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

[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.

[El Kabong]

Yes but alcohol predates Islam and Arabic/Persian peoples were the first group to stumble upon the sweet libation....they didn't deserve to figure it out, but it is ironic that they banned it....further proof they are evil bastards

[Drago]

good debate



thats all i have to say on the matter

[porkypara]

good debate



thats all i have to say on the matter

I like to raise the standard of thread from time to time.

[CFH]

...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.

It also makes it impossible to gauge just how many people could be defined as alcoholics as nobody will seek help or admit to their problem.

Also, indigenous rates of alcohol abuse can be largely explained by the socio-cultural problem which continue to devastate their culture. Marginalized and oppressed peoples around the world tend to suffer from high levels of substance abuse, mental and physical health problems, etc.

Lyle, your answer is far, far too simplistic.

[El Kabong]

.....oh well, I guess I'll go sulk now since CFH doesn't agree with me

There are different rates of alcoholism in different groups of peoples what explains it? Socio-economic status? Maybe, but just because you are poor and maybe uneducated it doesn't mean you HAVE to drink...I'm sure there are just as many SOBER poor people as there are drunk poor people. And they always say "Alcoholism is GENETIC" so wouldn't it be within reason to suggest such a theory? I think people more affected by drink usually have an ENVIRONMENTAL and GENETIC suceptablity to it

Each race usually has it's own little set of issues that helped them adapt to their original environments E.G. People from near where Malareia runs rampant are more apt to have sickle cell anemia because sickle cell helps in dealing with that disease.....but I guess you have me buddy, I sure didn't prove any points here

[CFH]

.....oh well, I guess I'll go sulk now since CFH doesn't agree with me

There are different rates of alcoholism in different groups of peoples what explains it? Socio-economic status? Maybe, but just because you are poor and maybe uneducated it doesn't mean you HAVE to drink...I'm sure there are just as many SOBER poor people as there are drunk poor people. And they always say "Alcoholism is GENETIC" so wouldn't it be within reason to suggest such a theory? I think people more affected by drink usually have an ENVIRONMENTAL and GENETIC suceptablity to it

Each race usually has it's own little set of issues that helped them adapt to their original environments E.G. People from near where Malareia runs rampant are more apt to have sickle cell anemia because sickle cell helps in dealing with that disease.....but I guess you have me buddy, I sure didn't prove any points here

I don't agree with most of what you say (on subjects like this one) because the vast majority of it is completely uneducated bullshit. You're trying to argue with me about something I have spent the better part of 4 years studying.

Some people say alcoholism is genetic, some would typify it as a mental illness. Either way, it is not solely a genetic disorder, and it has been demonstrated over and over again that socio-cultural factors (not just poverty) play a prominent role in substance abuse. I don't understand how you can try to argue against that, it's simply ignorant.

The example of sickle-cell anemia and malaria isn't really apt here. It's something that proliferated over a long period of time and the people who have developed the sickle-cell trait were, and are, exposed to malaria in a problematic way much more broadly and with far more devastating physical results than people are to alcohol. Malaria could (prior to the development of the sickle-cell trait) kill anyone, relatively few people because alcoholics.The two issues are almost impossible to compare. Were Natives affected by the fact that many of them had not had exposure to liquor? Absolutely, but to say that is why there are high incidents of alcohol abuse among indigenous people today is ludicrous. You could argue that cultures who have been exposed to alcohol for longer periods of time have developed culturally based ways of protecting themselves against alcohol, but to say it is a purely physical issue is wrong.

And every race (an extremely arbitrary and contentious term) does not have traits it developed evolutionarily. Adaptation and evolution are not "race" specific, they are environmental.

[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.

[porkypara]

Britain in the 60s.

[Oggie]

Am I allowed into this thread fella's?
I couldn't see any 'No Irish' sign at the door, so I said I'd just stumble in to have a gawk about the place, right so...

[El Kabong]

Damn, no Irish and no Blacks.....now those were the days! Just us whites, asians, middle easterners, jews, gypsies, and indigenous peoples....and MAYBE the Scottish only if they wear pants






.....joking of course