PDA

View Full Version : American Indians and Genocide



Agnapostate
08-23-2010, 03:49 PM
Do you believe that American Indians (referring to the Americas, not just the U.S.) were the victims of genocide, or as is more likely for a rightist forum, did they just "lose the war" because they were primitive forest dwellers facing guns?

pete311
08-23-2010, 03:55 PM
Without a doubt. From 1500 to 1900 the native american's population went from an estimated 12 million to 250k. Manifest destiny is one of the most awful policies ever enacted by America.

DragonStryk72
08-24-2010, 12:35 AM
Do you believe that American Indians (referring to the Americas, not just the U.S.) were the victims of genocide, or as is more likely for a rightist forum, did they just "lose the war" because they were primitive forest dwellers facing guns?

Actually, it wasn't genocide, as we were not systematically exterminating them. We just kept kicking them off their land cause they kept picking all the goods spots. It's like in Maverick, "Next time I'll find a piece of swamp land so god awful, maybe then you people'll leave us the hell alone."

Just so we're clear:


gen·o·cide
   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

no one was wiping them off the map. The numbers quoted are not just murdered Native Americans, because it was mainly diseases we brought over from Europe and Asia that did that one, and that would have been true if it had been they had started populating Europe. Colds and flus that were normal to us, and non-lethal save in the most extreme circumstance were horribly deadly. At the time, in honesty, there was nothing we could have done about that, given the medical breakthroughs of the time.

Another culprit in the decline was the inter-tribal warfare that went on during all this, along with the numerous wars such as the revolutionary war, and French and Indian wars that cost even more lives.

Now, were we anal-retentive megalomaniacs who were being complete twats? Yes, hells yes, and our repeated breaking of treaties with them was unconscionable, as was our hubris in believing our way of life superior to all others.

I've been on dance team with the Calico Dancers out of Glens Falls NY in high school, had a scout leader, Mr. Carroll who was Native American. As well, I've done service projects on reservations a number of times. Yes, the Europeans of the 1500s-1900s who did these things were wrong, but I'm not the one who did it, just as no one here took part in it. Trying to push white guilt on us, however, is just cowardly. Grow up.

Sweetchuck
08-24-2010, 12:52 AM
And how many deaths was Stalin responsible for?

Trigg
08-24-2010, 07:05 PM
Do you believe that American Indians (referring to the Americas, not just the U.S.) were the victims of genocide, or as is more likely for a rightist forum, did they just "lose the war" because they were primitive forest dwellers facing guns?

The Indian population in South and Central America is thriving, so no genocide.

As far as American Indians, yes, toward the end I think the American Gov. wanted them simply to disappear. Disease had decimated their numbers. Buffalo hunters were destroying the plains Indians way of life and the Comanche and Apache (and others) refused to give up until they had almost disappeared.

They lost the war because they had fewer numbers and inferior weapons. They were unable to defeat the US gov. which is what would have had to happen in order for them to keep their land.

Agnapostate
08-30-2010, 07:23 AM
Without a doubt. From 1500 to 1900 the native american's population went from an estimated 12 million to 250k. Manifest destiny is one of the most awful policies ever enacted by America.

The Native American population in the entire Western Hemisphere has been projected to be in excess of 100 million, actually, through extrapolation of the mortality rate of infectious disease epidemics to the observed post-epidemic population. It's important to keep in mind that 75% to 95% of deaths were caused by the importation of plague. But from 1492 to the present (since recent governmental campaigns such as that of General Rios Montt might be considered acts of genocide or attempted genocide against the selected Indian population), there were still millions upon millions of living natives that could be and were violently exterminated.


Actually, it wasn't genocide, as we were not systematically exterminating them. We just kept kicking them off their land cause they kept picking all the goods spots. It's like in Maverick, "Next time I'll find a piece of swamp land so god awful, maybe then you people'll leave us the hell alone."

"We"? You didn't do anything, so there's no need to use a possessive pronoun. And actually, the forcible removal policies you mention are under the purview of a modern term called "ethnic cleansing." Ethnic cleansing conducted with extreme indifference to the living conditions of a group, as well as systematic campaigns of enslavement and violence that cause multitudes of deaths constitute genocide.


Just so we're clear:

gen·o·cide
   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

no one was wiping them off the map.

Just so we're clear:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm)


"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

This process began with Christopher Columbus's governorship of the island of Hispaniola (site of the modern countries of Haiti and the Dominican Republic),

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Spaniards4.jpg

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Spaniards5.jpg

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Spaniards6.jpg

Many thanks to my Comrade PrairieFire for providing many of these links that I was able to use, and giving me the idea for others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_River_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyesville_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Washita_River
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marias_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Grant_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Robinson_tragedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

http://www.eaglesnestcenter.org/wounded-knee.jpg
http://members.aon.at/calvin/wknee/images/wknee_01.jpg
http://www-tc.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/images/wimg680/wkgrave.gif
http://www.danielnpaul.com/BritishScalpBounties.html
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Scalpin/oldfolks.html (http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7EHYPER/HNS/Scalpin/oldfolks.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

http://www.bcmj.org/traumatic-pasts-canadian-aboriginal-people-further-support-complex-trauma-conceptualization

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/206157/history_of_the_buffalo.html?cat=37


http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2056/bisonskullpile1870ks.jpg


(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/sterilize.html

Hmmm...that's a little recent. Maybe it could be argued that the practice of chopping womens' breasts off prevented them from nursing children, therefore preventing them from surviving early infancy? You tell me.

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanization_(of_Native_Americans)#Native_Ameri can_education_and_boarding_schools

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Carlisle_pupils.jpg

This successful fulfillment of every single criterion established in the UN General Assembly convention on genocide is not a promising sign for deniers of the American Holocaust.


The numbers quoted are not just murdered Native Americans, because it was mainly diseases we brought over from Europe and Asia that did that one, and that would have been true if it had been they had started populating Europe. Colds and flus that were normal to us, and non-lethal save in the most extreme circumstance were horribly deadly. At the time, in honesty, there was nothing we could have done about that, given the medical breakthroughs of the time.

Scholarly consensus does support the idea that the large majority of the death toll was caused by disease epidemics, though popular opinion still fallaciously attributes it to "superior technology." While it may be appropriate to exclude disease-related deaths from the genocide count in many cases, it is appropriate to incorporate them if they were understood by the invaders themselves to be caused by their aggressive encroachment, as a divine plague that illustrated the judgment of Providence, since they understood the cause and effect pattern, even if not the specific biology of the matter. It is also appropriate to include them in cases where the rapid spread of communicable disease was facilitated by squalid and cramped living conditions. In the death toll of the Jewish Holocaust, there are included numerous people who were not gassed or shot or burned or otherwise directly murdered, but died as a result of malnutrition or infection with communicable disease. Anne Frank is among them, for example.


Another culprit in the decline was the inter-tribal warfare that went on during all this, along with the numerous wars such as the revolutionary war, and French and Indian wars that cost even more lives.

And colonial ravagements of non-combatant communities in an attempt to destroy local and regional ethnic groups were genocidal actions. I'm not convinced that unprovoked invasion shouldn't be incorporated, frankly.


Yes, the Europeans of the 1500s-1900s who did these things were wrong, but I'm not the one who did it, just as no one here took part in it.

All the more reason to discontinue the inaccurate use of the possessive pronouns "we" and "us" that you have peppered your diatribe with.


Trying to push white guilt on us, however, is just cowardly. Grow up.

What "white guilt"? As a mixed-blood with European admixture and a Castilian/Basque surname, it's more likely that I have ancestors that participated in this legacy than you.


And how many deaths was Stalin responsible for?

I'd estimate that Stalin was personally responsible for about fifty to a hundred deaths in his days as an armed robber and heist orchestrator. What of it?


The Indian population in South and Central America is thriving, so no genocide.

Before any factual dispute of this point, I'd like to first indicate its fallacious nature by remaking on the "thriving" Ashkenazi Jewish, Armenian, and Romani (gypsy) communities, and inquiring whether the quoted poster takes this to mean that these populations were not the victims of genocide. I'd next care to point out that this numerical abundance is in portions of Central and South America, the regions correspondent to the Mesoamerican and Andean Indian cultural areas.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Costa Rica is overwhelmingly "white," and there are significant black populations in Belize and Panama. As for the rest of South America, it is dominated by Asian Indians in the Northeast, as their ancestors were enslaved and imported by the British to grow sugarcane, and whites in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, etc.


