"It's really easy to build a holocaust museum that condemns Germans. It's another issue to build....

[marmar]

..... a museum that confronts our own genocide, the genocide that was perpetrated by our own ancestors towards Native Americans or towards African-Americans."

- Chris Hedges



Truthout, via Pacific Free Press:

The Myth of "America"
by Dahr Jamail and Jason Coppola | t r u t h o u t


To mark Columbus Day In 2004, the Medieval and Renaissance Center in UCLA published the final volume of a compendium of Columbus-era documents.

Its general editor, Geoffrey Symcox, leaves little room for ambivalence when he says;

"This is not your grandfather's Columbus.... While giving the brilliant mariner his due, the collection portrays Columbus as an unrelenting social climber and self-promoter who stopped at nothing - not even exploitation, slavery, or twisting biblical scripture - to advance his ambitions.... Many of the unflattering documents have been known for the last century or more, but nobody paid much attention to them until recently. The fact that Columbus brought slavery, enormous exploitation or devastating diseases to the Americas used to be seen as a minor detail - if it was recognized at all - in light of his role as the great bringer of white man's civilization to the benighted idolatrous American continent. But to historians today this information is very important. It changes our whole view of the enterprise."

But does it?

"They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells," Christopher Columbus wrote in his logbook in 1495. "They willingly traded everything they owned.... They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane.... They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want. Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold."

Catholic priest Bartolome de las Casas, in the multi-volume "History of the Indies" published in 1875, wrote, "... Slaves were the primary source of income for the Admiral (Columbus) with that income he intended to repay the money the Kings were spending in support of Spaniards on the Island. They provide profit and income to the Kings. (The Spaniards were driven by) insatiable greed ... killing, terrorizing, afflicting, and torturing the native peoples ... with the strangest and most varied new methods of cruelty." .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://pacificfreepress.com/news/1-/4875-in-1492-he-sailed-the-ocean-blue.html

[stuball111]

1. Columbus kinda makes Limpnuts look like a saint! n/t

[stevedeshazer]

2. K & R

[anonymous171]

3. Bartholome de las Casas was one of the first to speak truth to power in the New World.

Glad to see his records are still being studied today

[intheflow]

6. I studied him in seminary about 5 years ago.

He describes truly horrific acts of killing and rape and murder of the indigenous population. Of course the greedy Europeans ignored him. :cry:

[Libertas1776]

8. Of course, if I am not mistaken, he was

instrumental in the bringing over slaves from Africa in lieu of enslaving natives, though he would later regretted the proposition upon witnessing the maltreatment of the blacks as well. A very sad and sordid history that is the "great" Age of Exploration.

[defendandprotect]

46. And in typical fanatical right wing fashion, turned truth upside down so that it was ...

the Native American who "scalped" the discovers!!!

It was these gentle people who were the murderers!!!

Same thing continues on today -- Hey, we're in the same gene pool!!!

[intheflow]

4. Big ol' K&R to promote Columbus Day being overturned.

Genocide should never, ever be celebrated. The fact that so many people are ignorant that he was a merciless, heinous mercenary is a huge problem, but even worse is that people still think he "discovered" America--when in fact, he just discovered a knew continent Europe didn't know about. Lots of people living full lives here knew about before Columbus.

[MisterP]

5. this is interesting for me, not just because I'm a Latin American historian,

but because I also read D.A. Brading's 780-page cinderblock; he covers not just the atrocities (e.g., Alvarado was way worse than going-insane Columbus and wienerish imperialist Cortés) or the half-pious, half-mercenary excuses for them, but also Spanish intellectuals and clergy who actually quite liked the Native North and South Americans. He also goes on to Baroque/Habsburg paternalism and Enlightened/Bourbon policies of deliberate impoverishment.

[Hannah Bell]

67. "Enlightened/Bourbon policies of deliberate impoverishment." - could you expand on that a bit?

[a la izquierda]

86. Not sure what he specifically meant

but Bourbon economic policies transformed trade and taxation in the colonies. While it made trade much more efficient, the tax rates basically fleeced the populations. (Trade, for instance, had to go back to Spain before heading to any other colony, meaning that if Mexico wanted to trade with Peru, first it went to Spain, then down to South America...)
It was Bourbon economic policies that pressured the people.

[Hannah Bell]

96. thanks. similar to britain's policies with its colonies, i guess?

[a la izquierda]

100. Yeah, and the most egregious...

British reforms came out around the same time as the most problematic Bourbon reforms.

[a la izquierda]

90. What, exactly, do you study?

I'm finishing up a PhD in Latin American history..
Cheers!

[OwnedByFerrets]

7. This is the day that Americans unwittingly celebrate a

pedophile, a slave trader and a man who committed genocide. Its a crying shame. And most would be angry with you if you told them the truth about this fucker.

[snagglepuss]

9. The mistake is having separate holocaust museums to commemorate

separate groups of victims. There should only be crimes against humanity museums.

I think that having separate museums for different groups of victims is one of the most wrong headed things ever conceived because it leads to concocting hierarchies of victims and hierarchies of perpetrators.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. What are you talking about?

[Confusious]

12. Probably that

Since the holocaust in world war 2 happened so recently, it gets a lot of attention, and what happened to the native Americans in the united states or the Armenian genocide by the Turks gets pushed aside. One group should not get all the attention, they should ALL be remembered, on equal ground.

I'm sure if you looked back far or hard enough you could find others that should be remembered.

But thats just my take on his post.

[Lance_Boyle]

33. Armenian genocide is more recent than WWII. n/t

[mopinko]

38. right, right. that i why hitler said 'no one remembers the armenians'

ww1.

[Alamuti Lotus]

137. No it wasn't..

The primary conflict between the Turks, Kurds, and Armenians you refer to took place at the end stages of WWI, as the crumbling Tsarist Russian Empire was creating instabilities within the also-crumbling Uthmani Khalifah. The event referenced took place within this sphere of time, not 'more recent than WWII' as you suggest.

[snagglepuss]

13. I'm talking about Hedges. Hedges does not seem to have an issue

with a holocaust musuem that only commerates the holocaust perpetrated by the Germans. He simply wants other museums for AA and natives. Hedges doesn't have an issue with that but I do. The First Nations were slaughtered, it was ethnic cleansing done on a mass and deliberate scale. IMO opinion it doesn't require a separate museum. I believe that victims of all the holocausts that have been perpetrated throughout history should have their stories told in one museum so that vistors see the the "diversity" of the victims and also to see the "diversity" of the perpetrators.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Thank you for the explanation.

I disagree, however.

[hfojvt]

15. I disagree that it was ethnic cleansing

I think that is a sort of historical revisionism which is quite popular these days. It's part of the conventional wisdom, especially among the left.

[Maru Kitteh]

16. So you believe the deliberate policies of extermination, deprivation and oppression

that continue in part even unto this day are "historical revisionism of the left?"


Explain yourself.

[hfojvt]

18. what deliberate policies of extermination, deprivation and oppression?

Yes, there were incidents and massacres, but, to my knowledge there was never a deliberate policy of extermination. Some of what might be called oppression was not such in purpose, but more typically an attempt to help the Native Americans become part of American society. In some sense, it looks like you've covered all the bases. If we try to help them, then the complaint is 'opression' but if we don't help them, then it's 'deprivation'.

As for deprivation, I first wonder about the choice of that word. Most people in America have the income that they work for. If a Native American works in the same factory as I do, then he/she is no more deprived than I am. To use the word 'deprivation' makes it sound like it is the white man's burden to take care of the Native Americans.

So perhaps you can explain how this extermination and deprivation worked?

[Maru Kitteh]

29. If you don't know of any deliberate policies of extermination it can only be because you've tried

very hard not to.

[NOLALady]

35. I was not aware that

the Native Americans asked for help to become a part of American society.

[blonndee]

49. No shit! Glad you said it.

And the way this "help" was "offered" certainly did constitute oppression, at the very least.

The ignorance here is astounding at times, don't you think? Jeez.

[Maru Kitteh]

62. Ignorance would almost be excusable. What we've seen here is overt, PROUD racism.

Similar arguments to justify African-American slavery or the like would earn the fuckwad that posted it an automatic pizza.

