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.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

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]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Maverick?

indeed

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

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.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Yossarian

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

What was Monday?

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

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

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

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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

You don't say....

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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).

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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!

Originally Posted by John Galt

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?