Apologize to the Native Americans?

[sachmo71]

I believe we should also present them with the entire state of Oklahoma. Consider it a regift.

[Blackadar]

hxxp://www.wral.com/news/4533371/detail.html

Senate Committee Considers Indian Apology Resolution

POSTED: 9:35 pm EDT May 25, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee is considering legislation that would offer a formal apology to American Indians from the government.

Sen. John McCain, who chairs the Senate's Committee on Indian Affairs, said he will try and help the resolution reach the full Senate.

The resolution -- introduced by Kansas Republican Sam Brownback -- recounts the long history of government mistreatment of American Indians, including forced relocation, the outlawing of traditional religions and destruction of sacred sites. The president of the National Congress of American Indians said the apology has been "a long time coming."

Congress rarely apologizes for official government conduct. Exceptions include a 1993 apology to native Hawaiians for the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and a 1988 apology to Japanese Americans placed in detention camps during World War II.
--------------------------------

My own $.02 will cost me my "good liberal" card. :)

Will the Native Americans apologize for having members of their tribes continually break treaties/agreements of the settlers?

It's not like they were blameless. A tribe would negotiate peace with a group of settlers or a territory. Some of the warmongering braves would not like that treaty and leave the tribe. They would then break the peace because they felt they weren't subject to the initial agreement. This happened repeatedly and of course it was the original tribe that bore the brunt of the retaliation from the territory/state/settlers.

No doubt that Native Americans got the overall short end of the stick, but they weren't in any way blameless for much of the conflict. Even reading a one-sided book like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee talks about how these splinter tribes didn't honor these agreements.

So I'm not really in favor of this.

[Chubby]

I thought them being able to have casinos was our apology

[Raiders Army]

Maybe we should make Dan Snyder give them the Redskins. They couldn't do any worse. Oh, and Ted Turner can throw in the Braves as well.

[KevinNU7]

Why do I have to apologize for something that was done before I was born, and my parents weren't even born in this country? Oh yeah, I forgot... I'm white

[Desnudo]

Yeah, being white is such a burden.

[rkmsuf]

I'm sure that will mean so much to native americans.
:rolleyes:

[Crapshoot]

Why do I have to apologize for something that was done before I was born, and my parents weren't even born in this country? Oh yeah, I forgot... I'm white

Becuase you're living in land that was theirs. If I came and squated on your land and gave you blankets full of diseases, how would you feel ? This is one of the many reasons I find why many Americans, who are immigrants as a nation, are so questionable and distrusting of immigration. But that's a side note.

[Klinglerware]

Why do I have to apologize for something that was done before I was born, and my parents weren't even born in this country? Oh yeah, I forgot... I'm white

Uhh... according to the bill, the Federal government is apologizing, not white people.

Unless, of course, you believe the Federal Government is the province of white people only :D

[CamEdwards]

Becuase you're living in land that was theirs. If I came and squated on your land and gave you blankets full of diseases, how would you feel ? This is one of the many reasons I find why many Americans, who are immigrants as a nation, are so questionable and distrusting of immigration. But that's a side note.

But the people who came and squatted on land and gave native americans blankets full of disease aren't apologizing. My government is. And my government is not apologizing to the people who suffered the indignity and injustice. My government is apologizing to their descendants.

These descendants now have opportunities for a life their forefathers could not have even dreamed about. I don't think there's anything to apologize for.

Now, if we could spend a couple of trillion dollars on a time machine that would send John McCain back to 1884 so he could apologize in person, that'd be all right with me. Especially if the time machine got destroyed by a herd of rampaging buffalo while McCain was there.

[stevew]

Too bad McCain doesnt have a time machine, cause he could solve all of the worlds ills.

[Crapshoot]

But the people who came and squatted on land and gave native americans blankets full of disease aren't apologizing. My government is. And my government is not apologizing to the people who suffered the indignity and injustice. My government is apologizing to their descendants.

These descendants now have opportunities for a life their forefathers could not have even dreamed about. I don't think there's anything to apologize for.

Now, if we could spend a couple of trillion dollars on a time machine that would send John McCain back to 1884 so he could apologize in person, that'd be all right with me. Especially if the time machine got destroyed by a herd of rampaging buffalo while McCain was there.

Entirely reasonable. However, the point is, you are today directly benefiting from the actions of your forefathers - you wouldn't be who you are if not for their role in coming over here. In the same way, these people would not be where they were if not for the role of their forefathers and the interactions. If Its the proverbial "Being born on 3rd base doesn't mean you hit a triple" scenario. Do you dispute that the benefits of your forefathers actions carry through ?

[Joe]

its their fault for being on our land before we got here

[Cuckoo]

its their fault for being on our land before we got here


Maverick?

[Yossarian]

Becuase you're living in land that was theirs.

If you go far back enough, just about everyone has taken everyone else's land.

Should Italy apologise for those nasty Romans? Should Britain apologise to Americans for being such shits when you wanted to go solo? Should England apologise to Scotland for invading them all the time.

Fuck it. Lets all just chill and move on. Stamp out any remaining predjuces / oppression but let's not dwell CONSTANTLY on the past.

[Joe]

Maverick?

indeed

[Cuckoo]

indeed

It was the first thing that came to my mind too, but I couldn't remember what it was from until you posted it. :D

[John Galt]

hxxp://www.wral.com/news/4533371/detail.html

Senate Committee Considers Indian Apology Resolution

POSTED: 9:35 pm EDT May 25, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee is considering legislation that would offer a formal apology to American Indians from the government.

Sen. John McCain, who chairs the Senate's Committee on Indian Affairs, said he will try and help the resolution reach the full Senate.

The resolution -- introduced by Kansas Republican Sam Brownback -- recounts the long history of government mistreatment of American Indians, including forced relocation, the outlawing of traditional religions and destruction of sacred sites. The president of the National Congress of American Indians said the apology has been "a long time coming."

Congress rarely apologizes for official government conduct. Exceptions include a 1993 apology to native Hawaiians for the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and a 1988 apology to Japanese Americans placed in detention camps during World War II.
--------------------------------

My own $.02 will cost me my "good liberal" card. :)

Will the Native Americans apologize for having members of their tribes continually break treaties/agreements of the settlers?

It's not like they were blameless. A tribe would negotiate peace with a group of settlers or a territory. Some of the warmongering braves would not like that treaty and leave the tribe. They would then break the peace because they felt they weren't subject to the initial agreement. This happened repeatedly and of course it was the original tribe that bore the brunt of the retaliation from the territory/state/settlers.

No doubt that Native Americans got the overall short end of the stick, but they weren't in any way blameless for much of the conflict. Even reading a one-sided book like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee talks about how these splinter tribes didn't honor these agreements.

So I'm not really in favor of this.

First off, treating American Indians as a monolithic group is a pretty big mistake. There were certain tribes that were more prone to agreement breaking, but whole nations were obliterated without doing anything wrong.

Second, the structure and methods of treaties were pretty alien to Indian nations at the time. It should be surprising that they meant very different things to white settlers at the time.

Either way, the US has refused to apologize for committing one of the worst genocides in modern history. I think it is about time we did.

[Desnudo]

If you go far back enough, just about everyone has taken everyone else's land.

Should Italy apologise for those nasty Romans? Should Britain apologise to Americans for being such shits when you wanted to go solo? Should England apologise to Scotland for invading them all the time.

Fuck it. Lets all just chill and move on. Stamp out any remaining predjuces / oppression but let's not dwell CONSTANTLY on the past.

I'm not eating bangers and mash until Britain apologizes, especially for burning down our White House.

You are comparing apples and oranges though.

[Ryche]

Not to mention plenty of Native American tribes and nations drove each other off of lands they wanted. Unfortunately, Europeans had weapons and diseases that made them more efficient at the practice.

An apology helps nothing at this point, helping to improve the lives of today's Native Americans is the best apology we can give.

[John Galt]

But the people who came and squatted on land and gave native americans blankets full of disease aren't apologizing. My government is. And my government is not apologizing to the people who suffered the indignity and injustice. My government is apologizing to their descendants.

These descendants now have opportunities for a life their forefathers could not have even dreamed about. I don't think there's anything to apologize for.

Now, if we could spend a couple of trillion dollars on a time machine that would send John McCain back to 1884 so he could apologize in person, that'd be all right with me. Especially if the time machine got destroyed by a herd of rampaging buffalo while McCain was there.

And so Cam brings out the White Man's Burden argument. Believe it or not, some people don't believe that the country we live in is paradise. Even more, for American Indians, the average life is MUCH worse than it would have been. Remember that American Indians would not be living just as they were when white settlers came. Progress always marches on. We would have no idea what the U.S. would look like it American Indians still dominated the lands. Given the ridiculous social conditions of many tribes, I think it is insane to say there is nothing to apologize for.

No matter what else, American Indians were not given a choice as to whether to participate in the U.S.'s development and Manifest Destiny. That some can now whitewash the atrocities and say it was good for Indians in the long run just seems totally repugnant and disgusting to me.

I don't know what effect an apology will have, but saying we have nothing to apologize for is sickening, IMO.

[Blackadar]

First off, treating American Indians as a monolithic group is a pretty big mistake. There were certain tribes that were more prone to agreement breaking, but whole nations were obliterated without doing anything wrong.

Second, the structure and methods of treaties were pretty alien to Indian nations at the time. It should be surprising that they meant very different things to white settlers at the time.

Either way, the US has refused to apologize for committing one of the worst genocides in modern history. I think it is about time we did.

Genocide: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group

John, spreading unintentional sickness isn't genocide and that's how the vast majority of American Indians died. You can spin it any way you like, but it wasn't systematic nor was it planned. Therefore, it wasn't genocide. Period.

I understand that treaties were a pretty alien concept. In Native American tribes, if you didn't agree with the decision you could leave the tribe and you weren't bound by it. But that's not the fault of the Europeans. They made agreements and many of the Native American tribes broke them.

[judicial clerk]

Unless, of course, you believe the Federal Government is the province of white people only
Have you ever seen one of those posters that shows portraits of all the U.S Presidents?

Also, if the Native Americans didn't want Europeans to take over their land, they should have improved their immune systems and maybe learned about gunpowder from the Chinese.

[rkmsuf]

Does this really have to go through the Senate? I mean just stand up there on tv and say

"Like, yeah we are sorry."

Done.

[Ksyrup]

While my general opinion is that an apology at this point seems pretty useless, and I'd rather see us spend time/money doing something to help further American Indians' lives now than talk about apologizing for decades and centuries' old acts, I must admit that thanks to this thread, I'm all of a sudden dying to play Colonization.

[Ryche]

Take away the disease factor, and it would be interesting to see how history would have progressed once the Europeans came to the Americas. I would venture to guess we would have a much different landscape today.

I was thinking about this for some reason recently (part of my anthropology education rising up I guess) and wondering what would have happened if Native Americans had the same disease resistances as, say, Africans facing attempted European colonization. Facing a healthy opposition with 4x the population (that's just a guess, maybe 10x?) of what the Native Americans had after they were ravaged by diseases, would the Americas look more like Africa of today with the native people largely in control and dominant?

There are other factors of course, such as climate, technology, social structure and enough others to write a book about. But it is interesting to consider.

[st.cronin]

Tangential observation: The current New Yorker piece on McCain alludes to him being an avid gambler.

[dawgfan]

Can someone point out what the negative ramifications are of this proposed apology? I'm open to being convinced either way on this, but my inclination is to think a formal, governmental apology is a good thing in this situation for symbolic reasons.

[Joe Canadian]

I'm not sure how the "official appology" stuff works in the US, but what exactly is the harm in apologizing?

[flere-imsaho]

Wow, you guys really hate McCain. Did Monday touch a nerve, or what?

[Ksyrup]

What was Monday?

[CamEdwards]

And so Cam brings out the White Man's Burden argument. Believe it or not, some people don't believe that the country we live in is paradise. Even more, for American Indians, the average life is MUCH worse than it would have been. Remember that American Indians would not be living just as they were when white settlers came. Progress always marches on. We would have no idea what the U.S. would look like it American Indians still dominated the lands. Given the ridiculous social conditions of many tribes, I think it is insane to say there is nothing to apologize for.

No matter what else, American Indians were not given a choice as to whether to participate in the U.S.'s development and Manifest Destiny. That some can now whitewash the atrocities and say it was good for Indians in the long run just seems totally repugnant and disgusting to me.

I don't know what effect an apology will have, but saying we have nothing to apologize for is sickening, IMO.

I had a perfect smartass remark about you being sickeded all ready to go, but I'd hate to risk a banning so I'll let it pass.

As for "progress" and the Native Americans... please show me the technological advances that other indigenous tribes have made without direct contact from Western Civilization.

The idea that Native Americans, without contact from Europeans, would have somehow progressed into something other than Stone Age tribes is a little ridiculous.

BTW, I have no idea what you're talking about with the "White Man's Burden" argument. My great grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee and my two oldest children are descended from slaves, so please spare me any sort of implied comments that I'm a racist who cares not about the thoughts and feelings of the minority.

[JPhillips]

If you want to really see genocide in action look at the Spanish conquest of the Caribbean and South America. Disease played a part, but they systematically enslaved, raped and killed the native population. Read Las Casas's testimony to get a very good picture.

As to what the US should do, why shouldn't we apologize? It really makes no concrete difference but does acknowledge that crimes were commited against the American Indians. Can anyone deny that the US government and the colonists prior to the government were reckless in the treatment of the native population?

Of course I agree with the idea of improving life on the reservations and giving economic incentives to businesses that locate on reservations and employ American Indians. That would be a hell of a lot more beneficial.

I tend to agree that the conquest of the Americas was to some extent inevitable, but does that make our actions right? What would Jesus do? I doubt he would say "Suck it up you little bitches!"

[CamEdwards]

Wow, you guys really hate McCain. Did Monday touch a nerve, or what?

Dola: A lot of Republicans have disliked John McCain long before Monday, flere.

[rkmsuf]

What was Monday?

Monday was the day after Sunday but that's not important right now.

[Joe Canadian]

I doubt he would say "Suck it up you little bitches!"

Probably not, but it would sure be funny if he did...

[Ksyrup]

Monday was the day after Sunday but that's not important right now.
Surely you realize that now is not the time for jokes.

[Ksyrup]

Monday was the day after Sunday but that's not important right now.
Besides, I always thought it was the day before Tuesday.

[flere-imsaho]

Dola: A lot of Republicans have disliked John McCain long before Monday, flere.

You don't say.... ;)

[rkmsuf]

Surely you realize that now is not the time for jokes.

Stop calling me surely.

Maybe I'll put a bill through the Senate apologizing for the Airplane joke.

[John Galt]

I had a perfect smartass remark about you being sickeded all ready to go, but I'd hate to risk a banning so I'll let it pass.

As for "progress" and the Native Americans... please show me the technological advances that other indigenous tribes have made without direct contact from Western Civilization.

That's an interesting comment given that most indigenous tribes have been marginalized and attacked by the West. It is hard to advance under those terms.

Also, there is a big problem with saying "indigenous tribes" did not advance in terms of terminology. Does a group cease to be "indigenous" when they stop living a low-tech lifestyle. In other words, were the German tribes that conquered Rome "indigenous?" Did they cease to be "indigenous" when they moved to cities? Are Japanese not "indigenous" because they live in cities now? Tons of populations developed without Western influence and "advanced" without the "benefits" of colonization. Countries such as Japan did it in a time period that puts the West to shame.

Further, at the time, American Indians had numerous technological advantages over the West (although they were certainly fewer than the West had over them). Agriculture, in particular, is an area where many tribes had developed more effective systems than European powers.

The idea that Native Americans, without contact from Europeans, would have somehow progressed into something other than Stone Age tribes is a little ridiculous.

The idea that American Indians were living in the Stone Age at the time of contact with the West is utter nonsense. The idea that numerous other countries made rapid advances in less time shows the how myopic it is to view American Indians a people trapped in time (some scholars refer to this as part of the "noble savage" assumption).

BTW, I have no idea what you're talking about with the "White Man's Burden" argument. My great grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee and my two oldest children are descended from slaves, so please spare me any sort of implied comments that I'm a racist who cares not about the thoughts and feelings of the minority.

The White Man's Burden argument is that the West had and still has an obligation to "enlighten" and "develop" the uncivilized parts of the world. I think that is exactly what you are saying.

As for your roots, I don't think they have anything to do with the fact that you are advancing myths and ideas that are horrible for American Indians.

[Solecismic]

As the member of a group who came here after these atrocities took place, I don't feel responsible. My family has experienced plenty of discrimination, and the only real answer is to outwork, outplay, outwit and outfight those who can't see past the surface.

Any apology would be hollow. Did these particular senators and congressmen endorse the mistreatment of the Native Americans? Did I vote for someone, inadvertently, who supports the massacre of other races?

I'm an American, albeit one born outside the US. I don't consider myself as connected to any other country, through heritage or anything else. This is the country of opportunity. America isn't perfect, but AFAICT it's the most welcoming and supportive country in the history of mankind. Terrible mistakes have been made - like the internment, like slavery, like some (but not all) of the dealings with the Native Americans. They shouldn't be glossed over. Neither should people today be punished for the mistakes of those completely unrelated.

Someone mentioned that we benefit from the mistreatment - we stand on third base even though we may get there from an error, a walk and a double-play. I disagree. We all can fail, even with a lot of paper money at our disposal. And we all have the opportunity to make something of ourselves, as long as our parents just care a little bit. Try telling that to the Iraqis, who have witnessed hundreds of thousands of their countrymen slaughtered by the government in just the last 20 years. Or in any number of countries where the caste system is still very much alive and well.

I think the apology would do more harm than good. Native American children do not need excuses for failure. They don't need special treatment. They do need more positive role models, and they need to understand the harsh reality that a truly equal society rewards strength, independence and hard work.

[Blackadar]

I'm still waiting on Galt to justify his "genocide" comment...

[CamEdwards]

That's an interesting comment given that most indigenous tribes have been marginalized and attacked by the West. It is hard to advance under those terms.

Also, there is a big problem with saying "indigenous tribes" did not advance in terms of terminology. Does a group cease to be "indigenous" when they stop living a low-tech lifestyle. In other words, were the German tribes that conquered Rome "indigenous?" Did they cease to be "indigenous" when they moved to cities? Are Japanese not "indigenous" because they live in cities now? Tons of populations developed without Western influence and "advanced" without the "benefits" of colonization. Countries such as Japan did it in a time period that puts the West to shame.

Further, at the time, American Indians had numerous technological advantages over the West (although they were certainly fewer than the West had over them). Agriculture, in particular, is an area where many tribes had developed more effective systems than European powers.


Agricultural advance won't get you very far in a war.

[/quote]
The idea that American Indians were living in the Stone Age at the time of contact with the West is utter nonsense. The idea that numerous other countries made rapid advances in less time shows the how myopic it is to view American Indians a people trapped in time (some scholars refer to this as part of the "noble savage" assumption).
[/quote]

I'm not much of a Rousseau man, so I don't really think of Native Americans pre-European contacts as "noble savages". And indigenous people might not have been trapped in time, but they certainly were moving at a snail's pace technologically speaking. If you're saying that Native Americans were as technologically advanced as the Europeans, then there's no way our government should be apologizing. We beat 'em in a fair fight, right?


The White Man's Burden argument is that the West had and still has an obligation to "enlighten" and "develop" the uncivilized parts of the world. I think that is exactly what you are saying.

As for your roots, I don't think they have anything to do with the fact that you are advancing myths and ideas that are horrible for American Indians.

I don't feel like the West had or has an obligation to "enlighten" or "develop" the uncivilized parts of the world. I just think the benefits to today's Native Americans make an apology to them unnecessary at best and harmful at worst.

By the way, will you tell me if I make you vomit on your keyboard? :)

[Blackadar]

I'm still waiting on Galt to justify his "genocide" comment...

While I'm waiting, where can I turn in my "good liberal" card and get my Republican Darth Vader insignia?

[Tigercat]

If one decendent of Native Americans feels a little better from an apology and it rings hollow for everyone else in the country, it did enough good.

[JPhillips]

But it was the official policy of the United States government to forcibly remove the American Indians from their land. The apology would come from the government. While the people may be different the institution remains the same.

While I don't have any particular desire to see an apology, nor to I think it will do much, I can't abide by the argument that because these people are dead its over. Life doesn't work that way. Hell, the middle ages are still living history to many fighting cultures/religions. An apology from the US government for actions commited by the US government is appropriate.

[Joe]

While I'm waiting, where can I turn in my "good liberal" card and get my Republican Darth Vader insignia?


This guy can help you out...


http://www.patrickruffini.com/images/starwars/vader-press.jpg

[John Galt]

Genocide: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group

John, spreading unintentional sickness isn't genocide and that's how the vast majority of American Indians died. You can spin it any way you like, but it wasn't systematic nor was it planned. Therefore, it wasn't genocide. Period.

I understand that treaties were a pretty alien concept. In Native American tribes, if you didn't agree with the decision you could leave the tribe and you weren't bound by it. But that's not the fault of the Europeans. They made agreements and many of the Native American tribes broke them.

