ForumGarden

Clint;924837 wrote: It puzzles me. They could have such beautiful lives living on the land the way they were. There is an abundance of the deer Nomad had to avoid hitting and fish in the beautiful lake. Why do they seek after the material way of life claiming they don't get enough of it? I don't understand.


It's called Culture Shock - even after all these years their culture is suffering from it.

Virtually every people whose lands have been overtaken by western society has suffered from it.

Accountable;924917 wrote: Oh cool! A chance to plug the book I'm reading. You guys have got to read it if this kind of stuff interests you (the forced diversity stuff, not the killing Nomad stuff). It's a Pulitzer Prize winner, Guns Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, by Jared Diamond.



The guy's a geography and physiology professor that melded information from many disciplines such as history, botany, biology, etc to answer questions such as Why did the Spanish sail to the Americas and conquer the Incas instead of the other way around. Fascinating stuff. Explains why Native Americans had no killer germs to wipe out visiting Europeans. Fascinating stuff!


It's on order and should arrive this week

Bryn Mawr;925073 wrote: It's called Culture Shock - even after all these years their culture is suffering from it.

Virtually every people whose lands have been overtaken by western society has suffered from it.


But if they are taken over by some other society they don't suffer culture shock:rolleyes:

CARLA;924919 wrote: Nomie I bet you high tailed it out of there fast. Did you have a 4WD vehicle to manage the terraine? What an experience you won't soon forget. Beats sitting in an office all day.
Bite your tongue, woman! That's a biker you're writing to.

Clint;925268 wrote: But if they are taken over by some other society they don't suffer culture shock:rolleyes:


Culture Shock is the effect experienced by a society when taken over by some other society.

Of course it's Culture Shock.

Bryn Mawr;926127 wrote: Culture Shock is the effect experienced by a society when taken over by some other society.

Of course it's Culture Shock.


Understood. My comment came from observing a trend toward blaming western culture for all the world's ills.

Clint;925268 wrote: But if they are taken over by some other society they don't suffer culture shock:rolleyes:


Our culture was shoved down their throats. We were expanding west and they were in our way. Theyre culture to us was uncivilized and barbaric so we butchered them or shoveled them off to designated areas where they couldnt interfere with our lofty visions.

We discarded them as though they were a mere nuisance as opposed to the original settlers of North America.

We fed them whiskey to keep them drunk and we out manned them with modern weaponry and sheer numbers.

No way in hell they were going to prevent us from our mission.

Oh, the other thing we had going for us was we had God on our side.

Absolutely despicable.

Nomad;926394 wrote: Our culture was shoved down their throats. We were expanding west and they were in our way. Theyre culture to us was uncivilized and barbaric so we butchered them or shoveled them off to designated areas where they couldnt interfere with our lofty visions.

We discarded them as though they were a mere nuisance as opposed to the original settlers of North America.

We fed them whiskey to keep them drunk and we out manned them with modern weaponry and sheer numbers.

No way in hell they were going to prevent us from our mission.

Oh, the other thing we had going for us was we had God on our side.

Absolutely despicable.


Well I agree to a certain extent, but it's not as if alot of the Native American tribes of the time hadn't murdered innocent settlers on a land much more than those tribes needed...

So what do you propose Nomad? That we raise these people onto a pedestal and beg them to forgive the sins of our forefathers? Maybe we should do that with blacks too. After all, what's a few beatings? And stealing and raping of their women and children? How about women? We birth your babies and you men still quite frequently treat us like we're second class. Not you personally I might add but I am speaking in generalese.

My problem is not with Indians. (and before someone corrects me, that is what our tribes out here prefer to be called, rather than native american.) My problem is none of these indians alive today were alive when this crap took place. Sorry, they don't deserve to hate me for being white. They can get off their perches and rise above the line they've chosen to draw for themselves. And I will say that about anyone. If you choose to wallow in your misfortune, it's your own fault. Get up, get out, and do something about it or stop whining.

