Off Topic Messages

US Government should give back the Native American's land.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:41 am

I have been reading alot about the history of the Native American and it is so sad the way there treated.

The US government stole their land from them and quite rightly so give them apart of it back.

They should also have a say in how America is run.

It was their country after all.

The was a great Native American Chief who once said'The White man gave us so many promises but only kept one.They said they would take our land, and they did'.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:46 am

It is difficult to correct the wrongs of history.

The land masses on our planet belong to all of us don't they ?

Or they should do !

Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:49 am

If im not mistaken that in Australia they have done this to the Aborigines.

They have their own land and they have a say in how Australia is run.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:54 am

The Tasmanian Aborigines have received nothing.

They were wiped out to a man.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:57 am

In Northern Australia they have their own land dont they??

Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:00 am

Sean Ryan wrote:In Northern Australia they have their own land dont they??


I don't know.

But you're right, the Australian government has tried to redress some of their predecessors' wrong-doings in connection with the Aboriginal people.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:30 am

Hi Carolynm,

I was right then.That is such a great thing the Australian government has done.

Im British and Im very embarrassed about some of our treatment on certain cultures around the world.I dont think our Government teaches children of how bad the British were back then.

Some of our Kings and Queens were worse than Saddam Hussain in their time.
Didnt Richard The Lionheart behead 5,000 men just for being muslims?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:32 am

Sean -

Don't mention the Crusades !

We don't come out of that period too well.
Last edited by ColinB on Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:57 am

Sean -
The treatment of native Americans has been shameful. However, Indians have a say in how our country is run just like any other citizen. There is also a branch of the federal government dedicated exclusively to native American issues, the bureau of indian affairs.

This model can be applied to virtually any country. The Spanish, the Dutch, the English, the French, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Scandinavians - all have periods of empiricism/colonialism and barbarism in their respective histories.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:54 am

I'll be packed and moved out by Friday. :roll:
Last edited by Big Boss Man on Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:34 am

The Native Americans DO have a say in how the country is run. It's called a vote.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:45 am

Correct me if I'm wrong. Do they not have a say in how this country is ran? They have just as much say as anyone else who is a legal American.

Interesting topic though. Here's something for you to check out when you have time.


http://www.lib.washington.edu/subject/History/tm/native.html
Last edited by Rob on Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:51 am

Carolyn,
What interesting facts in your posts!! I copied them to my word processor and am going to use the info as parallels the next time I teach my kids about the Native Americans.
sue

Now how did Rob get his post in before mine?? It wasn't there before!!

Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:24 pm

Pete Dube wrote:Sean -
The treatment of native Americans has been shameful. However, Indians have a say in how our country is run just like any other citizen. There is also a branch of the federal government dedicated exclusively to native American issues, the bureau of indian affairs.

This model can be applied to virtually any country. The Spanish, the Dutch, the English, the French, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Scandinavians - all have periods of empiricism/colonialism and barbarism in their respective histories.


Not Ireland! We're too small, we were just victims!! :cry: :cry:

Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:18 am

the spanish were guilty of more of the african slave trade down into the caribbean than the united states was.

oh and btw, the indians' land? give me a frickin' break. they came here over the land bridge from asia, just like we took a trip over the pond.

speaking of indians...here's a nice little bit of quoteage (and it sums up my stance to a tee):

"You won. All right? You came in, and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, 'I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it.' ...It's kill or be killed here, take your bloody pick."

and do i even need to go into the aztecs??? poor little indians, my rear. i have zilch compassion for their pain and suffering because they were one of the most bullying cultures in history. hail to cortez. need i mention hearts getting ripped out? and of course the poor little incas liked to sacrifice children.

and btw, the mamby pambying about the poor little indians is absolute bullshit. they fought each other, took each other's lands, wiped other tribes out, etc...and were doing it long before we came in--though actually they found a white guy (probably viking) on the north american continent that predates when the indians came over the land bridge. that kind of screws up their claim to north america.

political correctness has managed to screw up so many young peoples minds into believing these lies.

do you really want the real version of history? i'll tell you this...there isn't a damn culture that hasn't tried to wipe out somebody--from the east, from the west, from the north or the south.

the african tribes weren't peaceful either...in fact, they have this little habit of using machedis on each other.

european colonialism isn't the bad guy--in fact european colonialism managed to shut down a lot of the worst things that people were doing to each other. india indian settee for example--killing the women...that got taken out by the nosy europeans. no great loss, to be sure.

Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:50 am

And on that note...I'm headed to my local casino where the natives routinely "scalp" unsuspecting blue hairs with their quarter slots.

Thought some of you might find this interesting.

The Mohegan Sun resort and casino located in Uncasville, Connecticut is the world's second largest casino with over 1,000 hotel rooms and 300,000 square feet of gaming space, Neighboring Native American casino Foxwoods is the largest.

The Mohegan Sun Arena which is located adjacent to the resort is a 10,000 seat facility which currently hosts the Connecticut Sun a WNBA basketball franchise, and was the home of the Mohegan Wolves arena football team until it was sold and moved to Manchester, New Hampshire in 2004. Both teams are/were owned by the Mohegan tribe. The arena also hosts music concerts by Shania Twain, The Doors, Yes, Reba McEntire, Simon and Garfunkel as well as well as comedy performances by Drew Carey and the annual American Kennel Club's Challenge Dog show.

The Mohegan Sun was originally developed and managed by Trading Cove Associates a joint venture of Waterford Gaming, Sol Kerzner's Kerzner International (Formerly Sun International) and the Mohegan Tribe. In 2000 Trading Cove Associates gave complete control of the resort to the Mohegan tribe; TCA still receive a 5% dividend on the gross revenue generated by Mohegan Sun until 2014. The casino operates under a gaming compact which the Tribe entered into with the State of Connecticut on April 25, 1994.

On January 25, 2005, Mohegan Sun acquired its first gaming venture outside of Connecticut with its $280 million purchase of the Pocono Downs Racetrack in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania from Penn National Gaming. Mohegan Sun renamed the property "Mohegan Sun at Pocono Downs" and began a major expansion.

Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:59 am

I agree with Pete that it was shameful and should never be forgotten. However, what's done is done and nobody alive today had anything to do with it. Just as with slavery, the goal now should be trying to increase the opportunties for a better way of life to those affected.

Pete- The big disappointment for me when I consider the plight of American Indians, the slave trade and later the denial of rights to African-Americans, the Japanese internment camps etc- is that we're supposed to be different and we were supposed to be different from day one. And since this is my country whenever we betray those ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution it hurts me.


Carolyn- That was very interesting.

Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:00 pm

likethebike wrote:Pete- The big disappointment for me when I consider the plight of American Indians, the slave trade and later the denial of rights to African-Americans, the Japanese internment camps etc- is that we're supposed to be different and we were supposed to be different from day one. And since this is my country whenever we betray those ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution it hurts me.


Well, Elvis' Babe has a valid point. Before the Europeans ever got here the native Americans were not exactly living in harmony with each other. The idea of the so-called noble savage is more fiction than fact.

As for the ideals set forth in the Constitution and the Declaration of independence, the great irony is that many of the signatories - including the enlightened Jefferson - were slaveowners. So even our own founding fathers took awhile to extend those high-minded ideals to ALL men.

We should be cautious about rushing to judgment on the Japanese internment camps. Particularly if viewed through the prism of our current tendency towards political correctness. It was a different time back then. there was a world war going on. The Japanese attacked us. Fear and suspicion was justified, even if the idea of the internment camps is offensive to us now.

Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:22 am

Elvis' Babe wrote:the spanish were guilty of more of the african slave trade down into the caribbean than the united states was.

oh and btw, the indians' land? give me a frickin' break. they came here over the land bridge from asia, just like we took a trip over the pond.

speaking of indians...here's a nice little bit of quoteage (and it sums up my stance to a tee):

"You won. All right? You came in, and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, 'I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it.' ...It's kill or be killed here, take your bloody pick."

and do i even need to go into the aztecs??? poor little indians, my rear. i have zilch compassion for their pain and suffering because they were one of the most bullying cultures in history. hail to cortez. need i mention hearts getting ripped out? and of course the poor little incas liked to sacrifice children.

and btw, the mamby pambying about the poor little indians is absolute bullshit. they fought each other, took each other's lands, wiped other tribes out, etc...and were doing it long before we came in--though actually they found a white guy (probably viking) on the north american continent that predates when the indians came over the land bridge. that kind of screws up their claim to north america.

political correctness has managed to screw up so many young peoples minds into believing these lies.

do you really want the real version of history? i'll tell you this...there isn't a damn culture that hasn't tried to wipe out somebody--from the east, from the west, from the north or the south.

the african tribes weren't peaceful either...in fact, they have this little habit of using machedis on each other.

european colonialism isn't the bad guy--in fact european colonialism managed to shut down a lot of the worst things that people were doing to each other. india indian settee for example--killing the women...that got taken out by the nosy europeans. no great loss, to be sure.


You dont know what your talking about.

Have you heard of the Sand Creek Massacre where the US army went in to a camp and tortured and killed Women and Children?? There was hardly any men in the camp and they wiped the camp out.

The soldiers cut out the vaginas of women who were still alive.Butchered children in front of their mothers just cause they were Native Americans, their own people.

Its a sad fact but they were Americans and were slaughtered by Americans.
The buffalo was nearly wiped out so the Native Americans would starve.

They dug up sacred land just cause GOLD was there.

Why did the US Goverment try and buy the land from the Native Americans if they didnt consider it their land then??

Elvis'babe. So you wouldnt have a problem if a bigger force came in and took your land from you then?

Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:38 am

Pete- It doesn't matter if the Indians were peaceful or not they were living here first and were basically exterminated for that reason.

The fact that Jefferson and Washington (although he freed his slaves upon his death) and Patrick "Give me liberty or Give Me Death" were slave holders does taint some of their actions. However, I feel their ideals were better than they were men (although I don't condemn as they were men of their times) especially since those ideals set up a framework where eventually all men could be free eventually. Also, you have to cut the Founding Fathers some extra slack because they had to make it work and some territories would have opted out had slavery been made illegal. Benjamin Franklin and the Quakers pushed for this at the very begining decades before the Civil War. But it wasn't going to work, keeping a Union together was essential to the survival of the country, a survival that was made that much more difficult because what the Founders were trying was truly unprecedented.

There was a lot realpolitik there. For instance, Washington was against slavery but had to hold on to his slaves through his lifetime for risk of offending other stakeholders in the new country.

Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:06 am

likethebike wrote:Pete- It doesn't matter if the Indians were peaceful or not they were living here first and were basically exterminated for that reason.


I'm not trying to waterdown the situation Bike. The native Americans were treated horribly. But it wasn't quite the black&white situation it's often made out to be. The indians committed their share of atrocities - not only against whites but also against each other. And I say that as someone who has native American blood in my veins.

likethebike wrote:The fact that Jefferson and Washington (although he freed his slaves upon his death) and Patrick "Give me liberty or Give Me Death" were slave holders does taint some of their actions. However, I feel their ideals were better than they were men (although I don't condemn as they were men of their times) especially since those ideals set up a framework where eventually all men could be free eventually. Also, you have to cut the Founding Fathers some extra slack because they had to make it work and some territories would have opted out had slavery been made illegal. Benjamin Franklin and the Quakers pushed for this at the very begining decades before the Civil War. But it wasn't going to work, keeping a Union together was essential to the survival of the country, a survival that was made that much more difficult because what the Founders were trying was truly unprecedented.

