How do Americans feel about the way Native Americans were treated?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

And on another note how did you Brits treat the Irish

Slightly different story there... struggling to see the relevance to this topic (or the harsh criticism you're reacting to for that matter)

To be fair, some connections (particularly in early American history) can be drawn between the two people and the way in which the British viewed them (I've heard credible arguments that assert the Irish were worse of than the Natives during the 16th/17th century), but by and the situations are pretty dissimilar.

Indeed we a had something of a war but I don't recall it being policy to infect them with smallpox. Hitler would have been proud. And yes I do believe it a genocide.

[CFH]

Slightly different story there... struggling to see the relevance to this topic (or the harsh criticism you're reacting to for that matter)

To be fair, some connections (particularly in early American history) can be drawn between the two people and the way in which the British viewed them (I've heard credible arguments that assert the Irish were worse of than the Natives during the 16th/17th century), but by and the situations are pretty dissimilar.

Indeed we a had something of a war but I don't recall it being policy to infect them with smallpox. Hitler would have been proud. And yes I do believe it a genocide.

Whether or not Natives were ever intentionally infected with small-pox is a matter of scholarly debate. According to a professor of mine, who is an expert in early American history, there is only one primary source which describes such a event and it is far from an infallible one. The subject has come up a few times in classes I have had.

Furthermore, initially the Natives were seen as very child-like and uncivilized where as the Irish were seen almost as traitors and as such were treated much more harshly during that period.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

To be fair, some connections (particularly in early American history) can be drawn between the two people and the way in which the British viewed them (I've heard credible arguments that assert the Irish were worse of than the Natives during the 16th/17th century), but by and the situations are pretty dissimilar.

Indeed we a had something of a war but I don't recall it being policy to infect them with smallpox. Hitler would have been proud. And yes I do believe it a genocide.

Whether or not Natives were ever intentionally infected with small-pox is a matter of scholarly debate. According to a professor of mine, who is an expert in early American history, there is only one primary source which describes such a event and it is far from an infallible one. The subject has come up a few times in classes I have had.

Furthermore, initially the Natives were seen as very child-like and uncivilized where as the Irish were seen almost as traitors and as such were treated much more harshly during that period.

Um, don't think so....The Irish are still in Ireland aren't they? (& several claiming to be in NY)

There is documented discussion and acknowledgement of deliberately infecting the native.

Whether this was sanctioned at the highest level is unproven....but then again the only written 'evidence' of the final solution was the Wansee conference and that mainly talks about resettlement.

Of course Eichmans testamony fills in the gaps...

[El Kabong]

Missy the indians didn't have the same immune system as the europeans ergo they were more apt to have a tough time with small pox, etc. so maybe there were times the indians just got sick just because...I'm not saying the europeans never had the intention of doing evil to the indians, I'm just saying they probably killed their fair share without even trying.

Also I think it's a pretty fair assumption that if the indians had better weapons they would have killed off more Europeans and perhaps even gotten them out of the America's all together. I believe the vikings were held off by the indians.

I don't feel guilty about what happened with the Indians because I wasn't there, I had no part in it. Maybe I seem callous, but when hostile takeovers and "total war' were the norm of the day the plight of the north american indian is no different than the plight of many other indiginous peoples of that era.

[CFH]

Indeed we a had something of a war but I don't recall it being policy to infect them with smallpox. Hitler would have been proud. And yes I do believe it a genocide.

Whether or not Natives were ever intentionally infected with small-pox is a matter of scholarly debate. According to a professor of mine, who is an expert in early American history, there is only one primary source which describes such a event and it is far from an infallible one. The subject has come up a few times in classes I have had.

Furthermore, initially the Natives were seen as very child-like and uncivilized where as the Irish were seen almost as traitors and as such were treated much more harshly during that period.

Um, don't think so....The Irish are still in Ireland aren't they? (& several claiming to be in NY)

There is documented discussion and acknowledgement of deliberately infecting the native.

Whether this was sanctioned at the highest level is unproven....but then again the only written 'evidence' of the final solution was the Wansee conference and that mainly talks about resettlement.

Of course Eichmans testamony fills in the gaps...

What does that have to do with anything? The fact is the Irish were treated brutally during a time in which the Indigenous peoples of North America were not. I never said anything about the Irish being iradicated.