K.Snyder;926402 wrote: Well I agree to a certain extent, but it's not as if alot of the Native American tribes of the time hadn't murdered innocent settlers on a land much more than those tribes needed...


It has been proven by sociologist/anthropologists etc. that the Native Americans utilized their lands totally for various subsistence. There are numerous articles and studies, claims cases that present these facts, etc.

K.Snyder;926402 wrote: Well I agree to a certain extent, but it's not as if alot of the Native American tribes of the time hadn't murdered innocent settlers on a land much more than those tribes needed...
:yh_rotfl Y'know, I'll bet alot of people accused of burglary get acquitted on just that very same defense. "But they had WAAAY more than they needed, Your Honor." :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

K.Snyder;926402 wrote: Well I agree to a certain extent, but it's not as if alot of the Native American tribes of the time hadn't murdered innocent settlers on a land much more than those tribes needed...


We were invaders. They were taught not to trust us. We taught them that. When one shows up, they all show up. These were their hunting gronds as well as in some instances sacred grounds.

RedGlitter;926425 wrote: So what do you propose Nomad? That we raise these people onto a pedestal and beg them to forgive the sins of our forefathers? Maybe we should do that with blacks too. After all, what's a few beatings? And stealing and raping of their women and children? How about women? We birth your babies and you men still quite frequently treat us like we're second class. Not you personally I might add but I am speaking in generalese.

My problem is not with Indians. (and before someone corrects me, that is what our tribes out here prefer to be called, rather than native american.) My problem is none of these indians alive today were alive when this crap took place. Sorry, they don't deserve to hate me for being white. They can get off their perches and rise above the line they've chosen to draw for themselves. And I will say that about anyone. If you choose to wallow in your misfortune, it's your own fault. Get up, get out, and do something about it or stop whining.


What line did they choose to draw for themselves ?

And you never answered my question about Jews and the Rwandans.

Sniveling whiners ?

Accountable;926479 wrote: :yh_rotfl Y'know, I'll bet alot of people accused of burglary get acquitted on just that very same defense. "But they had WAAAY more than they needed, Your Honor." :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl


They wouldn't...But they should...

But it shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place...

chonsigirl;926478 wrote: It has been proven by sociologist/anthropologists etc. that the Native Americans utilized their lands totally for various subsistence. There are numerous articles and studies, claims cases that present these facts, etc.


Are you suggesting that Native Americans needed every portion of the land that is now the "United States of America"?...

Nomad;926493 wrote: We were invaders. They were taught not to trust us. We taught them that. When one shows up, they all show up. These were their hunting gronds as well as in some instances sacred grounds.


Yes some of the land they needed to live...They needed as much land as the "white" settlers subsequent to the likes of themselves...All should have shared...

It's up to individuals to decide which instances were right, and which instances were wrong...

Nomad;926495 wrote: What line did they choose to draw for themselves ?

And you never answered my question about Jews and the Rwandans.

Sniveling whiners ?


At this point in time? Possibly. Are there any living Holocaust victims left? If so they can complain all they want. My 20 year old Jewish friend? NO.

The line that says "I'm not going to do anything to improve my condition because it's SOMEBODY ELSE's fault." BS! It is not my fault that tribal members spend all Saturday sucking them down in the Red Dog and then b.itch that they're broke. Not my fault they don't care to go to college and better themselves. Not my fault that a large part of them don't even finish high school but they drop out to raise their kids and get their "Indian money" which is what? $1800? Something like that? How long's that going to last? NO! Stop whining. Stop being a victim when you aren't. Decide you want better and go get it. No more copouts.

I'll ask again, what do you propose we do?

Are you suggesting that Native Americans needed every portion of the land that is now the "United States of America"?...


Yes KS, when they had the Indian Claims Commission in the 1950s and 1960s, they drew up a map of the land that was utilized by each tribe. Each individual case had a map also. Lots of maps.

Land was used for many things: subsistence, spiritual places. Boundaries were marked their way-white settlers did not know about that. They thought the land was vacant and free for settling on.