There is a general perception among civilized people that the historicaly vile racist hatred hurled at this land's native inhabitants has somehow ended. Because "they" have casinos. Because their art is popular. Because we are supposedly a little better educated about the Because people like to hang dream-catcher air-fresheners in their rear view mirrors.

Now we see it here in this very thread. It tries to hide through various fallacies and other impotent techniques, but in the end, it's all too translucent.

[hfojvt]

63. speaking as the fuckwad in question

I am not sure where you see any 'vile racist hatred' hurled at Native Americans. I did not, for example, accuse them of being genocidal SOBs, the way that Hedges in the OP made the accusation of my (our?) ancestors.

However, you seem to demonstrate an O'Reilly rebuttal. Instead of proving me wrong, which would be too much work, you'd rather just say 'shut up, shut up, shut up'.

[Hannah Bell]

70. The fact is, the US gov't engaged in genocidal policies. The simple fact of

conquest, dispossession & separation of a people from the source of their livelihood is a genocidal policy in & of itself.

[hfojvt]

81. none of those are equivalent to genocide

Many conquests happen without involving genocide. Same with dispossession. People and peoples move all the time, and often by necessity either man-made or natural. As for the source of their livelihood, that is a bit more problematic. At least in theory, the same livelihood was open to Native Americans as was to any white settler. My Swiss ancestors came to Wisconsin in the 1850s and 1860s, bought land and prospered, generally, as farmers.

Unfortunately, it was a culture clash. To suggest that Europeans should have stopped at the Mississippi (but what about the Iroquois? The Cherokee? The Seminoles? etc? etc?) seems impractical. Too many of the settlers would look across the river and see timber and lumber that they could use, and land that they could farm, and it would clearly seem to be land that nobody else was using (as in nobody was harvesting the timber or tilling the soil). In a democracy, I am gonna vote for the guy who works to allow me to go across the river.

That doesn't make it right or desirable, but wanting to go across the river to use seemingly un-used resources is not the same thing as wanting to go across the river and kill all of the non-white people living and hunting there. However, it needs to be safe to farm. Groups that raid farms or steal livestock will not be tolerated. If that group is a cohesive 'nation' those things might be construed as acts of war. And once a war begins, a logical way to defeat your enemy is to cut off their food supply.

"Although the Sioux were hereditary enemies of the Crows and had
driven them from their rich hunting grounds, Red Cloud himself
had recently made a conciliatory visit in hopes of persuading them
to join his Indian alliance. 'We want you to aid us in destroying
the whites' Red Cloud was reported to have said. The Sioux leader
then boasted that he would cut off the soldiers' supplies when the
snows came and would starve them out of the forts and kill them all."
"Bury my hear at wounded knee" p. 133

Yet, it was not generally US policy to 'kill them all'. The policy attempted to create the best of all possible worlds, to straddle two impossibilities. First, buy most of the land from the Native Americans, and second, leave them with a portion of land where they can maintain their independence and way of life, or at least their independence while they are taught to farm.

"Article 4 of the Treaty of Mendota

"In further and full consideration of said cession and relinquishment, the United States agree to pay to said Indians the sum of one million four hundred and ten thousand dollars, ($1,410,000,) at the several times, in the manner and for the purposes following, to wit:
1st. To the chiefs of the said bands, to enable them to settle their affairs and comply with their present just engagements; and in consideration of their removing themselves to the country set apart for them as above, (which they agree to do within one year after the ratification of this treaty, without further cost or expense to the United States,) and in consideration of their subsisting themselves the first year after their removal, (which they agree to do without further cost or expense on the part of the United States,) the sum of two hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($220,000.) Provided, That said sum shall be paid, one-half to the chiefs of the Med-ay-wa-kan-toan band, and one-half to the chief and headmen of the Wah-pay-koo-tay band, in such manner as they, hereafter, in open council, shall respectively request, and as soon after the removal of said Indians to the home set apart for them as the necessary appropriations therefor shall be made by Congress.
2d. To be laid out, under the direction of the President, for the establishment of manual-labor schools; the erection of mills and blacksmith shops, opening farms, fencing and breaking land, and for such other beneficial objects as may be deemed most conducive to the prosperity and happiness of said Indians, thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.)
The balance of said sum of one million four hundred and ten thousand dollars, ($1,410,000,) to wit: one million, one hundred and sixty thousand dollars ($1,160,000) to remain in trust with the United States, and five per cent. interest thereon to be paid annually to said Indians for the period of fifty years, commencing on the first day of July, eighteen hundred and fifty-two (1852,) which shall be in f ull payment of said balance, principal and interest: said payments to be made and applied, under the direction of the President as follows, to wit:
3d. For a general agricultural improvement and civilization fund, the sum of twelve thousand dollars, ($12,000.)
4th. For educational purposes, the sum of six thousand dollars, ($6,000.)
5th. For the purchase of goods and provisions, the sum of ten thousand dollars, ($10,000.)
6th. For money annuity, the sum of thirty thousand dollars, ($30,000.) "

That looks different, to me, than a deliberate policy of 'kill them all'. Unfortunately, it was not at all successful, at least partly because of trader scam-artists who tricked Native Americans into the trading equivalents of sub-prime mortgages. The Civil War kinda disrupted things too and put a crimp into the Government budget.

[a la izquierda]

88. Bury my heart at wounded knee...

is crap history. You need to read some more insightful books on the subject.

[hfojvt]

106. that's what I thought too after reading it

but it is said to be pro-Native American. What would you suggest? (and what is probably not going to be available at the local public library. I read Zinn's "People's History" a long long time ago (okay, in the 1990s, or late 1980s) and for some reason neglected to keep a copy when I closed my bookstore. I think I still have a copy of Chomsky's "Year 501: the conquest continues" around here somewhere.

Yes, there it is "Writing in 1992 on the 'self image of Americans' New York Times correspondent Richard Bernstein notes with alarm that 'many who came of age during the 1960s protest years have never regained the confidence in the essential goodness of America and the American government that prevailed in earlier periods,'" p. 28

[a la izquierda]

116. Read Mann's 1491

or Open Veins of Latin America by Galeano.

[Hannah Bell]

93. bullshit.

In exchange, the United States promised payment of $1,665,000 in cash and annuities.... nearly 24 million acres (97,000 km²) of land was opened for white settlement. The Indians were given two reservations, each about 20 miles (30 km) wide and 70 miles (110 km) long...


... the treaty contained a separate "trader's paper" that paid $400,000 of the promised treaty amount to fur traders and mixed-bloods who had claims against the Indians....

....Between the forced change in lifestyle and the much lower than expected payments from the federal government, tensions within the tribes increased. This tension was one of the causes that fueled the Dakota War of 1862.


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


Throughout the late 1850s, treaty violations by the United States and late or unfair annuity payments by Indian agents caused increasing hunger and hardship among the Dakota. Traders with the Dakota previously had demanded that annuity payments be given to them directly (introducing the possibility of unfair dealing between the agents and the traders), but in mid-1862, the Dakota demanded the annuities directly from their agent, Thomas J. Galbraith. The traders refused to provide any more supplies on credit. Thus negotiations reached an impasse as a result of the bellicosity of the traders' representative, Andrew Myrick, who suggested that the Sioux could eat grass or their own excrement if they were hungry.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_War_of_1862


Here's the definition of genocide in international law:

Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide

Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html


The policy of indian relocation, in & of itself, was genocidal.

[Duende azul]

36. "there was never a deliberate policy of extermination" ?

"but more typically an attempt to help the Native Americans become part of American society" wtf? How do you think this noble task was accomplished?
Please elaborate.

"If a Native American works in the same factory as I do...."
First of all he or she shouldn't be supposed to have to work in a factory on land that should be rightfully his/hers.
(And neither be supposed to have to work in a factory that´s generating profit for the descendants of the folks that stole the land from their ancestors.)
It's really that simple.

"white man's burden"? Speak of white man's obligation to finally compensate Native Americans for all that was robbed from them and to compensate African Americans for all that was done to them.

