I could see that the white man did not care about each other the way our people did.

[tecelote]

[Mnemosyne]

1. ...nt

[RedCappedBandit]

2. well. there it is.

[malaise]

3. Prescient

indeed

Rec

[scarystuffyo]

4. It was pretty violent between tribes also before whiteman came

[tecelote]

7. Has any society avoided violence?

[scarystuffyo]

8. No

but the OP should pertain all societies not just White

That's why it's a bullshit post

[tecelote]

9. Context is important here.

[scarystuffyo]

10. I read the context

Whiteman didn't care about people like other people did......

[tecelote]

11. The Top 1% Owns 40% of the Nation's Wealth.

Context for you.

[scarystuffyo]

13. You mean the Worlds wealth

That is people who are Asian , Black , White , Saudi etc....


context

[pangaia]

14. Do you know anyhthing about history?

About who Black Elk was? When he lived? The context of the quote?

[scarystuffyo]

18. Yeah they went to war for resourses just like Every other race , they killed other tribes for food

Last edited Sun Oct 26, 2014, 01:24 AM - Edit history (1)

for territory just like every other race has done through out history. His quote is Bullshit....................




There were a variety of Native American tribes living on the Great Plains, competing for scarce resources. Inevitably, the various tribes came into conflict with each other


The Lakota gradually migrated south and westward and pushed aside the Omaha tribe in this early migration. At first, they were not mounted, but horses were spreading throughout the Plains from Spanish settlements in the Southwest, and by 1742 the Tetons had acquired ponies and their cultural pattern became more and more that of horse-riding nomads. In the Central Plains the Lakota came into conflict with the Pawnee, a village tribe that held the rich hunting lands of the Republican River Valley until the Lakota entered the region. The Pawnee war parties usually made their trips on foot, unlike other tribes. Because the Lakota were mounted on horses, they had an advantage



http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0500/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0500/stories/0503_0106.html

[heaven05]

20. ???

attempted context, focus, point shift.

[pangaia]

26. But, that has nothing to do with that about which Black Elk was speaking.

[scarystuffyo]

32. He's saying that Whiteman didn't care for it's people like our people did for our own

You can try and spin it but that's what he said.

I'm telling you it's bullshit , The native americans were just as violent and selfish among their own race
just like every other race and society has been


The quote is ridiculous ..

[bravenak]

35. They didn't accumulate wealth while they let their people starve, is what I got out of it.

I didn't see it as being about violence. One small set of europeans had a thousand lifetimes of wealth, while many others starved, it was not a Native American tradition to build yourself a castle and eat off of golden plates while the peasantry starved. It was just not anything they could imagine.

[scarystuffyo]

38. Wealth wasn't money or gold , it was territory and horses on the plains

and they had no problem killing other tribes for it

[bravenak]

40. You did see the part about letting people starve while having plenty, right?

Everyone had wars. Not everyone took over all of the land while letting millions starve. They had different ways.

Europeans had been killing each other for land for thousands of years, then came here and continued. Their ways were foreign to the natives. The Natives fed the invaders. The invaders starved each other. Yes, they fought before europeans came here, but their ways were not as devastating to the people who lived here.

[scarystuffyo]

42. What do you think happened when you took horses and hunting grounds in war ?

We aren't talking about thanksgiving right?

We are talking about the OP and the Plains wars among the tribes for food and territory

[bravenak]

44. They could still hunt food though.

They were not tied to a specific area, working one patch of land. They could recover.
They did not own land in the way we conceive of land ownership. It was not as devastating for the people.

[tecelote]

48. Imagine people today living a nomadic lifestyle in our country.

Land is owned.

Water is being bought up.

Pretty soon the power of the sun will be harnessed and sold.

[bravenak]

53. I am wondering when they will start charging us for air.

If they can find a way, they will. I figure we will kill most of each other off eventually and have to restart on a poisoned earth. We will find another planet and do it again there in a few thousand years if we last that long. And so and so forth until the end of time.

I was born in the wrong millennium.

[tecelote]

57. I can't find the quote by Neil Degrasse Tyson. But, to paraphrase...

The world will not end. Nature will not cease to exist. But, mankind might.

[bravenak]

59. I agree with that.

We will attempt to modify our bodies to survive. It won't work.

[scarystuffyo]

52. It doesn't work out like that when large group of mostly just elderly , childern and women

are left to fend for them selves. Most of the braves were killed or had their horses stolen.

It's very different if it's just a few people but when you have a couple of hundred in a tribe of old , children and women
where most of the braves were killed and then they are forced off their hunting grounds .

