If more than one entity massacred people, it means massacre is okay? Very strange logic. Do bad things have to be done by only one entity to be considered bad?
Never forget? In some states it’s downright illegal to teach kids that complex, sophisticated and civilized societies existed here before white people showed up.
I’ve been reading 1491 by Charles C Mann and telling my 14yo a lot of what I’ve been learning, it’s a fascinating book. We live in the rural southern Appalachians and I know for damn sure those teachers aren’t including nuance with their history.
There’s a ton missing. The point still stands, but the bottom map is more like “places that are 70%+” indigenous people, rather than a comprehensive list. Is mislabeled to make a point, which is a stupid thing to do.
Your comment is equal measures funny and absurd to be honest. Please do explain how looking back on events, decisions made, etc to better frame modern happenings is so ridiculous.
That’s ok, this map of native American lands is definitely outdated. The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) lands are much smaller than it should be. As that’s the only tribal name I can actually read, I imagine it’s a similar story for the other tribes.
Right, conquered is worse because it implies it’s stolen via violence at a large scale. While just stolen could mean taken quietly and without violence. Thank you for addressing the seriousness of the issue.
I don’t think they were trying to downplay the severity. I think they were just pointing out in a snarky way that there were survivors, and thus, we can ask their descendants these questions.
Land shouldn't be owned indefinitely and passed through families. It's not right to have created a dynasty based on one guy in the 1800s claiming everything in sight and having his idiot descendents be wealthy simply based on the fact. They didn't do anything except inherent land.
Land that isn't your primary home should have to be leased and not owned, that way it's being used most effectively and not privatized for the sole benefit of the owner. It leads to land speculation and squatting of land that someone else would like to use.
Additionally, natural resources should also belong to the people and companies should have to pay fair compensation for their extraction.
Yeah but that isn’t what everyone is saying. They are saying give it all back to the native Americans and what? Move back to Europe?
Israel is more muddy people have been taking that land from eachother for millenia. Just because after the 2nd world war Israel was re-created after being stamped out prior to that. Who was the aggressor and the victim back then.
Of course I’m gonna assume good faith from you here, but I feel like some people boil down issues like this to “well I mean I didn’t do it so stop complaining”, and that’s wildly reductive and irresponsible at minimum.
Arguing the situation in this way sidesteps the uncomfortable and inconvenient reality that the United States is yet still occupying native land, whether it be Hawai’i, Alaska, or the contiguous territories. Yes it’s entirely possible that mine or your ancestors didn’t perpetuate these things as immigration is and has always been ongoing, but the point everyone misses is that we are still here.
I couldn’t possibly imagine belittling natives for acknowledging the fact that their land was taken from them by force. Some real colonialist shit.
It’s the control. If one Native tribe still controlled the ancestral grounds of another tribe, then you probably would have some people calling that out… but they don’t. The US government has ALL the control, every tribe within US territory, and all of their land, is at the governments mercy.
No reason to not give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re giving off heavy “they were already killing each other so it’s no big deal” vibes. No insult intended, just what I’m picking up.
Intertribal conflict is the tribes’ business, colonizing and displacing is colonists’ business. To be clear, external invasion is the concern here
Nope not that at all. I’m against all war is all. And many people in many countries all around the world are benefiting from awful wars that happened centuries before they were born, possibly from people they aren’t even descended from. To call me and anyone else who moved to the US afterwards “colonists” is imo a misrepresentation and unfair. And I’m not saying the native Americans don’t deserve more than they’re been given so far.
My point is more getting people thinking about how tribes that early Americans wronged were also wronged before that. If we fix things to return them to how it was, why does the final state of tribes before European arrival get chosen as the correct state? We likely have no idea who was on specific land first here in America. We just know the final state and some of the preceding wars before then. Keep going back and there’s always a new victim.
Entirely valid, all great points - and to clarify, specifically colonialism from the colonists that colonized the land, no pejorative usage against anyone here
Yes, people don’t leave occupied land. It’s never happened historically and certainly won’t happen now, that’s the point of occupation. People can acknowledge what happened but in practical terms thinking that somehow all native land will be returned is just naive.
Oh well of course, at this point in time it’s been made extremely clear that natives will be getting absolutely no land back, even unoccupied land in the plains for example. There’s no major figures in government even remotely speaking on this stuff in a substantial way, so it may as well never happen. Fucked up stuff on top of all the other fucked up stuff.
And also to be fair, implying that most anyone here believes that all land should be returned is pretty naive in and of itself - there are absolutely more options than ALL OF THE LAND and NONE OF THE LAND
I feel you, and also acknowledge it is a hairy subject on a grand scale.
I also try to frame the issue in the actual, real moment. I try my damndest to do as little harm as humanly possible to anyone. Should I be forced to give money to someone affected? Land? Should I be punished?
Who benefits? A grandson of someone displaced? A great great grandson? Whole family trees? How do you make shit like this right after so much time?
Mostly, I’m trying to encourage thought and discussion. Fundamentally, I think people should be judged on their own merits and actions, not their lineage.
The way I understand it is that even if we omit any ancestral blame for what happened, the Native Americans are still dealing with the impact while European descendants benefit from it. It’s kind of like if I went to school with a very bright kid that was horribly abused and kicked out into the streets, so they performed poorly and dropped out, allowing me to get into the best college possible and have a great career. Why should I have any compassion for this kid if I didn’t abuse them myself? Why would I help them get housed and into college? Why would I even acknowledge that they were abused and forced out of their home? I’m one that earned it by working hard to get into college and graduate.
