Manifest Destiny, Segregation, and Lebensraum

I double this, as stated before..the NAs just didn't have the culture/technology to enlarge/spread the ''killing''

 

Yeah...OK...Keep believing that.

Because the good kind-hearted fine upstanding German people were completely unable to come to that conclusion on their own accord.

Oh, wait!

The German Society for Racial Hygiene, founded in 1905.

Looks like the Germans were capable of reaching those same conclusions by themselves.

 

if you say the whites were like the nazis/committed genocide/etc, then you have to say the NAs did the same, but on a smaller scale..the leaders told the tribes to go kill all the whites..we must kill them

 

Actually, the incidents of NA tribes totally wiping out other tribes may be rarer than some may think. Warfare in hunter/gatherer societies. had to be limited because those societies couldn't lose a large percentage of their men and still survive. It's interesting to note that tribes in the eastern half of the US didn't have the same notion of race that we did. Women and children who were captured and adopted by the tribe were considered racially the same as any other tribal member-race was a set of beliefs, not inherited. Many of those women and children found the tribal society more to their liking than their European/American one.

While I agree that the American continent was going to be largely populated by European settlers, no matter what, I do think we could have been a lot less callous about it.

However, all I started out doing was to state that much, but not all, of the nazi creed was taken from racial theories in vogue in the 19th Century USA. Which is true.

 

Nations do take territory from other nations--true, but few signed peace treaties Before they invaded. I do recall one other nation that used that little trick--wasn't it Germany who signed a non- aggression pact with Russia just before they invaded?

Native American were driven off their land and forced to live in the worst places the government could find. Their food supply was slaughtered with the intent of making them reliant on the government for the necessities, like food, which never seemed to come. Many did die of starvation, no different than in the German camps. And they were forced to remain on the reservations--what was the army's intent in 1876 when Custer lost his command? To get the Indians back on the reservation or kill them as hostiles. In the mid 1800's the American vision didn't encompass the NA ever leaving the reservations. And the argument saying these actions were not government sponcered is simply not true--who ordered the army to build forts on treaty land and kill any Indian who tried to protect their land?

And the concept of the Eurepeans having a "Superior culture" is about as assine as saying a guy in a $500 suit who works 60 hours a week in a big law firm and lives in New York has a superior culture to a rancher who wears blue jeans and lives in a log house in Montana. The Europeans and the Native Americans had different cultures and although the European's culture was more advanced, I doubt the NA would agree it's superior.

Although we don't like to admit it, in my opinion the OP's comparison is very accurate. My argument is that the American government did everything in it's power to "eliminate the Indian problem" so it could open the land for expansion and to get the minerals.

 

if they didn't have the superior culture/technology, how did they conquer the NAs?? farming/domestic animals>more food>more people>more time for arts/crafts [ guns/gatling guns/ships/wagons/ ] ..and yet you call someone's thoughts ''assine'' [asinine ] ..that sounds like you think you are superior/ your ideas are superior....no need for that word...let's be ''civilized''

 

it's like today, the whites are the ONLY race that hates other races/kill other races/are racist/etc????? BS! [ caps for emphasis only ] you see it in the news all the time....sure, what whites did/do is wrong....and not all whites thought NAs should be 'exterminated'
as stated above, the Iroquois invaded other tribes' territory, took it over, and dislocated those tribes [ along with a ''little'' killing!raping ] ....ok, so the NAs, had the same nazi ideas,.....just like the whites...humans are the same all over.....thanks for your replies, hary, and all...very interesting, and good for everyone to see others' views

 

And that is different than every other square inch of land on the planet, in what way?

As for the Indians being stuck on the worst land, not generally true. Most of the reservations in New Mexico are along the Rio Grande river right up the middle of the state. That river provides nearly the only water for crops in that state and the indians were given most of it. Here in Arizona, the Apache were given the White Mountains, which is the wettest part of the state. It's beautiful, it looks like New England. The plains - the Cheyenne, Sioux were given land that has now has wheat farms all around it. That they have failed to develop their own land isn't the fault of anyone but themselves.

If you want to argue that our history is "immoral" well, perhaps so, but you'd do better to take a look around the planet and see that every nation is made up of other nations, cultures, tribes that existed before them. Applying morality to the movements of cultures and peoples is like applying math to an oil painting. It can be done, but it's kind of pointless.

And one last point about reservations. The Indians were only "confined" for a very short period, and in most places were not confined at all. In fact, only the most warlike tribes were confined and they, only for a short time. For the most part they've always been free to come and go. You're an American so you have many friends who claim Indian heritage. I have some Indian blood myself, through my mothers people. Where did that heritage come from unless men and women were leaving the res and marrying into the greater American culture?

 

Prescott Bush, the Dulles', and the Harrimens also did business with the Nazis all thru the war... Bush was charged with Trading with the Enemy and his assets were seized by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI.