Many didn't survive in the tribes , this is the Plains

Where hunting is migratory for many animals . They would slaughter and dry meat to last them up to 6 months before
they could send out hunting parties

[bravenak]

54. And then the europeans came and killed off the millions of people who had survived.

For centuries the different tribes had battles. Not until europeans came did they experience genocide.

They survived all of these bad things you accuse them of, yet they didn't survive the White Man. Strange isn't it, if they were so violent. There are fewer Natives alive than there were when europeans arrived. There are millions more europeans. Who are the scary ones? Who are the violent ones? Who are the real killers? Who really victimized Native American women and Children? It WAS the Europeans. It really was.

[scarystuffyo]

55. What do you mean none survived the Whiteman ?

[bravenak]

58. Not none.

They did not survive. As a people. Whole entire tribes were wiped out by the Europeans. On purpose. To steal the land. They were nearly wiped out. From millions strong to a few million today. We can't even count the number of dead with any accuracy. We paid for scalps. We stole their children to make them forget their culture.we took everything they have and still call them violent. There is a lack of self awareness in the culture that destroys another culture, almost completely, then criticizes the people they genocided as if they were just as bad. They were not as bad as the people who killed them off almost completely.

[scarystuffyo]

61. All this started because I said that Native Americans were no different

than any other race in how they were at war for resources , food and yes wealth ....It was just measured differently in their culture versus Europeans

If you want to disagree with this that's fine

[bravenak]

62. You built a strawman.

Sorry I burned it down. Things were done differently in their culture.

[scarystuffyo]

64. There's no strawman , not one thing I posted is incorrect

Everything I wrote is correct, I just didn't feel the need to get emotional about it

[bravenak]

67. That is not what a strawman means.

It does not mean incorrect. You started in on the violence when the comment wasn't about that. Then you started beating up the violence strawman. So i burned it for you by showing you who the real violent ones were. Now we can get back on topic, which was caring for your people, you know, like feeding them instead of hoarding wealth for yourself while people starve.

Now you know what a strawman is.

[scarystuffyo]

68. No , what I started was the Whiteman comment in the OP and how native americans were so different

in how they took care of their own race versus the Whiteman .....not true

[bravenak]

69. No.

You misrepresented the comment in the op to make it easier to destroy. The comment had nothing to do with war or violence, but of the accumulation of large amounts of wealth while others went without by whites. You couldn't say that natives were accumulating wealth and hoarding food to sell for more wealth while children starved. Therefore, you needed to bring in acts of war and violence to make your point that the were just like whites in sone way. But unfortunately for your argument, white have an extreme history of violence in history so it was a bad argument and a false one.

[scarystuffyo]

70. Read the OP again

[bravenak]

71. It is about GREED.

Not violence. Greed. You brought up violence and warring tribes as a strawman.

[scarystuffyo]

72. Are you seriously saying there was no greed in native american culture?

What you keep doing is trying to compare two entirely different cultures in how they assessed wealth

[bravenak]

73. What you keep trying to do is to strawman the op.

[scarystuffyo]

74. I don't have to strawman it

It falls flat on it's face all by it's self

[bravenak]

76. You strawmanned it in your first post.

It's almost like you deliberately misunderstood or you took it personally. Your first post speaks of violence. The op speaks of greed.

[scarystuffyo]

77. No I didn't( as in I didn't take offense to the OP or what you wrote)

If you read the OP in the first line
Whiteman would take everything from each other if they could.

This is exactly what warring tribes did to each other , they couldn't exactly file a lawsuit to get what they wanted.
They started a war to take what they wanted .

Then some had everything while others had noneAgain some Plains tribes were much wealthier than other tribes by the hunting grounds they held
by force and threat of death if they found another tribe hunting it and of the horses they owned.



The old ways were better

Really ....

[bravenak]

78. It was no where near on the same level as europe.

That's another strawman.

Tribes had battles. Europe had HUNDRED YEAR LONG WARS.
Tribes didn't even have horses to steal from each other until the Spanish came. There was plenty of game, even if you were driven off, you could hunt and gather.
Europeans could not hunt in the Lord's or King's woods for fear of being executed for it. The land was portioned out and tied to families by blood right. The poor had no hunting or subsistence rights. They could be killed as poachers for feeding their children a deer from the Kings woods. Pay for food or die. Not so, for the Natives.
The poor in Europe could be charge with crimes of poverty and sentenced to hard labor or b sent off.

