5 ms·

It seems like you are trying to avoid the question. What gives indigenous peoples any moral high ground over later settlers? The indigenous* conquered land from

It seems like you are trying to avoid the question. What gives indigenous peoples any moral high ground over later settlers? The indigenous* conquered land from each other and moved - an obvious fact which too often gets left out of the conversation. Then, the Europeans came along and possessed the lands for themselves. And you'll find the same story repeated on every corner of the earth. Continual occupation is just not a thing. * As I've mentioned in another comment, true "indigenous" Alaskans are no more, having been replaced by an unrelated group of people in a later migration to the Americas.

thethethethe 6y ago
You are brushing off the systematic, mass genocide of native people and dispossession of their land by essentially saying that its happened throughout history, that it’s normal. I’m not really sure how this argument justifies anything. The colonization of America is recent. NA indigenous people are still alive and have special designated land that they were forced to move to. They weren’t even given citizenship by default until 1924–less than one hundred years ago > continual occupation is just not a thing I’m not sure where you are getting this. At what point is an occupation over? When the genocide is complete? That hasn’t even happened yet, NA indigenous people are still alive. Do you just expect they to submit, assimilate, and abandon their culture completely?
- waffle_ss 6y ago
  And you're brushing off all the conflict that Native Americans brought to bear against white settlers (do read some accounts of Apache or Comanche raids some time), and the concessions given to Native Americans after they were conquered (namely their own sovereign nations and plenty of carveouts to hunting and other laws so they can continue to practice their culture unhindered). They "weren't even given citizenship" because they were considered citizens of their own sovereign nations, not because the US gov't were acting maliciously. For this reason they also weren't required to register for Selective Service to be drafted into WWI (despite this, many non-citizens waived their exemption and registered anyway - maybe they didn't hate the country as much as some might suppose). I don't know what you expect the US gov't to do when attempts at peaceful coexistence between white settlers and the natives tribes failed. Run away as far as the Apache would chase them (to the Atlantic)? No, they went to war as needed, and even allied with other tribes in doing so.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Random comment - I assume your username is an attempt at wit, but even I did a double take Suffice to say it was complicated. I was reading about the tribes that aligned with the Confederacy and the fate of black slaves owned by tribes post-Civil War.
    - waffle_ss 6y ago
      My handle dates back to the 90s, when people barely rolled their eyes at a pun in poor taste. It's probably at its apex of hilarity right now, given the sheer number of folks pissing their pants because of a delusion that there are innumerable secret members of a looooong-dead political party hiding under every bed.
      - deleuze 6y ago
        > It's probably at its apex of hilarity right now, given the sheer number of folks pissing their pants because of a delusion that there are innumerable secret members of a looooong-dead political party hiding under every bed. Huh, "wild coincidence" that a user with the name "waffle_ss" spends their time posting about crime statistics and how killing indigenous people is whatever. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your politics.
        waffle_ss 6y ago
        The Nazis thankfully answered for their crimes. French philosophers have so far escaped punishment, but they have quite a lot to answer for as well.