Didn't see your post the first time around. I blame the time stamp bug since it is responsible for all evils on this board.

First off, the question of whether the spread of disease was wholly unintentional is not a closed question. There is substantial documentation to show that it was often intentional (stories of smallbox laden blankets given as gifts, etc.)

Second, limiting genocide to entirely "intentional" acts is a major error, IMO. Reckless disregard for human life should also be included within the definition. Just as destroying habitats, wipes out species, the destruction and takings of lands contributed significantly to the eradication of American Indians. And the Genocide Convention (although too broad in other areas) agrees with me on this.

Third, the spread of disease was part of manifest destiny. It was a known and definitive result. Even had American settlers remained along the East coast, the damage would have been substantially lower. Instead, the continued takings of lands and pushing Westward resulted in millions of deaths.

Fourth, disease was an important demographic contributer to genocide, but you wholly ignore the numerous other ways American Indians were killed. Everything ranging from small-scale Indian hunts (often done on off weeks from fox hunts) to Army led invasions and massacres caused the deaths of whole tribes. Are you really arguing this point? If you are really saying this (and I hope you aren't), I don't see how this isn't different than Holocaust denial. Deniers argue that Jews were killed in many other ways and the numbers were way overblown. Given the incredible volume of evidence and history on this point, I don't know how you can deny numerous campaigns to kill Native Americans.

As to the treaties, you don't really answer the point that SOME tribes broke treaties, but many more didn't. Meanwhile, there were many more treaties broken by the U.S. Even when they weren't explicitly broken, they were "renegotiated" T.O. style at the barrel of a gun.

I mean really - are you arguing that there was no genocide of Native America?

[Warhammer]

Tons of populations developed without Western influence and "advanced" without the "benefits" of colonization. Countries such as Japan did it in a time period that puts the West to shame.

OK, name some. Plus, Japan did not advance without Western influence, there were missionaries in Japan as early as 1603, I believe. These missionaries brought western culture with them, and to stifle the spread of western culture, the missionaries were basically confined to certain port cities. Did Japan develop from 1603 to 1853? Not really. Now after 1870 what happened? Japan embraced Western culture and developed very rapidly because they knew what needed to be done!

Further, at the time, American Indians had numerous technological advantages over the West (although they were certainly fewer than the West had over them). Agriculture, in particular, is an area where many tribes had developed more effective systems than European powers.

The idea that American Indians were living in the Stone Age at the time of contact with the West is utter nonsense. The idea that numerous other countries made rapid advances in less time shows the how myopic it is to view American Indians a people trapped in time (some scholars refer to this as part of the "noble savage" assumption).

Agriculture systems depends in large part upon what you are growing. Plus, not all American Indians farmed. For example, did the terrace farming of the Incas make its way north to the Cherokee? I do not believe so.

However, by and large, most American Indians were in the Stone Age at the time of contact. Sure, there were some societies that did some metal work, but as a society they had not advanced to the Iron Age, or even the Bronze Age. Have we found any iron tipped arrows or axes?

I will also argue that my forefathers were not here at the time of Manifest Destiny. I have one grandmother that came here in 1945, another whose parents came off the boat in 1912, one grandfather whose parents came here in the 1890s, and another whose ancestors were here in the 1870s, and lived on the East Coast. So why should I have to apologize? It's the same reason why I do not believe any blacks should get reparations for slavery. It was a terrible time in our history, but neither I, nor my ancestors had anything to do with it!

Further, how far must we take this apologizing? Should I apologize to the descendants of the Hugeonauts (sp.?) since I have a French Catholic background? Oh wait, I don't need to apologize to their descendants because they are successful!

What about some of the descendants of the Roman Emperors, I want some apologies for the persecution of Christians 2000 years ago! They threw the Christians to the lions in the Collesium. I'm sure I had some ancestors that got tossed!

Let's apologize to Mexico for taking the American Southwest from them during the Mexican War (1846-48)!

Where do we draw the line with this thinking? What determines who deserves an apology and what doesn't?

[John Galt]

As the member of a group who came here after these atrocities took place, I don't feel responsible. My family has experienced plenty of discrimination, and the only real answer is to outwork, outplay, outwit and outfight those who can't see past the surface.

Yet, you enjoy hundreds of privileges because of the crimes of white Americans settling the U.S. To discount history and just start moral culpability at the beginning of your life strikes me as a convenient tool for the group in charge. Take the lands, kill the people, and 1 generation later you are in the clear.

Also, the discrimination against American Indians was a little different than experienced by other groups. They were sovereign nations (and still are quasi-sovereign today) that had their basic rights destroyed. This is not a case of someone getting denied a job because of the color of their skin - this is a case where a whole people was denied a right to live.

Any apology would be hollow. Did these particular senators and congressmen endorse the mistreatment of the Native Americans? Did I vote for someone, inadvertently, who supports the massacre of other races?

That's easy for you to say - you aren't the one being apologized too. I, probably more than others, doubt that an apology will accomplish much, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do (especially given the U.S. has refused to apologize for every generation since the massacres).

I'm an American, albeit one born outside the US. I don't consider myself as connected to any other country, through heritage or anything else. This is the country of opportunity. America isn't perfect, but AFAICT it's the most welcoming and supportive country in the history of mankind. Terrible mistakes have been made - like the internment, like slavery, like some (but not all) of the dealings with the Native Americans. They shouldn't be glossed over. Neither should people today be punished for the mistakes of those completely unrelated.

What a strange world where giving an apology could be considered "punish[ment] of those completely unrelated."

Someone mentioned that we benefit from the mistreatment - we stand on third base even though we may get there from an error, a walk and a double-play. I disagree. We all can fail, even with a lot of paper money at our disposal. And we all have the opportunity to make something of ourselves, as long as our parents just care a little bit. Try telling that to the Iraqis, who have witnessed hundreds of thousands of their countrymen slaughtered by the government in just the last 20 years. Or in any number of countries where the caste system is still very much alive and well.

On a totally separate issue, 100s of 1000s Iraqis were not "slaughtered by the government in the last 20 years." That number is just nonsense.

And what does any of this have to do with the fact that American Indians were slaughtered? Does injustice somewhere else means history never matters?

I think the apology would do more harm than good. Native American children do not need excuses for failure. They don't need special treatment. They do need more positive role models, and they need to understand the harsh reality that a truly equal society rewards strength, independence and hard work.

Again, it is easy to be paternalistic towards others, but if they want an apology (and many have for generations), then I think that is the least that can be done. And do you really believe a Navajo kid will stop working in school because the U.S. government finally issued an apology? Please.

[Klinglerware]

Someone mentioned that we benefit from the mistreatment - we stand on third base even though we may get there from an error, a walk and a double-play. I disagree. We all can fail, even with a lot of paper money at our disposal. And we all have the opportunity to make something of ourselves, as long as our parents just care a little bit.

I think the apology would do more harm than good. Native American children do not need excuses for failure. They don't need special treatment. They do need more positive role models, and they need to understand the harsh reality that a truly equal society rewards strength, independence and hard work.

I agree with you that everyone does have an opportunity to succeed or fail in this country. However, I disagree that everyone comes from the same starting point and I disagree that people have equal access to the pathways to success.

Take myself for instance. My parents could afford private school and test prep classes for me. My test scores gained me entre to an elite university, where I found that most of my fellow students were just like me: upper-middle and upper class (irrespective of race), almost half of whom were privately schooled, and almost everyone took an SAT class. As a graduate of said elite university, my future children are twice as likely to gain admission than a typical applicant to this school if they decide to apply. Yes, everyone has some level of opportunity, but some have more opportunities than others, and many of these opportunities are self-perpetuating.

Yes, an equal society does value strength, independence and hard work. There was a time in our country's history (as recently as 25 years ago), where one can succeed with those 3 attributes. Not anymore--our society values education much more these days. The paper is running a series on the subtle effects of class this week: there were the usual stories about hard-working Latino immigrants who can't seem to climb the economic ladder no matter how hard they worked, but more interestingly there were stories about college dropouts from Appalachia who chose to go to start work earlier instead of finishing school--their families and towns instilled in them a tremendous work-ethic, but not the importance of a college education. The ironic thing about the last group is that their strong belief in working hard actually held them back in attaining something that is even more valuable in our society, higher education.

Perhaps hard work alone would be enough in an equal society. But we don't live in one...

[John Galt]

Agricultural advance won't get you very far in a war.

Might makes Right. Spoken like a true Neocon.

I'm not much of a Rousseau man, so I don't really think of Native Americans pre-European contacts as "noble savages". And indigenous people might not have been trapped in time, but they certainly were moving at a snail's pace technologically speaking. If you're saying that Native Americans were as technologically advanced as the Europeans, then there's no way our government should be apologizing. We beat 'em in a fair fight, right?.

And so was Japan. Until the late 19th Century, the country was still a freakin feudal state with warlords. Guns were introduced centuries after they were in Europe. And yet, in 50 years time, they threatened the world, and within 100 years they had a technology industry competitive with the best of the West.

As for beating 'em fair - I don't believe their is ever a "fair" genocide. But I guess I'm just a crazy liberal that way.

I don't feel like the West had or has an obligation to "enlighten" or "develop" the uncivilized parts of the world. I just think the benefits to today's Native Americans make an apology to them unnecessary at best and harmful at worst.

By the way, will you tell me if I make you vomit on your keyboard? :)

All that you have done is remove the obligation part of colonization. You just say it is ok to murder, rape, and destroy a people if it is for their own good. Such paternalism is just disgusting, IMO.

And no, you don't make me vomit and I'm not really surprised. I see the invasion of Iraq today as premised on the same nonsense as the attacks on Native America. That you support one and the underlying neocon worldview means you should probably support the other. It's just sad to me that people feel they know what is best for the "uncivilized" parts of the world and that they will "kill them to save them."

[Blackadar]

Didn't see your post the first time around. I blame the time stamp bug since it is responsible for all evils on this board.

First off, the question of whether the spread of disease was wholly unintentional is not a closed question. There is substantial documentation to show that it was often intentional (stories of smallbox laden blankets given as gifts, etc.)

Second, limiting genocide to entirely "intentional" acts is a major error, IMO. Reckless disregard for human life should also be included within the definition. Just as destroying habitats, wipes out species, the destruction and takings of lands contributed significantly to the eradication of American Indians. And the Genocide Convention (although too broad in other areas) agrees with me on this.

Third, the spread of disease was part of manifest destiny. It was a known and definitive result. Even had American settlers remained along the East coast, the damage would have been substantially lower. Instead, the continued takings of lands and pushing Westward resulted in millions of deaths.

Fourth, disease was an important demographic contributer to genocide, but you wholly ignore the numerous other ways American Indians were killed. Everything ranging from small-scale Indian hunts (often done on off weeks from fox hunts) to Army led invasions and massacres caused the deaths of whole tribes. Are you really arguing this point? If you are really saying this (and I hope you aren't), I don't see how this isn't different than Holocaust denial. Deniers argue that Jews were killed in many other ways and the numbers were way overblown. Given the incredible volume of evidence and history on this point, I don't know how you can deny numerous campaigns to kill Native Americans.

As to the treaties, you don't really answer the point that SOME tribes broke treaties, but many more didn't. Meanwhile, there were many more treaties broken by the U.S. Even when they weren't explicitly broken, they were "renegotiated" T.O. style at the barrel of a gun.

I mean really - are you arguing that there was no genocide of Native America?

No, there was no genocide of Native Americans.

Genocide is DEFINED as the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. That's not an opinion, that's the simple definition from Dictionary.com. So, by definition, you need to show that the deaths of Native Americans were systematic and planned. I doubt you can find any documentation of a planned extermination of the entire group.

Were there people who advocated the extermination of the entire group? Yes.
Were there people who probably even tried to exterminate them? Yes.
Was it systematic, planned or widespread by an entity powerful enough to actually accomplsih this? No.

There's a huge difference between the Jews of WWII and the Native Americans. Don't confuse the two.

There were campaigns to kill Natives by Eurpoeans. There were campaigns to kill Europeans by Natives. It was more of an undeclared war than anything else. One side just happened to also carry diseases that killed the other and that was ultimately the deciding factor in that war.

[ISiddiqui]

Really guys... it's just a freaking apology. I mean, we aren't saying we'll pay them reperations (which is something I am opposed to, because that is actively penalizing people today who had nothing to do with the horrid conditions). We are just saying sorry for our actions.

The US government did act under a policy to conquer native American land and slaughter them. General Sherman said "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" and the Battle of Wounded Knee wasn't the only place we killed unarmed natives.

It's just an apology. We should be able to say that we are sorry for what our government and ancestors did without all this much fuss, IMO.

[Warhammer]

First off, the question of whether the spread of disease was wholly unintentional is not a closed question. There is substantial documentation to show that it was often intentional (stories of smallbox laden blankets given as gifts, etc.)

Wow, hell just froze over, I agree with you on something... This has been WELL documented that smallpox was intentionally spread to the American Indians.

Second, limiting genocide to entirely "intentional" acts is a major error, IMO. Reckless disregard for human life should also be included within the definition. Just as destroying habitats, wipes out species, the destruction and takings of lands contributed significantly to the eradication of American Indians. And the Genocide Convention (although too broad in other areas) agrees with me on this.

Killing someone 300 miles away because I sneeze is not genocide. The minute that contact was made with Columbus, a large percentage of the Native American population in the New World was doomed to die. There are some figures that state as much as 75% of the native american population was killed off by 1650 due to disease.

I mean really - are you arguing that there was no genocide of Native America?

I would not call what was done genocide. There were efforts made to take land from the Native Americans over a period of years. When I think of genocide, I think of a concerted effort to eradicate an entire race. The American Indians were pushed back over the course of 300 years, 1603 to roughly 1900. I would hardly call that genocide. Was it unfortunate, yes. Were there wars? Yes.

[st.cronin]

I think this should wait until I get my 40 acres and a mule.

[John Galt]

OK, name some. Plus, Japan did not advance without Western influence, there were missionaries in Japan as early as 1603, I believe. These missionaries brought western culture with them, and to stifle the spread of western culture, the missionaries were basically confined to certain port cities. Did Japan develop from 1603 to 1853? Not really. Now after 1870 what happened? Japan embraced Western culture and developed very rapidly because they knew what needed to be done!

Isn't it strange how Japan managed to get "Western influence" without having been conquered, colonized, and having its people wiped out? Imagine that, they got Western influence and we didn't have to rape and murder the people to do it. That's crazy talk.

And Japan did not "embrace Western culture" to become techological. That is just crazy talk. There are different methods of development and progress than those used by the West. And as anyone who has played Civ knows, you can trade technologies to make big leaps, but that doesn't mean you have to change your government (or cultural) type.

Agriculture systems depends in large part upon what you are growing. Plus, not all American Indians farmed. For example, did the terrace farming of the Incas make its way north to the Cherokee? I do not believe so.

However, by and large, most American Indians were in the Stone Age at the time of contact. Sure, there were some societies that did some metal work, but as a society they had not advanced to the Iron Age, or even the Bronze Age. Have we found any iron tipped arrows or axes?

Again, you are using "metal" as the defining element of civilization. Many American Indians also didn't have the "wheel." Strangely, though, some nations had a more accurate calender, better astronomy, more developed systems of math, better agriculture, and highly advanced art. But if the lack of "metal" means you can be conquered, then you are right.

I will also argue that my forefathers were not here at the time of Manifest Destiny. I have one grandmother that came here in 1945, another whose parents came off the boat in 1912, one grandfather whose parents came here in the 1890s, and another whose ancestors were here in the 1870s, and lived on the East Coast. So why should I have to apologize? It's the same reason why I do not believe any blacks should get reparations for slavery. It was a terrible time in our history, but neither I, nor my ancestors had anything to do with it.

Wow, I guess I'm in the clear too. I'm the first generation born in this country. Somehow, though, I still think the US governments role in things means it should probably apologize. And I tend to think my life would be way different but for the atrocities committed against Native Americans.

Further, how far must we take this apologizing? Should I apologize to the descendants of the Hugeonauts (sp.?) since I have a French Catholic background? Oh wait, I don't need to apologize to their descendants because they are successful!

You know what happens when people apologize too much? I mean, really, that's scary to think we could actually do that. I mean what madness that would bring to the world. You know what they say, apologizing too much makes a person humble and good. We wouldn't want that.

And how about the simple fact that OUR GOVERNMENT ORCHESTRATED THE ANNIHILATION OF A PEOPLES AND EXISTS ONLY BECAUSE OF THAT ANNILIHATION. I think that is a little more important than apologizing to the Hugeonauts.

[Warhammer]

Really guys... it's just a freaking apology. I mean, we aren't saying we'll pay them reperations (which is something I am opposed to, because that is actively penalizing people today who had nothing to do with the horrid conditions). We are just saying sorry for our actions.

The US government did act under a policy to conquer native American land and slaughter them. General Sherman said "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" and the Battle of Wounded Knee wasn't the only place we killed unarmed natives.

It's just an apology. We should be able to say that we are sorry for what our government and ancestors did without all this much fuss, IMO.

You're telling me that our government does not have more important things to do then debate whether or not we should apologize for something that happened 100 years ago?

I think that any apology would be hollow. None of us were around during the time that these events took place. Because of that, anything that is done is just words. If that is the case, why take up the time of the Senate?

[Blackadar]

Yet, you enjoy hundreds of privileges because of the crimes of white Americans settling the U.S. To discount history and just start moral culpability at the beginning of your life strikes me as a convenient tool for the group in charge. Take the lands, kill the people, and 1 generation later you are in the clear.

John, how the hell in any way am I responsible for where/how I was born? That's just patently absurd. Part of my family settled on Plymouth Rock. This is somehow my responsibility? I'm big on personal responsibility. I'm not big on collective guilt.


Also, the discrimination against American Indians was a little different than experienced by other groups. They were sovereign nations (and still are quasi-sovereign today) that had their basic rights destroyed. This is not a case of someone getting denied a job because of the color of their skin - this is a case where a whole people was denied a right to live.

I wouldn't argue that Colonization was always a good thing. But some of those sovereign nations made treaties and then violated them. War erupted.



That's easy for you to say - you aren't the one being apologized too. I, probably more than others, doubt that an apology will accomplish much, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do (especially given the U.S. has refused to apologize for every generation since the massacres).

In the USA, the Government is for the people and by the people. Therefore, by extention, an apology is by the US Government if from the people. And I don't feel one iota of need to apologize for the actions of other people.



What a strange world where giving an apology could be considered "punish[ment] of those completely unrelated."

What happens if the courts find that, because of the apology, the US Government (and as a result, the citizens of the USA) was liable for damages to the Native Americans. That's then my money - and therefore we would be punished. I don't really see the apology itself as punishment, but I don't see it as necessary either. The "crimes" were 150-300 years ago. Should we apologize for slavery too? How about to Mexico over Texas? Where does it stop? If I'm a Jew, do I need to apologize to all Christians for killing Jesus? How about to the Muslims for the Crusades as a Christian?

Sorry, but I just don't get off on this collective guilt thing.

[John Galt]

No, there was no genocide of Native Americans.

Genocide is DEFINED as the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. That's not an opinion, that's the simple definition from Dictionary.com. So, by definition, you need to show that the deaths of Native Americans were systematic and planned. I doubt you can find any documentation of a planned extermination of the entire group.

Were there people who advocated the extermination of the entire group? Yes.
Were there people who probably even tried to exterminate them? Yes.
Was it systematic, planned or widespread by an entity powerful enough to actually accomplsih this? No.

There's a huge difference between the Jews of WWII and the Native Americans. Don't confuse the two.

There were campaigns to kill Natives by Eurpoeans. There were campaigns to kill Europeans by Natives. It was more of an undeclared war than anything else. One side just happened to also carry diseases that killed the other and that was ultimately the deciding factor in that war.

Wow, if you are really going to defend this, then I can't really say anything other than do some reading. My favorites include:

The State of Native America - I think the editor was Jaimes and it was published in 91 or 92. I think it even has a random chapter by Ward Churchill, so that should freak people out. Of course, the opening chapter is all that matters.

Anything written by the the Deloria family. They do some wonderful history.

There is a legal scholar named Robert Williams who has written some great articles, but I think they are all in law reviews.

Robert Clinton is another legal scholar who has written thorough histories detailing a record of genocide.

David Stannard also has a definitive text, but I think it lacks a lot of footnote substantiation (that I'm used to because I mostly read legal writing).

There are tons of historians out there who have written on this, and most of the deniers are using sources from the 1930's and earlier to defend U.S. policies.

Really, Blackie - I think you are totally out to lunch on this and I don't want to insult you, but I wonder where you learned this version of history. Just look at what Andrew Jackson did (after a lot of the genocide had already occurred) to get a flavor of human depravity. The early colonial governments issued mass poisonings, intentionally transferred diseases, organized hunts with dogs of Native women and children, burned hundreds of villages to the ground, adopted to shoot-on-sight policies, destroyed thousands of acres of native crops to starve people, etc. The English colonies and later the U.S. government called their policy a "Policy of Extermination." How is that not "genocide?" General Sherman in ordering the attacks on Indians called for the death of every Indian man, woman, and child.