The poor natives could subsist before Europeans came here. There was plenty of game and meat and vegetation. If you got driving off after losing a battle, it was survivable. Native americans were more migratory and did not build big Keeps to hold their grain and store i and live on the same piece of land for centuries.

It was different in European culture and it was more mercenary.

[scarystuffyo]

79. You know , the only one so far that has tried to use a strawman argument in this entire thread

is you starting from post 54 on down.

Just read your own posts including this one.

[bravenak]

80. The strawman is what you did in your first post on thread.

The op is a quote about greed and selfishness of white Europeans as seen through the eyes of a Native American man.

You immediately spoke of violence between the tribes in order to say that Natives were just as violent.

Since it wasn't about VIOLENCE, but about GREED, you were making a sham argument in opposition to the op.

That is a strawman.

[scarystuffyo]

83. No , they are the same ...we all are

No race belongs on a pedestal

[bravenak]

84. They are not the same.

And not all ways of all cultures are the same. We are NOT the same. We are of equal value, but never the same.

And besides, Native Americans have NEVER been put on a pedestal. We live in a white dominated society and they hold the privileges of power over the minority and have for centuries.

[scarystuffyo]

88. If you reread my posts I'm the one who wrote the cultures were different in how wealth

was perceived in the native American culture back then. But make no mistake ...greed was there.
As was every other human emotion that all races have. Blacks , Whites , Asians , etc..

We all have our dark histories , every race does and going back to the old ways as was said in the OP fails in every respect

[bravenak]

90. You began by using violence to evaluate the quot that was about greed.

That is all there is to it. I keep rereading them but, I am at a loss as to how to explain it further.

[scarystuffyo]

94. That's how it's was achieved , greed for the best hunting grounds , greed for the fastest ponies

It wasn't discussed , it was taken by force and it was defended by violence

That's why when It starts off By using the phrase the Whiteman..

They were no different in what was done unless someone thinks it doesn't matter
if it's the same race doing it to one another versus two different races involved .

[bravenak]

96. Sorry, but you just don't understand quite yet.

[liberal_at_heart]

86. Native American tribes did war against one another for resources but they did so for

the resources they needed to survive. They did not war so they could accumulate wealth. They used what they needed, and wasted nothing.

[scarystuffyo]

98. That was the wealth in how they perceived it . Claiming the land where migration of game animals

pass , a herd of ponies .

If you had a lot ponies you were wealthy in that culture.
If your tribe claimed the best hunting grounds then you belonged to a wealthy tribe.
They had a class structure just as White men did . There were poor native americans just as there were rich ones
back then...it was just a different culture in how they determined wealth

That's really all it was

I just wanted to add... in the same tribe there were poor ones and rich ones.

They had class structure

[LiberalLovinLug]

144. Wealthy and Greed didn't really register with them

I have been entertained reading this thread battle. I think you both have points.

You are correct in that native Americans fought each other for resources. But it wasn't to become wealthy. It wasn't for greed. It was merely survival and securing territory to sustain themselves. I believe Black Elk was referring to his own tribe. So that is where you veered the conversation away. He was not speaking for all native tribes everywhere. How could he, back then he would not even know all the tribes in North America.

But in North American tribes, yes there may have been privileges for the Chief and his wife like the best pelts, nicest TeePee, but their was no class system beyond that. For one thing it wasn't in their interest to allow a progressively less cared for groups or individuals, as it would mean there was always some of them that were less fit and healthy and more disgruntled. It was important that every member of a tribe was equal. Meat from hunting was shared, furs were shared. they all helped build all of the shelters.

Black Elk quite naturally assumed that if a group of whites were fighting side by side then they must all belong to the same 'tribe'. That is all he had to go on. So when he saw them fighting amongst themselves and taking advantage of one another, he was surprised.

[scarystuffyo]

147. Not when it was raids against other tribes for horses , Many had more horses than they needed but

it would increase their wealth to have more , it showed their status and wealth in the tribe and among other tribes.

My belief where the other poster was confused when she wrote they didn't care about wealth or greed
was because she is equating wealth like White men did .


They were just as greedy and selfish as any other race on this planet and they were also just as good
as every other race on the planet.

Edit to add it was also done internally in the tribes when marriage was determined

The braves who had the most wealth were considered the best ones to marry by the families in the tribe

[zeemike]

107. And you have done a good job of it in this thread.

I would have jumped in but you said it much better than I could have.

[bravenak]

108. I tried.

Maybe next time, I'll be more convincing.