One map is large, but I have it here on my computer, you can find one in Irredeemable America by Imre Sutton and similar maps on individual cases also. The cases break down the percentages of land use for specific reasons, and I could go on about this alot, because that is what I research all the time. Lots of maps and stories.

RedGlitter;926510 wrote: At this point in time? Possibly. Are there any living Holocaust victims left? If so they can complain all they want. My 20 year old Jewish friend? NO.



The line that says "I'm not going to do anything to improve my condition because it's SOMEBODY ELSE's fault." BS! It is not my fault that tribal members spend all Saturday sucking them down in the Red Dog and then b.itch that they're broke. Not my fault they don't care to go to college and better themselves. Not my fault that a large part of them don't even finish high school but they drop out to raise their kids and get their "Indian money" which is what? $1800? Something like that? How long's that going to last? NO! Stop whining. Stop being a victim when you aren't. Decide you want better and go get it. No more copouts.

I'll ask again, what do you propose we do?


Show respect and acknowledge we as a nation were gluttons and impervious to diplomatic and fair practices.

Also declare the holier than though "God is on our side" sentiment to be shown as blasphemous.

chonsigirl;926513 wrote: Yes KS, when they had the Indian Claims Commission in the 1950s and 1960s, they drew up a map of the land that was utilized by each tribe. Each individual case had a map also. Lots of maps.

Land was used for many things: subsistence, spiritual places. Boundaries were marked their way-white settlers did not know about that. They thought the land was vacant and free for settling on.

One map is large, but I have it here on my computer, you can find one in Irredeemable America by Imre Sutton and similar maps on individual cases also. The cases break down the percentages of land use for specific reasons, and I could go on about this alot, because that is what I research all the time. Lots of maps and stories.


Well they needed the land as far as their custom but surely they didn't need all of the land to survive...Not with communal farming at the worlds disposal...

The population of the Indians when the first European settlers arrived here was significantly lower than what the population is today...There are an estimated 300 million people living in the U.S. alone so I have to disagree that the sum of an estimated 15 million indigenous peoples lived here prior to Columbus' arrival needed every portion of the land of the United States of America...

And I have Native American bloodline so it's not as if I'm biased...

Nomad;926529 wrote: Show respect and acknowledge we as a nation were gluttons and impervious to diplomatic and fair practices.

Also declare the holier than though "God is on our side" sentiment to be shown as blasphemous.


Respect is fine. A one time acknowledgement is fine.

Carrying that acknowledgement for all time and constantly berating ourselves as white people descended from the whites who handed out smallpox blankets and violated indian women and all that crap that we are to have done is not fine. I didn't do it. Did you? I won't accept blame for it just because my skin's white. That's stupid. Blame me and hold me accountable as an individual. Not for things I had no control over because I wasn't in existence.

My only comment about "God is on our side" is that I find that obnoxious. And thank you Nomad, for answering my question.

Because the people who NEED to apologize are DEAD.

The things done to Native Americans were absolutely wrong...every bit a wrong as what one tribe did to the other before we got here. We cannot be proud of what was done but I didn't do it, my father didn't do it and my son didn't do it and I'm tired of being blamed for it. I'm also tired of my country being blamed for it because the people running the government then have been dead for a long long time. Some people love the fact that it happened because they can use it to twist people's minds for political gain.

fuzzy butt;926585 wrote: I'm not here to twist anyones mind clint. The aftermath and effects are still felt today though and the policies are still in place. So watcha gonna do about it? Nothing?


Now we have something we agree on. Instead of talking down our ancestors or even the people who serve us in government today how about putting forth ideas on ways to help those who want to be helped?

fuzzy butt;926622 wrote: I'm with you clint but it's a hard task for any government .

I just put this on another forum for those who wanted to point out to me that we mistreated our own natives. Of course we did . I'ts called colonization. but did you know that there are still Aboriginal children in the top end out in the 'never never' who have yet to see a white mans face? and to me ? I'm glad! and good luck to them . they still live in the old ways and I respect that . Others aren't to this day so lucky. And that's where the government needs to be conscious of what's going on. Not everyone in a huge country can be turned into something they are not . what looks like poverty to us is not poverty at all. But freedom.