The numbers of American Indians killed (low estimates from decent scholarly sources puts death tolls at 97% of pre-contact population killed) is such that simply blaming disease is short-sighted. While the U.S. did not organize death camps like the Nazis (because they didn't need to), the actual death toll as a percentage of the total population dwarfs most other historical genocides.

[sterlingice]

If one decendent of Native Americans feels a little better from an apology and it rings hollow for everyone else in the country, it did enough good.
Statement, meet response posted a couple of posts above you.

I think the apology would do more harm than good. Native American children do not need excuses for failure. They don't need special treatment. They do need more positive role models, and they need to understand the harsh reality that a truly equal society rewards strength, independence and hard work.
SI

[Desnudo]

I think this should wait until I get my 40 acres and a mule.

Maybe you'd be able to hide it on your 40 acres, but that sort of thing is illegal and, quite frankly, disgusting.

[rkmsuf]

Maybe you'd be able to hide it on your 40 acres, but that sort of thing is illegal and, quite frankly, disgusting.

I mean who really wants a mule?

[John Galt]

John, how the hell in any way am I responsible for where/how I was born? That's just patently absurd. Part of my family settled on Plymouth Rock. This is somehow my responsibility? I'm big on personal responsibility. I'm not big on collective guilt.

As I said, I'm really a first generationer myself, but I think two facts stand out:

First, I experience thousands of privileges on a daily basis because of the sins of white settlers. I can't just pretend it didn't happen and because I "profit" from those sins, I don't think it is right to ignore them. It isn't about my guilt as much it is about my continuing benefit.

Second, the US government committed these sins. When that government still exists (and exists because of those sins), it should apologize.

What happens if the courts find that, because of the apology, the US Government (and as a result, the citizens of the USA) was liable for damages to the Native Americans. That's then my money - and therefore we would be punished. I don't really see the apology itself as punishment, but I don't see it as necessary either. The "crimes" were 150-300 years ago. Should we apologize for slavery too? How about to Mexico over Texas? Where does it stop? If I'm a Jew, do I need to apologize to all Christians for killing Jesus? How about to the Muslims for the Crusades as a Christian?

Sorry, but I just don't get off on this collective guilt thing.

This is really just paranoia and nonsense about the lawsuit. A group filing a suit for race riots that occurred just 50 years ago has had their suit barred by statute of limitations - there is NO WAY American Indians could collect. Further, an apology has occurred for many other horrible acts (including slavery - so you are a little late on that one) and no lawsuits have succeeded.

Blackie, I know you don't like Bush. Don't you hate it when he refuses to admit mistakes and apologize for anything? Well, I think that is how a lot of American Indians view the entire U.S. government. You don't have to agree, but like Bush, I think we should suck it up, admit mistakes, and apologize.

[sterlingice]

I think this should wait until I get my 40 acres and a mule.
www.kansasfreeland.com Have at it ;)

SI

[JPhillips]

Blackie: Again, its not a collective guilt thing. The government of the United States pursued policies designed to kill and/or remove American Indians. The institution that is the US government should apologize for actions that were clearly in violation of the laws and beliefs of said institution.

The best example of this is Pope John Paul 2 apologizing for the Catholic Church's actions toward the Jews in WW2. JP2 didn't commit any objectionable acts, nor did any of the then current cardinals, but the institution of the church was giulty of violating its stated mission. It wasn''t a case of all catholics being collectively guilty, it was simply an apology by the institution of the church.

That's all this would be. It wouldn't make us legally liable although I'm sure some plaintiff's attorneys would try to say it does. It wouldn't condemn all Europeans. It wouldn't give American Indians an excuse for failure. It would be a realistic admission that the US government pursued policies that were clearly at odds with the idea that all men are created equal.

[Solecismic]

Yet, you enjoy hundreds of privileges because of the crimes of white Americans settling the U.S. To discount history and just start moral culpability at the beginning of your life strikes me as a convenient tool for the group in charge. Take the lands, kill the people, and 1 generation later you are in the clear.

It's also convenient to ignore what I said. It goes back to when my family was chased out of another country, under threat of similar racial extinction.

Not all white people are alike. We come from different backgrounds, have entirely different heritage. Discrimination against certain groups of white people was quite active even in the last 50 years.

My father was told flat out he would be a good chairman of his department, potentially on track for much bigger promotions, if not for his heritage. This to a man who volunteered at age 17 to serve in WWII (he started college early, so no one thought to ask his age).

Presumably, I've suffered because he never got promoted. I don't think so, except maybe in an economic sense. But I'm doing fine. I don't worry about it. What he gave me has little to do with money, just a healthy respect for earning what I do have.


Also, the discrimination against American Indians was a little different than experienced by other groups. They were sovereign nations (and still are quasi-sovereign today) that had their basic rights destroyed. This is not a case of someone getting denied a job because of the color of their skin - this is a case where a whole people was denied a right to live.

Had my great grandparents stayed where they were, a similar fate would have claimed them. My sympathies are always with those under attack.


On a totally separate issue, 100s of 1000s Iraqis were not "slaughtered by the government in the last 20 years." That number is just nonsense.

And what does any of this have to do with the fact that American Indians were slaughtered? Does injustice somewhere else means history never matters?

No, John, it isn't. At least according to Human Rights Watch.

I'm using that as an example that current (or very recently current) regimes actively endorse genocide. I would hope (and assert) that if someone in America started wiping out the remaining Native Americans, there would be mass condemnation and active resistence on the part of the people and the government.



Again, it is easy to be paternalistic towards others, but if they want an apology (and many have for generations), then I think that is the least that can be done. And do you really believe a Navajo kid will stop working in school because the U.S. government finally issued an apology? Please.

No. Again, you're deliberately misunderstanding my words. I'm saying it will be used as an excuse for failure. These kids, in many cases, are being told they will fail because the people are against them. Any apology reinforces that perception that they are damaged goods.

You're the one being paternalistic. The biggest favor we can do anyone is a truly equal playing field. A-Rod isn't the best player in the game because he drives a nice car to the stadium.

[ISiddiqui]

You're telling me that our government does not have more important things to do then debate whether or not we should apologize for something that happened 100 years ago?

I think that any apology would be hollow. None of us were around during the time that these events took place. Because of that, anything that is done is just words. If that is the case, why take up the time of the Senate?
Because we should be reminded from time to time that the US should live up to its moral standards. That involves apologizing for treating groups of people like pond scum, as official government policy. It was wrong for us to do in the context of today's morality and we should uphold that our government is sorry for the role we had in that atrocity.

[Warhammer]

Isn't it strange how Japan managed to get "Western influence" without having been conquered, colonized, and having its people wiped out? Imagine that, they got Western influence and we didn't have to rape and murder the people to do it. That's crazy talk.

And Japan did not "embrace Western culture" to become techological. That is just crazy talk. There are different methods of development and progress than those used by the West. And as anyone who has played Civ knows, you can trade technologies to make big leaps, but that doesn't mean you have to change your government (or cultural) type.

Not at all, but Japan needed to get the know-how to do certain things from the West. Nowhere have I argued that they needed to be conquered, enslaved, or killed, to become "civilized." They were civilized, but Japan was not as advanced as the West.

They also Westernized so they would no longer negotiate with the West looking down the barrel of a gun! So yes, they did Westernize to become technological. However, they did not give up all of their traditions and religion in doing so. They did do away with the Samurai and the Shogunate during the Mejii Restoration to help speed the Westernization. So they did change their culture.

Complete side point, one of the reasons why the early missionaries were confined to port cities was to stop the spread of Western civilization to the masses. At one time, Japan was at the forefront of gun technology, but after Tokugawa gained power he had all guns and gun smithies destroyed to prevent the power passing to the masses. Also, many Samurai converted to Christianity because it fit in well with their belief system. However, Christianity was outlawed at one point (I could be wrong about this point).

Again, you are using "metal" as the defining element of civilization. Many American Indians also didn't have the "wheel." Strangely, though, some nations had a more accurate calender, better astronomy, more developed systems of math, better agriculture, and highly advanced art. But if the lack of "metal" means you can be conquered, then you are right.

Well it is a measure of how advanced a civilization is. We do not refer to the "Accurate Calendar" Minoan civilization. It is the Bronze Age Minoan civilization. Further, not all of the American Indians were as advanced as you claim. Most of the advances you cite were advances made by the Aztecs, Mayans, or the Incas. Not all Native American civilizations had achieved these goals. I also question whether they had more developed systems of math at the time of contact. The Mayans did have an advanced mathematic system, but their time of empire was 700 years in the past when Cortez made contact with the Aztecs. I know the Incas had very little in the way of math.

Basically, taken as a whole, these civilizations had advanced very little compared to the West from 0 BC on. There is very little to support that they would have advanced rapidly from that point on. For reading on this subject, I suggest "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

Also, let's not forget, many of the Indian tribes here helped defeat some of the civilizations. The Spanish could not have conquered the Aztecs without the help of the Tlaloc (sp.?) tribe in Central Mexico.

Wow, I guess I'm in the clear too. I'm the first generation born in this country. Somehow, though, I still think the US governments role in things means it should probably apologize. And I tend to think my life would be way different but for the atrocities committed against Native Americans.

Congratulations on being in the clear! So you are saying that unless the US took land from the Native Americans we would not be as advanced as we are? All I can say is wow...

You know what happens when people apologize too much? I mean, really, that's scary to think we could actually do that. I mean what madness that would bring to the world. You know what they say, apologizing too much makes a person humble and good. We wouldn't want that.

I have no problem with a HEARTFELT APOLOGY. All that these political people are doing is trying to get additional votes for the next run by saying "I apologized for what we did to (insert name of group here)."

And how about the simple fact that OUR GOVERNMENT ORCHESTRATED THE ANNIHILATION OF A PEOPLES AND EXISTS ONLY BECAUSE OF THAT ANNILIHATION. I think that is a little more important than apologizing to the Hugeonauts.

Uh... So our government, which by what I am reading, which exists only because the Indians were annihilated, is responsible for annihilating them. So the lives of the Indians are more important than those of others that were killed? So some lives have more worth than others?

Our government exists because we desired to be ruled by ourselves rather than the King of England.

[John Galt]

It's also convenient to ignore what I said. It goes back to when my family was chased out of another country, under threat of similar racial extinction.

Not all white people are alike. We come from different backgrounds, have entirely different heritage. Discrimination against certain groups of white people was quite active even in the last 50 years.

My father was told flat out he would be a good chairman of his department, potentially on track for much bigger promotions, if not for his heritage. This to a man who volunteered at age 17 to serve in WWII (he started college early, so no one thought to ask his age).

Presumably, I've suffered because he never got promoted. I don't think so, except maybe in an economic sense. But I'm doing fine. I don't worry about it. What he gave me has little to do with money, just a healthy respect for earning what I do have.

And I have never said all whites are equal. My family is Irish and has a long history connected to various problems with the damned English. That, though, is really different than the problems suffered by American Indians. And I hate to see the exception be used to prove some rule. Also, this isn't necessarily (although I do believe it is) about what whites did - as JPhillips and others have stated, it is about what the US did.

As I said earlier, they were sovereign nations that were annihilated by various means. After the U.S. adopted adopted the constitution and was supposed to protect American Indian nations, it continued the policy of extermination. The scale of destruction is, in some ways, unparalleled throughout modern history. To say that no apology is necessary is just weird to me. Would an apology have been justified as the massacres were occuring? How about 10 years later? 25? How about now since ever prior administration has refused?

No, John, it isn't. At least according to Human Rights Watch.

I think you are conflating "slaughtered" with "died under the regime of." I don't dispute the later, but I'd like to see any documentation for the former (other than sources that make the same conflation I think you did). If I'm wrong, let me know, but every study I read showed the numbers from starvation were by far the largest portion (and that is why I supported lifting sanctions instead of going to war), but if I'm wrong, I'd be interested to see it.

No. Again, you're deliberately misunderstanding my words. I'm saying it will be used as an excuse for failure. These kids, in many cases, are being told they will fail because the people are against them. Any apology reinforces that perception that they are damaged goods.

You're the one being paternalistic. The biggest favor we can do anyone is a truly equal playing field. A-Rod isn't the best player in the game because he drives a nice car to the stadium.

And I think the "excuse for failure" just doesn't make sense in the real world. Apologies do not diminish self-esteem or make people less likely to try after they have failed. And so, I don't think I'm misunderstanding you - I'm disagreeing with your empirical claim.

As for me being paternalistic, that is a larger debate, but I do think construining an apology that has been requested for 100s of years as a disservice is the very essence of paternalism. You are saying you know better than American Indians what is good for them and so you don't support an apology.

[Warhammer]

Because we should be reminded from time to time that the US should live up to its moral standards. That involves apologizing for treating groups of people like pond scum, as official government policy. It was wrong for us to do in the context of today's morality and we should uphold that our government is sorry for the role we had in that atrocity.

So why are we just apologizing to the American Indians. Why not go for the blanket "Mea Culpa" and be done with it?

Again, I ask why is it so important that we need to debate this in Congress? Is this going to change the lives of any of the remaining American Indians? No. This is a lot like a UN Resolution condeming Israel, Iran, Iraq, or North Korea for something. A lot of words and no real change in the situation.

Is the fact that we drove the American Indians off the land the way it happened any worse than if we just declared war and pushed them off of it in one fell swoop? If there had been a declared war, would we be apologizing now, or need to?

[dawgfan]

Lots of issues at stake here in this discussion. A few thoughts:

- Many people here are equating a formal U.S. Government apology with you and me and everyone else personally apologizing for what happened to Native Americans. I guess I don't look at it that way - I don't see a formal apology by our government as a de facto admission that I personally bear some responsibility for what happened in the past. Instead, I simply see it as a recognition that our goverment engaged in behavior in the past towards Native Americans that is worthy of regret. Do I personally feel responsible for what happened? Of course not. But I still recognize that what our country did was, in many cases, appalling and worthy or regret.

- I fail to see how a formal apology by our government makes it any more likely that Native Americans will use this as justification for blaming their failures on the U.S. Government - you think they don't do this already?

- Blackie brings up a valid point regarding whether a formal apology opens up liability concerns for financial reparations. However, I doubt it would make much of a real legal impact. I could be way off since I'm not a legal expert, but I have my doubts that a lack of a formal apology by the U.S. Government has had a significant bearing on any previous attempts by Native groups seeking damages from the government - it would really boil down to displaying evidence that certain actions resulted in damage being done and whether or not there was justification for providing reparations.

- There's obviously a wide disparity in opinions of just how bad the actions of our government were on the Natives. Given the basic facts though, it would seem that at best, the U.S. waged a number of aggressive wars/campaigns to expand its' territory at the expense of the Native tribes already in place; essentially, we did so because our superior technology (and the disease factor) allowed us to, regardless of whether doing so was morally "right".

- Regarding Jim's point regarding whether the mistreatment of Natives has resulted in an advantage for the U.S., while I respect the notion that being born in a family of means doesn't guarantee success and being born in the bottom rungs of our society doesn't guarantee failure, they sure as hell do provide dramatic differences in your starting position and how much you have to overcome to succeed. You can't dispute that the relentless claiming of this continent by our government yielded a tremendous windfall of natural resources which made it easier for this country to grow into the superpower role we've inhabited for nearly a century. Those resources obviously were not the only factor, but they were a major benefit.

[dawgfan]

Is the fact that we drove the American Indians off the land the way it happened any worse than if we just declared war and pushed them off of it in one fell swoop? If there had been a declared war, would we be apologizing now, or need to?

Depends on the reasoning behind the war. There's a difference between defending ourselves and aggressively claiming territory through war simply because we can and we want to.

[John Galt]

Not at all, but Japan needed to get the know-how to do certain things from the West. Nowhere have I argued that they needed to be conquered, enslaved, or killed, to become "civilized." They were civilized, but Japan was not as advanced as the West..

I know you didn't, but my point was in reference to the statement made by Cam that American Indians would have remained trapped in the stone age. Seeing Japan even as late as the 19th Century would have led to the same conclusion. I'm arguing that it is arrogant to say American Indians would not have advanced or changed in 400 years. We don't know what would have happened, but Japan shows you can make big leaps in a small amount of time (without the "help" of conquering that Cam defended).

They also Westernized so they would no longer negotiate with the West looking down the barrel of a gun! So yes, they did Westernize to become technological. However, they did not give up all of their traditions and religion in doing so. They did do away with the Samurai and the Shogunate during the Mejii Restoration to help speed the Westernization. So they did change their culture.

Again, I think you are calling all development "westernization." The Japanese model (and indeed many other Asian nations) have followed developed in ways very different than the U.S. and Europe. Just because they build TV's does not mean they westernized.

Complete side point, one of the reasons why the early missionaries were confined to port cities was to stop the spread of Western civilization to the masses. At one time, Japan was at the forefront of gun technology, but after Tokugawa gained power he had all guns and gun smithies destroyed to prevent the power passing to the masses. Also, many Samurai converted to Christianity because it fit in well with their belief system. However, Christianity was outlawed at one point (I could be wrong about this point).

There is no denying Japan's historical and even current xenophobia and that is why there development path was very different.

Well it is a measure of how advanced a civilization is. We do not refer to the "Accurate Calendar" Minoan civilization. It is the Bronze Age Minoan civilization. Further, not all of the American Indians were as advanced as you claim. Most of the advances you cite were advances made by the Aztecs, Mayans, or the Incas. Not all Native American civilizations had achieved these goals. I also question whether they had more developed systems of math at the time of contact. The Mayans did have an advanced mathematic system, but their time of empire was 700 years in the past when Cortez made contact with the Aztecs. I know the Incas had very little in the way of math.

I agree that American Indians developed very unevenly. This was also true for a time in Europe. However, once information and technology sharing become the norm, development accelerated. Who knows what would have happened in time with Native tribes?

Basically, taken as a whole, these civilizations had advanced very little compared to the West from 0 BC on. There is very little to support that they would have advanced rapidly from that point on. For reading on this subject, I suggest "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

While I do have problems with many things in that book, I do feel overall it is right on this point. However, I'm not arguing that American Indians were developing at a slower pace. I'm arguing 1) development occurs at an uneven rate and passed slow development is not an indicator that it won't accelerate in the future (Japan and many SE Asian nations illustrate this point) and 2) You don't need to be conquered to gain outside knowledge (as Cam's defense of destroying Native America implicitly supports).

I have no problem with a HEARTFELT APOLOGY. All that these political people are doing is trying to get additional votes for the next run by saying "I apologized for what we did to (insert name of group here."

This is a very different argument than others are making here. I think there are certainly political motivations, but, to me, that isn't a reason not do it. Sometimes political motives result in doing the right thing.

Uh... So our government, which by what I am reading, which exists only because the Indians were annihilated, is responsible for annihilating them. So the lives of the Indians are more important than those of others that were killed? So some lives have more worth than others?

Our government exists because we desired to be ruled by ourselves rather than the King of England.

You lost me. I believe all lives are equal. I don't know where I said otherwise. And I'm not sure what that has to do with an apology.

[Arles]

Sen. John McCain, who chairs the Senate's Committee on Indian Affairs, said he will try and help the resolution reach the full Senate
John must have gotten some polling data in Arizona showing he was slipping with the Native Americans.

Tangential observation: The current New Yorker piece on McCain alludes to him being an avid gambler.
Comes back to the polling issue. All the casinos in Arizona are run by Native Americans - every vote counts.

Can someone point out what the negative ramifications are of this proposed apology? I'm open to being convinced either way on this, but my inclination is to think a formal, governmental apology is a good thing in this situation for symbolic reasons.
A good 2-3 weeks of American bashing by groups that would normally be harping on Guantanamo, Iraq, the evils of capitalism and the environment. So, in reality, next to nothing. That is, unless one of these kooky reparations groups can somehow use this to promote some lawsuit against the US on the Native American behalf. That said, I don't think it really solves anything either.

[st.cronin]

John McCain spends 14 hours straight playing craps in order to lock up some votes? Man, I should have gone into politics...

[Blackadar]

Wow, if you are really going to defend this, then I can't really say anything other than do some reading. My favorites include:

The State of Native America - I think the editor was Jaimes and it was published in 91 or 92. I think it even has a random chapter by Ward Churchill, so that should freak people out. Of course, the opening chapter is all that matters.

Anything written by the the Deloria family. They do some wonderful history.

There is a legal scholar named Robert Williams who has written some great articles, but I think they are all in law reviews.

Robert Clinton is another legal scholar who has written thorough histories detailing a record of genocide.

David Stannard also has a definitive text, but I think it lacks a lot of footnote substantiation (that I'm used to because I mostly read legal writing).

There are tons of historians out there who have written on this, and most of the deniers are using sources from the 1930's and earlier to defend U.S. policies.

Really, Blackie - I think you are totally out to lunch on this and I don't want to insult you, but I wonder where you learned this version of history. Just look at what Andrew Jackson did (after a lot of the genocide had already occurred) to get a flavor of human depravity. The early colonial governments issued mass poisonings, intentionally transferred diseases, organized hunts with dogs of Native women and children, burned hundreds of villages to the ground, adopted to shoot-on-sight policies, destroyed thousands of acres of native crops to starve people, etc. The English colonies and later the U.S. government called their policy a "Policy of Extermination." How is that not "genocide?" General Sherman in ordering the attacks on Indians called for the death of every Indian man, woman, and child.

