Saw that no one brought up this important piece of info, so here we go. According to the law of the land established by all the natives who lived on the land before the settlers came (the same natives who also wiped out neighboring tribes and inslaved them as to work the land the invading tribe took) Anyone who killed the people holding a piece of land before they arrived were then the rightful owners of that same land until someone else came to kill them or the laws changed. If anything the settlers did something no other group did during their time. They came to a land that wasn’t their own, and followed the laws of that land in such a way to incorporate themselves into the group living on it. Don’t really care who does what with this, but this thread wouldn’t be complete without this info.
But you and I did NOT. I see a lot of people online who can’t make the distinction.
EDIT: Thanks for replies, all. Some good conversation here
If you steal someone’s TV and give it to your kid, does that mean the person who it was stolen from shouldn’t get it back? Its the kid’s now???
Allow me to complicate the trial. What if the robbed is no longer alive?
Hire North Korea to do some Juche necromancy
Native people’s were not completely wiped out, despite euroamerikkkan attempts. Their survival is resistance.
That doesn’t mean everyone living on stolen land gets a pass just because they weren’t the ones to steal it. They have an obligation to make it right.
Define “make it right”. And for who, exactly?
Both sides must come to an agreement that both agree to, without coercion by sword. All involved.
You say stolen, everyone else says conquered.
And the Conquered get the say in Pacified or not.
Right, conquered is worse because it implies it’s stolen via violence at a large scale. While just stolen could mean taken quietly and without violence. Thank you for addressing the seriousness of the issue.
… So, robbery on a national scale, then?
Are you new to this earth?
What’s your point?
My point is that this is the history of every country.
I agree. Nation-states are built on violence.
Does that make the genocide any better?
How do you propose this be done? FAIRLY?
I know, this might sound crazy, but: Listening to the native Americans?
You don’t have to listen to the dead, have you? Just sayin’
The American genocide wasn’t as thorough as you think it was.
Unfortunately it was pretty thorough, especially so on the East Coast. Many statesI’m from a tribe whose ancestral homelands were within the 13 colonies. We have demands and we are not extinct.
I don’t think they were trying to downplay the severity. I think they were just pointing out in a snarky way that there were survivors, and thus, we can ask their descendants these questions.
Just sayin’ but there are still several native tribes still existing across the Americas. We can talk to them.
My town just voted to give some land back to native American descendants by buying it from the current owners.
Land shouldn’t be owned indefinitely and passed through families. It’s not right to have created a dynasty based on one guy in the 1800s claiming everything in sight and having his idiot descendents be wealthy simply based on the fact. They didn’t do anything except inherent land.
Land that isn’t your primary home should have to be leased and not owned, that way it’s being used most effectively and not privatized for the sole benefit of the owner. It leads to land speculation and squatting of land that someone else would like to use.
Additionally, natural resources should also belong to the people and companies should have to pay fair compensation for their extraction.
Yeah but that isn’t what everyone is saying. They are saying give it all back to the native Americans and what? Move back to Europe?
Israel is more muddy people have been taking that land from eachother for millenia. Just because after the 2nd world war Israel was re-created after being stamped out prior to that. Who was the aggressor and the victim back then.
Of course I’m gonna assume good faith from you here, but I feel like some people boil down issues like this to “well I mean I didn’t do it so stop complaining”, and that’s wildly reductive and irresponsible at minimum.
Arguing the situation in this way sidesteps the uncomfortable and inconvenient reality that the United States is yet still occupying native land, whether it be Hawai’i, Alaska, or the contiguous territories. Yes it’s entirely possible that mine or your ancestors didn’t perpetuate these things as immigration is and has always been ongoing, but the point everyone misses is that we are still here.
I couldn’t possibly imagine belittling natives for acknowledging the fact that their land was taken from them by force. Some real colonialist shit.
we are still here
Yes, people don’t leave occupied land. It’s never happened historically and certainly won’t happen now, that’s the point of occupation. People can acknowledge what happened but in practical terms thinking that somehow all native land will be returned is just naive.