There was a lot realpolitik there. For instance, Washington was against slavery but had to hold on to his slaves through his lifetime for risk of offending other stakeholders in the new country.


I completely agree. The reality is that the founding fathers were compromised to a certain extant. It was their noble ideals that they wrote into the Constitution for posterity, in hopes that future generations would be inspired by and aspire to these ideals.

Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:46 am

I don't necessarily disagree with you Pete on the Indians. There was just an undertone in Elvis' Babe piece that they had it coming. Nobody has that coming.

Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:49 am

using the logic presented here:

i should hate catholics and ask them for things because i'm related to the quakers--the ones that were being persecuted in england and left for the new world in 1624.

since i'm german, scottish, etc... i should be mad at italians because they are decended from the romans, who were the first european empire types to switch over to christianity and force different european tribes to become christian and they demonized paganism.

then again, i suppose the english should be mad at me too, because before my ancestors were in england they were danish invaders. :lol:

i mean, seriously. just because something is more recent in history doesn't make it suddenly more special and worthy of "let's give them back their land".

if we did that, we'd have to look for pagans in europe to give their land back too.

people force different religions on people, they wipe them out, they bring diseases (should i be mad at italians for the beginning of the bubonic plague?), they give diseases to us (syphilis is courtesy of the native americans, btw), etc... sh*t happens. history isn't hearts and flowers, and having an empire isn't hearts and flowers.

if you act pathetic and weak, saying "can't we just all get along", somebody will be next in line to kill you. and hey, we already have a group who's thinking about it--and willing to use violence. take a guess who i'm thinking of. they hate the western world...oh yeah, it's those middle eastern terrorists...you know, the ones who see the west as weak. unfortunately, not enough people are proving them wrong, because the west has become weak in the name of being politically correct.

the history of the united states is people assimilating and becoming a melting pot. there's a lot of immigrants...especially since there isn't a damn person on this continent who isn't from a different continent (indians are asians). we fought, we blend, we bitch about how the other immigrants treat us...blah blah blah.

remember the anti-irish immigrant stuff from the turn of the century? "no irish need apply"

i suspect that if european colonialism kept their places, that i'd be able to visit egypt much easier today, because they'd have probably kicked out the muslim fanaticals that want to kill american tourists there. england gave egypt to the muslims in 1923. oh and a little fact, the muslims ain't the egyptians. completely a different race than the true ancient egyptians--ramses II had red hair, and that is scientific fact.

given the fact that the ancient egyptians were brunettes, blondes, redheads--i suspect i have a better shot at claiming ancient egypt than someone who came in during the muslim invasions (AD)...but then again, the muslim invasions were after the romans, who were after the greeks, who took egypt under alexander the great, who defeated the nubians who had conquered it from the real ancient egyptians and formed the 25th dynasty--which is known for being pretty pathetic compared to the heyday of the ancient egyptian empire. not to mention the sea peoples invasion much earlier.

do you get the gist? how a country is conquered a kazillion times over by whoever is the big power.

i mean, ramses III cut off his warriors hands to count those he defeated. he wasn't happy with the count, so he had their phalluses cut off for the recount. that was the ancient version of the recount.

suddenly, we look pretty tame historically.

the history of the world is a bunch of little ants saying 'we are the best'! and trying to spread their culture everywhere, no matter who they are. this isn't just a european thing. it's human nature, and it will continue to be human nature.

in 5000 years, europe and america could adopt a completely different religion, or be taken over by some other new empire with bigger ammo. in fact, i guarantee it will happen.

Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:10 am

It's all fine and good if you want to buy that line of reasoning but just don't go around saying we're the good guys then. I thought when this country started that the Founding Fathers wanted to do something different and more profound than act like mere animals. That's why the annihilation of the American Indians and slavery are a national disgrace because we're supposed to know better.