The numbers of American Indians killed (low estimates from decent scholarly sources puts death tolls at 97% of pre-contact population killed) is such that simply blaming disease is short-sighted. While the U.S. did not organize death camps like the Nazis (because they didn't need to), the actual death toll as a percentage of the total population dwarfs most other historical genocides.

You know Jon, I don't see where any of you apologists talk about the American Indians raiding villages and killing every many, woman and child. I don't see where you talk about them killing settlers' cattle, burning crops and the like. Guess what? It happened.

Sometimes it was in retaliation to settlers' actions. Sometimes it wasn't and instigated by the Indians themselves. Settlers were attacked and often butchered by Indian tribes. In fact, one of the most likely explanations for the "lost colony" of Roanoke - the very first English settlement in North America - is that they were butchered by the hostile chief Powhatan. How about the Jamestown massacre in 1622? Wyoming Village (PA) and Cherry Valley(NY) in 1778? Fort William Henry in 1757? All of these were early massacres by Indians on Europeans. I'm sure that these early incidents - right or wrong - had a profound effect on later decisions in dealing with other Native tribes.

I don't advocate the actions of our governmental leaders at the time. But I also believe the Native tribes culpable as well. And I don't see anyone asking them to apologize for their actions. Nor do I want them to. It wasn't done by me, to me or for me and I don't see where actions from hundreds of years ago now need to be apologized for.

As for the Pope's apology, that was different. He was apologizing to people who actually lived and experienced the Catholic Church's willingness to exterminate the Jews. There's the difference, and it's a pretty big one.

Overall, I just think it's unnecessary and accomplishes nothing beyond "the white man was bad." Well, the red man was, too.

[Warhammer]

Again, I think you are calling all development "westernization." The Japanese model (and indeed many other Asian nations) have followed developed in ways very different than the U.S. and Europe. Just because they build TV's does not mean they westernized.

I agree that American Indians developed very unevenly. This was also true for a time in Europe. However, once information and technology sharing become the norm, development accelerated. Who knows what would have happened in time with Native tribes?

While I do have problems with many things in that book, I do feel overall it is right on this point. However, I'm not arguing that American Indians were developing at a slower pace. I'm arguing 1) development occurs at an uneven rate and passed slow development is not an indicator that it won't accelerate in the future (Japan and many SE Asian nations illustrate this point) and 2) You don't need to be conquered to gain outside knowledge (as Cam's defense of destroying Native America implicitly supports).

I think I see where we differ here.... I would argue that most of Asia is "Westernized" because they have adopted much of our culture, government type, economic models, etc. There are differences to be sure, but they have adopted much from our culture.

Japan and much of the East developed rapidly after it had been exposed to Western ideas. However, much of this was due to being a centralized society which the American Indian tribes were not.

It also helps when ideas are diffuse easily in an area. In Eurasia, they were able to spread relatively easily because there were few barriers to the spread of ideas/civilizations. In the Americas though most societies were isolated from one another, so the spread of ideas was slower, and this stifled development. Sure they would have progressed but at a far slower rate than the rest of the world.

Out of curiosity, where did you disagree with "Guns, Germs, and Steel"?

[ISiddiqui]

So why are we just apologizing to the American Indians. Why not go for the blanket "Mea Culpa" and be done with it?

Again, I ask why is it so important that we need to debate this in Congress? Is this going to change the lives of any of the remaining American Indians? No. This is a lot like a UN Resolution condeming Israel, Iran, Iraq, or North Korea for something. A lot of words and no real change in the situation.

Is the fact that we drove the American Indians off the land the way it happened any worse than if we just declared war and pushed them off of it in one fell swoop? If there had been a declared war, would we be apologizing now, or need to?
Because it is a black mark on this country's history that our government endorsed. IIRC, we have apologized to African Americans for slavery (I believe President Clinton did it). I don't see why we shouldn't apologize for our actions. People praised Pope John Paul II for coming to terms with the the Catholic Church's past. It is time we did the same.

As for declaring war, Germany has apologized for World War II, which was a declared war.

[John Galt]

Since I clearly have to get back to work, I offer a concluding thought from my favorite song on the subject. It is a rap by the Goats called Tricks of the Shade (on the same named album which may be the best political rap album after Fear of a Black Planet):

(I can't believe the lyrics aren't online so I have to do this from my bad memory)

Columbus killed more Indians than Hitler killed Jews
But on his birthday, you get sales on shoes.

This is all old news
But I'm afraid you can't find it
It's news you lose
So I choose to rewind it

They should have scalped his ass
Before he even touched sand
Every thing was grand until 1609
That's when the winy swindlers started freezing and starving.

But who do they turn to when there times get hard
I beg your pardon punk but that shit's shady.
You want relief from the chief after you rape his lady
But maybe your times up
Because here comes a Swaizak ---------------------the singer's name
After 500 Fuckin years here's a payback.



That is probably wrong, but my memory isn't what is used to be. Or at least I don't remember it being as bad. :)

[Blackadar]

IIRC, we have apologized to African Americans for slavery (I believe President Clinton did it).


I don't think so...he considered it, but didn't do it. I could be wrong, but you may want to check on that...

Here's why I don't want the US Government to apologize. An apology would acknowledge that the damage still requires repair and therefore the affected group can get special treatment. An apology would be used as justification for special treatment would be cash reparations, specially funded schools, affirmative action, etc. Which, to me, is nothing more than reverse discrimination.

[Dutch]

As the member of a group who came here after these atrocities took place, I don't feel responsible. My family has experienced plenty of discrimination, and the only real answer is to outwork, outplay, outwit and outfight those who can't see past the surface.

Any apology would be hollow. Did these particular senators and congressmen endorse the mistreatment of the Native Americans? Did I vote for someone, inadvertently, who supports the massacre of other races?

I'm an American, albeit one born outside the US. I don't consider myself as connected to any other country, through heritage or anything else. This is the country of opportunity. America isn't perfect, but AFAICT it's the most welcoming and supportive country in the history of mankind. Terrible mistakes have been made - like the internment, like slavery, like some (but not all) of the dealings with the Native Americans. They shouldn't be glossed over. Neither should people today be punished for the mistakes of those completely unrelated.

Someone mentioned that we benefit from the mistreatment - we stand on third base even though we may get there from an error, a walk and a double-play. I disagree. We all can fail, even with a lot of paper money at our disposal. And we all have the opportunity to make something of ourselves, as long as our parents just care a little bit. Try telling that to the Iraqis, who have witnessed hundreds of thousands of their countrymen slaughtered by the government in just the last 20 years. Or in any number of countries where the caste system is still very much alive and well.

I think the apology would do more harm than good. Native American children do not need excuses for failure. They don't need special treatment. They do need more positive role models, and they need to understand the harsh reality that a truly equal society rewards strength, independence and hard work.

You should run for governor of something. Or at least write somebody's speeches.

[sabotai]

Can someone point out what the negative ramifications are of this proposed apology?
Well, for me, the issue is how much this whole process is costing in time and money. They have to write it, discuss it, vote on it, send it to other parts of the congress where they discuss it, vote on it, etc.. Then they have to carry the proposal out. I wonder how much this whole process costs in terms of dollars.

And to think, they could use that money and time to try to solve real problems....

On second thought, I'm for this. The less the government tries to solve real problems, the better real problems get solved. Let's keep them doing meaningless, vote-grabbing and patting-themsleves-on-the-back stuff like this.

[Dutch]

I don't think so...he considered it, but didn't do it. I could be wrong, but you may want to check on that...

Here's why I don't want the US Government to apologize. An apology would acknowledge that the damage still requires repair and therefore the affected group can get special treatment. An apology would be used as justification for special treatment would be cash reparations, specially funded schools, affirmative action, etc. Which, to me, is nothing more than reverse discrimination.

I think that's about right. If the federal government apologizes to a group of people, they are admitting wrong-doing and a lawyer can file a lawsuit for untold millions of tax-treasure.

Lot's of bad can come from an apology, but not much good.

Also, the Native Americans "got us back" when they introduced tobacco to the white man....errr....the Federal Government. :)

[st.cronin]

I don't think so...he considered it, but didn't do it. I could be wrong, but you may want to check on that...

Here's why I don't want the US Government to apologize. An apology would acknowledge that the damage still requires repair and therefore the affected group can get special treatment. An apology would be used as justification for special treatment would be cash reparations, specially funded schools, affirmative action, etc. Which, to me, is nothing more than reverse discrimination.

The affected *already* get special treatment. In Wisconsin, if you can prove native american ancestry, you go to college for free.

[Klinglerware]

You should run for governor of something. Or at least write somebody's speeches.

Suck-up...

[Blackadar]

The affected *already* get special treatment. In Wisconsin, if you can prove native american ancestry, you go to college for free.

My point exactly.

[JPhillips]

So this comes down to:

We shouldn't apologize for clearly criminal acts by the US government because of trial lawyers.

[John Galt]

I think that's about right. If the federal government apologizes to a group of people, they are admitting wrong-doing and a lawyer can file a lawsuit for untold millions of tax-treasure.

Lot's of bad can come from an apology, but not much good.

Also, the Native Americans "got us back" when they introduced tobacco to the white man....errr....the Federal Government. :)

Of course, I'm probably on your ignore list, but try reading my post before making your usual stupid arguments. THERE IS ZERO PERCENT CHANCE THAT AN APOLOGY WILL CAUSE A SUCCESSFUL LAWSUIT. Statutes of Limitations, standing, various procedural bars, and past examples of apologies show that NO LAWSUIT WILL SUCCEED.

"Lot's of bad can from an apology" - That there is why you would love to stick your nose as far up Dubya's behind as it would go as it is apparently his mantra. I mean really - "Lot's of bad can from an apology" - has a dumber phrase ever been uttered?

[dawgfan]

A good 2-3 weeks of American bashing by groups that would normally be harping on Guantanamo, Iraq, the evils of capitalism and the environment.

This is interesting - I don't see the attention on and criticism of Guantanamo, Iraq, capitalism and the environment as "bashing" America - I see it as legitimate questioning of our behavior to ensure that it lives up to the standards and ideals this country was founded on. Without the pressure that can be applied in an open society where criticism is allowed, there is little incentive for people in positions of power to not abuse that power.

So, in reality, next to nothing. That is, unless one of these kooky reparations groups can somehow use this to promote some lawsuit against the US on the Native American behalf.

As others have pointed out, I really doubt such an apology will lead to successful lawsuits. They'll be pursued, but they won't succeed.

That said, I don't think it really solves anything either.

Perhaps not, but maybe it will allow for some closure. Regarding Blackie's point about Native atrocities, perhaps a formal apology by the U.S. Government will make it easier for Native groups to own oup to atrocities on their side as well.

It's kind of like getting into a fight with somebody; once an apology is issued on one side, it's much more likely you'll hear a returning apology. I suspect for many Natives, simply hearing an official apology for past behavior by our government will be a symbolic gesture that is greatly appreciated.

[John Galt]

You know Jon, I don't see where any of you apologists talk about the American Indians raiding villages and killing every many, woman and child. I don't see where you talk about them killing settlers' cattle, burning crops and the like. Guess what? It happened.

Sometimes it was in retaliation to settlers' actions. Sometimes it wasn't and instigated by the Indians themselves. Settlers were attacked and often butchered by Indian tribes. In fact, one of the most likely explanations for the "lost colony" of Roanoke - the very first English settlement in North America - is that they were butchered by the hostile chief Powhatan. How about the Jamestown massacre in 1622? Wyoming Village (PA) and Cherry Valley(NY) in 1778? Fort William Henry in 1757? All of these were early massacres by Indians on Europeans. I'm sure that these early incidents - right or wrong - had a profound effect on later decisions in dealing with other Native tribes.

I don't advocate the actions of our governmental leaders at the time. But I also believe the Native tribes culpable as well. And I don't see anyone asking them to apologize for their actions. Nor do I want them to. It wasn't done by me, to me or for me and I don't see where actions from hundreds of years ago now need to be apologized for.

As for the Pope's apology, that was different. He was apologizing to people who actually lived and experienced the Catholic Church's willingness to exterminate the Jews. There's the difference, and it's a pretty big one.

Overall, I just think it's unnecessary and accomplishes nothing beyond "the white man was bad." Well, the red man was, too.

Again, you make the same mistake as the US did before - all American Indians are not the same. When Germany attacked Poland and France, we didn't invade Sweden in retaliation.

As for the apology being to people still alive, every U.S. administration at the time refused to do it - I don't think that means we shouldn't do it now - that is even more reason to do it.

[John Galt]

I think I see where we differ here.... I would argue that most of Asia is "Westernized" because they have adopted much of our culture, government type, economic models, etc. There are differences to be sure, but they have adopted much from our culture.

Japan and much of the East developed rapidly after it had been exposed to Western ideas. However, much of this was due to being a centralized society which the American Indian tribes were not.

It also helps when ideas are diffuse easily in an area. In Eurasia, they were able to spread relatively easily because there were few barriers to the spread of ideas/civilizations. In the Americas though most societies were isolated from one another, so the spread of ideas was slower, and this stifled development. Sure they would have progressed but at a far slower rate than the rest of the world.

Out of curiosity, where did you disagree with "Guns, Germs, and Steel"?

That's a whole different thread that I don't have time for, but I think while the book is very interesting and good on many points, it glosses over some important changes throughout history. In other words, it is very good about what is talks about, but I think it leaves a lot out that may not work as well with some of the themes of the book. I know that is rather broad, but I keep saying I'm going to get back to work, but I'm slow in doing so. :)

[Blackadar]

Again, you make the same mistake as the US did before - all American Indians are not the same. When Germany attacked Poland and France, we didn't invade Sweden in retaliation.

As for the apology being to people still alive, every U.S. administration at the time refused to do it - I don't think that means we shouldn't do it now - that is even more reason to do it.

John, they made the same mistakes. Not all European settlers were the same. Your point being? So I guess we should just apologize to certain tribes and not others then?

To me, until you at least admit that the American Indians were in some way responsible for the actions of both parties, the points you bring up are worthless. In many ways, the early actions and massacres by some Native tribes caused the fear/hatred of the Natives by European settlers which led to the later US actions and massacres. Are they entirely responsible? No. Are they partially responsible? Yep.

[st.cronin]

On the one hand you point out that we should do something because no U.S. administration has done it yet, and then you feature Christopher Columbus in your argument, who predates any U.S. government by several hundred years, and was a representative of Spain.

I say we wait for Spain to apologize first. They started it.

[John Galt]

I don't think so...he considered it, but didn't do it. I could be wrong, but you may want to check on that...

Here's why I don't want the US Government to apologize. An apology would acknowledge that the damage still requires repair and therefore the affected group can get special treatment. An apology would be used as justification for special treatment would be cash reparations, specially funded schools, affirmative action, etc. Which, to me, is nothing more than reverse discrimination.

I stand corrected. I looked it up and Bush did not apologize for slavery as had been talked about at a race conference. Very sad.

And it doesn't change my point that the U.S., cities, and states have apologized for many historical wrongs without a lawsuit succeeding as a result. That isn't how the law works.

[JPhillips]

Cronin: Now Spain really has some apologizing to do. Anything the US government did pales in comparison to the atrocities of the Spanish. From the moment Columbus landed the Spanish were all about enslaving, raping and killing.

[dawgfan]

Here's why I don't want the US Government to apologize. An apology would acknowledge that the damage still requires repair and therefore the affected group can get special treatment. An apology would be used as justification for special treatment would be cash reparations, specially funded schools, affirmative action, etc. Which, to me, is nothing more than reverse discrimination.

We already make allowances for Native Americans in many ways. Whether these allowances are justified is a seperate argument.

As to whether an official apology by our government opens up liability to reparations, I really doubt it.

[John Galt]

John, they made the same mistakes. Not all European settlers were the same. Your point being?

I'm not saying all American Indians had "clean hands," but that doesn't have anything to do with whether genocide occurred. In virtually every historical genocide, you find instances to "justify" the results. However, the wiping out of 97% of a population because of attacks (which usually did follow land seizures) hardly seems like an appropriate response. There are no saints in my worldview, but I don't see how that denies that very real evils have occurred.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think so...he considered it, but didn't do it. I could be wrong, but you may want to check on that...

Here's why I don't want the US Government to apologize. An apology would acknowledge that the damage still requires repair and therefore the affected group can get special treatment. An apology would be used as justification for special treatment would be cash reparations, specially funded schools, affirmative action, etc. Which, to me, is nothing more than reverse discrimination.
Since when? An apology doesn't lead to any of those things! You just say you are sorry and we'll try to do better from here on in.

Well, for me, the issue is how much this whole process is costing in time and money. They have to write it, discuss it, vote on it, send it to other parts of the congress where they discuss it, vote on it, etc.. Then they have to carry the proposal out. I wonder how much this whole process costs in terms of dollars.
What, you mean like voting on a resolution to support having "under God" in the Pledge doesn't cost a dime? And this is far more important than that.

[Blackadar]

I'm not saying all American Indians had "clean hands," but that doesn't have anything to do with whether genocide occurred. In virtually every historical genocide, you find instances to "justify" the results. However, the wiping out of 97% of a population because of attacks (which usually did follow land seizures) hardly seems like an appropriate response. There are no saints in my worldview, but I don't see how that denies that very real evils have occurred.

97% were wiped out from attacks? BULLSHIT. Try again.

[John Galt]

Well, for me, the issue is how much this whole process is costing in time and money. They have to write it, discuss it, vote on it, send it to other parts of the congress where they discuss it, vote on it, etc.. Then they have to carry the proposal out. I wonder how much this whole process costs in terms of dollars.

And to think, they could use that money and time to try to solve real problems....

On second thought, I'm for this. The less the government tries to solve real problems, the better real problems get solved. Let's keep them doing meaningless, vote-grabbing and patting-themsleves-on-the-back stuff like this.

At least your conclusion makes up for the beginning non-starter-of-an argument. 99% of what Congress does is a waste of time. The money on the time is spent either way. At least this case has the benefit of doing something that is the "right thing," IMO.

[dawgfan]

Well, for me, the issue is how much this whole process is costing in time and money. They have to write it, discuss it, vote on it, send it to other parts of the congress where they discuss it, vote on it, etc.. Then they have to carry the proposal out. I wonder how much this whole process costs in terms of dollars.

And to think, they could use that money and time to try to solve real problems....

This kind of action shouldn't require very much time and effort - unlike drafting legislation, this is simply writing up a formal apology. I suppose some time could be wasted in hashing out the exact wording of such an apology, but this sort of action, in theory, shouldn't take much time to execute.

[John Galt]

97% were wiped out from attacks? BULLSHIT. Try again.

I said 97% was wiped out from pre-contact levels (and that doesn't even assume significant population growth) in my earlier post. I did not mean to imply (although looking at my second post I see why you read that I did) that 97% were killed through attacks. The exact breakdown is almost impossible to determine given the lack of demographic record-keeping for American Indians at the time. With that being said, attributing a 97% death rate to "unintentional" conduct strikes me as very naive and historically inaccurate.

[Blackadar]

(sarcasm on)

"We're sorry some bad things happened in the past and many people died. We behaved badly and so did you. Of course, it won't happen again unless you're a Muslim in the Middle East. Thank you, have a good day."

(sarcasm off)

[sabotai]

What, you mean like voting on a resolution to support having "under God" in the Pledge doesn't cost a dime?
What makes you think, after saying what I did, I would be for doing stuff like this?

Some people just don't think anymore...

[sabotai]

At least your conclusion makes up for the beginning non-starter-of-an argument.
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

You really need to grow up John.

[John Galt]

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

You really need to grow up John.

Come on. You were saying that we shouldn't apologize because the cost of meeting and photocopying is too high - that's ridiculous. There may be reasons to reject apologizing, but the normal cost of doing business shouldn't be one of them.

[sabotai]

This kind of action shouldn't require very much time and effort - unlike drafting legislation, this is simply writing up a formal apology.
Not really. It's a resolution proposing that we make a formal apology. The "simply writing up a formal apology" comes later, after all of this discussion and voting on the resolution takes place. The apology making isn't much, it's the whole resolution process that costs quite a few bucks (when you factor in all of the little stuff it takes to do this whole process).

[Blackadar]

I said 97% was wiped out from pre-contact levels (and that doesn't even assume significant population growth) in my earlier post. I did not mean to imply (although looking at my second post I see why you read that I did) that 97% were killed through attacks. The exact breakdown is almost impossible to determine given the lack of demographic record-keeping for American Indians at the time. With that being said, attributing a 97% death rate to "unintentional" conduct strikes me as very naive and historically inaccurate.

97% unintentional? No. But it's very valid to say that the very large majority of deaths were due to unintentional spreading of diseases. The intentional spreading of disease did happen, but it was often to known tribes that had already been exposed in many other ways to the European diseases. Is the below enough information for you?