Oh well of course, at this point in time it’s been made extremely clear that natives will be getting absolutely no land back, even unoccupied land in the plains for example. There’s no major figures in government even remotely speaking on this stuff in a substantial way, so it may as well never happen. Fucked up stuff on top of all the other fucked up stuff.
And also to be fair, implying that most anyone here believes that all land should be returned is pretty naive in and of itself - there are absolutely more options than ALL OF THE LAND and NONE OF THE LAND
What about the tribes that lost wars to other tribes? Do they get their old land? How far back are we going?
Irrelevant, only considering land taken by settlers
Why is only one relevant? Is it the brutality of the war that matters? Or the recency?
It’s the control. If one Native tribe still controlled the ancestral grounds of another tribe, then you probably would have some people calling that out… but they don’t. The US government has ALL the control, every tribe within US territory, and all of their land, is at the governments mercy.
Because those Tribes are not currently benefiting from the land they took. And most likely are in the same boat if they still exist.
No reason to not give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re giving off heavy “they were already killing each other so it’s no big deal” vibes. No insult intended, just what I’m picking up.
Intertribal conflict is the tribes’ business, colonizing and displacing is colonists’ business. To be clear, external invasion is the concern here
Nope not that at all. I’m against all war is all. And many people in many countries all around the world are benefiting from awful wars that happened centuries before they were born, possibly from people they aren’t even descended from. To call me and anyone else who moved to the US afterwards “colonists” is imo a misrepresentation and unfair. And I’m not saying the native Americans don’t deserve more than they’re been given so far.
My point is more getting people thinking about how tribes that early Americans wronged were also wronged before that. If we fix things to return them to how it was, why does the final state of tribes before European arrival get chosen as the correct state? We likely have no idea who was on specific land first here in America. We just know the final state and some of the preceding wars before then. Keep going back and there’s always a new victim.
Entirely valid, all great points - and to clarify, specifically colonialism from the colonists that colonized the land, no pejorative usage against anyone here
I feel you, and also acknowledge it is a hairy subject on a grand scale.
I also try to frame the issue in the actual, real moment. I try my damndest to do as little harm as humanly possible to anyone. Should I be forced to give money to someone affected? Land? Should I be punished?
Who benefits? A grandson of someone displaced? A great great grandson? Whole family trees? How do you make shit like this right after so much time?
Mostly, I’m trying to encourage thought and discussion. Fundamentally, I think people should be judged on their own merits and actions, not their lineage.
The outcome needs to be negotiated and yes, the Tax Payer should foot the bill for the redress for the actions of the State and individual wealthy Families should foot the bill for the crimes their wealth stems from. For example: the entirety of Oklahoma’s rather impressively inhumane treatment of the Native Tribes needs to be dealt with as the People that profited from the malfeasance are still holding the proceeds of those crimes.
Doesn’t the pioneer woman’s family own the land involved in Killers of the Flower Moon? Pretty wild stuff
Yes. As well as all the oil money pumped out of OK over the Years.
The way I understand it is that even if we omit any ancestral blame for what happened, the Native Americans are still dealing with the impact while European descendants benefit from it. It’s kind of like if I went to school with a very bright kid that was horribly abused and kicked out into the streets, so they performed poorly and dropped out, allowing me to get into the best college possible and have a great career. Why should I have any compassion for this kid if I didn’t abuse them myself? Why would I help them get housed and into college? Why would I even acknowledge that they were abused and forced out of their home? I’m one that earned it by working hard to get into college and graduate.
This omits the possibility that this kid might have outperformed me and taken the college spot, leaving me to be in a worse off situation.
How far back in time are we going to enact justice? My 36x Great uncle Olaf never got his comeuppance (/s a little)
As far back as required to make those involved feel as if they were compensated. If you feel that 36x Great uncle Olaf’s loss affects your Family Today, then you should have your day in Court to make the case. However, as most likely 36x Great uncle Olaf was in fact not involved in anything in a currently oppressed People’s past, it’ll be a hard case to make.
Not 1000% on board with your analogy, but I understand and fully agree lol.