As far as American Indians,

America is a pair of continents, as signified by the names North America and South America, and the fact that the word is derived from the name of a Florentine explorer who reached Brazil. Therefore, all Indians at hand are "American" Indians.


yes, toward the end I think the American Gov. wanted them simply to disappear. Disease had decimated their numbers. Buffalo hunters were destroying the plains Indians way of life and the Comanche and Apache (and others) refused to give up until they had almost disappeared.

And that is called genocide.


They lost the war because they had fewer numbers and inferior weapons. They were unable to defeat the US gov. which is what would have had to happen in order for them to keep their land.

A common misconception, but an inaccurate one. American Indians as a whole were decimated by outbreaks of communicable disease that they had no previous contact with, and therefore possessed no acquired immunity to; "inferior weapons" generally played little role, and even less after initial encounters since technology transfer occurred. In this specific case, Southwestern resisters generally had the same weapons that the military forces pursuing them did. Or have you never heard of Geronimo?

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/american-indians/pictures/apache/geronimo_small.jpg

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/50696719.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A14D594706ABFBE0E3EFA51A90D379243C7 5E3E99706E1889ADB01E70F2B3269972

And directly contrary to the idea of a loss due to "fewer numbers," the Chiricahua Apache renegages that are most famous inflicted disproportionate losses on their enemies, and were only captured because there were other Apaches that assisted General Crook and Miles's military expeditions that pursued and eventually caught them. But in terms of the Apachean peoples, genocide can be spoken of, yes, particularly in the internment of the Navajo and Mescalero Apache at Bosque Redondo in squalid living conditions that resulted in numerous deaths.

Trigg
08-30-2010, 04:20 PM
Originally Posted by Trigg
The Indian population in South and Central America is thriving, so no genocide.Before any factual dispute of this point, I'd like to first indicate its fallacious nature by remaking on the "thriving" Ashkenazi Jewish, Armenian, and Romani (gypsy) communities, and inquiring whether the quoted poster takes this to mean that these populations were not the victims of genocide. I'd next care to point out that this numerical abundance is in portions of Central and South America, the regions correspondent to the Mesoamerican and Andean Indian cultural areas.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Costa Rica is overwhelmingly "white," and there are significant black populations in Belize and Panama. As for the rest of South America, it is dominated by Asian Indians in the Northeast, as their ancestors were enslaved and imported by the British to grow sugarcane, and whites in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, etc.


I am not commenting on any other populations. Costa Rica is is 94% white and mestizo, it isn't broken down farther than that. Even with the black population the Mestizo population is over 50% in Panama. So yes I'd say they are thriving.

I'm sure your going to bitch about the word mestizo being used since it means a mixture of European and Indian ancestry. I've seen your family pictures posted though, I hope you're not going to claim racial purity.


Originally Posted by Trigg
As far as American Indians,America is a pair of continents, as signified by the names North America and South America, and the fact that the word is derived from the name of a Florentine explorer who reached Brazil. Therefore, all Indians at hand are "American" Indians.


You are the only one who doesn't seem to know what Americans are and I don't feel like explaining once again why you are an idiot.

Originally Posted by Trigg
yes, toward the end I think the American Gov. wanted them simply to disappear. Disease had decimated their numbers. Buffalo hunters were destroying the plains Indians way of life and the Comanche and Apache (and others) refused to give up until they had almost disappeared.And that is called genocide.


That's what I said, try reading slower


Originally Posted by Trigg
They lost the war because they had fewer numbers and inferior weapons. They were unable to defeat the US gov. which is what would have had to happen in order for them to keep their land.[/QUOTE]A common misconception, but an inaccurate one. American Indians as a whole were decimated by outbreaks of communicable disease that they had no previous contact with, and therefore possessed no acquired immunity to; "inferior weapons" generally played little role, and even less after initial encounters since technology transfer occurred. In this specific case, Southwestern resisters generally had the same weapons that the military forces pursuing them did. Or have you never heard of Geronimo?

I believe I already mentioned diseases and the fact that it decimated their numbers.

I've read many books on the subject thank you, and you're right up to a point. Military advancements led to better weapons. The military simply had them outgunned and outmanned.

Agnapostate
08-30-2010, 08:58 PM
Get your shit together. I can't wade through all this retarded formatting and misplaced BB code.

Trigg
08-30-2010, 09:30 PM
Unlike you, I have an actual job. I can't be on the computer all day making my posts look cute while collecting welfare.

Come one smart ass, respond to the post

Agnapostate
08-31-2010, 02:29 PM
Unlike you, I have an actual job. I can't be on the computer all day making my posts look cute while collecting welfare.

Come one smart ass, respond to the post

My job kept me out of town for week-long blocks, so this is just another example of your idiocy.

Nukeman
08-31-2010, 04:38 PM
My job kept me out of town for week-long blocks, so this is just another example of your idiocy.

Still no response!!!!

What were you doing for "week long blocks" smuggling illegals across a legal border????????????????????

Missileman
08-31-2010, 11:15 PM
Still no response!!!!

What were you doing for "week long blocks" smuggling illegals across a legal border????????????????????

"Illegals" is such a derogatory term...can't we just call them informal citizens? :rolleyes:

Agnapostate
09-01-2010, 03:57 PM
I am not commenting on any other populations. Costa Rica is is 94% white and mestizo, it isn't broken down farther than that. Even with the black population the Mestizo population is over 50% in Panama. So yes I'd say they are thriving.

And that's either the kind of "mestizo" that dominates the population in Mexico, predominantly Indian, or the kind of "mestizo" that dominates the population in Argentina, with minority non-European admixture, but generally recognizable as white. Or alternately, the kind of mulatto-mestizo that forms a significant portion of the population in Brazil and Puerto Rico.


I'm sure your going to bitch about the word mestizo being used since it means a mixture of European and Indian ancestry. I've seen your family pictures posted though, I hope you're not going to claim racial purity.

Sure, because my statement of "As a mixed-blood with European admixture and a Castilian/Basque surname, it's more likely that I have ancestors that participated in this legacy than you", is such powerful evidence that I'm going to claim to not be a mestizo. That said, since different members of a family can inherit dramatically different genes, you don't have such a good basis for making inferences, do you?


You are the only one who doesn't seem to know what Americans are and I don't feel like explaining once again why you are an idiot.

This isn't an argument, you dumb bitch. It's repetition of earlier statements that you've made without argument.


I believe I already mentioned diseases and the fact that it decimated their numbers.

In that case, you'll be accurately claiming that "superior technology" played a minimal role in the deaths of the large majority.


I've read many books on the subject thank you, and you're right up to a point. Military advancements led to better weapons. The military simply had them outgunned and outmanned.

LOL, all you've done is repeat the same assertion you made earlier without corroborating arguments or evidence. If they were "outmanned," it was because other natives were assisting the European invaders. That is essentially the uniform case everywhere.


Still no response!!!!

What were you doing for "week long blocks" smuggling illegals across a legal border????????????????????

Of course you had to stick your cinderblock head in, Pukecan. You're right; Druggin'Jerk hasn't responded. But no, I wasn't helping Noir swim to America.


"Illegals" is such a derogatory term...can't we just call them informal citizens? :rolleyes:

Nah. I'll call a spade a spade.

http://www.stolencontinent.org/poster_downloads/illegal_immig_big.jpg

crin63
09-02-2010, 09:51 AM
This whole thing is just more victimhood crap, oh woe is me.

My family came here in 1685 from Italy but I wasn't here, I didn't do it and I don't care. Right or wrong, we came and we conquered, end of story.

My wife's maternal side (grandparents) came straight off the reservation in the 1940's and made something of themselves instead of whining about how they were mistreated and crying in their beer.

revelarts
09-02-2010, 11:31 AM
Seems like there's a question as to what genocide is.

I suppose, If you define it strictly as the WILLFUL attempt to wipe out a race, or group or culture. Then strictly speaking I think you could say some people did have that intent from time to time over the past 500 years. Others had that intent for small groups of Native Americans and followed through with it. ANd Mascaraed might be a better word. But Strictly Speaking I can see how someone might say it wasn't genocide.

But over all the actions collectively intended or not pretty much adds up to genocide. The fact that the Native Americans have survived it doesn't really mean that it wasn't the probably logical result of the practices.

It's interesting that we don't like to talk about the darker actions of the American past. And Don't want to claim any negative history. But when it comes things that were proud of the in the countrys past were quick to claim it as WE. "when WE won WWII" When "We went to the moon" "We are the greatest nation in the world." where we by implication attach our egos to the best of our collective history.