1493 Columbus lands for the second time on the island of Hispaniola bringing livestock in order to start a colony there. Influenza, probably from germs carried by the livestock, sweeps through the native people, killing many of them. Modern researchers believe that American Indian traders carried the disease to Florida and throughout the Caribbean.
1507–1519 Two waves of smallpox kill from a third to a half of the American Indians in what are now Cuba, Haiti (Hispaniola), and Puerto Rico. Canoe traders carry the disease to the Yucatan Peninsula of what is now Mexico, where it kills many Maya.
1519–1520 Smallpox reaches what is now Guatemala. An American Indian who survived, recorded: "Great was the stench of the dead. After our fathers and grand fathers succumbed, half of the people fled the fields. The dogs and the vultures devoured the bodies."
1520 By now about three million Arawak people in the Caribbean have died from European diseases.
1520 Smallpox enters what is now Mexico at the port of Veracruz on the ship of Panfilo de Narvaez on April 23. It quickly spreads to Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital. A citizen of Tenochtitlan later wrote: "A great many died from the plague, and many others died of hunger. They could not get up to search for food, and everyone else was too sick to care for them, so they starved to death in their beds."
1521 Smallpox spreads south through Mesoamerica and South America.
1527–1530 Smallpox arrives in the Inca Empire. The ruler Huayna Capac dies from it. As many as 200,000 Inca people are killed by the disease.
1531–1533 A measles epidemic sweeps through Sonora, Mexico, south of what is now Arizona. It is believed to have spread northward.
1539 The Spanish explorer DeSoto travels through the Southeast. It is believed diseases spread by his party and the animals that they brought with them for food eventually killed about 75 percent of the American Indians in the Southeast.
1540 Coronado explores the Southwest. Diseased livestock that his company brings with them carry germs that transmit disease to American Indians.
1545–1548 An epidemic that is believed to have been pneumonic plague and bubonic plague (black death) or typhus covers Mesoamerica killing thousands of Indian people.
1555 The Portuguese bring the first smallpox germs to Brazil. Large numbers of Native people die.
1559 An influenza epidemic kills many Indian people in Mesoamerica and the Caribbean.
1560 Another wave or smallpox kills so many Native people in Brazil that the Portuguese can no longer rely on Indian slaves to cut sugar cane. They import slaves from Africa.
1566–1567 Two million South American Indians die from typhoid fever.
1576 Thyphoid fever kills thousands of American Indians in Mexico.
1585 English settlers on what is now Roanoke Island in Virginia spread diseases and many Indian people living nearby die.
1592–1596 The Seneca Indians in what is now central New York state suffer from an epidemic of measles.
1607 Half of the Timucuan people of what is now Florida have died from European diseases spread from the Caribbean.
1613 Missionaries report Bubonic plague kills half of the Christian Indian people in Florida.
1617-1619 A disease that is thought to be smallpox sweeps through what is now the Massachusettes Bay. Nine out of ten die. The disease is thought to have been brought by a fishing crew or the crew of Thomas Hunt’s slaving expedition in 1615. Because they are so few in number, the Indian people cannot stop the Mayflower from landing in 1620.
1619 By now 90 percent to 95 percent of the Mesoamerican Indians alive in 1519 have been killed by European diseases. The bubonic plague that began in Florida has spread to New England
1630 A small pox epidemic strikes the Huron of Ontario.
1630–1635 English settlers carry germs that set off another wave of smallpox and possibly that kill many of the remaining Indian people of what is by now called New England. Smallpox spreads westward to the tribes living near what are now the Great Lakes. Over 10,000 Huron die.
1634 Dutch traders introduce smallpox to what is now Connecticut. Ninety-five percent of the American Indians living along what is now the Connecticut River die. The epidemic moves north to what is now Canada.
1635–1640 Nearly half of the Huron people of what is now Canada die from European diseases brought by fur traders and missionaries.
1637 A disease believed to be scarlet fever kills new England Indians and spreads west to the Great Lakes region.
1647 Indians of the Northeast die from an influenza epidemic.
1649 A smallpox epidemic kills Indian people in New England.
1658 A measles epidemic kills New England Indians.
1662 More than a thousand Iroquois people die from smallpox in central New York state.
1669 Another wave of smallpox sweeps through New England and then the Great Lakes killing many Indian people.
1675 Another influenza epidemic kills many Indians of the Northeast.
1687 The Indian people of New England suffer a smallpox epidemic again.
1690 Malaria reaches the southeastern part of North America. Many Indians begin to die from it.
1692 Indians of the Northeast are hit by another measles epidemic.
1713–1715 A measles epidemic kills Indian people of New England and the Great Lakes.
1715–1721 A smallpox epidemic covers from what is now Texas to New England.
1717–1737 Malaria strikes the Miami people of what is now Illinois.
1729–1733 A smallpox epidemic stretches from what is now Texas to the Hudson Bay.
1735–1736 A diptheria epidemic kills New England Indians.
1738 Smallpox kills half of the Cherokee Indians of the Southeast.
1743 Russian fur traders spread diseases to the Aleut people of what is now southwestern Alaska. By 1800, 80 percent of the Aleut people will have died from these diseases.
1746 Typhoid fever spreads along the mouth of the St. Lawrence River killing many MicMac in Nova Scotia.
1750–1752 A wave of smallpox stretches from what is now Texas to the Great Lakes.
1753 The Cherokee suffer another smallpox epidemic.
1755–1756 Repeated epidemics of smalpox spread across the North American continent.
1761 Influenza spreads across the North American continent.
1768–1770 People of the Southwest begin dying from a measles epidemic.
1775–1783 A smallpox epidemic sweeps across the North American continent. It extends from Mexico to Canada.
1776–1778 Measles sweeps across North America from Texas to the Hudson Bay.
1777 A European respiratory illness, possibly influenza, kills many California Indians living in missions.
1780–1800 Measles and smallpox epidemics sweep across the Southern Plains, Texas and northern Mexico.
1781 The Blackfeet of what is now Montana experience an epidemic of smallpox.
1782–1783 Smallpox sweeps across the Plateau region.
1785-1787 A smallpox epidemic kills Indians of the Artic and subarctic in what are now Alaska and Canada.
1788 Pueblo people die from a smallpox epidemic.
1797 A smallpox epidemic strikes central Mexico.
1802 Smallpox kills two out of three Omaha Indians living in what is now Nebraska.Many Indians in California die during epidemics of pneumonia and diptheria.
1815–1816 Smallpox epidemics strike the Plains and Pueblo Indians
1829–1833 A disease that is believed to be either malaria or smallpox kills about 150,000 American Indians. The germs were carried by a ship that had traveled from Chile and docked in what is now Oregon.
1831–1834 Smallpox epidemics afflict Plains Indians and those living in the great Lakes.
1832–1835 At least half of the American Indian people living on the Lower Chinook river in the Northwest die from smallpox.
1837 American Indians living near what is now the Missouri River in what is now South Dakota begin dying from smallpox. From there the disease spreads to what are now North Dakota, Montana and Saskatchewan. The epidemic kills so many Mandan people that only 150 remain. Over 17,000 die.
1836–1840 Smallpox has spread from Alaska to the Southwest.
1840 Non-Indian whalers spread diseases, including diptheria, to the Inuit people of the eastern Arctic.
1843–1846 Smallpox affects the Aleut people of the Arctic and the Indians of the Southwest
1847 Measles strike the Cayuse Indians of the Pacific Northwest. Hundreds die from this disease believed to have been introduced by missionaries.
1848–1850 Smallpox epidemics strike Plains and Plateau Indians.
1849 Gold Rush miners infected with cholera spread it to Plains Indian people.
1854–1857 A major smallpox epidemic affects the Plains tribes.
1860–1867 A smallpox epidemic affects Indigenous people across the North American continent.
1869–1870 Smallpox strikes Northern Plains Indian people of Saskatchewan.
1876–1878 Another wave of smallpox kills Native people from St. Lawrence river to the Northwest coast.
1890 The Inuvialuit people of the Western Arctic began dying from European diseases brought by whalers. Over a ten year period nine out of ten people die and villages are abandoned.
1896—1899 Plains tribes, California tribes and Southwest tribes experience another smallpox epidemic.
1918–1919 Tens of thousands of American Indians die of Influenza in Arizona, New Mexico, and the Rocky Mountain states. Because the U.S. Government is focusing on the war effort, little is done to stop the epidemic among Indian people.

[Crapshoot]

As for the Pope's apology, that was different. He was apologizing to people who actually lived and experienced the Catholic Church's willingness to exterminate the Jews. There's the difference, and it's a pretty big one.

Overall, I just think it's unnecessary and accomplishes nothing beyond "the white man was bad." Well, the red man was, too.

Extending this out (and Cam argued the same thing), as long as the church held out for another 50 years and didn't apologize, it would be okay then because the parties in question were dead ? That's a fairly hazardous line of arguement. I guess I'm amazed that a country that is (in their own words0 beacon of freedom has so many people who choose to ignore the moral abivalance that got them there in the first place.

As for your other points, those settlers were the encroachers in the first place - a point that holds some relevancy. But that's a whole different arguement.

[sabotai]

Come on. You were saying that we shouldn't apologize because the cost of meeting and photocopying is too high - that's ridiculous.
No, it's not ridiculous. I don't give a shit if the president or some congressman comes out and makes an aology. It's the whole resolution process that costs quite a bit that could be spent on better stuff that I disagree with.

[John Galt]

Blackie, the problem with the disease numbers is that they don't distinguish between intentional and unintentional disease spread (and there is a lot of evidence that intentional disease spread was used in various regions) and they don't address the policies that made disease spread possible (constant forced relocation and encountering of new germs and diseases, elimination of boundaries between settlements and tribes, and the destruction of governments that could have adopted programs to control disease spread). Even when the U.S. government didn't intentionally give the disease, they adopted policies that assured the impact would be much, much larger than it would have been otherwise.

[Solecismic]

I said 97% was wiped out from pre-contact levels (and that doesn't even assume significant population growth) in my earlier post. I did not mean to imply (although looking at my second post I see why you read that I did) that 97% were killed through attacks. The exact breakdown is almost impossible to determine given the lack of demographic record-keeping for American Indians at the time. With that being said, attributing a 97% death rate to "unintentional" conduct strikes me as very naive and historically inaccurate.

It is difficult to determine, but for whatever reason, the Native American population was repeatedly felled by various epidemics.

In fact, over a 400-plus-year period, smallpox, influenza, malaria and other diseases killed significant numbers on nearly 100 documented occasions.

I don't think Trojan-style infected blankets were the cause every time. Malaria, for one, is spread in an entirely different manner.

The 97% figure may be high. But 90% is certainly a justifiable estimate. How many of those were due to direct conflict? Not a high percentage.

It's inevitable that any group be exposed to foreign germs as populations expanded throughout the world. It's a tragedy that the Native Americans were so susceptible to disease, especially at a time before vaccines were possible. Calling this a genocide is incorrect.

As for apologies, what is the limit on the atrocity? Would the Native American groups be willing to apologize for groups that violated treaties and attacked English settlements?

If so, I could see a mutual apology being a positive gesture. If not, I fail to see how this accomplishes anything other than endorsing the culture of perpetual victimhood.

[John Galt]

No, it's not ridiculous. I don't give a shit if the president or some congressman comes out and makes an aology. It's the whole resolution process that costs quite a bit that could be spent on better stuff that I disagree with.

The money is already spent either way. And I think it trivializes the issue (even if you disagree with it) to say it isn't worth a small debate and some freakin photocopying. American Indians deserve at least that much.

[John Galt]

It is difficult to determine, but for whatever reason, the Native American population was repeatedly felled by various epidemics.

In fact, over a 400-plus-year period, smallpox, influenza, malaria and other diseases killed significant numbers on nearly 100 documented occasions.

I don't think Trojan-style infected blankets were the cause every time. Malaria, for one, is spread in an entirely different manner.

The 97% figure may be high. But 90% is certainly a justifiable estimate. How many of those were due to direct conflict? Not a high percentage.

It's inevitable that any group be exposed to foreign germs as populations expanded throughout the world. It's a tragedy that the Native Americans were so susceptible to disease, especially at a time before vaccines were possible. Calling this a genocide is incorrect.

As for apologies, what is the limit on the atrocity? Would the Native American groups be willing to apologize for groups that violated treaties and attacked English settlements?

If so, I could see a mutual apology being a positive gesture. If not, I fail to see how this accomplishes anything other than endorsing the culture of perpetual victimhood.

As my post a few up from yours indicates, I largely agree with your points, but I think that your estimate of 90% is a little bit out of thin air. I don't know of any anthropologist studying the issue that has found a number near that high. Also, see my point about the U.S. creating policies that made disease control impossible. If you know something is going to happen and actually encourage it to happen, you may be exercising "reckless disregard" which I think is sufficient for intent in causing genocide. More often than not in genocides throughout history (Nazis were very unique), the government only played the role of a facilitator - that doesn't mean there wasn't substantial government culpability.

As for mutual apologies, I think you are massively overstating the effect American Indians had on settlers. The population killed was small and often in retaliation. If some nations want to apologize, I say more power to them (at least they wouldn't make up crazy stories about fearing a lawsuit), but I think the scale of what was done to American Indians dwarfs what was done in reverse.

[sabotai]

The money is already spent either way
So that means I shouldn't care if they spend it on stupid shit like this? I shouldn't want them to use it better? Just because it's "already spent"?

And I think it trivializes the issue (even if you disagree with it) to say it isn't worth a small debate and some freakin photocopying. American Indians deserve at least that much.
If that's all there was, then yeah, I'd say go for it, and more. But we've given a LOT to the Native Americans over the years to help them out. Saying "[they] deserve at least that much" completely ignores everything else we have already done to help them. This "apology" would just a footnote in a book of stuff we've done.

And I'm not necissarily against helping them out more. But the time and money they are spending on this whole process could be used better.

But then again, they aren't doing this to help the Native Americans or because they feel bad about what happened. This whole thing is about getting names into papers/on radio/on TV and getting voters into booths. That's it.

[Blackadar]

Extending this out (and Cam argued the same thing), as long as the church held out for another 50 years and didn't apologize, it would be okay then because the parties in question were dead ? That's a fairly hazardous line of arguement. I guess I'm amazed that a country that is (in their own words0 beacon of freedom has so many people who choose to ignore the moral abivalance that got them there in the first place.

As for your other points, those settlers were the encroachers in the first place - a point that holds some relevancy. But that's a whole different arguement.

It's been pointed out on this board before, but most every piece of land likely belonged to someone else at one point.

If the Church held out, would it make it OK? Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "it" as their actions and their apology are two different things.

At some point, you have to say what happened in the past has passed and there's no real use looking back or apologizing for it. If the Church didn't feel they did anything wrong, they shouldn't have apologized. If 300 years later they realized their actions were wrong, then they learn from that and go on. But there's no real use apologizing at that point. It's pretty pointless in my book as it's slipped into past history. It's good to understand that history, but at some point you really can't change it or apologize for it.

The Church's actions in WWII aren't ok. It's nice that they realized that their actions weren't acceptable and could apologize to those directly adversely affected by those actions. But it doesn't change what they did or make their actions OK.

I doubt Mark Buttram would care for my apology now for giving him a bloody nose in 9th grade. I don't think most Jews really want an apology from the Egyptians for making them slaves, nor most Muslims for the Crusades.

Hey, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and apologize. That and $.75 gets you a cup of coffee. I just hate seeing even $.01 of my tax dollars going towards what I consider an entirely useless gesture.

Jim nailed it with this comment: If so, I could see a mutual apology being a positive gesture. If not, I fail to see how this accomplishes anything other than endorsing the culture of perpetual victimhood. I believe he's dead-on-balls accurate on this one.

[sterlingice]

Again, you make the same mistake as the US did before - all American Indians are not the same. When Germany attacked Poland and France, we didn't invade Sweden in retaliation.
By this same token, how is a blanket apology to "indigenous people" or whatever the PC term of the moment is, any different?

SI

[John Galt]

By this same token, how is a blanket apology to "indigenous people" or whatever the PC term of the moment is, any different?

SI

Just as a side note, why must everyone bash PC who doesn't have any idea what is? For example, I'm one of few people using the term "Indians" in this thread (because that is what most American Indians prefer) and it is only a silly white person PC that makes some believe Native American is the "correct" term. Yet, for some reason, I'm constantly labelled PC and people on this board talk about a PC agenda. It baffles me.

As for why it is different, I think I case could be made that the U.S. should apologize to the various tribes, but I think it is pretty clear that all (and I don't know of any exceptions) of them suffered to varying degrees because of U.S. actions.

[Dutch]

Of course, I'm probably on your ignore list, but try reading my post before making your usual stupid arguments. THERE IS ZERO PERCENT CHANCE THAT AN APOLOGY WILL CAUSE A SUCCESSFUL LAWSUIT. Statutes of Limitations, standing, various procedural bars, and past examples of apologies show that NO LAWSUIT WILL SUCCEED.

"Lot's of bad can from an apology" - That there is why you would love to stick your nose as far up Dubya's behind as it would go as it is apparently his mantra. I mean really - "Lot's of bad can from an apology" - has a dumber phrase ever been uttered?

Wow, you are really angry.

[Klinglerware]

Just as a side note, why must everyone bash PC who doesn't have any idea what is? For example, I'm one of few people using the term "Indians" in this thread (because that is what most American Indians prefer) and it is only a silly white person PC that makes some believe Native American is the "correct" term. Yet, for some reason, I'm constantly labelled PC and people on this board talk about a PC agenda. It baffles me...

I agree with you there. It seems that "PC", much like "Nazi", "fascist", or "terrorist", is a term that now denotes "something or someone we don't agree with". I am also amused by the great lengths some people on this board will go to in order to associate any policy they disagree with as some part of a vast "PC police action", as though something like that actually exists...

[John Galt]

Wow, you are really angry.

Only at you Dutch. Despite your attempt deflection and denial in the thread when I left the board, I know how the original thread about me went down and you showed you are a total ass hole. After that, I decided there was no reason to be polite anymore. You are unworthy of even basic respect because you are an offensive piece of crap.

[sterlingice]

Just as a side note, why must everyone bash PC who doesn't have any idea what is? For example, I'm one of few people using the term "Indians" in this thread (because that is what most American Indians prefer) and it is only a silly white person PC that makes some believe Native American is the "correct" term. Yet, for some reason, I'm constantly labelled PC and people on this board talk about a PC agenda. It baffles me.

As for why it is different, I think I case could be made that the U.S. should apologize to the various tribes, but I think it is pretty clear that all (and I don't know of any exceptions) of them suffered to varying degrees because of U.S. actions.
Don't really have much to add to the second part. I really haven't said much in this thread and have just watched both sides as, I think many of us, feel one way or another at first blush, but don't feel strongly one way or another.

As for the PC thing, you just happened to be at the end of the response roulette- you were who I responded to when I was thinking that. It could have been anyone, really. As for why you get labeled as PC, that's probably because the majority of your longer posts are in threads about discrimination and that's the issue where political correctness and PC terms are used most readily. For instance, in budget threads, there's no real slang for "those asshole rich guys" that requires a "pc" version of it.

SI

[John Galt]

I agree with you there. It seems that "PC", much like "Nazi", "fascist", or "terrorist", is a term that now denotes "something or someone we don't agree with". I am also amused by the great lengths some people on this board will go to in order to associate any policy they disagree with as some part of vast "PC police action", as though something like that actually exists...

I also want to throw in "homosexual lifestyle" and "secular humanist agenda" as two other things that don't exist, but people seem to believe in (strangely it is only those who disagree with those concepts that think they exist). In a previous era, there was the "vast right-wing conspiracy," but that never really rolled off the tongue very well.

[Blackadar]

As for why it is different, I think I case could be made that the U.S. should apologize to the various tribes, but I think it is pretty clear that all (and I don't know of any exceptions) of them suffered to varying degrees because of U.S. actions.

Hey, we could make a new Billy Joel song!

(sung to We Didn't Start the Fire)

Algonquians, Apache
Coushatta, Cherokee
Arikara, Aztec, Apar-o

Biloxi, Wichita
Arikara, Yakima
Coeur d'Alene, Cheyanne, Cr-ow

We didn't start the fire, but we're PC and blood was spilt
We didn't start the fire, but we'll we say we're sorry with collective guilt


I wonder if it'll make the Top 10 on Billboard's charts. We could even donate the proceeds so they can make bigger casinos! WOOT!

[Dutch]

Only at you Dutch. Despite your attempt deflection and denial in the thread when I left the board, I know how the original thread about me went down and you showed you are a total ass hole. After that, I decided there was no reason to be polite anymore. You are unworthy of even basic respect because you are an offensive piece of crap.

You have called me stupid and an asshole in the last 5 minutes and I haven't said anything to you. I should be pissed at you! How did this get turned around so that you are the victim....again! :p

EDIT: Say? You aren't a lawyer are you?

[John Galt]

Don't really have much to add to the second part. I really haven't said much in this thread and have just watched both sides as, I think many of us, feel one way or another at first blush, but don't feel strongly one way or another.

As for the PC thing, you just happened to be at the end of the response roulette- you were who I responded to when I was thinking that. It could have been anyone, really. As for why you get labeled as PC, that's probably because the majority of your longer posts are in threads about discrimination and that's the issue where political correctness and PC terms are used most readily. For instance, in budget threads, there's no real slang for "those asshole rich guys" that requires a "pc" version of it.