[snagglepuss]

17. I have no problem using large scale planned slaughter of a targeted group

for the purpose of grabbing land instead of using the term ethnic cleansing. :eyes:

[hfojvt]

19. right, like it's only about semantics

unless you are talking about the Beaver Wars, as Wiki describes them

"Encouraged and armed by their Dutch and English trading partners, the Iroquois sought to expand their territory and monopolize the fur trade and the trade between European markets and the tribes of the western Great Lakes region. The conflict pitted the nations of the Iroquois Confederation, led by the dominant Mohawk, against the French backed and largely Algonquian-speaking tribes of the Great Lakes region.
The wars were extremely brutal and are considered one of the bloodiest series of conflicts in the history of North America. The resultant enlargement of Iroquois territory realigned the tribal geography of North America, destroying several large tribal confederacies—including the Hurons, Neutrals, Eries, and Susquehannocks—and pushing some eastern tribes west of the Mississippi River. The Ohio country and the Lower Peninsula of Michigan were virtually emptied of Native people, as refugees fled west to escape Iroquois warriors."

"Iroquois oral tradition, as recorded in the Jesuit Relations, speaks of a draining war between the Mohawk Iroquois and an alliance of the Susquehannocks and Algonquins sometime between 1580 and 1600. Thus, when the French reappeared on the scene in 1601, the St. Lawrence Valley had already witnessed generations of blood-feud-style warfare."

"By the 1630s, the Iroquois had become fully armed with European weaponry through their trade with the Dutch, and they began to use their growing expertise with the arquebus to good effect in their continuing wars with the Algonquins, Hurons, and other traditional enemies. The French, meanwhile, had outlawed the trading of firearms to their native allies, though arquebuses were occasionally given as gifts to individuals who converted to Christianity. Although the initial focus of the Iroquois attacks were their traditional enemies (the Algonquins, Mahicans, Montagnais, and Hurons), the alliance of these tribes with the French quickly brought the Iroquois into fierce and bloody conflict with the European colonists themselves."

...

The war began in earnest in the early 1640s with Iroquois attacks on frontier Huron villages along the St. Lawrence River, with the intent of disrupting the Huron trade with the French. The disruption reached such a level that in 1645 the French called the tribes together to negotiate a treaty to end the conflict.

...

Although such raids were by no means constant, when they occurred they were terrifying to the inhabitants of New France, and the colonists initially felt helpless to prevent them.

...

European diseases had taken their toll on the Iroquois and their neighbors in the years preceding the war, and their populations had drastically declined. To remedy the problem, and to replace lost warriors, the Iroquois worked to integrate many of their captured enemy into their own tribes.

...

Using a strategy of stealth attacks similar to those that had such success against the Huron, the Iroquois launched an attack on the Neutral in 1650 and by the end of 1651 they had completely driven the tribe out of their territory, killing and assimilating thousands. At the time, the Neutrals inhabited a territory on the present day Niagara Peninsula. In 1654 a similar attack was launched against the Erie, but with less success. The war between the Erie and the Iroquois lasted for two years, but by the 1656 the Iroquois had almost completely destroyed the Erie confederacy who refused to flee to the west. The Erie territory was located on the southeastern shore of Lake Erie and was estimated to have 12,000 members in 1650.

....

Without firearms the Algonquin tribes were at a severe disadvantage. Despite their larger numbers, they were unable to withstand the Iroquois. Several tribes ultimately fled west beyond the Mississippi River leaving much of Indiana, Ohio, southern Michigan, and southern Ontario depopulated, although leaving in place several large Anishinaabe military forces, numbering in the thousands to the north of Lakes Huron and Superior, which would later prove to be decisive in rolling back the Iroquois advance.<22> From west of the Mississippi, displaced groups continued to arm war parties and attempt to retake their homeland.

(Finally ends with the peace of 1701. The Iroquois join the British against the French and Algonquins in the French-Indian war. 1756-1763. Then the Revolution came ...)

Except that seems to be Native Americans doing the killing and depopulating, so it doesn't really fit the whole "white people = evil" meme, does it?

[proteus_lives]

20. Great post! But people don't like to hear that.

Most want to make saints and helpless little kittens out of the Native Americans. It's just another form of racism.

Native Americans were just like the European settlers/explorers, human. Some individuals and tribes gleefully used the Europeans to destroy hated enemies and gain power. They traded with the Europeans, fought with and against them, breeded with them and explored with them. What happened to the Native American nations and tribe wasn't a unique tragedy or European/Christian evil. It was a human tragedy and a human evil.

[The Straight Story]

27. Glad a few other people get that

The same folks who want us to turn the lights on to America's messy past are usually the same ones who want to ignore that of other groups.

[Hannah Bell]

71. The fact that the tribes fought each other doesn't negate the genocidal policy of the US gov't,

or other western gov'ts in the new world.

& perhaps you've never explored the ramifications of proxy wars.

[proteus_lives]

101. I'm not negating anything.

And I know what a proxy war is.

Doesn't change anything I said. Genocidal policies did exist but they weren't unique. They were just the latest variation of what humans (including Native Americans) had always been doing to each other.

[Hannah Bell]

103. if you're not negating, why the need to say "but indians killed each other too!"

the unique factor (vis a vis the tribes) was the use of gov't power to kill & massively relocate entire peoples, something none of the tribes could have imposed on other tribes.

[snagglepuss]

31. Too bad you don't read as well as you google. My comments about

First Nations was simply an example to a poster who wanted me to clarify my position. Nothing I've written suggests that I regard any groups as being either good or bad when it comes to crimes against humanity.

My contention is that all people who have committed crimes against humanity and all people who have been victims of these crimes should be included in one museum so that the diversity of perpetrators and the diversity of victims are in full view, so visitors can see in no uncertain terms that many groups who have been victims have also been perpetrators.


I definitely do not subscribe to any notion that whites are the most evil people on the planet. Its not only ludicrous but dangerous because the one unassailable truth about humans is that all people especially when they group themselves together whether its tribes, nations, races, genders, religions etc have shown themselves capable and willing to dehumanize and ruthlessly destroy others who are not part of their group.

[Duende azul]

34. And how does that in any way make the European actions less genocidal?

Just because the Germans had willing collaborators in occupied countries their actions were less criminal?

What really seems to irk you is what you call the "white people = evil" meme.

[elleng]

65. Maybe not. Just a plain old war for territory and commerce.

"Encouraged and armed by their Dutch and English trading partners, the Iroquois sought to expand their territory and monopolize the fur trade and the trade between European markets and the tribes of the western Great Lakes region."

Later comes the westward journey, 'written' by T. Jefferson.

[struggle4progress]

21. Mortality on the Trail of Tears exceeded 20% over merely six months. That's not genocidal?

[elleng]

66. Genocide is

the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

[Hannah Bell]

74. yes, and? the US gov't forcibly removed entire tribes from their land

& livelihood. This is still considered a genocidal policy today.

'Nevertheless, the treaty, passed by Congress by a single vote, and signed into law by President Andrew Jackson, was imposed by his successor President Martin Van Buren who allowed Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama an armed force of 7,000 made up of militia, regular army, and volunteers under General Winfield Scott to round up about 13,000 Cherokees into concentration camps at the U.S. Indian Agency near Cleveland, Tennessee before being sent to the West.

Most of the deaths occurred from disease, starvation and cold in these camps. Their homes were burned and their property destroyed and plundered. Farms belonging to the Cherokees for generations were won by white settlers in a lottery. After the initial roundup, the U.S. military still oversaw the emigration until they met the forced destination.<24> Private John G. Burnett later wrote "Future generations will read and condemn the act and I do hope posterity will remember that private soldiers like myself, and like the four Cherokees who were forced by General Scott to shoot an Indian Chief and his children, had to execute the orders of our superiors. We had no choice in the matter."<25>

“ I fought through the War Between the States and have seen many men shot, but the Cherokee Removal was the cruelest work I ever knew. ” '

—- Georgia soldier who participated in the removal

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


Even the footsoldiers doing the dirty work knew it for what it was.