Nobody wants to be attached to all the ugliness. Nothing wrong with that. But no need to diminish the history. Were are young country but we need to get past adolescences and stop denying crap that has hurt others. And tolerate and sometimes encourage people telling their stories. without getting so defensive. Acting as if something's brought up that they want something. On a personal level I've found that they just want others to genuinely acknowledge it happened , not to take on guilt of it or the blame. No one here would deny any Mother Against Drunk Driving member from marking the history of what happened. or tell them to stop bringing up the fact that a drunk killed their kids. Most of them don't define there lives by the event but they are not going to deny it or let the history be whitewashed to save the feelings of people when the subject comes up.

Agnapostate
09-02-2010, 06:54 PM
This whole thing is just more victimhood crap, oh woe is me.

My family came here in 1685 from Italy but I wasn't here, I didn't do it and I don't care. Right or wrong, we came and we conquered, end of story.

I see. So if it's a matter of having "came and conquered," it no longer constitutes "genocide." Well, on that note, der Führer eroberten Länder für die deutsche Vaterland und Volk! :dunno:


My wife's maternal side (grandparents) came straight off the reservation in the 1940's and made something of themselves instead of whining about how they were mistreated and crying in their beer.

Yea, Cherokee great-great grandmother and everything, I'm sure. Enthralling. Incidentally, isn't that last line sort of a pejorative ethnic stereotype there? Along the lines of "my wife's maternal side came straight off the plantation in the 1860's and made something of themselves instead of whining about how they were mistreated and crying in their fried chicken and watermelon."


It's interesting that we don't like to talk about the darker actions of the American past. And Don't want to claim any negative history. But when it comes things that were proud of the in the countrys past were quick to claim it as WE. "when WE won WWII" When "We went to the moon" "We are the greatest nation in the world." where we by implication attach our egos to the best of our collective history.

It seems to be a massive epidemic of cognitive dissonance, in that a person can say "I wasn't here, I didn't do it, and I don't care" in one sentence, and "we came and we conquered" in the next. Why not consistently reject the use of possessive pronouns for something that you lack ownership of or influence over?

Missileman
09-02-2010, 07:48 PM
I see. So if it's a matter of having "came and conquered," it no longer constitutes "genocide." Well, on that note, der Führer eroberten Länder für die deutsche Vaterland und Volk! :dunno:



Yea, Cherokee great-great grandmother and everything, I'm sure. Enthralling. Incidentally, isn't that last line sort of a pejorative ethnic stereotype there? Along the lines of "my wife's maternal side came straight off the plantation in the 1860's and made something of themselves instead of whining about how they were mistreated and crying in their fried chicken and watermelon."



It seems to be a massive epidemic of cognitive dissonance, in that a person can say "I wasn't here, I didn't do it, and I don't care" in one sentence, and "we came and we conquered" in the next. Why not consistently reject the use of possessive pronouns for something that you lack ownership of or influence over?

So exactly how many generations do you propose we go back to establish ancestral possession of the land now known as the USA?

Agnapostate
09-03-2010, 03:18 AM
So exactly how many generations do you propose we go back to establish ancestral possession of the land now known as the USA?

As the cliche goes, there is not a piece of land in the world that was not stolen at some point in time. The most relevant cases to me seem those where people are currently harmed because of circumstances that pre-dated their births and they had no control over. This is an example of residual distributive injustice. As is generally known here, I consider the solution to be workers' ownership and management of the means of production, which is morally appealing as well as more efficient than capitalism.

Missileman
09-03-2010, 07:14 AM
As the cliche goes, there is not a piece of land in the world that was not stolen at some point in time. The most relevant cases to me seem those where people are currently harmed because of circumstances that pre-dated their births and they had no control over. This is an example of residual distributive injustice. As is generally known here, I consider the solution to be workers' ownership and management of the means of production, which is morally appealing as well as more efficient than capitalism.

IOW, it's variable, and YOU establish the time.

revelarts
09-03-2010, 08:19 AM
I don't know about "redistributing" anything but I think if Contract law was applied on the contracts and treaties less than one hundred years old there might be some interesting adjustments.

Here in my area there's a treaty on water use in a lake. that boarders a small Reservation. A few years ago a couplee cities/counties discovered that they didn't have enough Water and went to the state and feds to get water rights and to BREAK ANOTHER treaty with the Indians. Part of the plan was to actually flood part of their land as well to increase the size of the new reservoir. ("it wasn't that much land... that would be flooded") thus reducing their land area. I talked to several people who ,INCREDIBLY to me, didn't have a problem with it. "well WE need the water" My old Church was against it and joined in advocating for our counties to do something CRAZY, keeping the freaking treaty. the deal had almost gone through and the Native Americans looked completely politically defeated until some environmental group pointed out a fish that would be endangered by the planned flooding. With that the feds came in and locked down the states/city's plans. Its one of the few times I've been for environmental endangered species regs. But in this case the gov't was more concerned about a FISH than Kicking a people group in the teeth AGAIN.

There are plenty of recent offenses that could be compensated.

Trigg
09-03-2010, 04:26 PM
As the cliche goes, there is not a piece of land in the world that was not stolen at some point in time. The most relevant cases to me seem those where people are currently harmed because of circumstances that pre-dated their births and they had no control over. This is an example of residual distributive injustice. As is generally known here, I consider the solution to be workers' ownership and management of the means of production, which is morally appealing as well as more efficient than capitalism.

You can't seem to name a date as to when a person becomes native.

You dismiss anyone who has Indian ancestry as a fake.

Are you advocating for reparations? Because I guarantee you that anyone who can prove Indian ancestry is going to sign up for their "40 acres and a mule". Whether you deem them "real" Indians or not.

Are you claiming to be "currently harmed"?

Agnapostate
10-05-2010, 05:47 PM
So are crin63, dmp, DragonStryk72, mrskurtsprincess, and NightTrain going to explain their 'no' votes?


I don't know about "redistributing" anything but I think if Contract law was applied on the contracts and treaties less than one hundred years old there might be some interesting adjustments.

The government obviously does not want it applied; the governments of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand - British colonies in which the demographics came to be dominated by a white population all - voted against the adoption of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which would provide for compensatory relief.


Here in my area there's a treaty on water use in a lake. that boarders a small Reservation. A few years ago a couplee cities/counties discovered that they didn't have enough Water and went to the state and feds to get water rights and to BREAK ANOTHER treaty with the Indians. Part of the plan was to actually flood part of their land as well to increase the size of the new reservoir. ("it wasn't that much land... that would be flooded") thus reducing their land area. I talked to several people who ,INCREDIBLY to me, didn't have a problem with it. "well WE need the water" My old Church was against it and joined in advocating for our counties to do something CRAZY, keeping the freaking treaty. the deal had almost gone through and the Native Americans looked completely politically defeated until some environmental group pointed out a fish that would be endangered by the planned flooding. With that the feds came in and locked down the states/city's plans. Its one of the few times I've been for environmental endangered species regs. But in this case the gov't was more concerned about a FISH than Kicking a people group in the teeth AGAIN.

There are plenty of recent offenses that could be compensated.

Yes, water rights are a major issue. I'll comment more on that topic when I get home and have access to something I was reading about this.


You can't seem to name a date as to when a person becomes native.

All persons with a degree of Amerindian genetic admixture significant enough to constitute the majority contribution to their phenotype are classified as "Indians" by me. That group includes me. All persons with a degree that influences but does not necessarily dominate their admixture are mixed-bloods, and predominantly European persons are simply whites, in my view. So, in terms of casual analysis, I am an Indian, my maternal grandmother is a mixed-blood, and the maternal cousin of mine that you saw is white.


You dismiss anyone who has Indian ancestry as a fake.

"1/16 Cherokee" whites and their great-great-grandmother princesses are fakes, yes.


Are you advocating for reparations? Because I guarantee you that anyone who can prove Indian ancestry is going to sign up for their "40 acres and a mule". Whether you deem them "real" Indians or not.

You apparently imply that Reconstruction-era attempts at slave reparation were wrong, but when they failed, the consequence was that de jure formal slaves became de facto wage slaves: http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us15.htm


One day a few negroes was sticking sticks in the ground when massa come up. "What you niggers doing?" he asked. "We is staking off the land, Massa. The Yankees say half of it is ourn. The massa never got mad. He just look calmlike. "Listen, niggers," he said, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. You're just as free as I and the missus, but don't go fooling around my land. I have tried to be a good master to you. I have never been unfair. Now if you wants to stay, you are welcome to work for me. I'll pay you one-third the crops you raise. But if you wants to go, you sees the gate.