SI

I just chose your post because it was on my mind. I don't think you are one of the ones who seems to brand everyone who disagrees with them as PC (as though it were a disease you could catch). I guess I know why people brand me PC, but I think it just really shows how little understanding of what PC is about. PC, like Orwellian newspeak, was about a "correct" set of words and phrases to describe the world. I've never believed that anything is so absolute and think efforts to eliminate language are asinine. However, that doesn't mean I want to offend groups of people if I can avoid it.

[CamEdwards]

jeez I leave for a few hours to do a talk show and all hell's broken loose.

Of course after reading Blackie and Jim's discussions, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps I shouldn't give up my career in talk radio. I like what they said more than what I said.

I'll just point out that I'm not advocating the destruction of Indians as John alleged above. I'm simply saying that from any given standpoint that I can think of, Native Americans are as a whole better off now than they would have been had colonization and expansion not have occured.

As to Native American youths using an apology to screw off and play the victim card... I don't think that would happen. But I definitely think an apology from the government would validate those who are already screwing off and playing the victim card. Subtle difference, maybe.

[dawgfan]

I'll just point out that I'm not advocating the destruction of Indians as John alleged above. I'm simply saying that from any given standpoint that I can think of, Native Americans are as a whole better off now than they would have been had colonization and expansion not have occured.

Um, I think you're going to find a lot of disagreement with this statement. Care to explain this further?

[heybrad]

I wonder if Dutch and Johns future generations will eventually apologize to each other.

[sterlingice]

I just chose your post because it was on my mind. I don't think you are one of the ones who seems to brand everyone who disagrees with them as PC (as though it were a disease you could catch). I guess I know why people brand me PC, but I think it just really shows how little understanding of what PC is about. PC, like Orwellian newspeak, was about a "correct" set of words and phrases to describe the world. I've never believed that anything is so absolute and think efforts to eliminate language are asinine. However, that doesn't mean I want to offend groups of people if I can avoid it.
I didn't really ask why you picked mine as you asked why in response to mine, but ok.

As for PC, I think the biggest problem is that people tend to get offended when you accuse them of discrimination where none exists. For instance, when people at a Braves game do the Tomahawk Chop, they aren't doing it because they hate Native Americans yet are getting decryed as such.

Let's create an absurd example to counter the "why not just change the name/act of anything remotely offensive"- how would you feel if the National Societies of Matthews and Michaels is offended because of something, say, John McCain did (since we've already used him in this thread). While hopped up on Nyquil during the third Presidential debate in 2008, he proposes his plan to allow all people named John to be able to make slaves of anyone named Matthew or Michael. He gets killed in the Wild Antelope Stampede of Ought Nine but the damage is already done as "John" starts to catch on as a term for slave owners. So now, people are demanding all Johns have to change their name because of something you didn't even do. You didn't advocate the view or participate in it, but you're being held responsible for someone else's actions and having your life disrupted unfairly because of it. Now, if I were in those shoes, I'd be ticked that I'd have my address labels changed, my bills, and my personalized John license plate changed because the idiots of the world can't get past the stupid semantics of a term and see its intent: I'm not keeping my name because I like to offend people.

On top of that, it gets cumbersome to talk, in general, if everytime anyone talks about a collective they can't use a collective noun because it offends *someone*. Particularly when this is a really useful function of language- being able to speak in generalities. When someone says "a 5'8" caucasian male" or "6'2" hispanic woman" to describe a suspect on the news, it's a distinguishing characteristic- it's who they are and it's not implying that all white guys or hispanic women are criminals, just that this particular one is.

The easy response to this is "wow, that's a lot of talk to get out of being offensive to people". But the point I'm making is that it's a much more complicated thing and to claim "I just try to not offend people" is taking a fake hypocritical oversimplified high road with an absolute that isn't true. So now we're back to square one: no one here set out to offend Native Americans yet we're all being accused of it. And why? Because we don't want our elected government wasting their time on an insincere appology that's just pandering for votes.

SI

[Crapshoot]

jeez I leave for a few hours to do a talk show and all hell's broken loose.

Of course after reading Blackie and Jim's discussions, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps I shouldn't give up my career in talk radio. I like what they said more than what I said.

I'll just point out that I'm not advocating the destruction of Indians as John alleged above. I'm simply saying that from any given standpoint that I can think of, Native Americans are as a whole better off now than they would have been had colonization and expansion not have occured.

As to Native American youths using an apology to screw off and play the victim card... I don't think that would happen. But I definitely think an apology from the government would validate those who are already screwing off and playing the victim card. Subtle difference, maybe.

Right, and what I'm saying is that its a remarkably condescending statement to argue that the destruction of a majority, the introduction of biological warfare and a reduction of the indegenous people to "reservations" can be described as doing what is best for them. No one is denying the role of the West in advancing technology- but this can come through interaction (as it did for the West for much of the previous millenium, when the Islamic world was the scientific center of the world), rather than subjugation and imperialism. You are basically arguing that despite everything that was done to them, you can say without reservation that they are better of - which is patently ridiculous.

[dawgfan]

As for PC, I think the biggest problem is that people tend to get offended when you accuse them of discrimination where none exists. For instance, when people at a Braves game do the Tomahawk Chop, they aren't doing it because they hate Native Americans yet are getting decryed as such.

Point of clarification - I don't think anyone but the most rabid PC nut is claiming that Braves fans doing the tomahawk chop are doing it because they hate Native Americans. Those that object that that chant (and the nickname) do so because they feel that, whether intended or not, that action is insulting to Native Americans.

[sterlingice]

Point of clarification - I don't think anyone but the most rabid PC nut is claiming that Braves fans doing the tomahawk chop are doing it because they hate Native Americans. Those that object that that chant (and the nickname) do so because they feel that, whether intended or not, that action is insulting to Native Americans.
In the end, you've got "you hate them" versus "you do this action which shows you hate them". Isn't that just a minor semantic point?

SI

[Crapshoot]

It's been pointed out on this board before, but most every piece of land likely belonged to someone else at one point.

If the Church held out, would it make it OK? Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "it" as their actions and their apology are two different things.

At some point, you have to say what happened in the past has passed and there's no real use looking back or apologizing for it. If the Church didn't feel they did anything wrong, they shouldn't have apologized. If 300 years later they realized their actions were wrong, then they learn from that and go on. But there's no real use apologizing at that point. It's pretty pointless in my book as it's slipped into past history. It's good to understand that history, but at some point you really can't change it or apologize for it.

The Church's actions in WWII aren't ok. It's nice that they realized that their actions weren't acceptable and could apologize to those directly adversely affected by those actions. But it doesn't change what they did or make their actions OK.

I doubt Mark Buttram would care for my apology now for giving him a bloody nose in 9th grade. I don't think most Jews really want an apology from the Egyptians for making them slaves, nor most Muslims for the Crusades.

Hey, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and apologize. That and $.75 gets you a cup of coffee. I just hate seeing even $.01 of my tax dollars going towards what I consider an entirely useless gesture.

Jim nailed it with this comment: If so, I could see a mutual apology being a positive gesture. If not, I fail to see how this accomplishes anything other than endorsing the culture of perpetual victimhood. I believe he's dead-on-balls accurate on this one.

Firstly, the statement you cited ignores the fact that they were the indegenous people in this case- there was, by most accounts, no homo sapiens here before they crossed over the Bering Straits. Secondly, I guess we disagree, because in this case, the entity that perpetuated or allowed these actions is still around - and as such, should be held accountable for its actions. The Church was asked to apologize because the entity's specific actions in WW II were wrong - not the individual people associated with it. In the same way, the entity that is the US government was around then, and should apologize for its actions. If the US no longer existed, you have a point - but in this case, its still standing. You make laws and follow laws based on the actions of men 300 years ago, and you cite their intent in legislation often as a basis for action. The institutional action is the major flaw here, and that is the one that needs to be addressed.

[Buccaneer]

Just as destroying habitats, wipes out species, the destruction and takings of lands contributed significantly to the eradication of American Indians.
For a minute there, I thought you were talking about the history of several large tribes pre-Columbus.

Besides, why should our Federal Govt apologize for various events taking place before the formation of the federal govt? Shouldn't the Crowns of England, France and Spain share in the blame as well?

[Crapshoot]

In the end, you've got "you hate them" versus "you do this action which shows you hate them". Isn't that just a minor semantic point?

SI

No. We all make jokes that are fairly deregatory (sp ?) at times (I can tell you some great Sikh jokes- tis the Indian equivalent of the Polish) - but it doesnt signify hatred of them. That being said, it seems common courtesy not to make demeaning jokes like that in front of them, or in a unified public manner. There's a huge difference IMO.

[Crapshoot]

I'll just point out that I'm not advocating the destruction of Indians as John alleged above. I'm simply saying that from any given standpoint that I can think of, Native Americans are as a whole better off now than they would have been had colonization and expansion not have occured.


Btw Cam, this is in a nutshell the "White Man's Burden" arguement. Read up on Kipling. I recognize it may not be your intent, but that is what its appearing as.

[judicial clerk]

I wonder if Dutch and Johns future generations will eventually apologize to each other.awesome! maybe we can get some other lawyer on the board to apologize to dutch and get some military personnel to apologize to JG

Hey John Galt or some other legal mind, can you tell me how different Catholic Arch-Diocese[sp] are liable for the actions of priests that took place up to 50 years ago? I am not necessarily implying that native americans could use the same legal theory that victims of priest sex abuse use to get around statute of limitations issues although it is what popped into my mind when you said there is no way anybody could bring a claim. I really don't know the answer to this question. Is there case law abating the SOL for some reason; are there special statutes that make statutes of limitations or statutes of ultimate repose not apply to these claims, or is it some kind of discovery of the damage issue?

Overall, I respect many of the points made in thsi thread, and I come down in favor of the apology. I agree that native americans' did act inappropriately in some of their aggressive actions against settlers. Even moreso, specific native American tribes treated other indignous tribes worse than treatment received from the white man. But I don't care. I want the US of A to be noble and upstanding and to do the right thing. i want us to attack and defend and kill other peoples only for reasons I think are right. Also, I don't care if some kid uses the goverments apology as the basis for a lawsuit or as an excuse for skipping class. Finally, I got no problem with congress taking time to draft an apology and missing on out valuable "legislating" time. Enough laws already!

[dawgfan]

In the end, you've got "you hate them" versus "you do this action which shows you hate them". Isn't that just a minor semantic point?

SI

You're continuing to read too much into the objection to the action. The objection to the action because of a belief it's insulting to a group of people does not equal "you do this action which shows you hate them", it equals "you do this action which is insulting to a particular group, likely out of some level of ignorance". And that is a long way from equaling "you hate them".

[Draft Dodger]

hey, what happened to all the cool Airplane jokes?

[Arles]

I wonder if Dutch and Johns future generations will eventually apologize to each other.
I think that may require an act of congress :p

[Blackadar]

Firstly, the statement you cited ignores the fact that they were the indegenous people in this case- there was, by most accounts, no homo sapiens here before they crossed over the Bering Straits. Secondly, I guess we disagree, because in this case, the entity that perpetuated or allowed these actions is still around - and as such, should be held accountable for its actions. The Church was asked to apologize because the entity's specific actions in WW II were wrong - not the individual people associated with it. In the same way, the entity that is the US government was around then, and should apologize for its actions. If the US no longer existed, you have a point - but in this case, its still standing. You make laws and follow laws based on the actions of men 300 years ago, and you cite their intent in legislation often as a basis for action. The institutional action is the major flaw here, and that is the one that needs to be addressed.

Yep, we'll disagree. I see the US Government as an extension of the people (for the people, by the people). So the US Government apologizing is an extention of the people apologizing. Since I'm one of the people, I feel in some small part, it's making the assumption that I need to apologize. And I don't feel any need whatsoever to apologize for something someone did 200 years ago. I wonder if they'll apologize to me since I was related to Custer.... :)

Just like I don't feel any need to apologize for slavery, dropping the Bomb or many other US actions. I also don't like the culture of victimization that I believe it manifests.

But whatever.

[Wolfpack]

Damn, Blackie, you have become one with the Dark Side, haven't you?

(cue "Nooo!" scream in 5..4..3..)

[Blackadar]

Damn, Blackie, you have become one with the Dark Side, haven't you?

(cue "Nooo!" scream in 5..4..3..)


...2...1....


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

*crackle with evil glee*

[John Galt]

awesome! maybe we can get some other lawyer on the board to apologize to dutch and get some military personnel to apologize to JG

Hey John Galt or some other legal mind, can you tell me how different Catholic Arch-Diocese[sp] are liable for the actions of priests that took place up to 50 years ago? I am not necessarily implying that native americans could use the same legal theory that victims of priest sex abuse use to get around statute of limitations issues although it is what popped into my mind when you said there is no way anybody could bring a claim. I really don't know the answer to this question. Is there case law abating the SOL for some reason; are there special statutes that make statutes of limitations or statutes of ultimate repose not apply to these claims, or is it some kind of discovery of the damage issue?

It is pretty hard to bring a claim from that long ago and they can usually succeed in only two cases that I know of. First, if there is an issue of suppressed memory (which is hard to prove, but does happen), most statutes are tolled. Second, if the church is making on-going payments to victims, there can be tolling. I think the second case is more common.

Also, some times the SOL doesn't apply because although the original wrong was a long time ago, the wrongful actions of the church (covering up or something else) are happening now.

Either way, for purposes of the American Indians, there would never be standing and there could probably be no tolling argument for the SOL (ongoing payments is a much narrower exception that couldn't be construed to include government programs). The standing issue effectively precludes any lawsuit and that is why I think it is just crazy to connect an apology to a lawsuit that could never succeed.

[ISiddiqui]

I see the US Government as an extension of the people (for the people, by the people).
Wait... is there some other US Government out there that I'm unaware of? ;)

[Dutch]

Wait... is there some other US Government out there that I'm unaware of? ;)

Careful. If you didn't like George Bush, you should have voted him out of office. :p

[Blackadar]

Wait... is there some other US Government out there that I'm unaware of? ;)

No one said I wasn't an idealist.

[Wolfpack]

Careful. If you didn't like George Bush, you should have voted him out of office. :p

I'll be picky here. He probably did try to vote him out of office by voting for someone else, it's just that there were more Bush voters than Kerry voters (spare the Ohio arguments, please).

In another vein, this statement is actually how things worked in Communism. Since it was one-party, you voted for or against an office-holder rather than between candidates, if I remeber anything right from my old Social Studies classes.

[/threadjack]

[Warhammer]

Right, and what I'm saying is that its a remarkably condescending statement to argue that the destruction of a majority, the introduction of biological warfare and a reduction of the indegenous people to "reservations" can be described as doing what is best for them. No one is denying the role of the West in advancing technology- but this can come through interaction (as it did for the West for much of the previous millenium, when the Islamic world was the scientific center of the world), rather than subjugation and imperialism. You are basically arguing that despite everything that was done to them, you can say without reservation that they are better of - which is patently ridiculous.

When did it become a matter of imperialism and subjugation being necessary to make the Indians better off? I have heard figures of the Indian population in the New World being around 15 million at the time Columbus landed and something like 100 years later it was 3 million (my time frame may be off a bit). The most important factor in that was disease. The minute there was contact between the Indians and the West, they were screwed. Regardless of whether or not the Indians were subjugated by the West, they would still have been ravaged by disease. From that point, population pressures would have pushed the Indians back, which you could say happened anyway.

I would say the Indians are better off today than they would have been had there been no contact with the West. However, the same could not be said for the Indians that were around 200-300 years ago.

[st.cronin]

For a minute there, I thought you were talking about the history of several large tribes pre-Columbus.

Besides, why should our Federal Govt apologize for various events taking place before the formation of the federal govt? Shouldn't the Crowns of England, France and Spain share in the blame as well?

Has this, and one or two other posts like it, not been addressed?

Or is this another case of that peculiar strain of anti-Americanism that occasionally pops up in American intellectuals?

[John Galt]

Has this, and one or two other posts like it, not been addressed?

Or is this another case of that peculiar strain of anti-Americanism that occasionally pops up in American intellectuals?

You really believe this a killer argument? If Spain and England are also responsible, one would think that they should also apologize. The recency of the actions of the U.S. (100 to 150 years ago) does make them more relevant, but is your argument that because others also did wrong, we don't have to apologize? Brilliant!

[st.cronin]

You really believe this a killer argument? If Spain and England are also responsible, one would think that they should also apologize. The recency of the actions of the U.S. (100 to 150 years ago) does make them more relevant, but is your argument that because others also did wrong, we don't have to apologize? Brilliant!

My point is that we should not be apologizing for something somebody else did.

[Klinglerware]

You really believe this a killer argument? If Spain and England are also responsible, one would think that they should also apologize. The recency of the actions of the U.S. (100 to 150 years ago) does make them more relevant, but is your argument that because others also did wrong, we don't have to apologize? Brilliant!

Also, you can turn the argument on its head: if the British and Spanish did apologize, logic dictates that the US would have to as well...

[John Galt]

My point is that we should not be apologizing for something somebody else did.

So you ignored everything in this thread where people identified what the U.S. did and then complain that people have ignored your argument. More Brilliance!

[dawgfan]

Side topic, but did anyone see the recent reports that suggest the reproductive portion of the population of humans that crossed the land bridge from Asia into North America was approximately 70 (out of a larger group of 200)?

I'd be curious to hear more follow-up reports on this and some analysis of how the size of this gene pool compares with other areas and populations. At first glance, it seems like a fairly small number, and I wonder if perhaps the Native American population was somewhat hampered genetically by a smaller pool and whether that made them more susceptible to disease from the Old World colonists than other instances of differing populations coming into first contact.

[st.cronin]

So you ignored everything in this thread where people identified what the U.S. did and then complain that people have ignored your argument. More Brilliance!

I guess I appreciate the compliment, but I think I was misunderstood.

The 'genocide' and treaty violations etc. began and continued HUNDREDS of years before there even WAS an American government. For us to apologize would be as ridiculous as us apologizing to the Armenians for what the Turks did.

[Blackadar]

So you ignored everything in this thread where people identified what the U.S. did and then complain that people have ignored your argument. More Brilliance!

While you and I don't agree on this thread, John - isn't that what St.C does on every thread? Ignore everything and then complain?

You and I differ here because I'm not sure the apology is necessary, performs any real task or achieves any real goal, nor do I want my government to shoulder the blame when there were many injustices on both sides. You want our government to "be the bigger man" and disagree as to what degree our government is culpable vs. Native Americans.

I understand your position and I know you understand mine.

[John Galt]

While you and I don't agree on this thread, John - isn't that what St.C does on every thread? Ignore everything and then complain?

You and I differ here because I'm not sure the apology is necessary, performs any real task or achieves any real goal, nor do I want my government to shoulder the blame when there were many injustices on both sides. You want our government to "be the bigger man" and disagree as to what degree our government is culpable vs. Native Americans.

I understand your position and I know you understand mine.

I hadn't picked up on a St.C pattern, but I'm very slow about those things. I still seem to engage Bubba despite knowing full well it doesn't matter at all. I'm not so bright. :p

I understand our differences and appreciate it. I still think you are underestimating the impact (re: genocide) felt by American Indians because of the U.S. I guess I think if you agreed with that part of my argument, you would be much more inclined to feel an apology is warranted. But maybe not. I don't know.

[John Galt]

I guess I appreciate the compliment, but I think I was misunderstood.

The 'genocide' and treaty violations etc. began and continued HUNDREDS of years before there even WAS an American government. For us to apologize would be as ridiculous as us apologizing to the Armenians for what the Turks did.

I'm going to go kill me a Jew and when the Po-lice come, I'm gonna say it ain't my fault because people be killin' Jews for years before me. I ain't gotta apologize for nuthin'.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I dont think we have to apologize for what people did 140 years ago.
Judge me through my actions not what my fathers did before me.

[Warhammer]

Side topic, but did anyone see the recent reports that suggest the reproductive portion of the population of humans that crossed the land bridge from Asia into North America was approximately 70 (out of a larger group of 200)?

I'd be curious to hear more follow-up reports on this and some analysis of how the size of this gene pool compares with other areas and populations. At first glance, it seems like a fairly small number, and I wonder if perhaps the Native American population was somewhat hampered genetically by a smaller pool and whether that made them more susceptible to disease from the Old World colonists than other instances of differing populations coming into first contact.

Actually that is part of what happened. I think smallpox first arose about 4000 years ago. Most people in Eurasia developed some resistance to this over time. But the Indians, who came over here prior to the evolution of smallpox had no resistance, so it was much more fatal to their populations.

[judicial clerk]

Also, some times the SOL doesn't apply because although the original wrong was a long time ago, the wrongful actions of the church (covering up or something else) are happening now.


Got it. I hadn't thought of this. These plaintiff's are not suing the church for the actions of the priests, they are suing for the actions of the church in covering up the priests actions. i suppose that would be a continuing breach so SOL would never run.

I still suspect that there is some kind of statutes out there that put a special SOL on these claims.