[struggle4progress]

87. And, in fact, exactly such a policy was followed. People were repeatedly told that

their treaties would protect them, and then they were shot down later by military groups, despite flying American and/or white flags. People were told they would have food provided when they were relocated to barren places, and then no food was provided. Some Indian agents' correspondence speaks openly of "extermination"

The precise dynamics of this is perhaps best understood by examining a number of particular cases in detail, and I'm sure the real experts can make a number of interesting observation, but if one simply looks at the gross features of the process of displacement, it often involved actions that were either deliberately murderous or callously indifferent to predictable fatalities

[elleng]

115. Most don't look, of course,

and schools don't teach.

Remember sending blankets contaminated with 'European' germs/viruses.

The fact that most don't look shouldn't be held against them, imo; its 'natural.' New learning that our predecessors were NOT just good guys, and learning the details, would normally be shunned.

[struggle4progress]

22. ... ""The removal has taken two weeks and of the 461 Indians who began this miserable trek, only 277

have come to Round Valley. Many died as follows: Men were shot who tried to escape. The sick, or old, or women with children were speared if they could not keep up, bayonets being used to conserve ammunition. Babies were also killed, taken by the feet and swung against trees or rocks to crack their skulls" ...

Forced Relocation
http://www.1849.org/ggg/relocation.html

[winyanstaz]

56. It was a total of 17,000 Cherokees and about 2,000 slaves that were moved

during the trail of tears. They moved them in groups of about 2,000 to 3,000 but some were larger and some were smaller.
The trip was about 1200 miles long and while they disagree on the numbers that died..most place it around 4,000.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

[struggle4progress]

85. Did you post in the wrong place? Post you're replying to links to accounts of Calif Indian agents

discussing extermination as a possibility and to stories from Calif about murdering people during relocations

[winyanstaz]

102. sorry...I was replying to the total number of cherokee moved...from many areas..

and the murdering took place along a lot of the moves.

[struggle4progress]

23. " ... Some years previous he had been presented with a fine American flag by Colonel Greenwood,

a commissioner, who had been sent out there. Black Kettle ran this American flag up to the top of his lodge, with a small white flag tied right under it, as he had been advised to do in case he should meet with any troops out on the prairies ... I did not know but they might be strange troops, and thought my presence and explanations could reconcile matters. Lieutenant Wilson was in command of the detachment to which I tried to make my approach; but they fired several volleys at me, and I returned back to my camp and entered my lodge ... Finally, about a mile above the village, the troops had got a parcel of the Indians hemmed in under the bank of the river; as soon as the troops overtook them, they commenced firing on them; some troops had got above them, so that they were completely surrounded. There were probably a hundred Indians hemmed in there, men, women, and children ... On their return, he ordered the soldiers to destroy all the Indian property there, which they did, with the exception of what plunder they took away with them, which was considerable ... He asked me many questions about the chiefs who were there, and if I could recognize them if I saw them. I told him it was possible I might recollect the principal chiefs. They were terribly mutilated, lying there in the water and sand; most of them in the bed of the creek, dead and dying, making many struggles. They were so badly mutilated and covered with sand and water that it was very hard for me to tell one from another ...

Congressional Testimony of Mr. John S. Smith
Washington, March 14, 1865
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/four/sandcrk.htm#smith

[PVnRT]

24. "Historical revisionism." Unbelievable.

And I see you trot out the old "But they fought each other, too, so it's OK!" nonsense in this thread, too. I suppose those damn savages ought to be happy that the good, Christian white man came along and civilized them, eh? And, of course, since they fought each other, it was perfectly OK when American troops walked into a settlement and proceeded to slaughter every man, woman and child in it, like they did at Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, Camp Grant, and dozens of other places.

Nothing excuses Indian raids on innocent people, but to deny what the United States did in the 1800's is damn close to denying that the Holocaust ever happened.

[donco6]

98. For him? Not at all.

It's par for the course.

[hfojvt]

108. it is

thanks for noticing me, like the cockroach crawling across your apartment wall. Sometimes I wonder why I am still here as I know some of the things I believe and argue about and ask people to back up their assertions and tamp down their hostility, often just makes people mad at me, and sometimes even vice vera - they make me mad at them.

Sometimes I wonder why I even want to be here when I often am just ignored or insulted, rather than informed or engaged in spirited, intelligent debate.

But I think I am informed and challenged, and also that I sometimes make a positive contribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=153x9369

if not also here
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt

[Maru Kitteh]

124. Poor widdle you. Want to make a + contribution? Start by rebuting Hannah Bell's post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6761839&mesg_id=6771255

And lest you assume some group of cohorts is ganging up on you, be advised that the relationship between myself and Hannah Bell has historically been best categorized as one of mutual distaste.



This serves as a testament to how poorly your represent yourself.

Answer Hannah Bell's post.

[hfojvt]

130. you think that would be positive?

What purpose would be served by an answer?

My first response is that she gave a very strange definition of genocide, but that isn't much of an answer since it is not her definition, but an official definition decided by some humanitarian committee.

Hey, I am all for humanitarian committees and against atrocities, but that still is a silly definition.

By that definition
murder = genocide
war = genocide

And thus if a group of Native Americans decides to murder some settlers to show how 'brave' they are to their friends, and then decides to attack New Ulm, Minnesota then the settlers cannot fight back or that would be 'genocide'. It is, according to that definition given.

So I didn't answer. At some point I get tired of this battle and also need to think about what the other people have said and maybe do some more research, etc. If I had answered that post, then she would have answered and on and on. Newton's second law of arguments. For every argument, there is an opposite counter-argument.

[malaise]

25. So what was it then -

Other than ethnic cleansing -the slaughter of the one who was different from them.

[hfojvt]

42. it was warfare, often not instigated by the settlers

and often full of atrocities which are fairly common in wars. A good part of the depopulation that happened was due to diseases.

"Most historians believe about 700 Pequots were slaughtered at Mystic. Many prisoners were executed, and surviving women and children sold into slavery in the West Indies. Pequot prisoners that escaped execution were parceled out to Indian tribes allied with the English. The Pequot were thought to have been extinguished as a people. According to IndyMedia, “The Pequot tribe numbered 8,000 when the Pilgrims arrived, but disease had brought their numbers down to 1,500 by 1637. The Pequot ‘War’ killed all but a handful of remaining members of the tribe.”

The Pequot were wiped out deliberately, and that's certainly an atrocity, but not one that falls to the level of genocide. Also, the vast majority of death - 6500 out of 8000 (over 80%) was due to disease, and not from the deliberate actions of the invaders. And that was seemingly true over the whole continent.

[winyanstaz]

52. often not instigated by the settlers...as if stealing their land was not an instigation in itself?

sheesh

[winyanstaz]

53. It was the whiteman that started the practice of scalping as well...

they paid a bounty on any native american scalp..man, woman, elder or child.

[hfojvt]

73. stealing land is such a European concept

Not how the real world works. In nature, the land belongs to whoever can hold it. When a grizzly bear rumbles through the forest and finds a stream to fish in, it settles down to eating. Not very fair to the fish, nor to any gulls or pelicans who were there first and might say 'mine?' 'mine?'.

Another thing I seem to have discovered about stolen land, is mentioned in passing in "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"

"South of the Kansas-Nebraska buffalo ranges were the Kiowas. Some of the older Kiowas could remember the Black Hills, but the tribe had been pushed southward before the combined power of Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho. By 1860 the Kiowas had made peace with the northern plains tribes and had become allies of the Comanches, whose southern plains they had entered." 10-11

So the white men are evil because they stole the Black Hills from the Sioux? But how did the Sioux get it? Seems to me that they stole it from the Kiowas, and the Kiowas, in turn, seem to have taken some land from the Comanches. But I guess once you have stolen land fair and square it is unfair for somebody else to come along and take it, even if they pay for it.

That's the funny thing about the USA. In our history, we are constantly paying for land we could just take by force. Probably didn't happen all the time, but kinda strange for it to happen at all. The USA beat the Mexicans in the 1840s, but then paid for the land it took. When the Germans beat the French in 1870, they took Alsace and made the French pay them. When the French beat the Germans in WWI with American help, they took Alsace back and made the Germans pay them. (Well they tried, but it turned out the Germans couldn't pay the French because the German economy had been destroyed by WWI and also because they were forbidden to re-industrialize the Saarland.)