I just wish most people had the empathy and mental capacity to understand the intricacies of this stuff. It’s a hell of a lot easier to just say “uH wOw I ain’t payin reparations for no dang indians” than it is to actually think for a minute about and acknowledge the real history of where you live
That will always be an issue until the US government actually has real communication and cooperation with native people.
I don’t necessarily think that citizens of occupied land are automatically responsible for the past actions of a government (not to say that’s what you implied), but said government that committed the atrocities is. As far as the other part of the equation, I suppose the beneficiaries should be determined by the natives themselves.
I like that approach. It’s in line with what Amnesty International is proposing for Isreal and Palestine
So by that logic, the Turks should give Constantinople back to the Romans?
False equivalence, that’s an entirely different historical context. Things can apply to one situation and not another
Explain. How is it a false equivalent? Romans controlled the city / region for over a thousand years and were later conqured, and their land stolen, to use the vernacular of this thread.
You’re oversimplifying in order to compare the two. Wildly different historical contexts with entirely unrelated events. Distilling both down to “area conquered” just so you can make a point is reductive.
Beyond that though, why does it matter honestly? Does the fact that a city was conquered in the 1400s invalidate anything mentioned so far?
My favorite part is not being able to read the font whatsoever.
Pretty sure this is saved from an attachment from a forwarded email of a scan of a photo copy of a mimeograph.
Definelty at the very least a copy of a printout of an email attachment that was scanned from a fax…
Unironcally it looks like a picture from a fifth grade social studies book
That the teacher photocopied 47 times and handed out as homework.
Im gonna fax this to my group chat
That’s ok, this map of native American lands is definitely outdated. The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) lands are much smaller than it should be. As that’s the only tribal name I can actually read, I imagine it’s a similar story for the other tribes.
me2
This isn’t a meme.
Hate to break it to you, but a meme, by definition, is political propaganda.
Yes, all those images you’ve been laughing at these years were part of a political project. They looove hiding in plain sight.
Ah yes the widespread political message that was “me and the boys out at 3am looking for beans”
How could we possibly have missed those political overtones.
Dude you must be on some extremely powerful drugs if you think all memes are political propaganda.
ah yes, the subliminal political message inherent in memes showing what my face looks like when i’m lying in bed and drop mh phone
I guess some white guy on youtube needs to explain it before people will see the connection.
Would you like to try?
It’s text over a picture. It’s certainly an element of culture passed between people.
I remember when someone adamantly tried to tell me that a copy-pasta wasn’t a meme….
And you’d be memeing if you tried to pull that shit on me all “ironic” like.
this isn’t a meme (slang)
tHiS iSn’T a mEmE
Do you have a high res version of this not-meme?
Oh Jesus, it’s the same annoying guy that posts the stupid Dale Earnhardt “memes”.
This guy would upload the IRS tax handbook as a meme if he could
I’m glad you agree
deleted by creator
Let’s do a slavery.
Your comment is equal measures funny and absurd to be honest. Please do explain how looking back on events, decisions made, etc to better frame modern happenings is so ridiculous.
How many centuries, please tell me.
Hint: less than one.
And in many cases, is present reality and not past History at all.
That’s too bad, couldn’t find one in jpeg?
The bottom picture isn’t accurate, I live on a reservation that isn’t listed.
If there’s one mistake I notice immediately there’s definitely more.
There’s a ton missing. The point still stands, but the bottom map is more like “places that are 70%+” indigenous people, rather than a comprehensive list. Is mislabeled to make a point, which is a stupid thing to do.
Additionally, most of Oklahoma is still various reservation lands. That was a recent court ruling, so I suspect this is a few years old.
Never forget? In some states it’s downright illegal to teach kids that complex, sophisticated and civilized societies existed here before white people showed up.
I’ve been reading 1491 by Charles C Mann and telling my 14yo a lot of what I’ve been learning, it’s a fascinating book. We live in the rural southern Appalachians and I know for damn sure those teachers aren’t including nuance with their history.
Yeah sorry but conquest was the standard at the time.
If more than one entity massacred people, it means massacre is okay? Very strange logic. Do bad things have to be done by only one entity to be considered bad?
So the same as literally every other country in existence yeah?
Not really, actually.
That’s usually just an empire thing.