The truth is that encroaching on the once held turf on another is the way most living things operate. It is a constant struggle for survival and continuity of cultures. In some parts of the world the white man is the minority in others not so.

I once visited the island of Little Diamede between Alaska and Russia. The Eskimos there were living much as they have for who knows how long. It looked like freedom to me. In the summer they were stuck on the island but in the winter they could sled to the mainland. They could hardly wait for winter so they could go to where they could experience western culture.

It isn't going to be fixed anytime soon.

I don't know - I see this all as a cycle of life.

Evolving from smoke signals to the internet.

Did our Forefathers lie - of couse - they're theives - Politican lie - they're snakes..

Here in AZ - if a illegal alien & a native american ever get together =

mucho wampam... which goes to Quinn's thread on taxes. $ $ $ ..

Patsy

Clint;926386 wrote: Understood. My comment came from observing a trend toward blaming western culture for all the world's ills.


If

Bryn Mawr;926127 wrote: Culture Shock is the effect experienced by a society when taken over by some other society.

Of course it's Culture Shock.


is understood then I don't understand :-

Clint;925268 wrote: But if they are taken over by some other society they don't suffer culture shock:rolleyes:

So what do you propose Nomad?




Also 10 hail mary's

K.Snyder;926509 wrote: Yes some of the land they needed to live...They needed as much land as the "white" settlers subsequent to the likes of themselves...All should have shared...



It's up to individuals to decide which instances were right, and which instances were wrong...
You seem to be assuming that the white people that came needed the land. They didn't. They wanted the land. Wanted it badly. Wanted so badly that they were willing to sail halfway around the world to get it. But they didn't NEED it.



Do you have only what you need? If someone decides you don't need something you own do they have the right to take it?

Accountable;926749 wrote: You seem to be assuming that the white people that came needed the land. They didn't. They wanted the land. Wanted it badly. Wanted so badly that they were willing to sail halfway around the world to get it. But they didn't NEED it.



Do you have only what you need? If someone decides you don't need something you own do they have the right to take it?


I think the populations throughout most of the European sectors were to the point from which yes they needed to expand...The New World held great potential in expanding what was growing to be tapped lands...If anything I would say both the settlers as well as the Native Americans needed the land in the New World...As I've said it's up to people to decide which instances were right and which instances were wrong...I won't defend the blood that shed in the New World or any world for that matter but I damn sure don't condone people with rich land beyond belief to hog it all when it's so big they don't even realize their land is being occupied for a good two days ride...

As far as equality is concerned I feel that monopolies should have never been aloud to evolve in the first place...It's not right to steal things when the person to whom is stealing doesn't need it so long as the person from which is being stolen from doesn't need it either...The human thing to do would be to share but it seems like people would rather let people starve or simply murder to defend it...

K.Snyder;926534 wrote: Well they needed the land as far as their custom but surely they didn't need all of the land to survive...Not with communal farming at the worlds disposal...

The population of the Indians when the first European settlers arrived here was significantly lower than what the population is today...There are an estimated 300 million people living in the U.S. alone so I have to disagree that the sum of an estimated 15 million indigenous peoples lived here prior to Columbus' arrival needed every portion of the land of the United States of America...

And I have Native American bloodline so it's not as if I'm biased...


Then you need to study more, said very respectfully KS, because you're a good guy. They did use all of the land, and the assumption that they should use other means of farming and making a living is an assumption on your part. Or that they should have shared the land because they didn't need it all, is incorrect.

If you want a list of books to begin research in this area, please let me know. This topic is what I have read and wrote and have articles published about for the last decade, and will continue for however long my little old fingers will type. Many scholars write in this area, and research will continue. So I do know what has been written on land, native use of it, how much land they used, etc. Your basic assumptions are incorrect. You just need to read and look into it more, from scholarly works.

I like reading fuzzy butt's description of how another area of the world deals with the indigenous people.