So what do you think the consequence of this was?

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/IndianCountry.jpg

Speaking of reparations is not meaningful to me, however, since I don't believe that genuine reparation is possible under capitalism.


Are you claiming to be "currently harmed"?

No, and it's not relevant, since I don't take personal experiences as indicative of general trends for a group. The fact is that American Indians are the poorest ethnic group in the country.

darin
10-05-2010, 08:48 PM
The fact is that American Indians are the poorest ethnic group in the country.


everybody (by everybody I mean 90%) if those in America who are at or below the poverty line are ultimately there by choice.

Agnapostate
10-06-2010, 02:05 AM
everybody (by everybody I mean 90%) if those in America who are at or below the poverty line are ultimately there by choice.

I'm not interested in your silly little utopian fantasies.

Trigg
10-06-2010, 04:35 PM
[QUOTE=Agnapostate;444973]



All persons with a degree of Amerindian genetic admixture significant enough to constitute the majority contribution to their phenotype are classified as "Indians" by me. That group includes me. All persons with a degree that influences but does not necessarily dominate their admixture are mixed-bloods, and predominantly European persons are simply whites, in my view. So, in terms of casual analysis, I am an Indian, my maternal grandmother is a mixed-blood, and the maternal cousin of mine that you saw is white.



"1/16 Cherokee" whites and their great-great-grandmother princesses are fakes, yes. [QUOTE]

It matters NOT what YOU consider white, mixed blood or true Indian. It matters what the tribes THEMSELVES consider Indian.

In fact if you can prove that you are even 1/32 Cherokee you can receive your card.

I didn't ask you about slave reparations. I asked you about Indian reparations, lets stay on topic shall we?

Personally I disagree with reparations. But, I guarantee that if reparations start being offered to people with Indian ancestry that everyone with a hint of Indian blood will be lining up.

Indians may be the poorest ethnic group in America, but there is no reason for them to be. They are offered the same education and resources as every other group in this country. A person who is a minority and poor is handed money hand over fist in this country, it is asinine to ignore that fact.

Agnapostate
10-06-2010, 08:43 PM
It matters NOT what YOU consider white, mixed blood or true Indian. It matters what the tribes THEMSELVES consider Indian.

In fact if you can prove that you are even 1/32 Cherokee you can receive your card.

That's simply an indication that tribes need to establish stricter blood quantum laws, even at the expense of higher membership rates. Enrollment documents should not function as little novelty items for white wannabes to wave around excitedly.


I didn't ask you about slave reparations. I asked you about Indian reparations, lets stay on topic shall we?

Personally I disagree with reparations. But, I guarantee that if reparations start being offered to people with Indian ancestry that everyone with a hint of Indian blood will be lining up.

I disagree with reparations too. The only comprehensive reparation that can benefit all that are residually harmed is the abolition of capitalism. But as I said, if reparations were the only conceivable option that could occur under the capitalist economic paradigm, that program should be restricted to real Indians that could demonstrate legitimate residual harm.


Indians may be the poorest ethnic group in America, but there is no reason for them to be. They are offered the same education and resources as every other group in this country. A person who is a minority and poor is handed money hand over fist in this country, it is asinine to ignore that fact.

This is just your white populist racial resentment manifesting itself. If you're going to continue with this fantasy line of thought, you'll have to explain why Scandinavian social democracies have higher social mobility and lower poverty and unemployment alongside larger welfare states. Wouldn't those programs motivate apathy and laziness, according to your view? Your husband seems to disagree with you, you know. Maybe you should talk to him.

Trigg
10-06-2010, 09:05 PM
This is just your white populist racial resentment manifesting itself. If you're going to continue with this fantasy line of thought, you'll have to explain why Scandinavian social democracies have higher social mobility and lower poverty and unemployment alongside larger welfare states. Wouldn't those programs motivate apathy and laziness, according to your view? Your husband seems to disagree with you, you know. Maybe you should talk to him.

Well I'm not white so I guess I have no "white populist racial resentment".

You really want to claim that poor minorities aren't given more opportunities to succeed than white/Asian people?

The poor and minorities are given free heath care, subsidized housing, free education, scholarships and grants for college. Poor minorities are given more than poor whites and Asians.

I don't have to explain anything happening in Scandinavia, I DON'T LIVE THERE. I live in the US and that is the country we are discussing.

Pagan
10-06-2010, 09:15 PM
>> snip <<

This is just your white populist racial resentment manifesting itself. If you're going to continue with this fantasy line of thought, you'll have to explain why Scandinavian social democracies have higher social mobility and lower poverty and unemployment alongside larger welfare states. Wouldn't those programs motivate apathy and laziness, according to your view? Your husband seems to disagree with you, you know. Maybe you should talk to him.

fuck your ignorance knows no bounds.

I'll through something at you Slick, I've got a good healthy dose of Sioux in my veins, my Great Grandmother was full blood Sioux. You're just an ignorant bigoted fool. Over 90% of the so called poor here in the U.S. are there by choice. Also having traveled a bit around the world I can say with no reservation there is no poverty in the U.S.

Agnapostate
10-07-2010, 12:57 AM
Well I'm not white so I guess I have no "white populist racial resentment".

LOL, I'm guessing you're Indian too. Cherokee great-great-grandmother and all, Princess Moonbeam? :laugh:


You really want to claim that poor minorities aren't given more opportunities to succeed than white/Asian people?

The poor and minorities are given free heath care, subsidized housing, free education, scholarships and grants for college. Poor minorities are given more than poor whites and Asians.

I don't have to explain anything happening in Scandinavia, I DON'T LIVE THERE. I live in the US and that is the country we are discussing.

Yes, and the U.S. is characterized by the highest poverty rate among first-world industrialized countries, as well as the severest constraints on social mobility. That happens to particularly impact ethnic minorities, as statistical research demonstrates. Of course, you'll simply reply with some little anecdote that you'll insist overwhelms all evidence to the contrary.


fuck your ignorance knows no bounds.

I'll through something at you Slick, I've got a good healthy dose of Sioux in my veins, my Great Grandmother was full blood Sioux. You're just an ignorant bigoted fool. Over 90% of the so called poor here in the U.S. are there by choice. Also having traveled a bit around the world I can say with no reservation there is no poverty in the U.S.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Great-grandson of the Sioux princess Walks in Moonlight, great-great-grandson of Great Warrior Slays Pale Faces, great-great-great-grandson of Sitting Bull himself! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Noir
10-07-2010, 05:30 AM
Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, I don't know.

But I am interested to know what you think should be done if it's decided there was? If Obama went on TV tonight and said that he acknowledged genocide took place, that what happened was a cruel act of savagery, and that he wished to issue an apology for what took place, would that be enough or would you want something more?

Agnapostate
10-07-2010, 01:30 PM
Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, I don't know.

But I am interested to know what you think should be done if it's decided there was? If Obama went on TV tonight and said that he acknowledged genocide took place, that what happened was a cruel act of savagery, and that he wished to issue an apology for what took place, would that be enough or would you want something more?

If I clearly opposed the proclamation of apologies in another instance concerning Guatemalan Mayan Indians, stating that it should have been a condemnation and not an apology, why would I support an "apology" in this instance? And no, of course meaningless words are not sufficient, but there would be raised public awareness that could contribute to more significant concrete action.

Noir
10-07-2010, 01:34 PM
If I clearly opposed the proclamation of apologies in another instance concerning Guatemalan Mayan Indians, stating that it should have been a condemnation and not an apology, why would I support an "apology" in this instance? And no, of course meaningless words are not sufficient, but there would be raised public awareness that could contribute to more significant concrete action.

Okay, so given words aren't enough, what is enough?

Agnapostate
10-07-2010, 01:44 PM
Okay, so given words aren't enough, what is enough?

How about what has been stated repeatedly in this thread? The abolition of capitalism.

Noir
10-07-2010, 01:47 PM
How about what has been stated repeatedly in this thread? The abolition of capitalism.

And what does that have to do with genocide?

Agnapostate
10-07-2010, 04:15 PM
And what does that have to do with genocide?

