Guys, this is a very, very complicated topic. There is too much nuance to make this black and white. It is neither that Native Americans are hideous bloodthirsty savages, nor that the United States wished to see them exterminated like vermin. There is a lot in between. It was started by the European desire to possess the land and push previous occupants, so yes, the original fault lies with white settlers. However, it becomes a pointless discussion to assign blame for the perspective of an 1800s American military general (just like with Israel and Palestine) after it's been years and years of bloodshed from both sides.
I'm gonna have to side with bluestreet, pescalita, and bunny here. But that position doesn't prevent me from also agreeing with HY that the current conditions are appalling.
As bunny said, it's a nuanced discussion with a variety of factors.
And despite my side eye of ringstrue, I'm more than a wee bit disappointed that we can't have a history geek off discussing the similarities and differences without it playing like someone is negating or elevating one race/experience over another.
And despite my side eye of ringstrue, I'm more than a wee bit disappointed that we can't have a history geek off discussing the similarities and differences without it playing like someone is negating or elevating one race/experience over another.
I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT HISTORY, YO!
*holds hands and skips off with habbsies*
*joins y'all down the yellow brick road*
And adding: what I do think should be a unity horse here is the current state of Native American reservations is appalling. Travel NM and AZ on I-40 instead of I-10 and you will get a glimpse into the destitute poverty many Native Americans live in and research into why will make you sick to your stomach.
I am actually a bootstrapping Amurrcan in many ways and have always seen the lack of support for Natives as horrific even in my self-righteous days (growing up in nowheresville NM and AZ during my summers with my family gave me this direct anectdotal exposure).
It's easy to ignore a situation when it's not in anyone's backyard.
For instance, let's take the Native American population. For them, it was a matter of conformity. I think we can all agree that had they simply been willing to abandon their culture, move into town, attend white folks church, and wear corsets and beaver hats, the population would have been rather assimilated into society, having "seen the light" as it were and embracing the properness of Western culture. Of course, what kind of fucked up people feel their way is so morally superior to those of another than they expect full assimilation before they can think about acceptance? (And let's not pretend that they wouldn't have been second class citizens for a number of generations.)
But for the Jews, many of whom were assimilated into European culture and had been for generations, it wasn't enough. They were hunted down for nothing more than blood lines regardless of how they lived their lives, what they self identified as, etc.
Both are unspeakable assaults on freedom, tolerance, and human rights, similar in abuse, in moral repulsiveness. And yet they are different.
So one could say, yes but all they wanted you to do was change while the other says, yes but how could you ask me to fundamentally change who I am for some other culture you've arbitrarily decided was better, based on nothing more than skin color? And the first says, but I can't change my blood and the second says and I can't abandon my culture.
At some point, you're discussing the difference between Stalin and Hitler, aren't you?
Murder is still murder and violence is still violence. Neither Hitler nor the Colonists made up either. People suck everywhere and throughout history.
Wut???
Are you high?
Where the hell is that Peggy gif?
I honestly don't know what you are having an issue with. You are free to explain or ask or something besides calling me simple and high or trying to post images of how stupid I am - though I know it's not the norm for you.
My point is that neither situation was good. I'm not defending either side. Is that much at least clear to you? Is that statement problematic for you?
I don't really see how this matters, though. Just because many people were killed by disease in 1600 doesn't mean that it wasn't that big a deal that they were systematically eliminated in the 1800s.
I don't see the point of saying "this was worse!" about either one, but I do think it's worth noting that it's pretty universally recognized that the Holocaust was a horrible thing - in Germany it's literally a crime to say it didn't happen and the entire nation engaged in soul-searching and self-flagellation in the decades that followed. We have "never again" slogans, museums, research centers, grants, scholarships, never-ending prosecutions of people who were involved, etc. An entire country was founded on the basis of "this terrible thing happened to these people, we have to give them a country and tons of money to make sure nothing bad ever happens to them again."
There's very little of that for Native Americans. They got casinos and sky-high poverty and alcoholism rates and a collective shrug from the rest of the country. "Yeah that was pretty bad but it was a long time ago, so whatever. I'm sure they're over it now."
