wrong is wrong, and while perhaps the Natives were getting their just dessert, that doesn't absolve the European settlers. But you knew what I meant - you're just being argumentative
I do love to argue, but I tend to pick my fights based on their 'winability'... No, the Euro and "Native" concepts of land ownership were completely incompatible. The Indians seriously didn't believe in the concept of men owning land, while the Euros actually created (unnecessary) professions to deal with that concept alone. Lawyers come to mind... The idea that land ownership could be claimed and transferred by a piece of paper was totally foreign to the "Natives". It just didn't reside in their cultural view of things. To them, the only way to transfer an inhabitable space was to be literally kicked off of it by force. The settlers had no choice but to expand. The Indians had no choice but to defend their currently inhabited lands. Conflict was inevitable... And it is certainly correct to understand the motivation of both sides, which is what I am hoping you're trying to do. That would be the "fair" angle... As for treaties: sometimes the Indians abided by them, and sometimes they didn't. The proof of whether or not any entity can be trusted to uphold a treaty is ultimately based upon their past actions. Usually, the Indians would abide by treaties (of all kinds). Sometimes, they would not. When you're faced with an opponent who breaks treaties when it suits them though, guess what? You ignore treaties yourself if you want to survive. Warfare cares nothing for treaties. They do not win wars, and it is warfare that ultimately decides dominance. Not to mention living space... Wrong is wrong, and it is very applicable on the individual level. And in modern times we have fewer excuses. But given a historical context, I don't think it's too hard to understand why either side acted the way it did. Not that I condone what happened, but there are factors which appear to be conveniently ommitted in some historical reconstructions, and the bigger picture is lost because of it.
BTW - this is a totally different note, but it ties in to the whole multiculturalism push... Does everyone remember the now-famous picture of the three firefighters elevating an American flag on the WTC site? You know the one... Well, they're making a national monument out of that moment, and LULAC and the NAACP has successfully lobbied to have the ethnicity of 2 of the firefighters changed. One will be white, one black, and one hispanic. The original firefighters who raised the flag in the rubble were all white. Now, there were hispanic and black firefighters at the scene - no denying that. And I wouldn't want to lessen their heroic roles in that tragedy. What bothers me is that we're so PC as to alter the history (a picture) of what actually happened so as not to piss anyone off. Why not just have the monument depicting the actual event - the flag being raised in the face of tragedy - as it happened? I thought that's what these pictorial monuments were supposed to capture - a single event in history? A Wall (in the mold of the Vietnam Wall) is being proposed to carry the names of the victims and heroes, so they can all be remembered - not just 3 white dudes... Why in the f*k do a few special interest groups have to politicize this and lie about a historical moment??? Outrageous.
<b>subtomic</b>: Let's run down to the Indian courthouse and check land titles! Meet you at 3 PM, okay?
I'm way behind on this thread, but I have to jump in on this one. If one of the firefighters had bad acne, would you want that accurately depicted on the stature? If one happened to have his fly down, do you want his fly to be down on the state? How far do you take literal interpretation? In a nation where race is an issue, don't you think it would an important, and accurate, symbol to show people of different races pulling together as Americans in this time of national tragedy? That is what happened after all, and that is what I suspect the message is supposed to be. Why not accurately depict the spirit of what happened, instead of the fact that it just happened to be three white guys raising the flag?
Actually, and I am not trying to be argumentative, this (accurate depictions) rarely happens with memorial type things. The famous WWII photo and memorial, with which so many have compared the WTC image, was completely staged. True, a flag was raised there, but after all the fighting ended and everythig was clear, the soldiers were asked to redo it in order to manipulate the scene to be more dramatic. This new issue seems to be similar - redo it so that it is more dramatic. If there are different races, it shows a unity of the nation, etc. Sure, it is all silly, but it is nothing new.
I would not want to be replaced with anyone else, regardless of race, if I were one of these firemen. Should two of the firemen in the event be cast aside to make room for a more diverse group in a monument to something that they did?
That would depend on what you think the monument should symbolise. I'm not completely insensitive to your point. Perhaps they shouldn't try to depict that particular act, and instead depict something more obviously symbolic than literal.
Rimbaud beat me to it with the Iwo Jima (sp?) example. It is not likely that would be the first time something like that has been "doctored" for sybmollism's sake.
