Regardless of the Indian/Gambling debate the fact is that the
above
statement is wrong and has been used to remove and destroy Native
Americans since Europeans have arrived to the New World.
"Wrong", how? Wrong as in, incorrect, or wrong, as in morally wrong?
If you reread my post with a somewhat calmer frame of mind you will
notice that I used the word INEVITABLE to describe the event of the
displacement of Indian tribes. NOT right, wrong, good, bad, against
the teachings of the Koran, not according to Marquis of Queensbury
rules, or anything else.
The simple fact of history--shown time and again--is that aboriginal
peoples confronted by more technologically advanced societies (that
also outnumber them ten-to-one) will ALWAYS be pushed aside, and
either assimilated or destroyed. Call it cruel, call it unjust, call
it Darwinian, whatever you will. The fact that the Indian tribes
survive in something resembling their original form means that they
are far luckier than most aboriginal peoples in the last few
centuries of history.
I graduated with Masters degree in history and my emphasis of
study
was Native American history. Due to diseases that Europeans
carried
the Native American population was reduced by 99% from pre
European
contact.
Even in the case of a virulent pathogen such as smallpox, the
mortality rates were more like 50%. Dramatic, certainly, but not the
result of any deliberate act, and there's no need to overstate the
case.
The fact is that millions of Native Americans used lands in
North America and not all Native Americans were nomadic hunters
and
gathers. Many such as the Navajo were herders and farmers.
True. But their technology was such that they could not raise a
population sufficient to withstand the pressures of in-migration
from the east. This is what doomed them in the long run.
The theory that Native Americans took up too much land has been a
long time unjustifed arguement to remove and relocate Native
Americans.
The land consisting of, roughly, eastern Montana and Wyoming, the
Dakotas, western Nebraska and Kansas supported roughly 300,000
Plains Indians at the peak of their culture, roughly AD 1800. That
same area supports 15,000,000 people now. The change was inevitable,
not to belabor the point.
It is unjustified argument because Native Americans did
not need European culture or European farming practices. They
survived just fine on their own. And Native American susbistence
systems supported vast populations.
"Vast" compared to what? And yes, subsistence level indeed. No
writing. No literature. No poetry. Crude art. Primitive music. This
is the hallmark of SUBSISTENCE cultures; so much time is spent
scraping out a living that no time can be spent on CIVILIZATION. If
the earth has a finite carrying capacity, how is mankind better
served: by a given patch of land supporting a small tribe of
primitive subsistence farmers, or by it supporting a small rural
town of 3,000?
The Reservation system was designed to exploit Native Americans
and
their land. Your argument that Native Americans needed to be
removed
to make way for a better subsistence system is racist.
I never said that. Don't try to put words in my mouth, and don't try
name-calling. I argued that the reservation system, and the Indian
pseudo-nations that arose from it, was a FLAWED attempt to redress
what people saw as an inequity. The problem that the reservation
system tried to address was the simple INEVITABILITY of the Indians'
displacement. Right or wrong, it was GOING TO HAPPEN.
It is no
better than the Nazis executing whole populations to make way for
a
more superior race.
I know it is fashionable to make this argument, but if you really
think there is any real comparison between the way the United States
treated the Indians, and the way the Nazis treated the Jews (and
other populations), you need to go back and reread your history
books.
Your arguement is racism and ethnocentricism at
its height.
Sorry, no, I don't accept either label. I simply argued that a
technologically and numerically inferior race was certain to be
overwhelmed if it occupied lands that could be utilized by a
technologically and numerically superior race. This is not racism;
it is human history. I am not racist because I observe and comment
on this simple fact. Look up "racism" in the dictionary before you
throw the term around. It refers to a belief in a given race's
INHERENT superiority, or inferiority. There was nothing INHERENTLY
inferior about the North American Indian. Hell, they were all a
swell bunch of guys. But their defeat and dispersal were inevitable,
because they were outnumbered and outgunned. Period.
"Ethnocentricism" refers, I believe, to a point of view primarily
from that of a given race. Well, that's hard to avoid, having one
given perspective or the other. However, just because I'm one of
those paleface honkies, doesn't mean I can't be objective, or I'm
not a student of history.
Native Americans are no angels. They fought among each other just
like Europeans but they didn't deserve genocide which is what they
got.
If any group of people, from one person to 300 million, gets what
they collectively deserve, it's a coincidence. Life can be unfair.
Whatever your Indian/Gambling arguments sir don't make any
more
ignorant references to the benefits of the Indian reservation
system.
I never referred to ANY of its benefits, rather, several of its huge
flaws!! Did you actually READ what I wrote? I will continue to make
whatever references I deem appropriate. It is evident that I know at
least as much as you do about this subject; I hardly write from a
position of "ignorance".