Noir, I don't know why you come into every thread with numerous ignorant questions that indicate that you haven't read a single post prior to your own, with it taking about six posts on my part to shove a very basic fact through your head. I suppose the best that can be said for you is that you eventually gain some rudimentary understanding on some occasions, while others simply remain ignorant.

Noir
10-07-2010, 04:53 PM
Noir, I don't know why you come into every thread with numerous ignorant questions that indicate that you haven't read a single post prior to your own, with it taking about six posts on my part to shove a very basic fact through your head. I suppose the best that can be said for you is that you eventually gain some rudimentary understanding on some occasions, while others simply remain ignorant.

How delightful,
Now would you like to answer the question or not?

Agnapostate
10-07-2010, 05:28 PM
How delightful,
Now would you like to answer the question or not?

I'll simplify. This:

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/IndianCountry.jpg

Bad.

This:

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/BurialoftheDeadattheBattlefieldofWoundedKneeSD488. jpg

Bad. Bad for Sioux. Consequence for Sioux peoples?

http://www.eaglesnestcenter.org/PineRidge054.jpg

Bad. 80% unemployment bad.

Noir
10-07-2010, 05:40 PM
So how will the abolishion of Capitalism do anything to help that? Nevermk d redress the genocide issue?

From what I can see you obviously have a radical political ideology, and funnily enough the *only* action that you see as able to redress what happened in the past is the imposition of your ideology, even though it has nothing to do with the genocide.
You're playing politics with a tragedy, personally I find that pretty horrid.

Agnapostate
10-07-2010, 05:53 PM
So how will the abolishion of Capitalism do anything to help that?

Substantial reductions in economic poverty.


Nevermk d redress the genocide issue?

It was part and parcel of the overall dispossession that led to these current economic circumstances.


From what I can see you obviously have a radical political ideology, and funnily enough the *only* action that you see as able to redress what happened in the past is the imposition of your ideology, even though it has nothing to do with the genocide.
You're playing politics with a tragedy, personally I find that pretty horrid.

Um, it's unclear to me why you believe that promoting political radicalism to solve the issue is inappropriate. Why promote communism if not to alleviate the sufferings of the majority of the people in the world? For fun? Because Marx and Kropotkin had cool beards?

Pagan
10-07-2010, 07:56 PM
Substantial reductions in economic poverty.



It was part and parcel of the overall dispossession that led to these current economic circumstances.



Um, it's unclear to me why you believe that promoting political radicalism to solve the issue is inappropriate. Why promote communism if not to alleviate the sufferings of the majority of the people in the world? For fun? Because Marx and Kropotkin had cool beards?

Yep, Socialist Utopia :lol:

http://monkeysmashesheaven.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/maoandstalin.jpg?w=426&h=605

Noir
10-07-2010, 08:11 PM
Substantial reductions in economic poverty.

Well under your model there'd be no economy, so I guess there could be no 'economic' poverty...




It was part and parcel of the overall dispossession that led to these current economic circumstances.

So what's stopping them getting a job today? (above and beyond the problem everyone has given recent times)




Um, it's unclear to me why you believe that promoting political radicalism to solve the issue is inappropriate. Why promote communism if not to alleviate the sufferings of the majority of the people in the world? For fun? Because Marx and Kropotkin had cool beards?

But surly you would want that whether there had been a genocide or not, so your communist beliefs have nothing to do with the genocide, right?

Agnapostate
10-08-2010, 01:27 AM
Well under your model there'd be no economy,

I can only assume this is some kind of ill-conceived joke. The nature of socialism relies on the integral facet of workers' ownership and management, which bolsters even the capitalist economy. It simply involves its extrapolation into an organized network of such firms that control natural and physical capital.


so I guess there could be no 'economic' poverty...

It essentially evolves substantial reductions of absolute poverty, with eventual elimination being the goal.


So what's stopping them getting a job today?

"Them"? The Oglala Sioux on the Pine Ridge reservation? I would postulate that the general lack of formal employment opportunities associated with undeveloped and underdeveloped infrastructure, as well as the lack of human capital acquisition associated with a lack of education, is responsible.


(above and beyond the problem everyone has given recent times)

Certainly; capitalism will always involve a certain level of equilibrium unemployment, with this being aggravated during the inevitable crises of the business cycle.


But surly you would want that whether there had been a genocide or not, so your communist beliefs have nothing to do with the genocide, right?

Well, if there was no injustice in the world, there would be no need for remediation, would there? But we non-utopians don't look to the fantasy ideal of the free market.

Trigg
10-08-2010, 01:35 PM
Agna likes to ignore two very basic facts.

1. Communism has never worked. The gov. were still corrupt and their were still poor people.

2. Indians are not forced to stay on reservations. They, like everyone else, are free to travel and seek employment. Be that in other parts of their state, a different state or heck even leaving the US in search of work.

Agnapostate
10-12-2010, 12:16 PM
Agna likes to ignore two very basic facts.

1. Communism has never worked. The gov. were still corrupt and their were still poor people.

Demonstrably false.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html

http://libcom.org/history/1917-1921-the-ukrainian-makhnovist-movement

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/worldwidemovements/koreahis.html

http://libcom.org/library/commune-chiapas-zapatista-mexico

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Revolution-Anarchism-Kibbutz-Movement/dp/1904859151

http://eipcp.net/transversal/0805/kuljic/en/print

Also not the topic of the thread. If you'd like to lose that debate too, start another thread on it.


2. Indians are not forced to stay on reservations. They, like everyone else, are free to travel and seek employment. Be that in other parts of their state, a different state or heck even leaving the US in search of work.

Who claimed otherwise? I simply recognize that the lack of opportunities for human capital acquisition and formal employment in the communities where most are raised, as well as an ongoing degradation of territorial rights, are all contributors to their unemployment or wage slavery.

Agnapostate
10-12-2010, 12:17 PM
And go ahead and make whatever post you want so that Guffer and skurty can 'thank' it. It's actually quite amusing to me that they thank every post in opposition to mine, no matter how weak its content. :laugh:

Noir
10-12-2010, 09:25 PM
Who claimed otherwise? I simply recognize that the lack of opportunities for human capital acquisition and formal employment in the communities where most are raised, as well as an ongoing degradation of territorial rights, are all contributors to their unemployment or wage slavery.

In which case they should, you know, move.

Agnapostate
10-13-2010, 01:00 AM
In which case they should, you know, move.

They, um, do. Outside of that setting, there are then labor market constraints posed by their lack of human capital, as well as the everyday problems associated with leaving behind family and community, even that's even feasible.

Silly me for ever doubting Noir; I obviously should have guessed that a Brit should have been more of a natural American Indian expert than me. :slap:

Noir
10-13-2010, 07:20 AM
They, um, do. Outside of that setting, there are then labor market constraints posed by their lack of human capital, as well as the everyday problems associated with leaving behind family and community, even that's even feasible.

Silly me for ever doubting Noir; I obviously should have guessed that a Brit should have been more of a natural American Indian expert than me. :slap:

Right, so "human capital" is the problem, given I'd never heard this before I looked the term up, finding this wiki definition...

Human capital refers to the stock of competences, knowledge and personality attributes embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value. It is the attributes gained by a worker through education and experience.

So assuming you agree with that definition you are saying that Indians are not educated or experienced enough to be economically valuable?

Gaffer
10-13-2010, 08:54 AM
They, um, do. Outside of that setting, there are then labor market constraints posed by their lack of human capital, as well as the everyday problems associated with leaving behind family and community, even that's even feasible.

Silly me for ever doubting Noir; I obviously should have guessed that a Brit should have been more of a natural American Indian expert than me. :slap:

It's shame but a fact that he obviously knows more about natural American Indians than you. Of course most people posting here know more than you do. The only reason most Indians don't leave the reservation is they are use to the handouts and don't want to give up that life style. Same as the inner city blacks. It's called L A Z Y.

Agnapostate
10-13-2010, 03:50 PM
Right, so "human capital" is the problem, given I'd never heard this before I looked the term up, finding this wiki definition...

Yes, I'm aware that you're not economics-oriented. No need to reiterate it. ;)


So assuming you agree with that definition you are saying that Indians are not educated or experienced enough to be economically valuable?