Yeah uhh… Not at all, actually.
Technically the Bri’ins (living in Bri’in) are indigenous.
“Oi Bruv, i’m indigginus.”
Nah, not even close. Educate yourself on the history of other countries before you try calling them out.
The whole “oh everyone is doing it” take is fascist as fuck as well. I hear it all the time from neoliberal monsters.
Are there any good resources to learn more about the vast tribes the North American continent was home to? I’ve always felt ignorant to the rich history and connection with the Earth that the tribes held and passed down.
Not sure about the accuracy of the top map, but it looks like that format could be a great educational opportunity.
On a lighthearted note, if you’re from the bay, give Café Ohlone a visit! I had the pleasure of meeting the two head chefs at an event where they cooked for the audience. They showed how candy cap mushrooms, acorn flour, and a duck egg could be incorporated into a brownie mix. I can’t speak for the actual restaurant, but it was delicious what they made :)
Unfortunately, not really for the majority of tribes. What we so know is that by the time Europeans had made real efforts to expand westward in North America, The Great Dying had already killed 75-90% of the native population.
Basically, North America had already endured around 200 years of civilization and population collapse starting in 1450. So even what the tribes know about themselves has to be viewed in the perspective of a people who had just lost 90% of their population in a few generations.
Whoa, do you have a source on that? That’s an incredible piece of context
Here is a decent explanation.
People forget that from the time Christopher Columbus arrived to when Europeans began expanding past the Appalachia is a span of 300 years. That’s longer than we’ve been in a country.
American expansion would not have been possible without hundreds of years of what is basically a Continent wide apocalypse. Culture just doesn’t survive that level of sustained trauma unchanged.
Does Lemmy also hug sites to death?
When it comes to extant tribes, many of them have web pages with info about them. The depth of information varies from tribe to tribe, I think typically encapsulating whatever the tribe feels comfortable sharing publicly. However when it comes to extinct tribes, much of what you’ll find will probably be spotty and questionable, as what is known is likely the result of archeology and accounts from nearby tribes.
It’s really frustrating how difficult it is to learn about the native cultures as someone on the outside. It gets glossed over in school and what you hear in pop culture is often heavily skewed or butchered to put on a good show for the audience. Then, because of how much of it gets butchered, chopped and screwed, the people who actually know the real stories become understandably protective and reluctant to share them. It’d be nice if there was a central, wikipedia-like site run by the tribes where you could learn about their stories and traditions.
Check out the book, ‘An Indigenous People’s History of the United States by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.’
It’s claims are backed up w/ extensive citations.
The Canary Effect is an amazing documentary about the genocide of Indigenous peoples in North America. It is free on YT. It was where I first learned how brutal the reality was and how devastating to the population. It also shows how it meets the UN definition of genocide. Amazing how we are raised in the US and this is not only ignored in history class, but is instead framed as Indigenous people living happily in Spanish missions and having Thanksgiving with pilgrims.
If you get a chance to read about John Trudell, he had a fascinating life. He was the spokesman for the American Indian Movement when they occupied Alcatraz in protest of the US breaking their land treaty. The government did not stop terrorizing him and his family after that. There’s also an amazing documentary about him but it’s been a long time since I’ve seen it. I think it may just be called “John Trudell.”
Both of these will make you walk away angry though.
So… Average history?
So… Average history?
No
Yeah, you can do the same for Russia, China, most European countries. Basically the entirety of Africa.
China/Russia/Europe are largely inhabited by people whose ancestry traces back 1000s of years to the same region. That’s very different from North America, where most natives where killed (either through disease or “policy”).
That’s not to excuse their past behaviour (Europeans started the genocide in North America), but it’s still very different.
Yup. That’s the biggest difference. My ancestors trace back to Beringia (what is now the Bering Strait) but my national leader is an 80 year old European American.
deleted by creator
Except for the Han Chinese with the Uyghurs and the Tibetans and the Mongolians.
I suppose you could even add their own people for the Chinese and the Russians when they were starved during the communist times.
How’s the genocide of a whole continent “average history”? The magnitude of destruction in the Americas is not common and this downplay of a continent-wide genocide is annoying.