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    > And you're brushing off all the conflict that Native Americans brought to bear against white settlers Given that you're the first person to bring this up, accusing your parent for "brushing this off" is not coming across as an attempt to have a good faith conversation. > and the concessions given to Native Americans after they were conquered (namely their own sovereign nations and plenty of carveouts to hunting and other laws so they can continue to practice their culture unhindered). The US often didn't honor the terms of these concessions.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  >I’m not really sure how this argument justifies anything. My argument is not that europeans are in the right because they inflicted upon others what those others inflicted upon still others. My argument is that nobody has a clean record. If your position is that what happened to natives is wrong, then what the natives did to each other is also wrong. >I’m not sure where you are getting this. At what point is an occupation over? What I'm saying is you will be hard pressed to find a territory that has been continually occupied by one group since the arrival of humans. At some point each territory was probably wrested from some prior group via the usual means. Exceptions apply. Isolated islands come to mind.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  > systematic, mass genocide of native people and > NA indigenous people are still alive ...is an interesting mixed message.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    Just because the genocide didn't fully succeed in exterminating every last Native American doesn't mean it somehow wasn't a "systematic mass genocide", for the same reason that just because Nazi Germany didn't successfully wipe every last Jew off the face of the Earth doesn't mean that wasn't a "systematic mass genocide", or how just because the VRS didn't exterminate every last Bosniak doesn't mean the Bosnian genocide wasn't a genocide. Like, there's nothing mixed about that message at all. The United States systematically displaced or outright exterminated countless Native Americans, and yet some did survive and will hopefully have a chance to recover from that genocide and reclaim some of their lost lands.
    - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
      Nazi Germany didn't wipe out every last jew because they lost the war. Had nobody stopped Germany I don't see a reason why they wouldn't have succeeded. Supposing the U.S. did institute a systemic native genocide policy in the past, what prevented it from succeeding? Why are there still natives?
      - yellowapple 6y ago
        > Had nobody stopped Germany I don't see a reason why they wouldn't have succeeded. Barring complete world domination they would have no chance of doing so, given the existence of Jews beyond Germany's reach (including those who escaped the Holocaust). Yet, we still consider that a systemic mass genocide. Same deal with the US and its eradication of in some cases entire tribes; just because the US stopped engaging in systemic mass genocide (for whatever reason) or otherwise didn't succeed in killing or sterilizing every last native doesn't mean my country didn't engage in systemic mass genocide at all. Hell, even by the incorrectly-narrow definition you seem to be using, there are quite a few tribes that are nowadays entirely extinct, e.g. the Karankawa people in Texas and the Yahi people in California.
Tiktaalik 6y ago
So what you're trying to say that the dislocation and genocide of people of indigenous nations by colonial nations was morally fine because you assert that the indigenous people probably did something similar in the past? Good grief. Settlers knew what they were doing and their actions against indigenous people were not moral. They do not need defending.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  You're putting words in my mouth as a red herring. I pointed out how practically everyone is living on conquered land - yes, even the native americans who wrested it from each other, though you cast shade on this inconvenient fact. So does whose.land, which rationalizes the overlapping amerindian borders like so: "Often, boundaries between territories overlap because the Indigenous Nations were continuously sharing the land and negotiating agreements through their own diplomatic and legal systems." Hmmn...No mention of war or genocide - everyone just got along diplomatically apparently. Reality check: incidents such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre evidence my better judgement on this matter.
  - Tiktaalik 6y ago
    No you're trying to give settlers a pass on amoral behaviour. It doesn't matter what conflicts indigenous nations may have entered into (and to be clear, you are completely speculating that they did). It does not justify the behaviour of the settlers that came after. Effectively your argument is a childlike "well he did it therefore I should be able to". Have higher standards.