As for the smallpox, it is still a matter of debate. From what I know, there is some evidence that indicates it may have been done or may have been considered, but there is no proof that it ever actually took place (again, from what I know).

[Howlin Mad Missy]

I'll post when I have more time if you want to discuss sources.


The point about 'homeland' is the Irish kept their land, hell even the jews got given a created state. What have the indians got? Casinos and high rates of alcoholism? Serious question though, has it ever been considered to give them back more of their land?

[El Kabong]

...they have higher rates of alcoholism because they were the last people's to get alcohol ergo their bodies have not developed to handle it properly. Think of how many alcoholic people there are in the Middle East....very few because alcohol was first made there and those people took it in and adapted to it's effects.

I'm not going to look back 200 years ago and feel bad about shit I had no part in....does anyone feel bad that Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground and starved out plenty of Southerners I doubt they do, but that's ok because all Southerners are white slave owners and they probably deserved it....unlike those brave and peaceful indians

[JazMerkin]

...they have higher rates of alcoholism because they were the last people's to get alcohol ergo their bodies have not developed to handle it properly. Think of how many alcoholic people there are in the Middle East....very few because alcohol was first made there and those people took it in and adapted to it's effects.

I'm not going to look back 200 years ago and feel bad about shit I had no part in....does anyone feel bad that Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground and starved out plenty of Southerners I doubt they do, but that's ok because all Southerners are white slave owners and they probably deserved it....unlike those brave and peaceful indians

That small religion that prohibits alcohol might also have some effect on Middle Eastern rates of alcohlism. What's it called?? Izzlarm or somethin?? I hear its quite big over

Those 'brave and peaceful indians' were in their home Lyle, when a load of strange people came into their country & attacked it, killing many of their citizens. You say you're not going to 'feel bad about shit you had no part in'. Fair enough. But, I'm curious would you hold many Muslims to the same standard if they said 'I don't feel anything about 9/11, I had nothing to do with it'. Because I have a suspicion if I hunted down through threads, there would be some of you demanding that they make it very clear how against terrorism they are.

[CFH]

I'll post when I have more time if you want to discuss sources.


The point about 'homeland' is the Irish kept their land, hell even the jews got given a created state. What have the indians got? Casinos and high rates of alcoholism? Serious question though, has it ever been considered to give them back more of their land?

I'm not saying the Irish ended up worse off than the Indigenous people of North America, that would be ludicrous. I'm only saying that there was a time, albeit a brief one, where they were viewed and treated more harshly by the English than were the Natives. Obviously, attitudes towards the Natives changed rather quickly in the 17th century. However, much of the initial destruction of indigenous life had more to do with sickness and disease than any English hostility (though there was plenty of that as well).

As for your question, in Canada some First Nations people aggressively lobby for the return of their traditional lands. That's not to say they want the entire country back, only that they wish to have control over lands that were never ceeded in treaty or that they want compensation for land and resources that were stolen from them, or access to those resources (ie. special hunting/fishing rights - things that were always promised but never delivered). That's a very generalized statement, obviously, and it is not true in every case.

[porkypara]

I'll post when I have more time if you want to discuss sources.


The point about 'homeland' is the Irish kept their land, hell even the jews got given a created state. What have the indians got? Casinos and high rates of alcoholism? Serious question though, has it ever been considered to give them back more of their land?

I'm not saying the Irish ended up worse off than the Indigenous people of North America, that would be ludicrous. I'm only saying that there was a time, albeit a brief one, where they were viewed and treated more harshly by the English than were the Natives. Obviously, attitudes towards the Natives changed rather quickly in the 17th century. However, much of the initial destruction of indigenous life had more to do with sickness and disease than any English hostility (though there was plenty of that as well).

As for your question, in Canada some First Nations people aggressively lobby for the return of their traditional lands. That's not to say they want the entire country back, only that they wish to have control over lands that were never ceeded in treaty or that they want compensation for land and resources that were stolen from them, or access to those resources (ie. special hunting/fishing rights - things that were always promised but never delivered). That's a very generalized statement, obviously, and it is not true in every case.

There used to be signs in British shops 30 odd years ago that said NO BLACKS AND NO IRISH.