There were choices made. Many of the young warriors chose to fight for their land and their way of life. However, that was not the best choice for their people. It was a choice that brought some of the bad consequences on them.

"In 1805, a religious revival led by Tenskwatawa (Tecumseh's little brother) emerged. Tenskwatawa urged natives to reject the ways of the whites, and to refrain from ceding any more lands to the United States. Opposing Tenskwatawa was the Shawnee leader Black Hoof, who was working to maintain a peaceful relationship with the United States."

I contend that Native Americans would have been better off if they followed leaders like Black Hoof rather than ones like Tecumseh.

'I have heard that a great many Indians want to fight. Very well, we are here, and are come prepared for war. If you are for peace, you know the conditions. If you are for war, look out for the consequences.' General Hancock 1866 p 151

The Native Americans were, of course, often amazing warriors. This also worked to their disadvantage. It made their enemies very fearful. When people are scared, they can do crazy things. They can shoot too fast and they can shoot too much.

It's understandable that warriors chose to fight for what they wanted to keep and preserve. I do not mean to condemn them for it, but the choice did have tragic consequences and they are not entirely the fault of one side.

[Hannah Bell]

94. "stealing land is such a European concept" = which the european settlers were guilty of.

[struggle4progress]

104. " ... All the Nez Perce made friends with Lewis and Clark and agreed to let them pass through their

country and never to make war on white men. This promise the Nez Perce have never broken ... For a short time we lived quietly. But this could not last. White men had found gold in the mountains around the land of the Winding Water. They stole a great many horses from us and we could not get them back because we were Indians. The white men told lies for each other. They drove off a great many of our cattle. Some white men branded our young cattle so they could claim them. We had no friends who would plead our cause before the law councils. It seemed to me that some of the white men in Wallowa were doing these things on purpose to get up a war. They knew we were not stong enough to fight them. I labored hard to avoid trouble and bloodshed. We gave up some of our country to the white men, thinking that then we could have peace. We were mistaken. The white men would not let us alone. We could have avenged our wrongs many times, but we did not ... On account of the treaty made by the other bands of the Nez Perce the white man claimed my lands. We were troubled with white men crowding over the line. Some of them were good men, and we lived on peaceful terms with them, but they were not all good. Nearly every year the agent came over from Lapwai and ordered us to the reservation. We always replied that we were satisfied to live in Wallowa ... Through all the years since the white man came to Wallowa we have been threatened and taunted by them and the treaty Nez Perce. They have given us no rest. We have had a few good friends among the white men, and they have always advised my people to bear these taunts without fighting ... We were like deer. They were like grizzly bears ...' -- "Chief Joseph"

"... I have heard talk and talk but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. Words do not pay for my dead people. They do not pay for my country now overrun by white men. They do not protect my father's grave. They do not pay for my horses and cattle. Good words do not give me back my children. Good words will not make good the promise of your war chief, General Miles. Good words will not give my people a home where they can live in peace and take care of themselves. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken promises. There has been too much talking by men who had no right to talk. Too many misinterpretations have been made; too many misunderstandings have come up between the white men and the Indians. If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian he can live in peace. There need be no trouble. Treat all men alike. Give them the same laws. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it. You might as well expect all rivers to run backward as that any man who was born a free man should be contented penned up and denied liberty to go where he pleases ... I only ask of the Government to be treated as all other men are treated. If I cannot go to my own home, let me have a home in a country where my people will not die so fast. I would like to go to Bitter Root Valley. There my people would be happy; where they are now they are dying. Three have died since I left my camp to come to Washington. When I think of our condition, my heart is heavy. I see men of my own race treated as outlaws and driven from country to country, or shot down like animals. I know that my race must change. We cannot hold our own with the white men as we are. We only ask an even chance to live as other men live. We ask to be recognized as men. We ask that the same law shall work alike on all men. If an Indian breaks the law, punish him by the law. If a white man breaks the law, punish him also ..." -- "Chief Joseph"

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/six/jospeak.htm

[Hannah Bell]

123. the europeans had the concept of ownership. they stole land, by their own mores.

they also exterminated tribes, removed them from their homelands & livelihood, forbid them forcibly from using their own languages or following their own customs, put them in concentration & work camps, & took their children.

genocidal, despite your rationalizations.

[struggle4progress]

128. Did you post in wrong place? Post you're replying to links to quotes from Nez Perce "Chief Joseph"

discussing a history in which the original inhabitants cooperated with the newcomers, only to suffer violence and broken promises

[naaman fletcher]

141. I agree it is genocide,

But is ownership solely a European idea? If you walked into a Nez Perce encampment and got on a horse and road away, would everybody just shrug and let you go?

[Hannah Bell]

75. If an entire tribe is wiped out deliberately, it's genocide. What don't you get?

[hfojvt]

82. what I don't get is comparing the slaughter of 700 to the slaughter of 6 million

as if they are both genocide and thus both equivalent. Also, my key point is that the Pequots were largely wiped out by disease, and that seems to be true throughout the entire continent. The Native Americans were decimated not so much by actions of the colonists, but by the germs they brought with them.

"In 1848, before the gold rush in California, that state's native population is estimated to have been 150,000. In 1870, after the gold rush, only about 31,000 were still alive. "Over 60 percent of these indigenous people died from disease introduced by hundreds of thousands of so-called 49ers. However, local tribes were also systematically chased off their lands, marched to missions and reservations, enslaved and brutally massacred." 12

12. "Gold, Greed & Genocide," Project Underground, at: http://www.1849.org/

"Other contributors to the breakdown of the clan system were the 1849 cholera epidemic, which killed perhaps half the Southern Cheyenne population,<13> particularly devastating the Masikota band and nearly wiping out the Oktoguna."

"A little more than a century before, in 1837, the Mandan tribe of the high plains found itself cooped up in two defended camps by their Sioux enemies when epidemic broke out. As a result their numbers were reduced from about 2,000 to a mere 30-40 survivors in a matter of weeks; and those survivors were promptly captured by enemies so that the Mandan tribe ceased to exist." Plagues and Peoples p. 205

"European diseases had taken their toll on the Iroquois and their neighbors in the years preceding the war, and their populations had drastically declined. To remedy the problem, and to replace lost warriors, the Iroquois worked to integrate many of their captured enemy into their own tribes." from Wiki on the Beaver Wars

"nearly wiping out"
"reduced from about 2,000 to a mere 30-40"
"their populations had DRASTICALLY declined"

[Hannah Bell]

92. if it's just a small ethnic group that's deliberately wiped out, it's not genocide?

you keep babbling about "disease" as though it were an act of god. much of the "disease" wasn't the initial contact with new germs tribes had low resistance to, it was disease induced or exacerbated by poor conditions *imposed* on the tribes by the US government or local governments: imprisonment, relocation, war, sanitation, forced labor, malnutrition.

Witness your own blurb on cholera: it was a disease that was introduced to Europe & the americas at about the same time. i.e. europeans & native americans had about the same level of resistance, but Indians had much higher mortality.

Now why do you think that was? you might look at what was going on in california at the time & the conditions imposed on the tribes, e.g., from your own link:

"In 1851, the California State government paid $1 million for scalping missions. You could still get $5 for a severed Indian head in Shasta in 1855, and twenty five cents for a scalp in Honey Lake in 1863."

one million in 1851 money, but no genocide here.

http://ceres.ca.gov/nahc/califindian.html

kindly read the section on "history". Disease doesn't stand on its own; its incidence & course is determined by environment as much as anything else.

"The impact of the mission system on the many coastal tribes was devastating. Missionaries required tribes to abandon their aboriginal territories and live in filthy, disease ridden and crowded labor camps. Massive herds on introduced stock animals and new seed crops soon crowded out aboriginal game animals and native plants. Feral hogs ate tons of raw acorns, depriving even the non-missionized tribes in the interior of a significant amount of aboriginal protein...About 100,000 or nearly a third of the aboriginal population of California died as a direct consequence of the missions of California..."