This omits the possibility that this kid might have outperformed me and taken the college spot, leaving me to be in a worse off situation.
As far back as required to make those involved feel as if they were compensated. If you feel that 36x Great uncle Olaf's loss affects your Family Today, then you should have your day in Court to make the case. However, as most likely 36x Great uncle Olaf was in fact not involved in anything in a currently oppressed People's past, it'll be a hard case to make.
Not 1000% on board with your analogy, but I understand and fully agree lol.
I just wish most people had the empathy and mental capacity to understand the intricacies of this stuff. It’s a hell of a lot easier to just say “uH wOw I ain’t payin reparations for no dang indians” than it is to actually think for a minute about and acknowledge the real history of where you live
That will always be an issue until the US government actually has real communication and cooperation with native people.
I don’t necessarily think that citizens of occupied land are automatically responsible for the past actions of a government (not to say that’s what you implied), but said government that committed the atrocities is. As far as the other part of the equation, I suppose the beneficiaries should be determined by the natives themselves.
The outcome needs to be negotiated and yes, the Tax Payer should foot the bill for the redress for the actions of the State and individual wealthy Families should foot the bill for the crimes their wealth stems from. For example: the entirety of Oklahoma's rather impressively inhumane treatment of the Native Tribes needs to be dealt with as the People that profited from the malfeasance are still holding the proceeds of those crimes.
Explain. How is it a false equivalent? Romans controlled the city / region for over a thousand years and were later conqured, and their land stolen, to use the vernacular of this thread.
You’re oversimplifying in order to compare the two. Wildly different historical contexts with entirely unrelated events. Distilling both down to “area conquered” just so you can make a point is reductive.
Beyond that though, why does it matter honestly? Does the fact that a city was conquered in the 1400s invalidate anything mentioned so far?
Damn, still couldn’t make it past the first sentence huh? Really hard question too, I’m not surprised you conveniently ignored it given the aptitude you’ve shown so far. Ain’t my fault that you can’t possibly comprehend two things being somewhat similar yet remaining distinct.
You too buddy! Would enjoy having rational conversations, even note elsewhere in this thread that I’m taking the time to read American Holocaust, as I told myself “why should I ask someone to do something I’m not willing to do myself?” Granted, being close to 50 years old, it likely won’t change my mind, but I reason that if I do read this book, maybe I can better understand other’s worldview, and maybe, just maybe we can have civil conversations instead of the stupid fucking bickering that’s been going on in a… wait for it… meme thread!
China/Russia/Europe are largely inhabited by people whose ancestry traces back 1000s of years to the same region. That’s very different from North America, where most natives where killed (either through disease or “policy”).
That’s not to excuse their past behaviour (Europeans started the genocide in North America), but it’s still very different.
Yup. That’s the biggest difference. My ancestors trace back to Beringia (what is now the Bering Strait) but my national leader is an 80 year old European American.
How’s the genocide of a whole continent “average history”? The magnitude of destruction in the Americas is not common and this downplay of a continent-wide genocide is annoying.
…ok? I guess I don’t get why there needs to be any comparison, since it inevitably ends up sounding like “oh, well this one wasn’t as bad as that one. Happens all the time.”
Other examples existing does not change that it is historically unprecedented and far from the norm. And its just a really strange and pointless thing to point.
Person A: “my dad died in a car bomb” Person B: “ehh, average family death” A: “uhh what?” B: "well, there are other examples of people dying in car bombs, dude! "
You’re correcting me saying that expelling native populations time and time again from every land they go to, then genociding their entire population to the point of near extinction, using the most horrific methods and over centuries, is more akin to dying of old age than dying by a bomb?
Please read that again and confirm to me that’s what you’re saying, because it sounds absolutely ridiculous. This scale and this horror are not common historical occurrence.
That’s correct, humans have used the cutting edge methods to drive out and destroy native populations in the name of expansion, for thousands of years.
I am sorry to restate this again, but the expulsion, genocide on the scale (both in size and horror) is historically unprecedented. You’re going to have to prove this to me if you think it’s a common occurrence instead of continuing to repeat it.
And for the record, no one here is talking about small scale expulsion. I am talking about expulsion AND genocide on the same scale and horror committed here. Show me that it is a common occurrence and I will concede.
Did they? I was under the impression they came in, did a conquer, and basically left with the conquered understanding that the horde’d be back for their tribute.
Because you’re lumping in the unavoidable disease transfer of first contact with intentional conquest and violence. Take away that, which was going to happen whenever any Afro-Eurasian community first interacted with people from the americas, and you get a very comparable situation to many things throughout history.
The genocide didn’t happen solely after the first contact, the massacre of natives lasted centuries. Many nations were wiped out in the XIX century.
And a quote for you
Proponents of the default position emphasize attrition by disease despite other causes equally deadly, if not more so. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease.
Did disease not account for the vast majority of death? Even still, I never discounted the brutal conquest that was engaged in. My point is that Europeans aren’t special for brutal conquests. Imperial Japan is a prime example this.
You’re also treating a bunch of competing individuals as a hive mind with a coherent plan. I find that “grand scheming entity” kind of narrative to be just as naive as the people buying into racist narratives. It doesn’t make sense when it’s Jewish people and they’re a smaller demographic than “Western European”.
Add comment