Misconception about the Indians (Native Americans).

[Dakine10 5,452]

I like it how I am wrong, yet no one seems to point out why. The Indians (yes, I know, the Natives, but I don't do PC #######) were engages in a war which they lost, just like a thousand other populations before them. I don't see where they still have the guts to complain about it, when it was a clear cut lost on their part, or how that is somewhow comparable to nowadays immigration.

Another example from my country's history. 1000 years ago, the nowadays Hungian populations came from Asia and invaded Transylvania, which they held in their power for over 900 years before we took it back after being on the winning side of WW1. This is how history is written, I am still baffled as to how a population can lose a war and still ###### so much about it. Or how the population that defeated them can now grovel to the feet of the very same people their ancestors defeated. I guess it is genetic degeneration.

I know. Provilleges offered to them by the remorseful white folks, right? Just serves to make my point actually.

Actually several people have pointed out why, so if you choose to read the responses, it's there for you.

In a nutshell:

- there was no single "American Indian" nation. Each tribe was a sovereign nation. Very few of these nations ever engaged in a war with the United States. Saying the United States was at war with the Indians would be like referring to the Vietnam conflict as the US war with Asia.

- most land transfer was the result of negotiated treaties. Many of these treaties were signed under duress. Sometimes they were at gunpoint such as the takeover of the Kingdom of Hawaii by the Dole company. Sometimes they were signed by tribe members who were not even authorized to negotiate rather than tribal leadership, such as the treaty of New Echota which ultimately resulted in the removal of the Cherokee Nation.

- many of these treaties were then ignored as the US sought to expand westward. Even when tribes went to war, they were often provoked by illegal actions of the US military. The worst of these acts amounted to genocide.

- most of the tribal land east of the Mississippi was acquired due to the consequences of passing the indian removal act. This act allowed the United States to negotiate with tribes to relocate. This act was ruled illegal and unconstitutional by the supreme court. The supreme court's decision was ignored by president Jackson.

- today, native American lands held in federal trust amount to over 55 million acres, or about 3% of the total US landmass. Native tribes purchased more than a million of those acres in the last 15 years, and continue to do so. None of this land is due to anyone feeling remorseful.

[Peter_Pan 661]

^ How does that change the fact that they lost a war, and, as such, they have no right to ###### about it?

[Dakine10 5,452]

^ How does that change the fact that they lost a war, and, as such, they have no right to ###### about it?

Well it changes everything. There was no collective they, "they" didn't collectively lose a war, "they" do have rights, and you shouldn't imply what you are posting as being factual.

You stated there was a misconception, and there was, but you are the one who made it. I bolded the concept for you in my explanation. The concept being illegal immigration. I gave you examples of land that was acquired for settlement through illegal activity. Even in the day, these acts were seen as illegal. And that is why people make the comparison with illegal immigration today.

[anita_t 4]

I like it how I am wrong, yet no one seems to point out why. The Indians (yes, I know, the Natives, but I don't do PC #######) were engages in a war which they lost, just like a thousand other populations before them. I don't see where they still have the guts to complain about it, when it was a clear cut lost on their part, or how that is somewhow comparable to nowadays immigration.

Another example from my country's history. 1000 years ago, the nowadays Hungian populations came from Asia and invaded Transylvania, which they held in their power for over 900 years before we took it back after being on the winning side of WW1. This is how history is written, I am still baffled as to how a population can lose a war and still ###### so much about it. Or how the population that defeated them can now grovel to the feet of the very same people their ancestors defeated. I guess it is genetic degeneration.

I know. Provilleges offered to them by the remorseful white folks, right? Just serves to make my point actually.

What do you mean by genetic degeneration?

[DaveE 178]

^ How does that change the fact that they lost a war, and, as such, they have no right to ###### about it?

What war did they lose? Does it have a name? My tribe never fought a day against the Europeans, we were just lied to about Europeans keeping their word. Suggest you google "Walter Ashby Plecker", the most hated white man in Virginian indian culture. And yes, I am a card carrying tribal member.

A little snippet for you: Walter Ashby Plecker was the first registrar of Virginia’s Bureau of Vital Statistics, which records births, marriages and deaths. He accepted the job in 1912. For the next 34 years, he led the effort to purify the white race in Virginia by forcing Indians and other nonwhites to classify themselves as blacks. It amounted to bureaucratic genocide.

[JohnR! 5,495]

, I am still baffled as to how a population can lose a war and still ###### so much about it. Or how the population that defeated them can now grovel to the feet of the very same people their ancestors defeated. I guess it is genetic degeneration.

Maybe it is not about winning or losing wars so much as coming to the realization that it is never too late to acknowledge those who fell as a result.