[hfojvt]

107. bab, bab, babbling

it's true what you say about disease, although it does not seem to apply to the Pequot or all that much to the Great Lakes region.

However, I think intent is important. Were the labor camps set up with the intent of wiping out the people put in them. Then that's a genocide. It's not the same thing if mass death results as an unintended consequence of a policy that had some other intention, even if a) we do not approve of that other intention and thus would oppose that policy anyway, and b) we in our wisdom of hindsight can see it as a pretty obvious result of that policy.

Were stock animals and new seed crops introduced with the intent of starving out the native tribes?

California does seem to be a special case, settled as it was by greedy people who went thousands of miles in order to make easy money and lots of it, but there were scalp bounties in Connecticut and Massachusetts too and those policies seem disgraceful to me, but I am not informed of how many actual deaths those policies caused. Although I think I can see some reasons for it too.

"During the mid- and late 1780s, white settlers in Kentucky and travelers on and north of the river suffered approximately 1,500 deaths during the ongoing hostilities, in which white settlers often retaliated against Indians. As a result of the continual violence, President Washington and his Secretary of War, Henry Knox, decided to use military force to pacify the region." Wiki

[Hannah Bell]

122. "labor camps" always have excess mortality v. "normal" populations.

the intent is to work people like animals.

[winyanstaz]

132. The Catholic Church also murdered thousands of Native Americans.

In fact..they are still finding the bodies of the children murdered all over Canada to this day.
A new scandal about it just broke out a couple of years ago.
They dragged this kids away from their families and then proceeded to murder, rape, starve, beat and torture them ..and many to death.
This is not even considering how many were enslaved to build the churches all over the south nor the gold stolen from the tribes or the people enslaved and sent to europe.

[Maru Kitteh]

125. "not instigated by the settlers" ????? I'm going to build a vacation house in your front yard

Don't you dare get in my way. I'm superior and I DESREVE your front yard.

By the way, I'll be forcibly kidnapping your children and educating them in whatever way I see fit. I will beat them for speaking your language, your name, or following your family traditions. Those little fuckers had better unlearn everything you taught them right away too, because if they don't I'll label them as stupid or troublesome or both, because the good Lord God above knows that whatever race your kids are, they're just not as good as mine.

[bvar22]

41. You disagree that the American West was ethnically cleansed...

...by the US Military to allow White Settlers to safely take the land?

(Limiting the geography for more pointed discussion).

[Blue_Tires]

26. good point...none of my world/european history books in school EVER told me about

Leopold II, who easily slaughtered as many, if not much more than the WWII holocaust...

[CrispyQ]

30. +1 -nt

[defendandprotect]

47. Think you have an excellent point there -- understand what you mean...

[wickerwoman]

105. The Holocaust Museum in DC

had exhibits on Bosnia and Rwanda when I visited.

[snagglepuss]

117. That is a good start but hardly adequate. What about the victims of the Japanese

According to historian Chalmers Johnson "It may be pointless to try to establish which WWII aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimized. The Germans killed 6 million Jews and 20 million Soviet citizens; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos,Malays,Vietnamese ,Cambodians Indonesians, and Burmese at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese."

And what about the Turkish slaughter of Armenians? What about Pol Pot's slaughter? The list throughout history is endless. These should all be part of any permanent that educates people about crimes against humanity that have been perpetrated throughout history.

[wickerwoman]

121. There's a museum in Nanjing

which commemorates the genocide of the Chinese by Japanese soldiers in WWII.

I think a museum that commemorates bad shit that happened to all kinds of people everywhere would be a little overwhelming.

And I think the museum benefits from context. When I visited Nanjing, I read about it's history and then went to visit the museum commemorating it. It meant a lot more because I was there on the spot where it took place.

When I visited Munich, I read about Dachau and went to the camp to learn more. It's an indescribably chilling feeling to experience history in that way.

My concern would be going from the Auschwitz room to the Nanjing room to the Sarajevo room to the Rwanda room would diminish the experience of each of them and would be more numbing than impacting.

[Number23]

11. K&R'd

[Echo In Light]

28. K&R

[Orwellian_Ghost]

32. K&R

[BrklynLiberal]

37. As has been said before...history is always written by the victors.

The horrors and embarrassing facts are forgotten by those who write down the history.

[elleng]

69. and then not taught.

[Techn0Girl]

39. "It's really easy to build a holocaust museum that condemns Germans....

As a Jew who's family was mostly killed off in the Holocaust, I know of no Holocaust museum that "condemns Germans"and I have been to a few including Yad Vashem (hope I got that name right - it was 30 years ago) in Israel.

The purpose of Holocaust museums is :
1. To Never Forget. To never forget that we, as a people, - ALL of us are capable of such atrocities and that by remembering this fact, in all it's horror, we hope to appeal to our better instincts and avoid a repeat. Whether it be Jews or Native Americans - or frankly Palestinians (well that's the theory anyway).

Jewish Holocaust memorials never have nor ever will condemn the German people. Rather we condemn the people and the institutions (i.e. Nazism) who happened to be living in Germany at the time who actively participated in the atrocities.

We don't condemn an entire people. We never will.

[still_one]

51. Thank-You, I had no idea what the OP was trying to convey with that statement /nt

[yurbud]

40. Howard Zinn had that passage from Columbus's log in PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

[DireStrike]

111. Everyone should read that book.

Especially the chapter on "The Other Civil War." Never in my life had I heard anything about those goings-on.

Very, very few people seek to learn history beyond what is taught in the classroom. We hit the civil war, spent some little time on (boring) reconstruction, then jumped to the Spanish-American war, then WWI, Depression, WWII... there just isn't enough time to cover everything in one term. Yet every history class starts at the beginning of time and ends in 1945.

Also, I never got any details about the Mexican War (of conquest).

[BoneDaddy]

43. The difference is

that some of those who perpetuated the Holocaust of the Jews are still alive. We are generations beyond Columbus and today's America (which didn't exist at that time)does not resemble that of 1492. Sure America is culpable in a historical sense and certainly racism against the first people is still ongoing to a degree, but I think we are talking about apples and oranges. The parents of modern germans were responsible for what their country did and hid. WE are generations removed and and a VAST amount of modern American's ancestors were not even here. My family is Irish removed from Ireland by two generations so it is hard for me or my own to feel remotely responsible for what happened. My people spent 700 years under the English yolk. So it is hard to condemn a country on that basis when time has altered so much of the region.

[defendandprotect]

48. Patriarchy/organized patriarchal religion is still the license for much of this violence . . .

it played a large role in enslavement and death of Native Americans and Africans
enslaved here -- See: Papal Bulls

We are also still in the same gene pool --

Sure America is culpable in a historical sense and certainly racism against the first people is still ongoing to a degree, but I think we are talking about apples and oranges.

"on-going, to a degree"? When did we return this land to the Native American?
When did we stop stealing from them - and/or attacking them?
That's on-going!!!

The Vatican is largely responsible for spreading hatred for Jews throughout the Papal States --
1,100 Jewish Ghettos - Jews forced to wear Yellow Stars - barred from co-mingling with society --
barred from education/professions. Post WWII, the RCC was called upon to sign a "Confession of
Co-Responsibility and Guilt for the Jewish Holocaust in Germany" --

AFTER the French/Italians freed the Jews - "All are created equal" -- the Vatican embarked on a
100 year propaganda war against the Jews using every resource at their disposal.

The parents of modern germans were responsible for what their country did and hid.

The agreements that the Vatican signed with the Nazis paved the way for their acceptance.
Germany was 90% Christian - 70% Catholic.

WE are generations removed and and a VAST amount of modern American's ancestors were not even here.
My family is Irish removed from Ireland by two generations so it is hard for me or my own to feel remotely responsible for what happened. My people spent 700 years under the English yolk. So it is hard to condemn a country on that basis when time has altered so much of the region.

We are still in the same gene pool -- we continue to see the same violence/conquest --
We are still -- all of us -- living on stolen land - no amends have been made.

The question remains -- how do we control the violent men among us?
Can we even begin to question and acknowledge these violent men?
Perhaps even begin to wonder what makes them so violent, so disturbed?
Who ever said that religion was good for mental health?