In one sense (due to environmental conditioning), but schooling does not only serve the purpose of human capital acquisition. It also provides authoritarian conditioning that prepares subjects for entry into the hierarchical capitalist labor market, and besides that, credentials that are a necessary condition of labor market mobility. Let's summarize the problem. First, there's the economic conditions of reservations that we've gone over. The Original Americans: U.S. Indians puts it this way:


The B.I.A. estimates that more than three-quarters of Indian land is suitable only for grazing, the least intensive and - on a per acre basis - least profitable form of agriculture, while less than a tenth has commercially viable reserves of oil, gas, or minerals. Most Indians have acquired neither the skills nor the capital required to undertake successfully the kind of enterprise that would make the best use of their meager resources. As a result of legal entanglement, moreover, about 35% of all remaining Indian land is now more or less permanently in non-Indian hands.

This cause of Indians' status as the poorest ethnic group in the country is related to mental health risks on reservations. It is put this way by Social Epidemiology of Trauma Among 2 American Indian Reservation Populations (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/5/851):


Objectives. We examined the prevalence of trauma in 2 large American Indian communities in an attempt to describe demographic correlates and to compare findings with a representative sample of the US population.

Methods. We determined differences in exposure to each of 16 types of trauma among 3084 tribal members aged 15 to 57 years through structured interviews. We compared prevalence rates of trauma, by gender, across the 2 tribes and with a sample of the US general population. We used logistic regression analyses to examine the relationships of demographic correlates to trauma exposure.

Results. Lifetime exposure rates to at least 1 trauma (62.4%–67.2% among male participants, 66.2%–69.8% among female participants) fell at the upper limits of the range reported by other researchers. Unlike the US general population, female and male American Indians exhibited equivalent levels of overall trauma exposure. Members of both tribes more often witnessed traumatic events, experienced traumas to loved ones, and were victims of physical attacks than their counterparts in the overall US population.

Conclusions. American Indians live in adverse environments that place them at high risk for exposure to trauma and harmful health sequelae.

Corroboration is found in Relationships Between Poverty and Psychopathology (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/15/2023):


Context Social causation (adversity and stress) vs social selection (downward mobility from familial liability to mental illness) are competing theories about the origins of mental illness.

Objective To test the role of social selection vs social causation of childhood psychopathology using a natural experiment.

Design Quasi-experimental, longitudinal study.

Population and Setting A representative population sample of 1420 rural children aged 9 to 13 years at intake were given annual psychiatric assessments for 8 years (1993-2000). One quarter of the sample were American Indian, and the remaining were predominantly white. Halfway through the study, a casino opening on the Indian reservation gave every American Indian an income supplement that increased annually. This increase moved 14% of study families out of poverty, while 53% remained poor, and 32% were never poor. Incomes of non-Indian families were unaffected.

Main Outcome Measures Levels of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, psychiatric symptoms in the never-poor, persistently poor, and ex-poor children were compared for the 4 years before and after the casino opened.

Results Before the casino opened, the persistently poor and ex-poor children had more psychiatric symptoms (4.38 and 4.28, respectively) than the never-poor children (2.75), but after the opening levels among the ex-poor fell to those of the never-poor children, while levels among those who were persistently poor remained high (odds ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.09; and odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.07, respectively). The effect was specific to symptoms of conduct and oppositional defiant disorders. Anxiety and depression symptoms were unaffected. Similar results were found in non-Indian children whose families moved out of poverty during the same period.

Conclusions An income intervention that moved families out of poverty for reasons that cannot be ascribed to family characteristics had a major effect on some types of children's psychiatric disorders, but not on others. Results support a social causation explanation for conduct and oppositional disorder, but not for anxiety or depression.

This is the cause of the high rates of alcoholism found on reservations, perhaps the only social problem that has found its way into the likes of mass media and cultural images that people like Guffer and skurty are familiar with.

You then mentioned departure from reservations. There are multiple issues there, such as the non-economic issues of separation from family, community, and culture, and the more mundane issues of obtaining transportation, employment, and housing elsewhere. I suspect that there is some degree of race-based employment discrimination against Native Americans. While I'm not personally familiar with empirical research into employment discrimination against the "classical" U.S. Indian population, perhaps because of their general reservation residency, there is a significant newer Indian population in the U.S., particularly the Southwest, a substantial portion of the so-called "Mexican-American" population.

1. Phenotype and Life Chances among Chicanos (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ366561&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ366561): Data from a national Chicano survey with nearly 1,000 respondents were examined to test the hypothesis that, because of internal (intragroup) and external (intergroup) discrimination, both past and present, Mexican Americans with a European physical appearance will have higher socioeconomic status than Mexican Americans with an indigenous Native American physical appearance. (JHZ)

2. Phenotype and Schooling among Mexican Americans (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112715): "The study presented here examined the effect of phenotype (both skin color and physical features) on schooling attainment among Mexican Americans with data from the 1979 National Chicano Survey. It found that the lightest skin-toned and most European-looking quarter of the Mexican American population had about 1.5 more years of schooling than the darker and more Indian-looking majority."

3. Social class, admixture, and skin color variation in Mexican-Americans and Anglo-Americans living in San Antonio, Texas (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330610110/abstract): Social class may act in different ways as a barrier to gene flow in urban populations, depending on ethnicity. We test the hypothesis that biological variation is affected by social class subdivision using skin reflectance data collected for 393 Anglo-American and 930 Mexican-American adults in the major urban population of San Antonio, Texas. Two socioeconomic groups were sampled for the Anglo-American population: a middle-income transitional group and a high-income suburban group. In addition, we sampled a third socioeconomic group for Mexican-Americans: a low income barrio. Sex and age effects on skin color are minimal. Social class has no effect on skin color variation for Anglo-Americans, whereas there is a highly significant effect on social class subdivision for Mexican-Americans. Admixture estimates were derived from skin reflectance data and show that the proportion of native American ancestry decreases as social class increases.

So, extrapolating these results to make inferences about the general non-reservation U.S. Indian population, it's likely that the same disparities and discrimination exist.


It's shame but a fact that he obviously knows more about natural American Indians than you. Of course most people posting here know more than you do. The only reason most Indians don't leave the reservation is they are use to the handouts and don't want to give up that life style. Same as the inner city blacks. It's called L A Z Y.

I'm glad you've revealed your white supremacist inclinations, Guffer. However, you'll have to explain why the social democratic capitalist countries, characterized by more expansive welfare states and interventionist policies than the U.S., are also characterized by higher employment and social mobility levels. Shouldn't those "handouts" encourage laziness? Or are you prepared to join HogWash and attribute the limited success of social democracy to its existence in Europe, among people of genetically superior stock? Please do; you'd make a fascinating sociological case study on the connection between rightism and white populism.

Agnapostate
10-13-2010, 03:53 PM
You know, skurty, Guffer, Pukecan, and Pigg can thank every single post in opposition to mine if they want, no matter how weak and vacuous its content. Each instance only amuses me more, since it's an illustration of the fact that they can only express their frustrations in passive-aggressive ways, knowing that they would get their asses beat down in a direct exchange with me. :lol:

Abbey
10-15-2010, 12:26 PM
Aggie, your obsession with one topic, and worse, your obvious anger over it, as evidenced by your Johnny-one-note Web-life, seems to prevent you from enjoying your life.

You might consider letting go of the past, which CANNOT be changed, and making the most of the time God gives you. There is a whole beautiful world out there that can be best enjoyed when you are young and healthy. And HAPPY.

Trigg
10-15-2010, 03:34 PM
Originally Posted by Noir
So assuming you agree with that definition you are saying that Indians are not educated or experienced enough to be economically valuable?

Agna,

you're actually going to defend this with a page long post. How insulting and full of shit can one person be?

They can't leave the reservation because they'll leave family, have transportation issues and they'll be away from their culture. :lame2: EVERYONE who moves is leaving family, friends, and will have to look at transportation issues.

You're point about mental health risks and not leaving the reservation also makes no sense.


This cause of Indians' status as the poorest ethnic group in the country is related to mental health risks on reservations
Conclusions. American Indians live in adverse environments that place them at high risk for exposure to trauma and harmful health sequelae.

Why, if they are exposed to MORE trauma on the reservation than off, WOULD THEY CHOOSE TO STAY???

Indians are the poorest ethnic group because they CHOOSE, to stay in an area with limited employment. That is the one and only reason. It's no one else's fault that they CHOOSE not to move their families away and improve their economic situation.

Agnapostate
10-20-2010, 08:51 PM
Aggie, your obsession with one topic, and worse, your obvious anger over it, as evidenced by your Johnny-one-note Web-life, seems to prevent you from enjoying your life.

You might consider letting go of the past, which CANNOT be changed, and making the most of the time God gives you. There is a whole beautiful world out there that can be best enjoyed when you are young and healthy. And HAPPY.