I also completely agree that this situation is not analogous to the situation involving native americans and I don't think any native americans would havea a chance in any kind of suit against the federal govt, however, i would be willing to settle out of court right now for free coffee for life.

[Blackadar]

I understand our differences and appreciate it. I still think you are underestimating the impact (re: genocide) felt by American Indians because of the U.S. I guess I think if you agreed with that part of my argument, you would be much more inclined to feel an apology is warranted. But maybe not. I don't know.

I agree that the American Indians were mistreated. I refuse to call it genocide because there was nothing systematic about it. You keep using that word inappropriately and until you realize that, your points carry little wait. You also seem to refuse to admit that the American Indian tribes behaved badly as well and bear some responsibilty for what happened to them.

I'm going to go kill me a Jew and when the Po-lice come, I'm gonna say it ain't my fault because people be killin' Jews for years before me. I ain't gotta apologize for nuthin'.

This one isn't like you and is actually pretty stupid. You may want to edit it.

[st.cronin]

Since everybody seems intent on misunderstanding me, I'll try a little harder to express myself here.

What is not often remembered now is that until sometime in the 19th Century there was serious argument among intellectuals as to whether aboriginal peoples should be classified as 'human' or described as being a separate species. I think this puts into stark relief just how different the world is today, and how pointless an apology would be.

The atrocities committed (whether we call them genocide or something else) were committed by settlers, colonists, explorers, and armies from several different governments, which are mostly no longer in existence (although the countries are). An 'official apology' from the US, or Spain or France or whoever, would do nothing to make things better for anybody; it might make some folks feel better, and if you think the job of the US government is to make people feel good, well, that's your argument I guess. I'm not neccesarily opposed to it; I just don't see the point.

Myself, I think it's important that we honestly understand what happened and why, and proceed into tomorrow committed to a higher moral standard than has been practiced in the past.

[Blackadar]

Since everybody seems intent on misunderstanding me, I'll try a little harder to express myself here.

What is not often remembered now is that until sometime in the 19th Century there was serious argument among intellectuals as to whether aboriginal peoples should be classified as 'human' or described as being a separate species. I think this puts into stark relief just how different the world is today, and how pointless an apology would be.

The atrocities committed (whether we call them genocide or something else) were committed by settlers, colonists, explorers, and armies from several different governments, which are mostly no longer in existence (although the countries are). An 'official apology' from the US, or Spain or France or whoever, would do nothing to make things better for anybody; it might make some folks feel better, and if you think the job of the US government is to make people feel good, well, that's your argument I guess. I'm not neccesarily opposed to it; I just don't see the point.

Myself, I think it's important that we honestly understand what happened and why, and proceed into tomorrow committed to a higher moral standard than has been practiced in the past.

Applause. Well said.

[John Galt]

I agree that the American Indians were mistreated. I refuse to call it genocide because there was nothing systematic about it. You keep using that word inappropriately and until you realize that, your points carry little wait. You also seem to refuse to admit that the American Indian tribes behaved badly as well and bear some responsibilty for what happened to them.

Well, I'm hardly alone in calling it "genocide." You will find hundreds of historians, anthropologists, and genocide scholars who agree with me. Your statement that it wasn't "systemic" just strikes me as odd. Other than Nazi Germany, most historical genocides have only had the government as a facilitator for annihilation. Only very rarely are government killings the primary source of death.

This one isn't like you and is actually pretty stupid. You may want to edit it.

Since I've come back, I've stopped being polite to some people. It may not help may already bad rep, but I really don't care. I've decided the only way I feel comfortable dealing with complete idiocy (as opposed to normal run-of-the-mill stupidity) on this board is to pull no punches (hence my recent meanness to Dutch, Arles, and now, it seems, St. Cronin). Either way, I didn't think my argument was really rude or bad. If he really is defending the "other people have done it throughout history so we don't have to apologize" reasoning, then I don't know how else to respond. That argument is nonsense and I think my comment shows why.

[John Galt]

Since everybody seems intent on misunderstanding me, I'll try a little harder to express myself here.

What is not often remembered now is that until sometime in the 19th Century there was serious argument among intellectuals as to whether aboriginal peoples should be classified as 'human' or described as being a separate species. I think this puts into stark relief just how different the world is today, and how pointless an apology would be.

So, there were no genocides prior to the 19th century? Classifying your "enemy" as sub-human means you don't have to apologize? To me, it is precisely because the U.S. called American Indians "animals" and "not human" that it should apologize. Since when is being wrong an excuse for not apologizing - that is the VERY reason to apologize.

The atrocities committed (whether we call them genocide or something else) were committed by settlers, colonists, explorers, and armies from several different governments, which are mostly no longer in existence (although the countries are). An 'official apology' from the US, or Spain or France or whoever, would do nothing to make things better for anybody; it might make some folks feel better, and if you think the job of the US government is to make people feel good, well, that's your argument I guess. I'm not neccesarily opposed to it; I just don't see the point.

And as I said, this is true of ALMOST EVERY GENOCIDE THROUGHOUT HISTORY. Direct government killings almost never account for a high percentage of total deaths.

And Blackie, if you think this is "well said" then are differences are much greater than I thought. The argument that "oops, we thought you were sub-human which is why killed you" as a reason not to apologize is just dumb.

[st.cronin]

Well, I'm hardly alone in calling it "genocide." You will find hundreds of historians, anthropologists, and genocide scholars who agree with me. Your statement that it wasn't "systemic" just strikes me as odd. Other than Nazi Germany, most historical genocides have only had the government as a facilitator for annihilation. Only very rarely are government killings the primary source of death.



Since I've come back, I've stopped being polite to some people. It may not help may already bad rep, but I really don't care. I've decided the only way I feel comfortable dealing with complete idiocy (as opposed to normal run-of-the-mill stupidity) on this board is to pull no punches (hence my recent meanness to Dutch, Arles, and now, it seems, St. Cronin). Either way, I didn't think my argument was really rude or bad. If he really is defending the "other people have done it throughout history so we don't have to apologize" reasoning, then I don't know how else to respond. That argument is nonsense and I think my comment shows why.

That wasn't my argument; or rather, the subtleties of my argument have been changed into different subtleties in your rephrasing of my argument, since you are determined to prove your point.

My argument is simply, that to fully make right on all the wrongs is beyond the scope of the US Government. An 'apology' may make somebody feel good, but would do nothing to balance out history; nothing can. Our obligations in regard to the past are to learn lessons, and use those lessons wisely as we move forward. I am not 'opposed' to an apology; I just fail to see the point. Who are we apologizing to? Dead aboriginals? Or their living ancestors? And if we truly owe the living ancestors an apology, then how can an apology be enough?

[Blackadar]

I'm getting tired of arguing semantics with you John, so this is likely my last post.

Genocide is systematic by definition. Just because you use it incorrectly for hyperbole reasons doesn't make you correct.

When about 80% of the deaths were caused by disease - and the massive majority of that by unintentional transmission of disease - then it's more apt to use the term "natural selection" or "mass extinction" than "genocide". Unless, of course, you want to try to argue that nature in some way can cause genocide. Taken to its logical extreme, you could say what happened to the Native Americans was Darwinian.

What history should tell us is that white settlers and natives clashed and both sides acted poorly. These clashes were the consequences of having different cultures and languages. People on both sides died and it bred mistrust and hatred on both sides.

Once founded as a country, the US Government (and the independent territories) took the side of the white settlers at the expense of the native americans, who were seen as little more than savages and a sub-human species - right when they needed our help most.

[John Galt]

That wasn't my argument; or rather, the subtleties of my argument have been changed into different subtleties in your rephrasing of my argument, since you are determined to prove your point.

My argument is simply, that to fully make right on all the wrongs is beyond the scope of the US Government. An 'apology' may make somebody feel good, but would do nothing to balance out history; nothing can. Our obligations in regard to the past are to learn lessons, and use those lessons wisely as we move forward. I am not 'opposed' to an apology; I just fail to see the point. Who are we apologizing to? Dead aboriginals? Or their living ancestors? And if we truly owe the living ancestors an apology, then how can an apology be enough?

Whatever. This WAS NOT YOUR ARGUMENT AT ALL.

This was your post:

"Has this, and one or two other posts like it, not been addressed [referring to Buccaneer's post that said: why should our Federal Govt apologize for various events taking place before the formation of the federal govt? Shouldn't the Crowns of England, France and Spain share in the blame as well?]

Or is this another case of that peculiar strain of anti-Americanism that occasionally pops up in American intellectuals??"

Then your next post was:

"My point is that we should not be apologizing for something somebody else did."

And then you posted:

"The 'genocide' and treaty violations etc. began and continued HUNDREDS of years before there even WAS an American government. For us to apologize would be as ridiculous as us apologizing to the Armenians for what the Turks did."

And then you accuse me of twisting your argument around to something else and you were really arguing, "that to fully make right on all the wrongs is beyond the scope of the US Government. An 'apology' may make somebody feel good, but would do nothing to balance out history; nothing can."

You are worse than Bubba at sticking with your argument. And then, you actually say I'm the one confusing what you said. Read what you wrote. Your new argument is totally different than your old one. That's fine, but don't act like it is the same and say I'm the one removing the subtlety of your claim.

[st.cronin]

1. Those points about France et al. had not been addressed, and I still think they are fair points.

2. I don't see how an apology could avoid being an apology on behalf of the French and Spanish, etc. Do you think we SHOULD be apologizing for them? This is something that requires clear thinking and elaboration.

Anyway - I've made myself as clear as possible, now. Earlier I was just chiming in, trying to steer the conversation a particular way, instead of coming down on a particular side and articulating WHY I am on that side. I don't HAVE a side here - I think an apology would be pointless, yes, but I could be convinced otherwise. This is not a simple, black and white issue.

I made some fair points which I think still have not been addressed rationally.

Apparently I am ruffling lots of feathers lately.

[John Galt]

I'm getting tired of arguing semantics with you John, so this is likely my last post.

Genocide is systematic by definition. Just because you use it incorrectly for hyperbole reasons doesn't make you correct.

Seriously, Blackie, you are not even paying attention to my posts on this. I've said the term "genocide" is supported by hundreds of experts in the field (which I have provided some citations for and could provide countless more). I also say the Genocide Convention would consider the destruction of Native America to be "genocide." Then you say I'm using it "incorrectly for hyperbole reasons" based upon your definition derived from dictionary.com (not an expert definition by any stretch). I also pointed out that "systematic" does not mean "governmental" and your definition would exclude almost every "genocide" in history other than Nazi Germany. Really, how am I just exagerrating for effect?

When about 80% of the deaths were caused by disease.

You've just begged the question. You say it is 80% with no authority and act as if it is definitive. I've also pointed out that the death rates from disease are impossible to breakdown because there is tons of documentation of intentional spreading of disease (and we don't know how many deaths that accounts for) and that the U.S. government made disease control impossible for Indian governments because it removed tribal governments, eliminated buffer zones, and constantly relocated whole nations. If that isn't "systematic," I don't know what is.

What history should tell us is that white settlers and natives clashed and both sides acted poorly. These clashes were the consequences of having different cultures and languages. People on both sides died and it bred mistrust and hatred on both sides.

Again, your belief that there were only two sides is part of the problem. Indian nations spent centuries warring with each other. Acting as though they were one monolithic unit is just crazy. As I analogized earlier, we didn't invade Sweden in retaliation for Hitler's aggression.

And the scale of destruction was entirely unbalanced. Deaths to settlers were few and far between compared to Indian deaths in the historical record. There was a campaign of extermination and U.S. generals called for the deaths of EVERY American Indian. Saying "both sides acted poorly" just ignores the evidence.

Once founded as a country, the US Government (and the independent territories) took the side of the white settlers at the expense of the native americans, who were seen as little more than savages and a sub-human species - right when they needed our help most.

I agree with your last point, but I have no idea how that helps your argument.

[Telle]

That wasn't my argument; or rather, the subtleties of my argument have been changed into different subtleties in your rephrasing of my argument, since you are determined to prove your point.

My argument is simply, that to fully make right on all the wrongs is beyond the scope of the US Government. An 'apology' may make somebody feel good, but would do nothing to balance out history; nothing can. Our obligations in regard to the past are to learn lessons, and use those lessons wisely as we move forward. I am not 'opposed' to an apology; I just fail to see the point. Who are we apologizing to? Dead aboriginals? Or their living ancestors? And if we truly owe the living ancestors an apology, then how can an apology be enough?

I think the point of an apology is to admit that wrong was done. And I think that only once you've admitted that you've done a wrong can you truly commit yourself to avoiding doing a similar wrong in the future.

[Solecismic]

I think the point of an apology is to admit that wrong was done. And I think that only once you've admitted that you've done a wrong can you truly commit yourself to avoiding doing a similar wrong in the future.

Because we're planning on going to the reservations and finishing the job? I don't understand. Is anyone outside of the Muslim world seriously advocating wiping out populations of any kind these days?

John, whatever your reasons, that comment was absurd. Some of us feel that once a generation or two has gone by, apologies are meaningless. Some of us don't. Personally, if the current Russian government decided to apologize to me and my family, I'd say, "thanks, but I think Stalin already took care of it for us." The current Russian population has absolutely nothing to do with the policies of the 19th Century.

Shit happened, things were bad and my family had to start over in a hostile world with nothing to their name. America's the country that stepped in and gave them that chance, despite the fact that many here didn't welcome the refugees. I know there are many people here whose families came here under much worse circumstances, and I can understand a healthy dislike and skepticism.

You may have reason to feel angry toward some of us. But I see a comment like yours, and the song from yesterday, and my inclination is to put you on ignore. Which is a shame, because you're not a troll per se. You are, however, about as far from the real imaginary John Galt as humanly possible.

[Telle]

Because we're planning on going to the reservations and finishing the job? I don't understand. Is anyone outside of the Muslim world seriously advocating wiping out populations of any kind these days?

You're taking it too literally. It's not that farfetched to think that the US government might someday again trample all over the basic human rights of a people in order to further its own self-interests. It's not that farfetched to think that people just might not care if some of those people end up dead or living miserable lives because of that action. And it's not farfetched to think that if those people fought back that the government just might start a lethal campaign against them.

[dawgfan]

Is anyone outside of the Muslim world seriously advocating wiping out populations of any kind these days?

Were you not paying attention to the atrocities going on in the former Yugoslavia in the early '90's? Or the bloody ethinc battles that have raged on and off in Rawanda for decades? 'Ethnic cleansing' is not confined to the Mulsim world and still flares up in various hot spots around the world.

[ISiddiqui]

Careful. If you didn't like George Bush, you should have voted him out of office. :p
You think the American government, no matter who is in power from whatever party has been FOR the people in the last... oh, 40+ years?

[Blackadar]

Seriously, Blackie, you are not even paying attention to my posts on this. I've said the term "genocide" is supported by hundreds of experts in the field (which I have provided some citations for and could provide countless more). I also say the Genocide Convention would consider the destruction of Native America to be "genocide." Then you say I'm using it "incorrectly for hyperbole reasons" based upon your definition derived from dictionary.com (not an expert definition by any stretch). I also pointed out that "systematic" does not mean "governmental" and your definition would exclude almost every "genocide" in history other than Nazi Germany. Really, how am I just exagerrating for effect?

You've just begged the question. You say it is 80% with no authority and act as if it is definitive. I've also pointed out that the death rates from disease are impossible to breakdown because there is tons of documentation of intentional spreading of disease (and we don't know how many deaths that accounts for) and that the U.S. government made disease control impossible for Indian governments because it removed tribal governments, eliminated buffer zones, and constantly relocated whole nations. If that isn't "systematic," I don't know what is.

Again, your belief that there were only two sides is part of the problem. Indian nations spent centuries warring with each other. Acting as though they were one monolithic unit is just crazy. As I analogized earlier, we didn't invade Sweden in retaliation for Hitler's aggression.

And the scale of destruction was entirely unbalanced. Deaths to settlers were few and far between compared to Indian deaths in the historical record. There was a campaign of extermination and U.S. generals called for the deaths of EVERY American Indian. Saying "both sides acted poorly" just ignores the evidence.

I agree with your last point, but I have no idea how that helps your argument.

I'm not ignoring your posts. You're just posting the same crap.

1. You still make no distinction between nature-related deaths, intentional deaths due to war and intentional deaths due to wholesale slaughter/outright murder (Sand Creek).

2. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe that most illness-related deaths were intentionally caused, which is bunk. Take a look at just the smallpox-related deaths prior to any record of intentional infection.

African slaves were used on the sugar plantation of the West Indies, and with them came smallpox. In 1495, fifty-seven to eighty percent of the native population of Santa Domingo and in 1515, two-thirds of the Indians of Puerto Rico were wiped out by smallpox. Ten years after Cortez arrived in Mexico, the native population had been reduced from twenty-five million to six million five hundred thousand a reduction of 74%. Even the most conservative estimates place the deaths from smallpox above 65% (source: Bray).

Smallpox reached what was to become the United States either from Canada or the West Indies. The first major outbreak of an infectious disease recorded on the northeastern Atlantic coast was 1616-19. The Massachusetts and other Algonquin tribes in the area were reduced from an estimated thirty thousand to three hundred (source: Bray). When the Pilgrims landed a year later in 1620, there was few Indians left to greet them. Many observers believe this infectious disease was smallpox.

By the way, there is little to no hard evidence that anyone - except for the two blankets given out by Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt - actually gave the Native Americans smallpox-laden blankets. There are a couple of other cases where people (in letters) considered it, but there's no proof they actually did it.

3. You try to cite experts then conveniently ignore those same experts (guess where the 80% number came from!!!).

4. You still have yet to make any admission than many of the first atrocities were committed by native tribes against white settlers and that this - right or wrong - colored the way those white settlers later viewed all tribes. Does this in any way excuse those actions? No, but it also shows culpability among the Native Tribes. Yes, I know they were different "nations", but in a less-enlightened age, it was extremely difficult to make that distinction.

5. You still have yet to make any admission that the treaties many tribes signed were conveniently ignored by splinter groups, who were given free reign to break them with no reprocussions from the tribe who signed it. For a modern day example, think about the PLO sponsoring terrorists while trying to negotiate peace with Israel.

6. That many of the disease-related deaths came before there was even an entity called the United States of America.

7. That many of the incidents occured in places that weren't even states within the good ole' USA at the time.

Have a nice day! :)

[John Galt]

Ok. That totally sucked. My knee hit the keyboard which hit the bottom of the desk and that sent me to home page erasing my message. :mad: I'll try it again.

I'm not ignoring your posts. You're just posting the same crap.

Say what you want about the "quality" of my argument, this is the first time you have really engaged a lot of it. I enjoy a good debate and not one where you just boldly assert I'm wrong.

1. You still make no distinction between nature-related deaths, intentional deaths due to war and intentional deaths due to wholesale slaughter/outright murder (Sand Creek).

I do distinguish. My points are: 1) it is extremely hard to know the breakdown (see below) and 2) the breakdown isn't wholly important. On the second point, if disease wiped out 80% of the Indians (and we assign no culpability for that), that doesn't mean wiping out 50-90% of the remaining population isn't genocide. One doesn't have much to do with the other, IMO. Many genocides have occurred with a significantly lower % of deaths.

2. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe that most illness-related deaths were intentionally caused, which is bunk. Take a look at just the smallpox-related deaths prior to any record of intentional infection. [I cut the rest of your quote for brevity's sake, but I believe I've answered it]

I don't believe most illness-related deaths were intentional. I do believe there is an important chunk attributable to acts by the U.S. government. You point out that Pitt is the only confirmed case and you are 100% right about that. I do, however, think the anecdotal evidence makes me believe it was more common. It was certainly talked a lot about at the time given the limited records that exist. Also, there is a lot of evidence related to diseases beyond smallpox.

I also think that the Holocaust counting stats are important on this point. Victims of disease are normally counted as victims of the Holocaust. While I don't think ALL or EVEN most American Indian deaths should count as genocide, I think it would be a big mistake to discount all of them.

3. You try to cite experts then conveniently ignore those same experts (guess where the 80% number came from!!!).

No, I actually don't think 80% is that bad of an estimate (I've seen as high as 90%). I do, however, think it is a very open question in the literature (and one that will likely never be resolved). And that is why I think it was a little brazen of you to say I just use "genocide" for effect. As someone who has spent a lot of time working pro bono for American Indian groups and working on the Rwandan war crime tribunals, I take "genocide" very seriously and don't throw the term around haphazardly. With that being said, I understand there is a debate to be had on the issue, but I've always felt the best evidence showed that genocide did occur and the U.S. engaged in some really ugly conduct that should not be forgotten.

4. You still have yet to make any admission than many of the first atrocities were committed by native tribes against white settlers and that this - right or wrong - colored the way those white settlers later viewed all tribes. Does this in any way excuse those actions? No, but it also shows culpability among the Native Tribes. Yes, I know they were different "nations", but in a less-enlightened age, it was extremely difficult to make that distinction.

I did make that admission. I just think that the argument on the point doesn't go very far for a few reasons:

1) There is no monolithic American Indian. Because some tribes attacked, that doesn't mean others should have been annihilated (see Sweden example). I guess I'm more cynical about the ability to make that distinction - I believe the U.S. didn't want to be bothered with the distinction. Very little effort was made to understand or communicate with many tribes except when the government wanted their land.