And they only get casinos in a few places. When the TX Alabama Coushatta tried to have a casino the state shut it down even though it was on tribal lands and tribes are supposed to have sovereignty. Tribes' sovereignty, which is the best thing they have going for them and it's not as much as some people might think, is constantly challenged.
I have literally had dozens of people try to give me the "but they're ok now. They have casinos" argument (and I know that's not what you're saying, but others use it as an excuse to not have to care). Well, for one thing, there are an awful lot of white people involved who get an awful lot of the profit from most of those casinos. And B) they're not all Foxwoods style big money makers. My husband worked for the Ho-chunk tribe in WI. They have casinos and still most members of the rez live barely above the poverty line, many still under.
In NewMexico, we sponsor a family who live in a shack with no electricity or running water. They are not an anomaly. Don't make me tell you about the angry letter I shot off to Matt Damon.
I honestly don't know what you are having an issue with. You are free to explain or ask or something besides calling me simple and high or trying to post images of how stupid I am - though I know it's not the norm for you.
My point is that neither situation was good. I'm not defending either side. Is that much at least clear to you? Is that statement problematic for you?
Okay so you're telling me all's far in love and war and you can't see what makes the Holocaust or the treatment of the Native Americans extra henious and I'm supposed to take this premise seriously?
Maybe I can find a tutorial that explains what made the Trail of Tears different than the Battle of Bull Run and why Dachau is nothing like Bastogne.
No, it wasn't war. It was the systematic slaughter, confinement, segregation, and stripping of all cultural heritage from a group of people. Then a collective head burying of an entire nation.
If anything, what was done, and is still being done, to the Native Americans is worse than anything Hitler could have thought of. However, who cares, right? It all happened decades ago.
ETA: I think the comparison to Hitler is apt, only in that the US Government was successful where Hitler failed.
Can you show me where I said who cares?
Murder is still murder and violence is still violence. Neither Hitler nor the Colonists made up either. People suck everywhere and throughout history.
And sometimes people make up new and unusually cruel ways to be horrid to each other.
See: poison gas and bombing of civilian residential areas in WWI.
Everyone was horrified when Germany invented it, but not for long, because England thought it was a pretty good idea, too.
So yeah, there are key differences in warfare that happened between the invention of the long bow and the invention of the tank. Or, you know, the differences between actual fields of battle between opposing armies and genocide.
Only the first part of that reply was meant only for you, shnookums. I was speaking only to holocaust comparisons, not sweeping generalities---but if you want to play victim to my opinions, there is a line forming to the right.
You have been cracking me up lately. I am here to profess my love.
Post by charminglife on Jul 9, 2012 15:02:52 GMT -5
Honestly, comparing the plight of native Americans to the holocaust is like comparing Keeping Up with the Kardashians with Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp. They're both reality shows but one is actually successful and one is not. (I cant actually believe I'm comparing the two topics, but what the hell.)
I think it's difficult to say which atrocities were worse - they targeted different people, they took place over different lengths of time (centuries vs years), and importantly, are taught differently in schools and have different awareness in general culture. But - just because they are different doesn't mean that one is worse. someone said 'genocide is genocide' and I agree with that.
Jesus Christ. Read my whole motherfucking comment, I SAID THE WHITE PEOPLE STARTED IT. And I've never watched a goddamn western in my life.
ETA: The rest of my paragraph that you didn't include:
"Now, there's a ton of nuance, and of course the blame lies with the United States, but it's less of a black and white deal. Not to mention, with Indian Removal Acts, the goal was not always, or even often, death. I know there were broken treaties, I know there were lies. It is the fault of the Americans that it all happened. I agree with that.There's just a difference in motive, motivations, time, etc."
I agree, Bunnybean. Of course there were hostile indigenous populations among the hundreds encountered. That's how encounters between colliding cultures often go, whether the collision is the result of manifest destiny/imperialism or just population growth.
To smooth over history and say American Indians only ever fought when they were defending themselves--while well-intentioned--plays into the whole myth of the Americas as a land of gentle, peace-pipe smoking, simpletons at one with nature.
One of the things I love about the book "1491" is that it shows how the current, popular myth of Indians is just as dehumanizing as earlier Westerns' portrayals. We trade in brutal savage for the saintly noble savage.