[winyanstaz]

58. thank you..excellent post.

I have to agree with you.

[Kaleva]

59. However, the Native americans were quite busy in stealing land from each other

[Hannah Bell]

76. yes, & the jews were undercutting each other in business deals in germany, so why not take their

businesses?

[defendandprotect]

109. And "white" people don't steal.... don't lie... don't cheat ....AND DON'T STEAL LAND????

[winyanstaz]

131. Just so you know..by far the majority of territories had been settled long ago..

In fact that was one of the major reasons why there were occasional skirmish's among the tribes. If a tribe didn't respect another tribes area it would lead to trouble.
However it was not the wild and crazy wars you see at the movies.
It was far more honorable to seattle disputes counting coup..which means they didn't murder each other but ran up and touched the enemy close up.
Thats not to say deaths did not occur but it is to say they had a system of sorts to seattle disputes.
If you actually ask the tribes about their history instead of believing the accounts of the Whites that invaded..you might find a lot of differences.

[Kaleva]

142. The Aztecs weren't known as happy campers,...

the Incas expanded their empire thru military conquest and the wars between the cities of the Mayan civilization were brutal affairs.

[winyanstaz]

144. That is true..and the Crows were also known to raid....

But most territories were still known as to which tribe belonged there.

[Hannah Bell]

97. "Germany was 70% Catholic." Highly doubtful. There was that little episode with

Luther & the wittenburg door, you know.

your source for this remarkable statistic?

never mind, found it myself:

Before World War II, about two-thirds of the German population was Protestant and one-third was Roman Catholic. In the north and northeast of Germany especially, Protestants dominated. In the former West Germany between 1945 and 1990, which coincidentally contained nearly all of Germany's historically Catholic areas (aside from eastern Silesia and Polish districts of what was eastern Germany), Catholics have had a small majority since the 1980s.

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


you pretty much reversed the actual fact. deliberate to slur catholics with the holocaust, or mere brain fart?

[defendandprotect]

112. Thank you . . .

I'll check ... it is from James Carroll . . . and every possibility that I recalled

it incorrectly.

But, no matter how you look at it, these were majority "Christians.

And, if you want to redeem the Catholic Church I think you have a lot to deal with!

And, btw, I'm a recovering Catholic.

[defendandprotect]

118. Correction: about 33% of Germans were Catholics --

Apologies for the confusion . . .

I have notes in one of my journals on the book -- the book is still at the library --
and/or I'll locate the journal at some point, but I accept the figure you've provided
as repeated from this link --

Many Roman Catholics who haven't read anything objective about the period imagine that, if they had been in Germany at the time of the Holocaust, they would have naturally been inspired by their church leaders to oppose Hitler and his murdering NAZI administration. But they do so without any evidence to support that view. Since Roman Catholics comprised a larger portion of Germany's population in the 1930's, than they do in the United States today, i.e. about 33% of Germans, vs. 25% of Americans, that would have had quite an impact on Germany's policies. Roman Catholics also comprised at least a third of NAZI Germany's army, police, public servants, railway workers and prison guards, etc., etc., More importantly, however, the cohesion they possessed through their union with Rome and with each other gave them tremendous political strength, which was manifested at the time through their very own political party, which didn't have the power to rule the country itself, but often did have the power to determine which other party did.


The founder of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther, was a virulent anti-semite much quoted by Hitler. In fact, the Nazis scheduled their "Crystal Night" purge in honor of Martin Luther's birthday! But Catholics shouldn't be too quick to point a finger at Luther's anti-semitism, because he didn't invent it; he developed it in the arms of his mother, the Roman Catholic Church in which he was raised, educated and ordained as an Augustinian monk. Although he "protested" against many of the Catholic Church's beliefs and practices, one belief he embraced rather than rejected was the Catholic Church's contempt for the Jews. For more on Luther, see my Luther and the Holocaust.

http://liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/RC_scandal-2.html

Thank you --



Here's another interesting link to an interview with Carroll --
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/05/int05022.html

[BoneDaddy]

99. That is some logic there

Because of my gene pool, I need to think and feel a certain way?

I agree that we, as a human race, need alot of evolution of consciousness but you act that violent and destructive behavior only occurs among white men. You seem to have no clue about how native tribes of all nations, pre WHITE MAN, treated one another. They were BRUTAL to each other and in many ways were as barbaric or moreso than what White man did. White man just did it to a much greater degree. All human beings have a propensity for violence and the most heinous act. This kindergarten logic that only one specific group is responsible is intellectually dishonest and childish.

[defendandprotect]

113. There's no logic in denial . . . who else but white men dropped atomic weapons?

No one is saying that YOU have to act as those who are violent act.

But, it does suggest that we have the same potential for repeating violence
from white males. You might have noticed Afghanistan, Iraq - twice ...
in current events.

Also consider that many of these tales of the "violence of other ethinic groups"
are myth. Like Indians "scalping" the white man!!!!!!
No -- the barbarism and brutality was by white men . . . !!!

Not to mention the atomic bomb -- white men being the only so far to have used it . . .
and on another ethnic group -- and civilians!!!!!!
Shamefully, we still hold that record!!!!

"Kindergarden" . . . grow up!!!

[deaniac21]

119. They were cheering in Nanking.

[defendandprotect]

120. ...but I guess China never worries that we might nuke them?

And, I guess it was Japanese women who pulled off the massacre in Nanking?

Rape is a patriarchal tool of war --

Violence is a mirror image of patriarchy --

Here's a link to an interview with James Carroll who wrote CRUSADE about our recent
wars -- TORTURE and the links to the past --

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/05/int05022.html


Including the oddity that the most notable among those who took the fall for the TORTURE
were two women: Lynndie England and Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski.

And Karpinski was in fact a whistleblower making clear that she was cut out of the picture
with the CIA running what was going on -- i.e., TORTURE.

Last June, Janis Karpinski, an Army reserve brigadier general, was named commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military prisons in Iraq. General Karpinski, the only female commander in the war zone, was an experienced operations and intelligence officer who had served with the Special Forces and in the 1991 Gulf War, but she had never run a prison system. Now she was in charge of three large jails, eight battalions, and thirty-four hundred Army reservists, most of whom, like her, had no training in handling prisoners.

http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/1265

[Crunchy Frog]

126. I wonder what Japan would have done with atomic weapons

if they had gotten them first.

No doubt they would only have been used for peaceful purposes.

[defendandprotect]

135. Unfortunately, WE had them and we used them . . .

NOT hypothetically speaking . . . .

and we used them on civilians -- !!

And we did all of this against the advice of most military leaders, including IKE

and MacArthur!

[NOLALady]

129. Don't forget the myth of the black men

lusting after and raping white women.

Yet, probably 99% of American blacks has at least one white male in their ancestry who was a rapist.

[BoneDaddy]

134. Straw man argument

another illogical attempt to accept what is true for every culture.

[defendandprotect]

136. Right . . . and relevant reminder of patriarchal projection onto others . . .

Usually what they're claiming someone did to them is something they actually

did to a group they're now trying to project their crimes onto!

If you watch closely, this still goes on even now!

And long has RAPE been a patriarchal tool of war and oppression!!!

Thank you for the sad but truthful reminder!

:)

[BoneDaddy]

140. You are in love with your own pathetic

drama. My guess is your life is a cesspool of depression and victimhood...I pity you.

[defendandprotect]

146. Your posts are "cesspools" . . . and you're on "ignore" --

Bye

[BoneDaddy]

133. I never said

that white men didn't have blood on their hands, I said that your childish, self absorbed logic isn't logical. It is born from your own sense of victimhood and need to have a scapegoat that you can hate or blame entirely.

Do me a favor. Read and then read some more. Read world history. Read the histories of the world and then come back and we will talk.

As for the Japanese and the bomb. We did drop the bomb but the Japanese were responsible for a reign of terror that decimated the Chinese and any other ethnic group (mostly other Asians) in that region.

I am not saying that America or the West is blameless. I am trying to counter your uneducated view that people from other cultures do not have the same propensity for hate, violence and destruction.

[defendandprotect]

138. "We did drop the bomb" . . . but the Japanese made us do it -- !!!