[nilesobek]

117. General Miles went on an extermination program

following Custer's annihilation. The troops were ordered to destroy food, jerky, tents and hides that were scattered in various camps in teepees. The effect was totally devastating. As you said, its the Plains, a brutal winter every year. There were people walking around naked freezing to death. There was nothing to eat, which encouraged surrender to the local reservation.

Here they were faced with a defensive war, having their women and children with them, always on the move and caring for their families. Juxtapose that with the American professional Army, fresh from Civil War battles and no such limitations such as families to bring along. Cyrus Brady wrote an excellent book on the subject.

[pangaia]

36. No, I believe the quote is not ridiculous. And I am not spinning anything.

There is something else at play here. Some other meaning between the words that need to be discovered.
I can not tell you what it is. but it is really there.

Perhaps it is like the the story about Mullah Nasrudin.

A man is walking along one night. He comes across the Mullah on his knees on the ground crawling around under a street light.
"What are you doing?" asks the man.
"I lost some coins and I am looking for them," replies the Mullah.
"Oh,I see. Where did you lose them?"
"I lost them over there, by the stable."
"Well then, why are you looking for the coins here?" asks the man.
"Because the light is light here," replies the Mullah.

[tecelote]

39. You obviously live in a different world.

Ridiculous?

"Christian leaders, stand on our soil and claim, gay marriage has never occurred here. Over 130 tribes in every region of North America performed millions of same sex marriages for hundreds of years. Their statements are both hateful and ignorant. Your "homosexual" was our "Two Spirit" people... We considered them sacred." -Pretty Shield

This is not your world Scary Stuff Yo.

[bravenak]

41. Beautiful.

I like that. Two spirit people.

[GTurck]

115. You protest too much....

actually Black Elk was referring to the treatment within his own tribe. And it is mostly true that the tribes internally were cohesive and egalitarian and it is also true that they had enemies whom they fought. But hunter/gatherer societies cannot spend vast resources on continual war. Nor are they likely to destroy an entire eco-system in order to gain a victory. Black Elk was no doubt referring to the wholesale slaughter of bison by hunters who may have wanted the hide or just those who wanted to destroy the principal animal the tribes depended on. In that there was no precedent among the tribes.

[Enthusiast]

119. How do you feel about ruining a thread we were all enjoying? We were having a pleasant discussion.

[thesquanderer]

129. I think the point is that, WITHIN THEIR TRIBE, they cared for their own people

Tribe vs. other tribe would be like the U.S. against other countries. But within our own society, we don't treat each other well either.

[scarystuffyo]

132. No he's using race by saying Whiteman

[thesquanderer]

139. That's a bit of a non-sequitor

From his point of view, different tribes would be, well, different from each other; but all white folks would be of a group. Again, I think the distinction to be made is between native americans within their own tribe, versus the white folk who populated this country, who from that perspective, would appear to all be of the same "tribe" yet do not treat "their own" the way native american tribes' people treat their own.

And regardless of how you interpret what he said, wouldn't you think there is some accuracy to that perspective? That even within our own communities, as a whole, we don't treat each other particularly well? That we often look for what will be more advantageous to ourselves rather than what will be best for everyone?

In fact, this is what I don't like about the meme about people voting against their own self interest. If you have a belief that transcends your personal situation, that you feel (misguidedly or not) is better for society as a whole even if not for you personally, is that something to be berated for?

But that's probably a topic for a different thread.

[kwassa]

99. If you are going to cut and paste information without attributing it, and pretend you wrote it ...

you are stealing.

Here is the web page you stole it from.

http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0500/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0500/stories/0503_0106.html

The Lakota gradually migrated south and westward and pushed aside the Omaha tribe in this early migration. At first, they were not mounted, but horses were spreading throughout the Plains from Spanish settlements in the Southwest, and by 1742 the Tetons had acquired ponies and their cultural pattern became more and more that of horse-riding nomads. In the Central Plains the Lakota came into conflict with the Pawnee, a village tribe that held the rich hunting lands of the Republican River Valley until the Lakota entered the region. The Pawnee war parties usually made their trips on foot, unlike other tribes. Because the Lakota were mounted on horses, they had an advantage.

[scarystuffyo]

100. lol

No one thought I wrote that
It's pretty obvious it was a cut and paste in the post.

but If it made you feel better to link it

thanks

[bravenak]

101. You are supposed to reference any quotes you use.

That's why you see so many people using the gray boxes when they quote. It is standard practice so people know whether it is your own words or someone elses. Always give credit to the author, they work pretty hard and we have a few on site. It is only fair to give credit to the worker.