So, no, it's not the same. Colonialism ain't pretty, but it's a different kind of ugly than the Holocaust.
Yes yes yes.
I love Charles Mann, I never thought I'd find someone as equally geekily interested in Native American history AND biology.
This is not the first time I've seen this board play into the white devil stereotype.
And bunny I am lol'ing at someone questioning your history knowledge. Sorry pixy.
Honestly, comparing the plight of native Americans to the holocaust is like comparing Keeping Up with the Kardashians with Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp. They're both reality shows but one is actually successful and one is not. (I cant actually believe I'm comparing the two topics, but what the hell.)
I'm not even getting into the fact that Jews were only about half of all Holocaust victims and that millions more were not Jewish.
If you want to get technical, WWII caused the deaths of around 70 million people - military deaths, civilian deaths due to total warfare, disease and starvation, and the Holocaust. Thanks, Nazis.
Honestly, comparing the plight of native Americans to the holocaust is like comparing Keeping Up with the Kardashians with Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp. They're both reality shows but one is actually successful and one is not. (I cant actually believe I'm comparing the two topics, but what the hell.)
So....
Which was successful here. The holocaust?
I *think* based on a few other comments I've seen in this thread, people are thinking the NA extermination was more successful (there are many tribes that were wiped out completely). But this makes me scratch my head, since I'm pretty sure relatives of those killed in concentration camps would argue that Hitler was pretty "successful." And that 78% of European Jews were killed in the Holocaust. That's more than decimation, right there, which is what we're claiming the American government did the to Native Americans.
Honestly, comparing the plight of native Americans to the holocaust is like comparing Keeping Up with the Kardashians with Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp. They're both reality shows but one is actually successful and one is not. (I cant actually believe I'm comparing the two topics, but what the hell.)
So....
Which was successful here. The holocaust?
yeah. I'm re-reading this and I don't understand what I was trying to say. I'll chalk up most of my post to monday afternoon stupidity but still recommend David Wilkins' work.
I *think* based on a few other comments I've seen in this thread, people are thinking the NA extermination was more successful (there are many tribes that were wiped out completely). But this makes me scratch my head, since I'm pretty sure relatives of those killed in concentration camps would argue that Hitler was pretty "successful." And that 78% of European Jews were killed in the Holocaust. That's more than decimation, right there, which is what we're claiming the American government did the to Native Americans.
Just for argument sake and not because I necessarily think one was worse than the other, one could say that with NA entire tribes were wiped out along with their unique religions, languages and customs. While some native peoples did remain, many tribes were permanently lost. At least all the cultures Hitler tried to eradicate did live on and none, Jewish or otherwise, were completely erased from the face of the Earth. After all, tribes had much in common, but those on one coast were very different from those on the plains versus those on the other coast. Culturally they are similar, like Americans and Canadians are similar, but could have been different "countries" if you wanted to categorize them as such.
i totally get the interest and/or need to compare, discuss, and analyze from time to time, but my response is directed at the quote in the OP, which reads "Watching "american: story of us" - the shifting of the natives/buffalo is worse than the holocaust genocide (and they got away with it). Sad sad sad."
the quote states that one is worse than another. concluding that one thing is worse than another, just for the sake of doing so, is unproductive.
And let's not forget how some native american populations were purposefully given disease ridden blankets by europeans to exacerbate the issue.
Actually, this is an urban legend.
I am by no means an expert on the subject, but this website goes through some of the evidence (like letters written at the time it happened) and concludes that there was in fact a plan to do so, that shortly after the plan was hatched, small pox broke out among colonial settlers (thus the blankets would have been available if someone wanted to carry out the plan), and shortly after that, small pox broke out in nearby NA settlement.
Finally, I'll add that the link bunny posted only addresses whether the US Army passed on small pox blankets. That link also says that there is compelling evidence that Jeffrey Amherst (British lord in Massachusetts in the 18th century) did in fact give the small pox blankets out.
So, I'm going to draw different conclusions from the circumstantial evidence and go with not an urban legend or apocryphal.
Thanks ESF on the small pox citation. My history background is in 17th & 18th century new England so I was thinking of the Mass stuff, not 19th century us army.