:evilgrin:


"I never said that white men didn't have blood on their hands" ... but that you're self-absorbed!



:evilgrin:

[BoneDaddy]

139. Were you born ignorant or did you choose it?

YOur above statement shows that you have absolutely zero knowledge of what occurred in WW2. I am not, or will ever, glorify our atomic bombing of nagasaki or hiroshima. It was horrible. But equally as horrible was the Japanese treatment of the non-Japanese population in that theatre of war.

You are an ignorant child. Time to grow up.

[defendandprotect]

145. Who is tossing about personal attacks to avoid debate? YOU or me?

[defendandprotect]

110. Self edit: that should read "1,100 years of Jewish Ghettos run by Vatican" . . .

[defendandprotect]

44. Will we ever face the truth of this in America . . .???

Ah, yes . . . "In the name of the Holy Trinity" . . .!!!!

God delusions!!!

Which happen to benefit the "god" salesmen -- !!!

[MellowDem]

45. Who's "our ancestors"?

Columbus is not American, and indeed had little to do with the creation of America really. Maybe this museum should be in Genoa?

And the vast majority of Indians were killed by disease, some of it spread knowingly, but the vast majority died from quite natural causes because they just were not immune. I guess the Arabs should apologize to Europeans for killing 1/3 of them with the Black Plague! Whenever anyone blames the genocide of American Indians on the "European" diseases, I always have to wonder that.

And you might as well use the word "genocide" correctly. Much of what was done to Native Americans was "genocide" of a sort, sometimes straight up, oftentimes in other, less obvious ways (such as driving them off their land so they have no more hunting ground and therefore no more food supply...). But with African Americans, genocide really is not the correct term to use. Indeed, African Americans were not sought after for extermination at all, but for cheap labor. And Indians probably would have been as well, if they had made for a good cheap labor supply, but they did not. The colonists wanted the land, and the Indians stood in their way, so genocide was a viable option, especially in North America, though there was a fair amount of assimilation into the colonist's own societies in some cases.

And there are already museums to our history of slavery and Native American genocide, though I don't know if they are as specific and one-issue as the Holocaust Museum. Though there is the Freedom Center in Cincinnati near me, and it is primarily focused on the history of American slavery and its human toll.

[still_one]

50. The purpose of the holocaust museum ISN'T to condemn Germans. Where are you getting that from? /nt

[Kaleva]

54. Slavery and exploitation were here long before Columbus arrived

[winyanstaz]

57. It is true a few tribes did war and did have slaves.

There were over 500 Tribes and they all differ in their dress, their practices and how they conducted themselves. Every race has a few bad apples but that doesnt mean its ok to kill and enslave and steal from all the people because some tribes did that.

[Kaleva]

60. And not all Europeans were bad apples either.

My European ancestors had nothing to do with the conquest of the Americas as they were too busy trying to stay alive under the thumb of first the Swedish and then later the Russian Empires.

[winyanstaz]

61. I agree..not all europeans were bad people either.

[Hannah Bell]

95. it has nothing to do with whether individuals are "good apples", it has to do with the policy of

their government or leadership.

which in the case of the US vis a vis its indigenous peoples, and its imported slaves, was genocidal by UN definitions.

[Hannah Bell]

77. you really want to compare the "slavery" of american tribes to the for-profit

slave system instituted thereafter?

there's no fucking comparison.

i can't believe i'm hearing this garbage on a "Democratic" site.

[JonLP24]

84. It's not the same of what the US did

They were often war-captives used for small scale labor and none were children. The children of them would be adopted as full members of the tribe. Also it was for members who committed crimes or debt repayment but it was only temporary. Tribes often traded to get their own member and they would get their member.

They weren't sold on the auction block or to the scale the Europeans did breaking up families apart. Also Native Americans were used as slaves by Europeans on such a large scale that prior to 1720 Carolina had far more Native American slaves then African slaves due to transporting and exporting costs. As well as the Africans they broke up families, tribe identity for many Native Americans, it was on such a large scale it was very tragic and an ugly scar on this nation.

Edit I meant to reply to who you replied to.

[Kaleva]

143. All slavery is for profit in some form.

Otherwise, there'd be no point in having slaves.

[a la izquierda]

89. Yeah, but it was different.

Slavery wasn't based upon race among native peoples. It was not a social standing that was inherited. It was not a situation one had for their entire lives.

Exploitation because one was a lesser being was uncommon as well. Yes, conquest occurred (Aztecs, Incas), but it was of a totally different flavor.

[winyanstaz]

55. another thing not talked about is what happened to many native american women...

trappers and traders would use the women and when they tired of them..they would murder them and eat them. They claimed that since an native was not human they were only an animal and that made it alright. They also would cut off their breasts and make powder bags out of them.
The spanish preferred raping the little girls and boys around the age of 6 and up.
The white man killed off all the buffalo and rounded up the people and put them on reservations in the middle of no-where..often with little water..and promised them cattle in exchange for their lands.....which never showed up.
Even today on the reservations in the Dakotas and Montana..there are no jobs as there is nothing but sagebrush there..and then the white men point and say..."lazy dirty indians".
There is still a law on the books in Wyoming that all "squaws" (a derogatory word that would compare with the N word today which means vagina) had to be out of the barracks by midnight.
In many states it was legal for a long time to murder any group of three or more native american men.
Natives today are still dying on the reservations in Montana and the Dakota because their federally managed health care is non-existent. For example, a clinic on the reservation might include a pair of pliers for the "dental work", some aspirin and maybe a band-aid or two.
Where I grew up in Wyoming as a teenager in the early 60s..it was still "sport" for the cowboys, sheepherders and oil workers to hunt native american women for sport..and sex. Not all come back alive and nothing is done about it.
Genocide is still alive and well in America today.
Not every tribe has casinos or are where people will travel to just to gamble.
My Lakota friends family "owns" several thousand acres. Which the government controls "for" them. She received her share of the rent one year and I was shocked to see that it was a whole $350.00 for the rent of all that grazing land to the cattle ranchers.
She is a mom with two kids to feed ..there are no jobs to be had therem no medical care and no future and I was and am still angry that the government was still doing this to the native people.
Statistics today show that this is still going on when three out of four native american women have been raped. This is especially true in Alaska today..and Palin made those women pay for their own rape kits.
To this day..Leonard Peltier still is a political prisoner who has served over 33 years for a crime he did not commit and which crime the government admits it has no evidence to prove he did anything.
Leonards crime is he tried to help his people..and he is in jail for being a handy indian fall guy they could blame.

[elleng]

64. Saw Dances with Wolves tonight.

:cry:

[Maru Kitteh]

127. Thank you. n/t

[cali]

68. oh, please. this is such a stupid comparison. And as others have pointed

out the Holocaust Museum most certainly does not condemn Germans.
That is an outright lie.

[elleng]

72. Not even by implication?

[Hannah Bell]

78. um, the "implication" being that the nazis deliberately killed millions?

how would you suggest that "implication" not exist, unless the history cease to exist?

[elleng]

79. UM, I was responding to

'the Holocaust Museum most certainly does not condemn Germans.
That is an outright lie.'

I would NOT suggest that history ceases to exist.

[Hannah Bell]

80. I understand what you were responding to. My point - in response to your suggestion the holocaust

museum carries the "implication" of condemnation of the germans - is that any presentation of a crime contains the "implication" that those responsible acted reprehensibly.

It's unavoidable unless you bury the history. Which is what a lot of folks here are "implying" they'd like to do, in their apologetics for it.

[elleng]

114. Now I understand.

I don't think, however, that folks here are implying such. As we can see, history and life are complex matters, and people have a hard time with them. CERTAINLY difficult to discuss one's point of view in short postings.

[JonLP24]

83. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

I hate when that happens x(

[a la izquierda]

91. I don't want to get into the holocaust itself,

but if nothing else, Columbus and other early explorers gave us a legacy of brutality and oppression.
And we don't have to look back 500 years to find "genocide", in whatever was one defines it. I'm teaching the Guatemalan civil war today. Want to talk about ethnic cleansing? We can talk about the US complicity in the ethnic destruction of hundreds of thousands...