2) The U.S. had a policy of extermination. Even as late as the mid 20th Century, government health statistics show government doctors were steralizing up to 5% of American Indian women. Before that, Indian hunts, the California mission furnaces and slave camps, wholesale massacres, and burning of villages created a policy that I can only view as "genocide."

3) It is impossible to know how many Indian tribes were acting in retaliation because the records are so poor. However, we do know Indian deaths were much, much higher than settler deaths. That, to me, is pretty good evidence of where more of the blame lies. As I said, I don't believe anyone is a saint, but I do believe there are degrees of evil.

5. You still have yet to make any admission that the treaties many tribes signed were conveniently ignored by splinter groups, who were given free reign to break them with no reprocussions from the tribe who signed it. For a modern day example, think about the PLO sponsoring terrorists while trying to negotiate peace with Israel.

I sort of admitted that, but I'm troubled by it. A great number of the treaties were executed without any clear evidence of comprehension. Worse, many others were signed only at the barrel of a gun. In such instances, I think splinter groups are more than justified in retaliating. And again, the record of U.S. violations of treaties is so much more significant than Indian violations.

6. That many of the disease-related deaths came before there was even an entity called the United States of America.

Agreed. See my point on 1. above

7. That many of the incidents occured in places that weren't even states within the good ole' USA at the time..

Agreed. See my point on 1.

I believe the U.S. should apologize for the actions it took and those it made possible. I also think it should acknowledge those things it profited from, but if that were the only wrong, I'm not sure I feel an apology would be necessary.

Have a nice day! :)

Ummm. . . No?

OK. You too. ;)

[Buccaneer]

Just a couple of points/questions based on glancing through the latest threads.
1. Do you know how many "natives" there were living in what is now North America from 1100-1500?
2. What was the percentage of natives living in the 19th compared to the pre-Columbus period(s)?
3. Can "genocide" or mass killings actually happen between tribes?
4. How many "treaties" were signed during the colonial period by tribes that did not even occupy the land they "sold"?

[Dutch]

You think the American government, no matter who is in power from whatever party has been FOR the people in the last... oh, 40+ years?

Not my point at all. My point was that we have a system in place to remove people who "the people" do not approve of. Also wanted to point out that "the people" did not feel the need to vote Bush out of office. "The People" have spoken.

[Bubba Wheels]

[QUOTE=John Galt]I hadn't picked up on a St.C pattern, but I'm very slow about those things. I still seem to engage Bubba despite knowing full well it doesn't matter at all. I'm not so bright. :p

And some would say that we could never agree on anything! This proves 'em wrong!

[DaddyTorgo]

alright. I'll toss my hat into this ring as someone with plenty of knowledge of First Peoples history and scholarship. Where's the debate currently at? What's currently in contention? Without me reading the past 4 pages http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif .

Does everyone agree that the federal government was culpable in the genocide of and the systemic displacement of countless human beings that lived in this land after the establishment of the United States of America? Cuz if not that we got some serious educating to do !

[Wolfpack]

Just when it looked like the hurricane might dissipate...it looks a warm water patch is going to give it some juice.... :)

[DaddyTorgo]

lol yep

[Telle]

Does everyone agree that the federal government was culpable in the genocide of and the systemic displacement of countless human beings that lived in this land after the establishment of the United States of America? Cuz if not that we got some serious educating to do !

There's currently debate as to the definition of genocide, and whether the actions of the government can rightfully be considered genocide.

[Wolfpack]

To paraphrase Douglas Adams...

The story so far:
In the beginning, Columbus sailed to and reached the New World.
This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

:D

[DaddyTorgo]

thanks telle for catching me up.

as to that: someone just go dictionary.com genocide, that should take care of that.

as for considering what the government did genocide, how about the government intentionally giving native peoples blankets coated in smallpox in the 18th century? The massacre at Wounded Knee? And those are just the highly publicized incidents off the top of my head. If you want me to go and grab a primary source or two, they're sitting next to my bed. Massacres of the Utes in Colorado, etc. Native peoples have been royally mistreated by the governement of the United States since the beginning. There's virtually no doubt about that in my mind. First we killed millions through disease, then moved onto the continent and pushed the remainder off their lands through swindling, out-and-out theft and broken treaties.

the world would have been a better place if you europeans (including that 1/2 of my family) had stayed in Europe.

[Wolfpack]

thanks telle for catching me up.

as to that: someone just go dictionary.com genocide, that should take care of that.



Two words: You. Wish.

[Blackadar]

thanks telle for catching me up.

as to that: someone just go dictionary.com genocide, that should take care of that.


Go read the rest of the fucking thread before posting. Sheesh.

[DaddyTorgo]

if it wasn't 4 pages long and most likely full of drivel i might blackie

[Blackadar]

if it wasn't 4 pages long and most likely full of drivel i might blackie

Then don't post at all. But it's poor form to jump in after 4 pages and essentially say "I won't bother reading anyone else's posts, but let me post something that's already been discussed over the last 3 pages ad nauseum". :rolleyes:

[CraigSca]

Then don't post at all. But it's poor form to jump in after 4 pages and essentially say "I won't bother reading anyone else's posts, but let me post something that's already been discussed over the last 3 pages ad nauseum". :rolleyes:
/Agree - and it's been a tremendously interesting read as well.

[st.cronin]

the world would have been a better place if you europeans (including that 1/2 of my family) had stayed in Europe.

While I sympathize with your sentiment, that is a preposterous statement.

[Buccaneer]

thanks telle for catching me up.

as to that: someone just go dictionary.com genocide, that should take care of that.

as for considering what the government did genocide, how about the government intentionally giving native peoples blankets coated in smallpox in the 18th century? The massacre at Wounded Knee? And those are just the highly publicized incidents off the top of my head. If you want me to go and grab a primary source or two, they're sitting next to my bed. Massacres of the Utes in Colorado, etc. Native peoples have been royally mistreated by the governement of the United States since the beginning. There's virtually no doubt about that in my mind. First we killed millions through disease, then moved onto the continent and pushed the remainder off their lands through swindling, out-and-out theft and broken treaties.

the world would have been a better place if you europeans (including that 1/2 of my family) had stayed in Europe.
In the 18th Century? Where, New England or Virginia where there were so few natives left? How many documented events have there been on this? Besides, why so one sided in your list? Do you discount the millions of natives there were killed by other natives? While the disease toll (up to 90% I've read) and pushing off (actually more like keeping out) were very true, many natives themselves did the same thing to others for centuries - as nearly all civilizations have done throughout human history. The methods of human events are mostly dispicable, it's the overall trend that does not make this worse than the Soviets of the 1930s or the Nazis of the 1940s.

[Bubba Wheels]

The United States is guilty of nothing more than what just about every other country in the world has done to some extent at one time or another. Conquest and expansion was as necessary a way-of-life as hunting, farming or eating. The fact that the United States after its expansion pretty much ceased then became the most successful and prosperous place on the face of the earth is really what doesn't set well with the others. Why is it that for all the evil we are claimed to be, everybody still wants to come here? The one thing others in the world seem to be very good at emulating and copying for their own aims is our court system. "Its not fair, you have too much, give us some!" Seems to be the common denominator amongst our detractors.

Which country/contintent is less blood-thirsty in their history? Africa? South America? Asia? Course not. Have the South American Indian tribes faired much bettor under Spanish/Portugese conquest/expansion, ect...? The difference is that our own concepts of fairness are constantly utilized against us by those who never practice them in the first place. Par for the course.

[Telle]

The United States is guilty of nothing more than what just about every other country in the world has done to some extent at one time or another.

Since when is "everybody else is doing it" a valid excuse?

[clintl]

Have the South American Indian tribes faired much bettor under Spanish/Portugese conquest/expansion, ect...? The difference is that our own concepts of fairness are constantly utilized against us by those who never practice them in the first place. Par for the course.

Actually, the Latin American tribes on the whole have fared better than the tribes in North America, at least relative to their national standard of living. There was a much higher degree of assimilation into the mainstream culture than in North America.

An example - in California, under Spanish/Mexican rule, the Indians fared poorly, but their decline was from 300,000 to 150,000 in population over a 77-year period (1769-1846). Within about a decade of American rule, the Indian population had dropped to about 20,000, and the American settlers treated the Indians much more harshly.

[DaddyTorgo]

In the 18th Century? Where, New England or Virginia where there were so few natives left? How many documented events have there been on this? Besides, why so one sided in your list? Do you discount the millions of natives there were killed by other natives? While the disease toll (up to 90% I've read) and pushing off (actually more like keeping out) were very true, many natives themselves did the same thing to others for centuries - as nearly all civilizations have done throughout human history. The methods of human events are mostly dispicable, it's the overall trend that does not make this worse than the Soviets of the 1930s or the Nazis of the 1940s.
in Ohio actually for just one instance, and that's from my AP US History textbook in HIGH SCHOOL for chrissakes. As for natives killing millions of other natives...nope. Didn't happen. Not that native tribes never made war against other native tribes and never killed each other, but the numbers killed were certainly far below millions, both because of technology and because of the way that native warfare worked. Not that it was all about "counting coup" but that was certainly a big part of it. It was warfare until honor was satisfied, and the instances of large-scale tribe-on-tribe warfare until one tribe was wiped out were few and far between.

[DaddyTorgo]

dola

as for just jumping in and asking someone to catch me up...i didn't say that i wasn't going to read the whole thread, i just said that I wanted someone to catch me up on where things were right now so that i could make a relevent post and not try to remember everything that had been said and had been resolved over 4 pages. and if you don't like that you can bite me. poor form my ass.

[Bubba Wheels]

in Ohio actually for just one instance, and that's from my AP US History textbook in HIGH SCHOOL for chrissakes. As for natives killing millions of other natives...nope. Didn't happen. Not that native tribes never made war against other native tribes and never killed each other, but the numbers killed were certainly far below millions, both because of technology and because of the way that native warfare worked. Not that it was all about "counting coup" but that was certainly a big part of it. It was warfare until honor was satisfied, and the instances of large-scale tribe-on-tribe warfare until one tribe was wiped out were few and far between.

Well, the problem with this analysis is that it (like most others citing U.S. trangressions vs. Native Americans) makes no mention of the fact that in every instance of warfare between the two Native American tribe(s) or groups actively and voluntarily served, supported and fought with the U.S. They did it because they saw a benefit in the defeat of the tribe(s) that they were fighting against with U.S. help. So it stands to reason that if they did pocess the technology and whatever to devestate their enemies they surely would have taken advantage of it and done so. Native Americans get no points for virtue for not having the technology to carry out their aims.

[Cringer]

Ok, 4+ pages read, phewwww.

First off, I will state that I am pretty much on the side of John Galt in this. Although I find a couple valid points of arguement from the other side. I do find that people are so much against an apology is kind of laughable. I think it makes little difference, but is something that should be done. To argue it would actually hurt native's is the funniest arguement of all though. Our official government apologies have done so much harm to Hawaiian and Japanese people huh?

My main reason for posting though was this. I am curious if anyone has even read the apology/resolution? This was actually proposed last year by Sen/ Brownback. (A man I do not like for other reasons)

Here is a link to the resolution of last year, from what I understand is the exact same as this year. habbadabbadoop://www.ouachitalk.com/apologizes2.htm

It is rather long to post here, but I think everyone should read Sen. Brownbacks speech to the Senate last year when he introduced this. His first two paragraphs are the key to me.

And then read the resolution itself, as this is the key to this thread. There is so much I would like to put here, but will only quote one part.

Whereas the United States forced Indian Tribes and their citizens to move away from their traditional homelands and onto federally established and controlled reservations, in accordance with such Acts as the Indian Removal Act of 1830;

Whereas many Native Peoples suffered and perished--

(1) during the execution of the official United States Government policy of forced removal, including the infamous Trail of Tears and Long Walk;

(2) during bloody armed confrontations and massacres, such as the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864 and the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890; and

(3) on numerous Indian reservations;

Whereas the United States Government condemned the traditions, beliefs, and customs of the Native Peoples and endeavored to assimilate them by such policies as the redistribution of land under the General Allotment Act of 1887 and the forcible removal of Native children from their families to faraway boarding schools where their Native practices and languages were degraded and forbidden;

Whereas officials of the United States Government and private United States citizens harmed Native Peoples by the unlawful acquisition of recognized Tribal land, the theft of resources from such territories, and the mismanagement of Tribal trust funds;

Whereas the policies of the United States Government toward Indian Tribes and the breaking of covenants with Indian Tribes have contributed to the severe social ills and economic troubles in many Native communities today;

See, this deals with the whole history of the United States government and their dealing with the Native American nations. So much foucs is being put on 150 or more years ago, or 100 years ago. This did not end with the 20th century, and I think that is a mistake made by people who want to argue that it was too long ago to matter.

Since 1871, when Congress decided no more treaties would be made with Indian Nations, many acts of legislation have hurt the Indian peoples. And guess what, people effected by those are still alive today. SO maybe they would like an apology. Legislation put through that has hurt natives....

1880 - Civilization Regulations - Congress set up a series of offenses that only Indians could commit. Outlawed Indian religions, the practices of "so-called" medicine men, ceremonies like the Sun Dance, the leaving the reservation without permission. These regulations were in place until 1936

1882 - Indian Rights Association. This organization was created to protect the interests and rights of Indians. The association was composed of white reformers who wanted to help Indians abandon their cultural and spiritual beliefs and assimilate into American society.

1883 - Courts of Indian Offenses. The Secretary of the Interior established these courts to uphold the 1880 Civilization Regulations to eliminate "heathenish practices" among the Indians. The rules of the courts forbade the practice of all public and private religious activities by Indians on their reservations, including ceremonial dances, like the Sun Dance, and the practices of "so-called medicine men."

1887 - General Allotment Act (Dawes Act). This Congressional Act authorized the President to allot portions of certain reservation land to individual Indians - 160 acres to each head of family and 80 acres to others - to establish private farms, and authorized the Secretary of Interior to negotiate with the tribes for purchasing "excess" lands for non-Indian settlement. Indians were to select their own lands, but if they failed to do so, the Indian agent would select land for them. The federal government was to hold title to the land in trust for 25 years, thus preventing its sale until allottees could learn to treat it as real estate. Allotment primarily sought to destroy Indian communities where property sharing encouraged "tribalism," and to open Indian lands for non-Indian purchase and settlement. The result was that from 1887 to 1934 (when the Act was repealed), Indian land holdings decreased from 138 million acres to 48 million. The Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Seminoles were excluded from the provisions of the Allotment Act.

1906 - Antiquities Act. This Congressional Act declared that Indian bones and objects found on federal land were the property of the United States

1924 - Indian Citizenship Act. This Congressional Act extended citizenship and voting rights to all American Indians. Some Indians, however, did not want to become US citizens, preferring to maintain only their tribal membership.

1934 - The Indian New Deal. The brainchild of BIA director John Collier, the New Deal was an attempt to promote the revitalization of Indian cultural, lingual, governmental, and spiritual traditions. This blueprint for reform was written by non-Indians who felt they knew how to champion Indian rights.

1934 - Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). The IRA was the centerpiece of the Indian New Deal. It encouraged Indians to "recover" their cultural heritage, prohibited new allotments and extended the trust period for existing allotments, and sought to promote tribal self-government by encouraging tribes to adopt constitutions and form federally-chartered corporations. In order to take advantage of IRA funding, tribes were required to adopt a U.S. style constitution. Tribes were given two years to accept or reject the IRA. Tribes who accepted it could then elect a tribal council. 174 tribes accepted it, 135 which drafted tribal constitutions. However, 78 tribes rejected the IRA, most fearing the consequences of even further federal direction.

1953 - Termination. Under House Concurrent Resolution 108, the trust relationship with many Indian tribes was terminated. Terminated tribes were then subject to state laws and their lands were sold to non-Indians. Eventually, Congress terminated over 100 tribes, most of which were small and consisted of a few hundred members as most. The Menominee of Wisconsin and the Klamath of Oregon were exceptions with 3,270 and 2,133 members respectively.

1953 - Relocation. In order to deal with increasing unemployment among American Indians, the BIA enacted a new policy to persuade large numbers of Indians to relocate into urban areas. Using the lure of job training and
housing, brochures depicting Indian families leading a middle-class life were distributed by the BIA. While the initial response was enthusiastic, within five years the relocation program was counted a failure, with 50 percent of the participants returning to their reservations. This was the first of many late 20th Century failures to "mainstream" the Indian population.

------

Ok, so as I am trying to point out, the U.S. government spent it's first 100 years or so fighting the native's on the "battle field," right or wrong. Then over the next almost 100 years, with the Indians for the most part under their control, the U.S. government then tried to break them of their savage ways. I don't even have anything in all that about Indian children being taken away to boarding schools where they were forced to dress 'civilized,' not allowed to practice their religion, or speak their native language.

None of this changed until the 60's, when along with the 'black civil rights movement' you saw the Indian movement become national news. Groups, most notably the American Indian Movement, brought awareness to Indian issues and there were finally some acts in congress that started to benefit Indians.

I won't get into the 70's-Current period, because that is pretty controversial stuff with COINTELPRO and the FBI/CIA acting against groups like AIM.

[John Galt]

I just saw this today:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/02/news/fortune500/wachovia_slavery/index.htm?cnn=yes

It seems Wachovia has apologized for slavery ties. So, if you have any Wachovia stock, you better sell it before the lawsuits start coming in. ;)

[Blackadar]

I just saw this today:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/02/news/fortune500/wachovia_slavery/index.htm?cnn=yes

It seems Wachovia has apologized for slavery ties. So, if you have any Wachovia stock, you better sell it before the lawsuits start coming in. ;)

No, but I'll sell it because they spent valuable corporate resources on stupid shit like this.

[stkelly52]

THe thing that is really stupid is that they spent the money because the City of Chicago forced them to if they wanted to keep doing buisness with them.

[Samdari]

Becuase you're living in land that was theirs.

I'd like to point out, they were not alive either.

[Klinglerware]

THe thing that is really stupid is that they spent the money because the City of Chicago forced them to if they wanted to keep doing buisness with them.

Laws that force corporations to disclose their historical slavery ties is on the books in several cities. Wachovia probably didn't have much of a choice in the matter...

[Wolfpack]

I think I read somewhere recently that Boston is finally "legally" allowing NA's to visit the city. Apparently there had been an ordinance passed by the colony in the 1600s that banned them from the city because the colonists and natives were in conflict and it was never rescended. It has been completely ignored for the most part since then, but technically it was still on the books until just recently.

[DaddyTorgo]

so I read somewhere (i can find the link if anyone doubts it) that the average American uses as many resources by the age of 12 as an entire Third World village uses in 3 generations. And I wanted to stir this pot up again and ask why some of those who posted below were so confident that the way of Western Civilization is superior to "Third World" if you will. I mean sure if we were all living like the NA's and African villagers there'd be no jet planes and no internet and what-not, but can you really say that you'd miss that if you'd never experienced it? I personally am as big a net-head as you'll find, but I think that for example the NA way of life would result in a much cleaner and healthier Earth. I don't think we should be so quick to denigrate it and assume that it's inherently inferior.

[Wolfpack]

I think that argument fails a bit because, well, the NA's had to be wasteful in some fashion. They couldn't use everything. Now, granted, their garbage was mostly biodegradable (animal skins, carcasses, etc), but arrowheads and other like implements that they developed were not (else we wouldn't find them). I think the reason you could say so is because, well, there were fewer people overall. One million people (picking a number at random) isn't going to produce nearly the waste that 300 million can.

And I do completely understand the argument about NA's being better off in some respects. They are far more technologically advanced today than they could ever hope to be had Europeans never come. But, they do not control the lands and lives they used to, so they have "lost" something, if you will, compared to what they might have had.

It is these twists and turns of history that ironically enough enable you to voice your opinion on here. If we say that Europe gets severely crippled by the Plague (with a very high mortality rate, say 75%) that sets it back centuries and the New World is never discovered for a long time (or choose some other mechanism if you like to achieve the same result), then the ideas that eventually evolve into the Enlightement likely never come about, the United States is never founded as a nation, technologies would never result, and you'd never be able to voice your opinion, well, because, you aren't here to do it and even if you were, you wouldn't have the Enlightened philosphies of equal treatment of all men (or the environment or any other thing that man has decided to try to take better care of in recent times) available to you. In short, you wouldn't notice and appreciate these things for much the same reason you wouldn't notice not having a plane in the sky.

One other thing. Just because a third world village takes three generations to eat resources one American does, does not mean that those third worlders would be any more efficient were they given American standards of living and vice versa. It is a side effect of our society that in order for someone to post on a message board, some fossil fuels have to burn (or atoms split, etc), some pollutants expelled, and some waste produced. It is also a side effect of our society that we actually notice this and want to do something about it (how to fix it is of course a matter of debate).

[Cringer]

This sounds like it is leading into a discussion on Alternative History books, which can be pretty good reads IMO.

Check out Conquistador by S.M. Sterling (2003). You actually get a look at what the world, and mainly the U.S. west coast would be like if the Americas were never discovered. Pretty good book....