[scarystuffyo]

103. okay didn't know that

I just thought it was obvious in the post.

[bravenak]

104. I didn't know at first either.

But I usually quote it with the gray box and then link it too, for good measure. You'll be a pro in no time.

[scarystuffyo]

105. I wish I could write as well as that author did

I'm all over the place sometimes

[bravenak]

106. I'm sure it took practice.

I'm much better at fiction or poetry than at Historical Documentation. I love it though. But when I have to write something non fiction I start going on tangents too. Probably too much Clan of The Cave Bear and ASOIAF. I have to remember to use proper wording for regular earth not Westeros or some type of Donii stuff. I start mixing up the Ironborn and the Vikings and the Huns with the Dothraki.

[kwassa]

109. .

[tecelote]

15. U.S.A. | The Melting Pot

Found this for you...
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/top-5-facts-america-richest-1-183022655.html

You are not aware of our nations wealth disparity?

Scary Stuff.

[RickFromMN]

133. Thank you for the link. It is scary.

From this discussion I take away the idea the wealthy 1% belong to one tribe and the 99% belong to another tribe.

I am saddened half the 99% don't realize which tribe has their best interests at heart.

We tried trickle-down. I wish I could find the cartoon showing outhouses and what trickles down.

Wasn't this image:


I can't exactly remember the cartoon. I know it was something similar to this cartoon, but it wasn't this cartoon.

Edited to fix image.

[jwirr]

60. What he was seeing even back then was that his tribe took care of their own in a community linked

together for the common good. Even then what he saw with the white man was capitalism. The system that is based on the bottom line and getting everything you can EVEN if it is on the backs of the laborer. He was old enough to have known about slavery.

[ReRe]

138. I can see only one bullshit post here.

IMHO

[kardonb]

21. white men

nowadays , the Indian chiefs pocket as much casino $$$ as they can , and don't share it equally with all members of the tribe .
Human nature is always the same , regardless of color of skin .

[tecelote]

25. Not exactly true.

With some, yes.

But, there are many tribes that have built houses, schools and hospitals.

[Scootaloo]

43. And in the past, most such chiefs would have quickly found themselves without people

Greed is pervasive throughout humanity, yes. It is how societies respond to greed that is important. Our current society rewards greed. Older societies penalized it.

[jwirr]

65. And where do you get your data? Our tribe has several casinos and they not only pay a dividend

monthly to every enrolled Native including children but they have used the money to build schools, clinics, businesses, and also to help the white community with many of its projects as well as hire many non-tribal people in the community.

[JustAnotherGen]

113. Thank you for this!

I love first hand knowledge of how things really are!

[jwirr]

127. The change in our tribe is unbelievable. The homes are repaired, the schools are good, anyone who

can work does because there are now jobs, etc. You can drive through the reservation and see how it has changed. With the coming for the jobs families are more interested in education for their children and the parents get to go to work everyday like most of people in our nation. Yes, gambling is probably not the best way to make a living but it is what we have. Also it beats setting in a bar all night long. Our kids are graduating and going on to college.

One of my proudest moment was when my granddaughter became a part of President Obama's ACA advisory board regarding health care on the reservations. She travels to DC every so often to attend meetings.

All I can say is things are going better than before the casinos.

[Thespian2]

23. Good

to see you missed Black Elk's point entirely.

[suffragette]

56. Belated welcome to you, Thespian2

And thanks for a spot on post.

[tabasco]

24. Was it really?

Do expound on your knowledge of Native American culture, history and society, Professor.

Were they like ganstas, fightin' all the time and stuff, like in the cowboy movies?

[Ash_F]

45. Not seeing history of significant warfare among the Lakota people

Are you generalizing?

[2naSalit]

63. More like

making stuff up yo.

This individual has no clue and is spouting off in defense of the point made in Black Elk's message and the genocide by trying to change the subject with propaganda regurgitation... smells kind of like trollspew.

[TexasProgresive]

50. True some of the tribes waged limited wars against each other.

I think the point Black Elk was making is that the white people would sell their own mother for a profit. The Native Americans were not so prone to avarice as the tribe meant more to them them stuff.

From Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephanie Coontz (Penguin Books 2005) p.29:

When Jesuit missionaries from France first encountered the North American Montagnais-Naskapi Indians in the early seventeenth century, they were shocked by the native women's sexual freedom. One missionary warned a Naskapi man that if he did not impose tighter controls on his wife, he would never know for sure which of the children she bore belonged to him. The Indian was equally shocked that this mattered to Europeans. "You French people," he replied, "love only your own children; but we love all the children of our tribe."