LOL. I spend most of my discussion time (I have scarcely any left these days), on RevLeft (http://www.revleft.com/vb/), learning more about anti-statism, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, etc. This particular colonialist issue isn't discussed by me that often. In fact, I rarely mentioned it at all prior to the last year or two. As for anger, certainly I am angry about injustices that occur. Unlike you, Crabby, I try to be for the oppressed and against the oppressor. ;)


Agna,

you're actually going to defend this with a page long post. How insulting and full of shit can one person be?

You know, Pigg, just because you got your ass handed to you in the genocide debate (and your vote remains the same despite the fact that the American Holocaust denial posts fell flat on their faces), doesn't mean you need to participate in dragging the thread off-topic. But I'll appease you.


They can't leave the reservation because they'll leave family, have transportation issues and they'll be away from their culture. :lame2: EVERYONE who moves is leaving family, friends, and will have to look at transportation issues.

And typically not cultural isolation and hostility.


You're point about mental health risks and not leaving the reservation also makes no sense.

Why, if they are exposed to MORE trauma on the reservation than off, WOULD THEY CHOOSE TO STAY???

Indians are the poorest ethnic group because they CHOOSE, to stay in an area with limited employment. That is the one and only reason. It's no one else's fault that they CHOOSE not to move their families away and improve their economic situation.

You are an idiot, Pigg. The majority of this ethnic group is subject to underprovision of human capital because of the lack of education infrastructure occasionally associated with theft of more than 97% of lands and government restrictions on the remaining < 3% and third-world poverty. So of course there will be more problems in environments where specific efforts are not made to employ tribal members, especially with the racial employment discrimination that research attests to the existence of being a factor.

Trigg
10-21-2010, 06:15 PM
You know, Pigg, just because you got your ass handed to you in the genocide debate (and your vote remains the same despite the fact that the American Holocaust denial posts fell flat on their faces), doesn't mean you need to participate in dragging the thread off-topic. But I'll appease you.



And typically not cultural isolation and hostility.



You are an idiot, Pigg. The majority of this ethnic group is subject to underprovision of human capital because of the lack of education infrastructure occasionally associated with theft of more than 97% of lands and government restrictions on the remaining < 3% and third-world poverty. So of course there will be more problems in environments where specific efforts are not made to employ tribal members, especially with the racial employment discrimination that research attests to the existence of being a factor.

you're a condescending piece of shit.

You seem to have done well for yourself, you're very well educated.

Yet, you post BS about other Indians not being educated or experienced enough to be economically viable.

Are other Indians just not as good as you?

Anyone who wants to do better in this country, especially minorities, have every opportunity to do so. Families can move. Yes, they may be separated from their comfort zone, away from family, friends and culture. But, hey, that's the way things are. If you want to make life easier for your kids you do everything you can.

SassyLady
10-21-2010, 06:27 PM
you're a condescending piece of shit.

You seem to have done well for yourself, you're very well educated.

Yet, you post BS about other Indians not being educated or experienced enough to be economically viable.

Are other Indians just not as good as you?

Anyone who wants to do better in this country, especially minorities, have every opportunity to do so. Families can move. Yes, they may be separated from their comfort zone, away from family, friends and culture. But, hey, that's the way things are. If you want to make life easier for your kids you do everything you can.

:clap::clap::clap:

Standing ovation Trigg!!!

I am an example of exactly what you are referencing. At 18 I walked away from everything I knew to get out of the poverty and violence that was my world. I've never regretted it. If you look at my kids and grandkids and compare them to my nieces/nephews and grandnieces and nephews, there is a vast world of difference in their ability to function in the world. My six sibilings choose to "stay on the reservation" and were stuck in the mire and never got out, and now their children are stuck.

Agnapostate
10-22-2010, 01:11 AM
you're a condescending piece of shit.

You seem to have done well for yourself, you're very well educated.

Yet, you post BS about other Indians not being educated or experienced enough to be economically viable.

Are other Indians just not as good as you?

Anyone who wants to do better in this country, especially minorities, have every opportunity to do so. Families can move. Yes, they may be separated from their comfort zone, away from family, friends and culture. But, hey, that's the way things are. If you want to make life easier for your kids you do everything you can.

You're a dumb fucking hillbilly, no matter if fellow dumb fucking hillbillies mrs****princess and Guffer rimjob you all day long. The exception proves the rule! There's a literal stockpile of literature that illustrates that the U.S. has limited social mobility in comparison with the social democratic capitalist and even slightly more leftist capitalist countries of continental Europe. There's also a lot of evidence on this group specifically, that you just ignored, like the dimwitted imbecile that you are. Continuing my extrapolation of evidence on the Indian contingency of the "Mexican-American" population, there's An American Dream Unfulfilled: The Limited Mobility of Mexican Americans (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6237.00129/abstract):


Objective. We build on past research regarding immigrant group adaptation by examining the wages of first–, second–, and third–generation Mexican–American men and women and empirically evaluating if past theories of immigrant incorporation apply to the Mexican–American case. Methods. We use the 1989 Latino National Political Study and the 1990/1991 Panel Studies of Income Dynamics and OLS regressions to estimate the effects of generation and human capital on wages. Results. Immigrant men and women report lower wages than their second– and third–generation counterparts, but once human capital controls are added, the wage pattern becomes one of steady decline across generations for men, and stagnation or marginal decline across generations for women. Conclusions. Our results generally contest the applicability of linear assimilation hypotheses to the Mexican–American experience, while lending some credence to the selectivity and immigrant optimism hypotheses. Results also indicate the importance of developing more contextualized immigrant adaptation frameworks.

So paired with the studies that reveal that Indian admixture is positively associated with lower class status within the Mexican-American population, what does that indicate? Your "American dream" is just that: you have to be asleep to believe it!


:clap::clap::clap:

Standing ovation Trigg!!!

I am an example of exactly what you are referencing. At 18 I walked away from everything I knew to get out of the poverty and violence that was my world.

Your stupid little anecdotes aren't even relevant in this context, since you're not even an Indian. My mother's a Mayan and has the same inaccurate belief in unrestrained social mobility based on her own rags-to-riches story from Guatemala to the U.S. (psychoanalyze that however you want). Like you, she's a victim of arrogant inflation of her own individual perceptions. You'll never see the forest as long as you belligerently insist on charting the growth of one tree and inferring that all the others must be the same.

Pagan
10-22-2010, 02:12 AM
You're a dumb fucking hillbilly, no matter if fellow dumb fucking hillbillies mrs****princess and Guffer rimjob you all day long. The exception proves the rule! There's a literal stockpile of literature that illustrates that the U.S. has limited social mobility in comparison with the social democratic capitalist and even slightly more leftist capitalist countries of continental Europe. There's also a lot of evidence on this group specifically, that you just ignored, like the dimwitted imbecile that you are. Continuing my extrapolation of evidence on the Indian contingency of the "Mexican-American" population, there's An American Dream Unfulfilled: The Limited Mobility of Mexican Americans (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6237.00129/abstract):



So paired with the studies that reveal that Indian admixture is positively associated with lower class status within the Mexican-American population, what does that indicate? Your "American dream" is just that: you have to be asleep to believe it!



Your stupid little anecdotes aren't even relevant in this context, since you're not even an Indian. My mother's a Mayan and has the same inaccurate belief in unrestrained social mobility based on her own rags-to-riches story from Guatemala to the U.S. (psychoanalyze that however you want). Like you, she's a victim of arrogant inflation of her own individual perceptions. You'll never see the forest as long as you belligerently insist on charting the growth of one tree and inferring that all the others must be the same.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r309/marcus0263/funnies/dignaty.jpg?t=1287727875

darin
10-22-2010, 04:33 AM
Agnapostate has been banned for one week. That word, or any variant of spelling is never cool.


You're a dumb fucking hillbilly, no matter if fellow dumb fucking hillbillies mrs****princess and Guffer rimjob you all day long. .

Kathianne
10-22-2010, 05:25 AM
You're a dumb fucking hillbilly, no matter if fellow dumb fucking hillbillies mrs****princess and Guffer rimjob you all day long. The exception proves the rule! There's a literal stockpile of literature that illustrates that the U.S. has limited social mobility in comparison with the social democratic capitalist and even slightly more leftist capitalist countries of continental Europe. There's also a lot of evidence on this group specifically, that you just ignored, like the dimwitted imbecile that you are. Continuing my extrapolation of evidence on the Indian contingency of the "Mexican-American" population, there's An American Dream Unfulfilled: The Limited Mobility of Mexican Americans (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6237.00129/abstract):



So paired with the studies that reveal that Indian admixture is positively associated with lower class status within the Mexican-American population, what does that indicate? Your "American dream" is just that: you have to be asleep to believe it!