thethethethe 6y ago

You are brushing off the systematic, mass genocide of native people and dispossession of their land by essentially saying that its happened throughout history, that it’s normal. I’m not really sure how this argument justifies anything. The colonization of America is recent. NA indigenous people are still alive and have special designated land that they were forced to move to. They weren’t even given citizenship by default until 1924–less than one hundred years ago > continual occupation is just not a thing I’m not sure where you are getting this. At what point is an occupation over? When the genocide is complete? That hasn’t even happened yet, NA indigenous people are still alive. Do you just expect they to submit, assimilate, and abandon their culture completely?

waffle_ss 6y ago
And you're brushing off all the conflict that Native Americans brought to bear against white settlers (do read some accounts of Apache or Comanche raids some time), and the concessions given to Native Americans after they were conquered (namely their own sovereign nations and plenty of carveouts to hunting and other laws so they can continue to practice their culture unhindered). They "weren't even given citizenship" because they were considered citizens of their own sovereign nations, not because the US gov't were acting maliciously. For this reason they also weren't required to register for Selective Service to be drafted into WWI (despite this, many non-citizens waived their exemption and registered anyway - maybe they didn't hate the country as much as some might suppose). I don't know what you expect the US gov't to do when attempts at peaceful coexistence between white settlers and the natives tribes failed. Run away as far as the Apache would chase them (to the Atlantic)? No, they went to war as needed, and even allied with other tribes in doing so.
- refurb 6y ago
  Random comment - I assume your username is an attempt at wit, but even I did a double take Suffice to say it was complicated. I was reading about the tribes that aligned with the Confederacy and the fate of black slaves owned by tribes post-Civil War.
  - waffle_ss 6y ago
    My handle dates back to the 90s, when people barely rolled their eyes at a pun in poor taste. It's probably at its apex of hilarity right now, given the sheer number of folks pissing their pants because of a delusion that there are innumerable secret members of a looooong-dead political party hiding under every bed.
    - deleuze 6y ago
      > It's probably at its apex of hilarity right now, given the sheer number of folks pissing their pants because of a delusion that there are innumerable secret members of a looooong-dead political party hiding under every bed. Huh, "wild coincidence" that a user with the name "waffle_ss" spends their time posting about crime statistics and how killing indigenous people is whatever. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your politics.
      - waffle_ss 6y ago
        The Nazis thankfully answered for their crimes. French philosophers have so far escaped punishment, but they have quite a lot to answer for as well.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  > And you're brushing off all the conflict that Native Americans brought to bear against white settlers Given that you're the first person to bring this up, accusing your parent for "brushing this off" is not coming across as an attempt to have a good faith conversation. > and the concessions given to Native Americans after they were conquered (namely their own sovereign nations and plenty of carveouts to hunting and other laws so they can continue to practice their culture unhindered). The US often didn't honor the terms of these concessions.
Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
>I’m not really sure how this argument justifies anything. My argument is not that europeans are in the right because they inflicted upon others what those others inflicted upon still others. My argument is that nobody has a clean record. If your position is that what happened to natives is wrong, then what the natives did to each other is also wrong. >I’m not sure where you are getting this. At what point is an occupation over? What I'm saying is you will be hard pressed to find a territory that has been continually occupied by one group since the arrival of humans. At some point each territory was probably wrested from some prior group via the usual means. Exceptions apply. Isolated islands come to mind.
BurningFrog 6y ago
> systematic, mass genocide of native people and > NA indigenous people are still alive ...is an interesting mixed message.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  Just because the genocide didn't fully succeed in exterminating every last Native American doesn't mean it somehow wasn't a "systematic mass genocide", for the same reason that just because Nazi Germany didn't successfully wipe every last Jew off the face of the Earth doesn't mean that wasn't a "systematic mass genocide", or how just because the VRS didn't exterminate every last Bosniak doesn't mean the Bosnian genocide wasn't a genocide. Like, there's nothing mixed about that message at all. The United States systematically displaced or outright exterminated countless Native Americans, and yet some did survive and will hopefully have a chance to recover from that genocide and reclaim some of their lost lands.
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    Nazi Germany didn't wipe out every last jew because they lost the war. Had nobody stopped Germany I don't see a reason why they wouldn't have succeeded. Supposing the U.S. did institute a systemic native genocide policy in the past, what prevented it from succeeding? Why are there still natives?
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      > Had nobody stopped Germany I don't see a reason why they wouldn't have succeeded. Barring complete world domination they would have no chance of doing so, given the existence of Jews beyond Germany's reach (including those who escaped the Holocaust). Yet, we still consider that a systemic mass genocide. Same deal with the US and its eradication of in some cases entire tribes; just because the US stopped engaging in systemic mass genocide (for whatever reason) or otherwise didn't succeed in killing or sterilizing every last native doesn't mean my country didn't engage in systemic mass genocide at all. Hell, even by the incorrectly-narrow definition you seem to be using, there are quite a few tribes that are nowadays entirely extinct, e.g. the Karankawa people in Texas and the Yahi people in California.

Tiktaalik 6y ago

So what you're trying to say that the dislocation and genocide of people of indigenous nations by colonial nations was morally fine because you assert that the indigenous people probably did something similar in the past? Good grief. Settlers knew what they were doing and their actions against indigenous people were not moral. They do not need defending.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
You're putting words in my mouth as a red herring. I pointed out how practically everyone is living on conquered land - yes, even the native americans who wrested it from each other, though you cast shade on this inconvenient fact. So does whose.land, which rationalizes the overlapping amerindian borders like so: "Often, boundaries between territories overlap because the Indigenous Nations were continuously sharing the land and negotiating agreements through their own diplomatic and legal systems." Hmmn...No mention of war or genocide - everyone just got along diplomatically apparently. Reality check: incidents such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre evidence my better judgement on this matter.
- Tiktaalik 6y ago
  No you're trying to give settlers a pass on amoral behaviour. It doesn't matter what conflicts indigenous nations may have entered into (and to be clear, you are completely speculating that they did). It does not justify the behaviour of the settlers that came after. Effectively your argument is a childlike "well he did it therefore I should be able to". Have higher standards.