When the red army rolled through eastern Europe, they did free many from German rule, but they also raped and killed a lot of peasants and innocent people. There are some ugly aspects in war. We can bury them or we can keep their remembrance in the hopes that we may never have to see some aspects of history repeat itself.

If you are ever in Berlin, there is a place you might consider visiting. It may help you put things in perspective as to the relativity of winning and losing, when speaking of wars.

http://www.stiftung-denkmal.de/publikationen/kurzinformationen/informationen-in-20-sprachen.html

[Dan and Judy 614]

I have seen this idea floating through cyberspace more times than I can count: that if you oppose immigration, then you should get out of the US because it was originally Indian land. Irks me that people are unable to make the difference between winning a war (and all its consequences), and opposing a policy.

^Natives Americans have no call in claiming it was their land, since they have lost it through WAR. That simply means they have no claim to it anymore – they didn’t accept the whites, the whites were simply stronger and won.

Am I wrong?

The cartoon could be viewed as a warning of what could happen if immigration is not controlled.

[AmyWrites 593]

I can't believe someone thinks invading a country is somehow better than violating a policy.

So if Latin America keeps gaining power and invades the US and forces it to become Mexican/Argentinian/Venezuelan, I hope, by your mentality, you don't complain about it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What war did they lose? Does it have a name? My tribe never fought a day against the Europeans, we were just lied to about Europeans keeping their word. Suggest you google "Walter Ashby Plecker", the most hated white man in Virginian indian culture. And yes, I am a card carrying tribal member.

A little snippet for you: Walter Ashby Plecker was the first registrar of Virginia’s Bureau of Vital Statistics, which records births, marriages and deaths. He accepted the job in 1912. For the next 34 years, he led the effort to purify the white race in Virginia by forcing Indians and other nonwhites to classify themselves as blacks. It amounted to bureaucratic genocide.

Hey, Dave. What tribe are you? I'm very familiar with the Pamunkey tribe and others in VA. I have relatives who are affiliated with the Pamunkey.

[DaveE 178]

Hey, Dave. What tribe are you? I'm very familiar with the Pamunkey tribe and others in VA. I have relatives who are affiliated with the Pamunkey.

I am Chickahominy; our web site is here: Chickahominy Tribe

Going home for our annual tribal gathering in Sept.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

^ How does that change the fact that they lost a war, and, as such, they have no right to ###### about it?

There were a lot more treaties than wars. Most of those treaties still have force of law. When I was a writer for Akwesasne Notes, for example, I traveled between Canada and the US without being stopped by customs citing the Jay Treaty, which allows members of the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee nation to pass over the border as sovereigns. The Haudenosaunee also issue their own passport, which has been used to travel internationally since 1977. I remember several of my friends using it to travel to Geneva in the early 1980s to participate in a program about Native sovereignty.

First Nations peoples are dual citizens of their Native nations and of the western nation that surrounds them and recognizes their sovereignty. They have land and the right to pursue their rights over it. The most recent land rights dispute that I participated in as a consultant was Cobell, in conjunction with the Native American Rights Fund (NARF). This case dealt with money and resources owed to the tribes and individual tribal members that has been stolen and mismanaged by the BLM and the BIA since the establishment of the Dawes Act.

In many cases, North American indigenous entities were treated as nations by the invaders, and, their advocates have been savvy enough to use their treaty rights to establish and expand their rights under federal law. There's not much whining involved when you have that kind of clout.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I am Chickahominy; our web site is here: Chickahominy Tribe

Going home for our annual tribal gathering in Sept.

I've been to Chickahominy :-) We owned a farm in VA when I was a kid. I got to know lots of the local tribes. One of my dad's brothers married a Pamunkey woman and a cousin is married to a Monacan tribal member. Small world . . .

[ready4ONE 5,400]

My childrens' tribe never fought except in service to the US.

[Stuart and Thea 95]

^Natives Americans have no call in claiming it was their land, since they have lost it through WAR. That simply means they have no claim to it anymore – they didn’t accept the whites, the whites were simply stronger and won.

Am I wrong?

Yes, actually, you are wrong. They didn't lose it through war, mostly they lost it through disease.

This is an interesting article that sums up the actual history pretty nicely and might undo some of your misconceptions:

6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america

from that article, you can see that just two years before settling at plymouth rock, 96% of the native population in Massachusetts was wiped out by one of the worst plagues in the history of the world. National population estimates of 100million dropped to 10 million just in time for "white man" to invade. I don't think it would have gone the same way for "white man" if there hadn't been a plague on the population effectively killing more people than all of Europe together at the time had alive.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Stuart and Thea