Back when America was still killing Indians...

[Smith_3]

...I wonder if the same rhetoric was used as today, to justify it.

"They are not Christians. We should kill their leaders and convert them."

"They use their wifes as human shields."

"They are savages and more busy killing each other than killing us."

"They are terrorists who attack our railways."


I bet back then people who were opposed to killing all the Indians were called liberal-pinko-commie or the contemporary equivalent too.

[MissHoneychurch]

1. The sentence

"The only good Indian is a dead Indian" should answer all your questions ....

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1137096%20

[ThomWV]

2. American never quit killing Indians, we just do it slower now days.

[demodonkey]

6. My thoughts exactly. nt

[DangerDave921]

3. Not quite

We started in on the Indians long before there were railroads. And even after railroads, I don't think there was much trouble with terrorism, or whatever that would have been called back then.

And actually there were plenty of peaceful pacts with Indian tribes. But of course as we wanted more land, we took it under the belief that our interests were more important than theirs, and that they were just savages.

Unfortunately, throughout all of human history, more powerful nations have taken land and materials from less powerful nations. It's just a fact of life. And Indian tribes were at war with other tribes too, and had their own version of slavery. So human history has a lot of ugly and brutal episodes in it. You can't act like the US is the one country who ever did this.

[SpiralHawk]

4. Right, and it's okay that the US is STILL stealing massive money and resources

from the Red Nations...

Because "EVERYONE DOES IT."*



* Ubiquitous republicon excuse for evading responsibility.

[DangerDave921]

7. what are you talking about?

Who said anything about what the US is doing today? I made an historical point that just about every nation - at some point in time -- has engaged in war and taken over new land and engaged in brutal acts. How is that a republican excuse for what is going on today?

What are the Red Nations? Please forgive my ignorance. I just don't know the term, nor do I know how the US is stealing from them. Thanks.

[SpiralHawk]

8. Not surprised you know nothing about the Red Nations

even though, presumably, you are living on Turtle Island (North America), ancestral territory for the Red Nations, land long ago stolen in a campaign of genocide against Red Nations peoples who are still being abused by the government now claiming the land. Most people choose to ignore the realities, since they are so "inconvenient."

There is no excuse. Please don't tell me it is OK because everyone else has done it. That sounds like a typical republicon (or First Grader) cop out to me, and to anyone concerned with honesty, integrity, and justice.

Here' one snippet on the ongoing abuse and ripoff -- Massive Bad Karma....

------------

American Indians Demand an End to Theft and Broken Promises

by Brian Awehali
r

Eloise Cobell, chief plaintiff in the Individual Indian Monies trust case, whose team has won victory after victory in the last 7 years. The courts have ruled that the government is clearly in the wrong. The question now is: Will they pay up? Voices of people like you will be a large part of the answer.

After taking most of their land and reducing their population by almost 90% over the past 150 years, the U.S. government set up a bank for Native Americans. A special bank. A bank that let them keep using Indian land, taking in money, never issuing a statement or tracking how much money it has, rarely paying out any money at all, and refusing to provide any information about the money it manages.

Welcome to the heart of the landmark Individual Indian Monies (IIM) trust reform case. It’s the largest class action lawsuit ever lodged against the federal government. It’s possibly the most important piece of legislation affecting Native America today, and the government is losing badly, but the story garners almost no media coverage, and although public outcry and demand for justice is crucial, few people even know about the case...

...Originally filed in 1996 by Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe, the heart of the case involves more than 100 years of revenues generated by government leases on Indian land held “in trust” for mining, grazing, timber, oil and gas exploration and other uses. The Departments of the Interior and Treasury and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), say they’ve misplaced or can’t account for more than $100 billion in Indian land revenues.

"I've never seen more egregious conduct by the federal government," said Royce C. Lamberth, the federal judge overseeing the case. In one ruling, Lamberth also wrote that "the results of Interior's failure to take its trust responsibilities seriously are plain today...Although they are citizens of the greatest and most prosperous nation in the world today, the beneficiaries of the IIM trust live under conditions that would not be alien to citizens of the poorest Third World nations. Many of them live in abject poverty."

http://www.circleoflifefoundation.org/news/newsletter/2004-05winter/trustus.htm

[DangerDave921]

10. Never heard of that before

Thanks for the link. Very interesting. How does one go back 150 years to decide who the money should be paid to, especially now that we are all Americans and not separate sovereign nations. Or else maybe the tribes are seen as sovereign, kind of like the casino issue.

[NNN0LHI]

5. It was called Manifest Destiny

http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_native_american_displacement.html

Native American Displacement Amid U.S. Expansion
A Conversation With R. David Edmunds
University of Texas at Dallas

There is an interesting symbolic portrayal of Manifest Destiny that shows "Columbia," the great American angel or woman, floating over the plains. Ahead of her, in the West, is a great darkness populated by wild animals. There are bears and wolves and Indian people, who are fleeing her light. In her wake come farms, villages and homesteads and in the back are cities and railroads. As the figure progresses across the land, the light of civilization dispels the darkness of ignorance and barbarity.

In this painting, Native American people are portrayed along with the animals and the darkness. They have to be removed before Columbia can bring the prosperity promised to the United States. It's an interesting portrayal and, I think, very symbolic of the thinking of many Americans during the mid-19th century.

Another interesting symbol of Manifest Destiny shows a railroad train coming out of the east with smoke billowing out of its boiler. It's moving west, bringing technological enlightenment into the wilderness. Americans in the 19th century and ever since, have equated civilization with technological development, no matter what the cost, particularly in terms of spirit or morality.

From your viewpoint, how did the United States justify its efforts to expand?

The U.S.-Mexican War and the capture of lands in the Southwest was very difficult for the United States. It was rationalized in terms that it would bring Anglo-Saxon institutions into an area that was devoid of such enlightenment.

Expansion and Indian removal created some phenomenal problems for the new American nation in terms of its moral character. How can this unique experiment in the new world — this nation that prided itself upon its democratic institutions, force Native American people westward? How do you rationalize the taking of land and the usurpation of property?

The argument that was used was, "This had to be done to save these poor Indian people. They don't fit in the East, so we have to move them out beyond the frontier where they can do their Indian thing unmolested. This is the only possible way to save them."

The hypocrisy of this is obvious because many of the people, though not all of them, who were removed were very sophisticated and relatively "civilized" people. For example, the literacy rate of the Cherokee nation is higher than that of the white South up through the Civil War, yet the tribe was moved westward as an uncivilized people, so that their land could be open for American expansion.

[tuckessee]

9. Support the Horse Troopers!

Sure, the Sand Creek Massacre was a bad deal but don't blame the actual, on-site killers but instead blame only politicians thousands of miles away.

The cavalry is only following orders.

Unless you've ridden miles in their stirrups you can't criticize them.

I hope you all will make a care package for the troops serving their nation with honor in uniform on the Plains of the Mid-West.