The Mongols genocided two continents and a sub continent.
Did they? I was under the impression they came in, did a conquer, and basically left with the conquered understanding that the horde’d be back for their tribute.
Yeah they obliterated smaller outside towns to scare the bigger cities into giving them shit. They killed a lot but I’m not sure it counts as genocide since the eradication of people wasn’t the point.
Tell that to the something like 50 million people they killed while doing so.
You have to be deeply ignorant, or some kind of idiot, to give the Mongols a pass while condemning western Europeans.
I’m not giving anyone a “pass” to genocide, only attempting to be very clear about what the precise definition of it is.
Everyone killing people for their stuff sucks, but humans were doing that shit forever.
Not every generation was loading specific people into trains and camps just to gather them for removal from the genetic code.
Because there are other examples of continent wide genocide.
Humans are the fucking worst and it isn’t unique to one area
because there are other examples
…ok? I guess I don’t get why there needs to be any comparison, since it inevitably ends up sounding like “oh, well this one wasn’t as bad as that one. Happens all the time.”
I’m suggesting that across history IS common.
I’m not celebrating it.
Other examples existing does not change that it is historically unprecedented and far from the norm. And its just a really strange and pointless thing to point.
Person A: “my dad died in a car bomb” Person B: “ehh, average family death” A: “uhh what?” B: "well, there are other examples of people dying in car bombs, dude! "
The root comment was “average history”. I replied to someone suggesting it wasnt, and disagreed with them.
To use your analogy,
"My dad died of old age.
What? That’s insane no one dies of that.
No, it’s pretty normal"
You’re correcting me saying that expelling native populations time and time again from every land they go to, then genociding their entire population to the point of near extinction, using the most horrific methods and over centuries, is more akin to dying of old age than dying by a bomb?
Please read that again and confirm to me that’s what you’re saying, because it sounds absolutely ridiculous. This scale and this horror are not common historical occurrence.
That’s correct, humans have used the cutting edge methods to drive out and destroy native populations in the name of expansion, for thousands of years.
I’m not celebrating it.
I am sorry to restate this again, but the expulsion, genocide on the scale (both in size and horror) is historically unprecedented. You’re going to have to prove this to me if you think it’s a common occurrence instead of continuing to repeat it.
And for the record, no one here is talking about small scale expulsion. I am talking about expulsion AND genocide on the same scale and horror committed here. Show me that it is a common occurrence and I will concede.
Because you’re lumping in the unavoidable disease transfer of first contact with intentional conquest and violence. Take away that, which was going to happen whenever any Afro-Eurasian community first interacted with people from the americas, and you get a very comparable situation to many things throughout history.
There’s strong evidence the disease was on purpos- Ah who am I fucking kidding, the colonizers flat out admitted it.
The genocide didn’t happen solely after the first contact, the massacre of natives lasted centuries. Many nations were wiped out in the XIX century.
And a quote for you
Proponents of the default position emphasize attrition by disease despite other causes equally deadly, if not more so. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease.
Professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
Look, the reality is that disease did kill the majority of natives.
The genocide after that is not made any less horrible by that reality, but it was made POSSIBLE because of it.
If European settlers had to deal with the full original population, things would have been VERY different.
Did disease not account for the vast majority of death? Even still, I never discounted the brutal conquest that was engaged in. My point is that Europeans aren’t special for brutal conquests. Imperial Japan is a prime example this.
You’re also treating a bunch of competing individuals as a hive mind with a coherent plan. I find that “grand scheming entity” kind of narrative to be just as naive as the people buying into racist narratives. It doesn’t make sense when it’s Jewish people and they’re a smaller demographic than “Western European”.
It wasn’t just disease that killed them. See: the Trail of Tears
I never said it was the only thing so I wouldn’t disagree with you on that.
Interesting, and you just happen to stumble upon and share with us this crucially important and unknown trivia gem of a fact, right?
Is this a bad time for you?
Is it a good time for you?
Welcome to the Internet. Do you know how it works?
No, the genocide is still ongoing, it didn’t happen it is still happening.
olny the Navajo didn’t get fucked over