 

OK, bad word--my apologies. And I don't think I, or my ideas are superior--although I can see how that came across. Think we are getting confused in the terminology. Advanced does not necessarily mean "superior". There is a tendency to force our culture on others because we are so sure our way of life it superior. The Native American culture worked well for their way of life until the government destroyed their culture and forced our way of life on them.

Yes, their way of life was coming to an end and the efforts to change their culture was in good faith to prepare them for the future. The American plans to deal with the Indian problem always swayed between assimilation and annihilation and back again. During the 1800's it was hell bent on annihilation, then it turned to assimilation to prepare them for what was coming.

I agree wholeheartedly with KB--now they can leave the reservation and must assimilate if they wish to succeed. Their way of life is gone. It was the period during the 1800's that I was using to compare Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum.

 

sure , they had a great culture...I'm very sad to see it disappear.....who can't but admire the way they lived,<>''free'', in the ''wild'', next to nature....

 

Some of you guys sound like my wife.....no matter what her son does, some other lady's son has always done something worse.
This is not a contest...this is about admitting the genocide/slaughter/atrocities committed by your own governments, and standing up for it.
We most definitely did try to destroy every Indian we could.
Whether by killing all the buffalo, or starving them on reservations, or just plain slaughtering them via conventional warfare.
We forbade them to speak their own language or practice their own culture.
We massacred them at Wounded Knee in 1890...and set them up via infiltration of FBI installed "Indian" governments in the 1970's.
We lied to and cheated them every time we could.
When you occupy another country with your military, you do not have the right to claim "self defense".

 

I'll admit it ..the whites were wrong, but the NAs did the same....and this is the deal, as stated before<>the whites are the only race that is evil....that's all you ever see on the news...hundreds of whites killed by other races...maybe [ maybe ] 1 in 1000 murders they say it might be a hate crime against a white!!.. but every time a white looks at someone wrong, o my!...evil, evil....will you admit the NAs did the same? [ on a smaller scale, because they had the will, just not the technology?? ] we want to be fair, don't we?

 

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the Whites and Hate Crime thing.....you would have to be more specific.

Like I said in my first sentence.....we need to worry about what WE did.....not what somebody else did. Not sure what an NA is (ah...Native American.....OK).....but the "Indians" lived the way they lived for thousands of years before Europeans got there. The Indians can atone for their own sins, of their own history.
The fact is.....They did not sale to Europe, and begin a genocidal extinction of the existing population.

Europeans prostrated thousands and thousands of another race.....chained them up, loaded them on ships, sailed them across an ocean, and deposited them in a land they did not know, did not want to be in, and forced them to live in abject slavery.
It created a problem of Biblical proportions..... problems that continue to have a severely negative impact on society in the country today.
Yes, we want to fair.

 

hate -crime<>whites are tired of being demonized as the only evil race...so when I see the NA [ American Indians ] stuff, I try to be fair, and show the the whites are not the only evil race

 

Is it? That's certainly not my impression about what this thread was about. I'm not sure why we should "stand up" for events that we consider reprensable in any case.

"We" most certainly did not. Indeed I doubt it is the desire, inclination, or goal of anyone on this board. If you are using it to describe the US governments postion in the 1800's that's not accurate either. Now there were individuals who might have thought that way but that's not really consistent with your statement.

I've read accounts that make this event understandable at the very least. Without looking at the details spouting such things encourages stereotyping of events and people which is often misleading.

Again not true unless you pick a really abherent definition of "we".

But this isn't a particularly accurate way of looking at the conflicts is it? And certainly not from an 19th century world view.

 

Wow.....the apologists are out in force.
I do not like to play the quoting game, but suffice it to say.....If a person does not know what a Ghost Shirt is, they have no idea what happened at Wounded Knee, or (to this very day) with the Indian situation in general.
good luck

 

1. the NAs' country?<> did they own every acre of NAmerica? who legally owned it? what if the present ''owners dislocated/wiped out the previous owners? etc etc ....
2. I thought many, many NAs were guides, helped, and were very ''sympathetic'' to the whites' slaughtering of other NAs, who, of course were enemies of said guides??

 

Insult in the abscence of fact or logic. How useful. Guess that means we should all agree with you now ....

I guess we can translate that as you can't inalidate any of our points so you'll just go with the attempted insult above.

???? And just why does that little piece of knowledge key to the discussion at hand or indeed the specific one above. I can see where that knowledge is an important part of the background to what happened but I don't see that it is key to understanding the facts of what happened or how it plays to the general Indian situation. but feel free to throw out insults and one liners rather than contribute anything useful if you want to.

 

With tongue firmly planted in cheek...

Most certainly they are not. As I am still waiting for an apology from the Lenape for a string of massacres that occurred in Pennsylvania in back in 1755.