Your stupid little anecdotes aren't even relevant in this context, since you're not even an Indian. My mother's a Mayan and has the same inaccurate belief in unrestrained social mobility based on her own rags-to-riches story from Guatemala to the U.S. (psychoanalyze that however you want). Like you, she's a victim of arrogant inflation of her own individual perceptions. You'll never see the forest as long as you belligerently insist on charting the growth of one tree and inferring that all the others must be the same.

It never seems to dawn on you that the 'anecdotes' actually speak more to what you say you wish to accomplish, than all of the excuses you make for those that fail. It's as if you wish that teems of 'your people' continue mired in depression and failure, as long as the can blame long dead Europeans.

Have they historically been mistreated? Certainly, so were my Irish ancestors, both in Ireland and in this country. However, there wasn't time to sit back and become morose, while they may have been morose, they had to get to work to eat and find housing. To this day, no one here nor in Europe has said, 'Poor thing, your ancestors got a raw deal, here's some inadequate housing and food. If you manage to get through school with the undereducated Irish teachers you insist upon, we'll get you a free ride to university.'

What's really amazing is this seems to be the formula the government came up with to replicate in the 60's for its war on poverty.

jimnyc
10-22-2010, 07:33 AM
Agnapostate has been banned for one week. That word, or any variant of spelling is never cool.

He was recently banned 7 days for doing almost the same thing. Apparently he doesn't like that rule and thinks it doesn't apply to him. He's mistaken. 7 days didn't deter him last time, so I have increased the ban to 14 days this time. Next ban for this offense will be his last.

p.s. - Ag - don't make me lock this thread. Just continue on when you return and abide by the rules. If you try and argue your ban publicly again it won't work out in your favor. Shoot me a PM if you have a problem with this decision.

Trigg
10-22-2010, 10:17 AM
Your stupid little anecdotes aren't even relevant in this context, since you're not even an Indian. My mother's a Mayan and has the same inaccurate belief in unrestrained social mobility based on her own rags-to-riches story from Guatemala to the U.S. (psychoanalyze that however you want). Like you, she's a victim of arrogant inflation of her own individual perceptions. You'll never see the forest as long as you belligerently insist on charting the growth of one tree and inferring that all the others must be the same.

You know what's sad. You aren't even proud of your mother for pulling herself up and moving her family out of poverty. Presumably if she hadn't left Guatemala you wouldn't have gotten the education that you have.

You're so busy cussing and blaming people that you just don't see that every other Indian in this country is capable of doing the very same thing your mother did. They can leave their comfort zone and improve themselves, or they can do what you want them to do and sit at home feeling sorry for themselves and blaming everyone around them for their shitty life.

Kathianne
10-22-2010, 10:18 AM
You know what's sad. You aren't even proud of your mother for pulling herself up and moving her family out of poverty. Presumably if she hadn't left Guatemala you wouldn't have gotten the education that you have.

You're so busy cussing and blaming people that you just don't see that every other Indian in this country is capable of doing the very same thing your mother did. They can leave their comfort zone and improve themselves, or they can do what you want them to do and sit at home feeling sorry for themselves and blaming everyone around them for their shitty life.

That was my thinking with the anecdotes post. Well said!

NightTrain
10-22-2010, 12:21 PM
He was recently banned 7 days for doing almost the same thing. Apparently he doesn't like that rule and thinks it doesn't apply to him. He's mistaken. 7 days didn't deter him last time, so I have increased the ban to 14 days this time. Next ban for this offense will be his last.

I thought he was a she? Isn't s/he a 20 year old girl?

SassyLady
10-23-2010, 11:22 PM
You'll never see the forest as long as you belligerently insist on charting the growth of one tree and inferring that all the others must be the same.

Not "must" be the same, but "can" be the same.

bullypulpit
10-24-2010, 10:18 AM
Actually, it wasn't genocide, as we were not systematically exterminating them. We just kept kicking them off their land cause they kept picking all the goods spots. It's like in Maverick, "Next time I'll find a piece of swamp land so god awful, maybe then you people'll leave us the hell alone."

Just so we're clear:


gen·o·cide
   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

no one was wiping them off the map. The numbers quoted are not just murdered Native Americans, because it was mainly diseases we brought over from Europe and Asia that did that one, and that would have been true if it had been they had started populating Europe. Colds and flus that were normal to us, and non-lethal save in the most extreme circumstance were horribly deadly. At the time, in honesty, there was nothing we could have done about that, given the medical breakthroughs of the time.

Another culprit in the decline was the inter-tribal warfare that went on during all this, along with the numerous wars such as the revolutionary war, and French and Indian wars that cost even more lives.

Now, were we anal-retentive megalomaniacs who were being complete twats? Yes, hells yes, and our repeated breaking of treaties with them was unconscionable, as was our hubris in believing our way of life superior to all others.

I've been on dance team with the Calico Dancers out of Glens Falls NY in high school, had a scout leader, Mr. Carroll who was Native American. As well, I've done service projects on reservations a number of times. Yes, the Europeans of the 1500s-1900s who did these things were wrong, but I'm not the one who did it, just as no one here took part in it. Trying to push white guilt on us, however, is just cowardly. Grow up.

Displacing populations, disrupting their habitat and sourcing for food and shelter...It's genocide.

SpidermanTUba
11-05-2010, 02:55 PM
Do you believe that American Indians (referring to the Americas, not just the U.S.) were the victims of genocide, or as is more likely for a rightist forum, did they just "lose the war" because they were primitive forest dwellers facing guns?

What we did to the natives was the worst crime this nation has ever perpetuated - and that includes slavery. (the sin of slavery being partially atoned for by the spilling of the blood of half a million Americans)

SpidermanTUba
11-05-2010, 02:57 PM
Actually, it wasn't genocide, as we were not systematically exterminating them. We just kept kicking them off their land cause they kept picking all the goods spots.


We "kicked them off their land" in many cases by marching them to death - but hey, that's not genocide.



no one was wiping them off the map. The numbers quoted are not just murdered Native Americans, because it was mainly diseases we brought over from Europe and Asia that did that one, and that would have been true if it had been they had started populating Europe. Yeah I'm sure their removal to all that good farmland out in western deserts (its really good when it isn't irrigated) had nothing to do with their decline in numbers. Its not like people need food.

Agnapostate
11-06-2010, 11:59 PM
I don't care about the ban and have no comment on it. I'm close to throwing in the towel here; I don't make a habit of posting on boards that are characterized by arbitrary censorship as an established practice. I will post a few comments during this visit.

1. As expounded by Noel Ignatiev in his book How the Irish Became White (http://books.google.com/books?id=w7ztAAAAMAAJ), the Irish ethnic group assimilated by replicating many of the external behavioral patterns of their Anglo-Protestant superiors, including their racism against "non-whites." It was the same process that the "Five Civilized Tribes" underwent in adopting Anglo-Protestant culture, language, apparel, and habits (such as black slave ownership), even though they were eventually subject to ethnic cleansing in the end.

2. While you may excitedly listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh's pronouncements of victim-blaming, that the poor are poor because of their unwillingness to work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you have a weighty record to deal with in that the patterns in continental Europe flatly contradict this. The social democracies of Scandinavia in particular are characterized by more expansive welfare states, but have higher employment and social mobility levels coupled with reduced poverty levels. I've posted considerable evidence that corroborates this; it is rejected because it does not mesh with your naive, ideologically biased view of the world.

3. This is not the topic, regardless. The topic is whether American Indians were victims of genocide, and I believe that I have effectively defended the conclusion that they were. If anyone is interested in contributing to that subject, please post your thoughts.

jimnyc
11-07-2010, 07:04 AM
I don't care about the ban and have no comment on it. I'm close to throwing in the towel here; I don't make a habit of posting on boards that are characterized by arbitrary censorship as an established practice.

Don't care and won't comment, then you comment in the very next sentence. We don't practice arbitrary censorship here as you put it, more like you practice arbitrary skirting the rules and trolling. I will be nice for this last time and only lock this thread but your shenanigans will be kept on a very short leash. And threatening to leave isn't exactly going to tug on anyone's heart here.