Characterizing ideas incorrectly is NOT a personal attack on you- it is a problem with ideas. That you take it so personally is, imo, your problem- and the problem of all people who confuse people with ideas. It's common enough, to be sure, but it makes a discussion such as this one problematic, since I am not my ideas, and people who mischaracterize my ideas, are simply mischaracterizing my ideas- it's not me. It makes me much less emotional about disagreements.
You asked me a question about how one might see a person. I answered it. Now you've branched out into Indians and history and racism- an odd segue, veering away from personal identification with ideas, into some nebulous area of "general wrong thinking"?
To take your many opinions one by one-whether our treatment of the Indians was genocide or not depends on which Indians you are looking at, and which actions by the US government and its citizens. S. Cal indians were hunted for sport- that certainly qualifies as genocide (IMO).
Here's an example of a massacre:
"A short time before his death, in 1930, Benson told some California historians the story of a little-known U.S. Army massacre of Pomo people in 1850, which has remained buried in an obscure California history journal of 1931. This seems to have been the first massacre of nearly all of peaceful village's inhabitants conducted by the U.S. Army -- a kind of warm-up for later, better-known infamies such as the dawn massacre of Black Kettle's Cheyenne band at Sand Creek, in 1864, Nez Perce and Walla Walla, in the 1870's."
"Men, women, and children, unable to flee, were massacred by the U.S. Army there. On their way home, the troops continued their bloody actions, massacring every Indian group they encountered -- mostly Pomo groups. This just isn't in the history books, even good ones, I found it when researching for these pages. Perhaps historians were embarassed that most of their info would have come from California newspapers, like these headliners from Eureka's Humboldt Times: "Good Haul of Diggers," "38 Bucks Killed, 40 Squaws and Children." "Band Exterminated!" One -- The Northern Californian which covered it differently, told of "Indiscriminate massacre of innocent Indians -- Women and children butchered" covering the details of the brutal Bloody Island slaughter with hatchets and axes of 188 peaceful men, women and children in their villages. The youthful editor, western short-story writer Bret Harte, then had to flee ahead of a lynch mob, which smashed his printing press for daring to tell the truth about it. "
Genocide? Quite possibly. There certainly is a lot of evidence for it. I'm wondering if you'ver read contemporary accounts of that time- especially by people who considered the Indians "animals" and "vermin". Those people believed in extermination of the Indians. Surely you know such people existed. Now, when we discuss this we are talking about ideas- your idea, obviously, is that the events the Indians experienced do not equal genocide- other people have ideas which are different from yours. IMO it is not insupportable and over the top to hold the idea that massacres and sport hunting of indians (which definitely occurred in California) could make a case for genocide. To think this does not make one Anti- American. It does mean a person with these ideas would not agree with your ideas, but that is not, and should not, be the test for Anti-Americanism. (I am assuming here that there is some tie in between anti-Americanism and these ideas. I infer from your writing that holding these ideas is in some way "bashing" America- in your opinion- because you throw in those "someones" who are prejudiced against America, because they hold ideas contrary to the ideas you think right thinking non-prejudiced people would have.)
Now on to racism. It is pure opinion whether or not we are one of the most advanced countries grappling with the issue. Our prison system and incarceration rates are appalling- and, quite frankly, look racist even if they aren't (and i don't say they aren't- I merely throw that in there, to make you more comfortable). I know you like to take opinions, and dress them up in frilly fact suits, but that doesn't work for me. This would be another debatable topic, imo, - but inappropriate for this forum.
Are we supposed to be xenophobes? You seem to have added another issue to the mix. Xenophobia and racism against blacks, for example, seem to me totally different issues. Obviously you feel deeply about this, but in the end, what we have are your feelings and your opinions, and your very strong belief that anyone disagreeing with your opinions is more than wrong, in fact, to quote you, people disagreeing with you and your opinions are "insupportable and over the top. " Your attitudes will hinder dialog with anyone who wants a more modest mode of conversation. You will probably find other people, of equally strong views, on the other side, who are willing to say back AT you the same things you say AT them- but that kind of thing isn't very productive. imo- of course.
kstrom.net
The above is just one link. There are many many links to atrocities inflicted on native peoples in this country. Read them and weep. |