I'll drop it with supporting Chonsi's suggestion, because you're posts seem to see theft as justified.

Scuse me. I thought Indian notion was that God owned the land and they just stewarded it. Perhaps if they had not been greedy and wanted it all for themselves there would have been enough for all. Sort of like the argument I keep hearing about illegals coming over here. One would have us believe that every Indian person is like Iron Eyes Cody crying because he saw a Dixie cup on the forest floor. I don't see this people as any better and certainly no more honorable than anybody else.

Possibly as an aside, the Mojave creed that hangs up in the tribal office down at the shelter I worked for touts how they cherish the land, the sea, the animals, the trees, the wind, yadayada. How the Great Spirit made all and that it's their job to watch over it. They walk past it every time they go out the damn door to round up the shelter dogs and shoot them to death as their way of euthanasia. The ones they don't just wing for kicks.

When I see a reason to honor and respect it will be on an individual basis and not because political correctness says I should.

This is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

RedGlitter;926854 wrote: Scuse me. I thought Indian notion was that God owned the land and they just stewarded it. Perhaps if they had not been greedy and wanted it all for themselves there would have been enough for all. Sort of like the argument I keep hearing about illegals coming over here. One would have us believe that every Indian person is like Iron Eyes Cody crying because he saw a Dixie cup on the forest floor. I don't see this people as any better and certainly no more honorable than anybody else.



Possibly as an aside, the Mojave creed that hangs up in the tribal office down at the shelter I worked for touts how they cherish the land, the sea, the animals, the trees, the wind, yadayada. How the Great Spirit made all and that it's their job to watch over it. They walk past it every time they go out the damn door to round up the shelter dogs and shoot them to death as their way of euthanasia. The ones they don't just wing for kicks.



When I see a reason to honor and respect it will be on an individual basis and not because political correctness says I should.



This is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
You don't seem to have that problem with disrespect.

Accountable;926874 wrote: You don't seem to have that problem with disrespect.


On the contrary.

I have a problem with raising to exaltation a group of persons who had no more to do with than I did, stuff that transpired before either of us were even born. That is my complaint.

RedGlitter;926879 wrote: On the contrary.

I have a problem with raising to exaltation a group of persons who had no more to do with than I did, stuff that transpired before either of us were even born. That is my complaint.Well .... that and:





RedGlitter;926510 wrote:

... tribal members spend all Saturday sucking them down in the Red Dog and then b.itch that they're broke. ... they don't care to go to college and better themselves. ... a large part of them don't even finish high school but they drop out to raise their kids and get their "Indian money" which is what? $1800? Something like that?


RedGlitter;924630 wrote: this pathetic chip on their shoulder and allows them to continue blaming everyone but themselves fo rthe positions they are in.


RedGlitter;926854 wrote: ... they go out the damn door to round up the shelter dogs and shoot them to death as their way of euthanasia. The ones they don't just wing for kicks.

Accountable;926970 wrote: Well .... that and:


Yes? What's the trouble? Am I not supposed to speak the truth if it sounds bad? Come down here and take a look.

RedGlitter;926979 wrote: Yes? What's the trouble? Am I not supposed to speak the truth if it sounds bad? Come down here and take a look.
It's just that you stated you have a problem respecting a group, but you have no problem at all disrespecting a group. If an individual earns your respect you don't confer that respect to the group, but obviously your disrespect based on individuals' actions have painted your opinion of the entire group.

Accountable;926997 wrote: It's just that you stated you have a problem respecting a group, but you have no problem at all disrespecting a group. If an individual earns your respect you don't confer that respect to the group, but obviously your disrespect based on individuals' actions have painted your opinion of the entire group.


Let me get this straight...you see me stating what I have observed for the past 33 years as disrespect because it's negative?

Poppycock.

RedGlitter;927007 wrote: Let me get this straight...you see me stating what I have observed for the past 33 years as disrespect because it's negative?



Poppycock.
:wah: Your bigoty is glaring! Don't you see it? I've never seen you generalize about a group like this before. Positives are dismissed as anomalies of individuals and negatives are assigned to the whole group. Classic bigotry.



Of course, RJ would advise you to embrace it and own it, or some such tripe.

Accountable;927049 wrote: :wah: Your bigoty is glaring! Don't you see it? I've never seen you generalize about a group like this before. Positives are dismissed as anomalies of individuals and negatives are assigned to the whole group. Classic bigotry.



Of course, RJ would advise you to embrace it and own it, or some such tripe.


No. What I see is you guys doing the same thing only yours is considered politically correct. You want to stick on a pedestal a whole group of people who weren't even wronged for something that happened to their ANCESTORS. That's hogwash. Nothing, not a damn thing, I have said has been disrespectful and I don't appreciate your saying such. I stated what I saw and what I knew. Just because it''s not peachy keen and warm and fuzzy does not make it wrong, erroneous or disrespectful. It is what it is. If that's bigotry to you, then that's the way you see it. Not me.

RedGlitter;927054 wrote: No. What I see is you guys doing the same thing only yours is considered politically correct. You want to stick on a pedestal a whole group of people who weren't even wronged for something that happened to their ANCESTORS. That's hogwash. Nothing, not a damn thing, I have said has been disrespectful and I don't appreciate your saying such. I stated what I saw and what I knew. Just because it''s not peachy keen and warm and fuzzy does not make it wrong, erroneous or disrespectful. It is what it is. If that's bigotry to you, then that's the way you see it. Not me.
I think the point is Red, that just because you witnessed some drunk white hating Indians does not make all Indians drunk white haters. My best friend growing up was Cherokee, his family was very proud to be Cherokee, saying that I never once heard them bitch about the whites. They did and still do make lots of money in the oil equipment business without ever showing hate for the white man. So in your eyes I would guess that the whole Cherokee nation are white lovers and successful businessmen.

RedGlitter;927054 wrote: No. What I see is you guys doing the same thing only yours is considered politically correct. You want to stick on a pedestal a whole group of people who weren't even wronged for something that happened to their ANCESTORS. That's hogwash. Nothing, not a damn thing, I have said has been disrespectful and I don't appreciate your saying such. I stated what I saw and what I knew. Just because it''s not peachy keen and warm and fuzzy does not make it wrong, erroneous or disrespectful. It is what it is. If that's bigotry to you, then that's the way you see it. Not me.
'kay.



Question: where is it you say I have "stuck them on a pedestal"?

YZGI;927064 wrote: I think the point is Red, that just because you witnessed some drunk white hating Indians does not make all Indians drunk white haters. My best friend growing up was Cherokee, his family was very proud to be Cherokee, saying that I never once heard them bitch about the whites. They did and still do make lots of money in the oil equipment business without ever showing hate for the white man. So in your eyes I would guess that the whole Cherokee nation are white lovers and successful businessmen.


YZ, what I object to is that whitewash that "Native Americans are the true Americans and that there is no nobler lot." I was born here. I am just as much a true American. I don't believe in the phony portrait painted by the media because it's not what I have seen. You show me different. You tell me why I need to revere these people more than any other because through this whole argument, that's what I am reading. That they are "such a noble lot." Compared to who? Show me. Don't think I'm saying all tribal people are drunken bums. I'm not. I'm saying where *I* live, there are quite a lot of them. There are drunken loser whites (and others) too, to be sure. The difference I see with that is that they're not generally blaming their lot in life on everyone else when it's their own doing.

I guess if I could cut it short, I would tell you that in my opinion, respect is just fine. Respect is good. But reverence is going too far. And when I read or hear about begging for forgiveness and apologizing for the actions of people I never even knew and continually publicly flagellating ourselves for those actions, that's bordering on a sick kind of reverence I want no part of.

Accountable;927090 wrote: 'kay.



Question: where is it you say I have "stuck them on a pedestal"?


Not you personally. Dang it. That "you" always gets me in trouble! But the whole vibe of this thread is what I'm referring to. What happened is inexcusable. But so is apologizing for it forever.