She referenced, Elanor Leacock, "Montagnais Women and the Program for Jesuit Colonization" in Mona Etienne and Leacock, eds., Women and Colonization: Anthropological Perspectives (New York: Praeger, 1980). pp.30-31

[Maraya1969]

87. Where do you hear this? Because I've just spent some time looking for evidence of

pre-European North America violence and the only thing I found it one archeological dig that they think might be a genocide but there were only 100 skeletons found.

They have found many, (but I can't find a number) skeletons with digs in their bones where they were hit with arrows and such.

And then I found this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/11/21/thanksgiving-guilt-trip-how-warlike-were-native-americans-before-europeans-arrived/

Here are some paragraphs:
In two momentous early encounters, Native Americans greeted Europeans with kindness and generosity. Here is how Christopher Columbus described the Arawak, tribal people living in the Bahamas when he landed there in 1492: “They…brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded everything they owned…. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance…. With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.”


How that passage—which I found in A People’s History of the United States by the historian Howard Zinn (Harper Collins, 2003)—captures the whole sordid history of colonialism! Columbus was as good as his word. Within decades the Spaniards had slaughtered almost all the Arawaks and other natives of the New Indies and enslaved the few survivors. “The cruel policy initiated by Columbus and pursued by his successors resulted in complete genocide,” wrote the historian Samuel Morison (who admired Columbus!).


The friendliness of the Wampanoag was extraordinary, because they had recently been ravaged by diseases caught from previous European explorers. Europeans had also killed, kidnapped and enslaved Native Americans in the region. The Plymouth settlers, during their desperate first year, had even stolen grain and other goods from the Wampanoag, according to Wikipedia’s entry on Plymouth Colony.


The good vibes of that 1621 feast soon dissipated. As more English settlers arrived in New England, they seized more and more land from the Wampanoag and other tribes, who eventually resisted with violence—in vain. We all know how this story ended. “The Indian population of 10 million that lived north of Mexico when Columbus came would ultimately be reduced to less than a million,” Zinn wrote.

[Rex]

93. Wow, kinda touchy there...hit a nerve?

[scarystuffyo]

102. Just dispelling misinformation

and I'm not even white

[lunasun]

151. 500 posts since joining 10/7 - if nothing else you are very prolific scary stuff yo

[Zorra]

122. How do you know this? nt

[El Shaman]

130. Yup,

soooo they deserved everything(thanks for the blankets too!) that was dished out to them!


el Tigua

[grahamhgreen]

141. Non sequitur. This is about a hoarding class that hoards useless wealth.

[GeoWilliam750]

5. We already have far more than enough for everybody

And we have a world where gathering many multiples of what one will ever need is considered laudable

[tecelote]

27. Wise one.

[AverageJoe90]

6. Sadly, there was definitely truth to this.

Just look at how the Irish and Italians were treated by many of the more reactionary elements of U.S. society up until about 1920 or so.

[Paper Roses]

12. I am now reading: Bury my heart at Wounded knee by Dee Brown. Breaks my heart

We did the most horrible things to the native Americans. Shame on us forever.

[hopemountain]

22. reading this book

was life changing for me. after reading this, i highly recommend "the sacred pipe" - black elk as told to joseph epes brown.

[LoisB]

29. Oh for sure. I add my recommendation of both books to yours. My copy of

"Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" is tear-stained.

[hopemountain]

31. mine, too.

also, gifted many pb copies over the years.

[pangaia]

30. Yes, I read this way, way back when it was published..

There are many others as well.
If you are interested..

Trail of Tears
Black Elk Speaks ( someone mentioned it)

Anything by Frank Waters.
The Book of the Hopi
The Man Who Killed the Deer
The Woman at Otawi Crossing

So many more good books....

[Scootaloo]

46. It's a good read

Try also 1491 and 1493, by Charles Mann. The first focuses on pre-contact native societies, while the second examines hte impact immediately followignhte colombianexchange.

Dressing in Feathers (edited by Elizabeth Bird) is a good resource for examination of contemporary portrayls of Native Americans as well.

[og1]

66. Further reading

I would like to suggest that you read An Indigenous Peoples History of The United States by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. It also will help explain why the Northern European is motivated by capitalism. I will also suggest another book by Edward E Baplist "The Half has never been told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. Excellent reading but they will lay heavy on your heart!

[Paper Roses]

116. Thanks to everyone who made reading suggestions.

When I finish this book, I'm going to take as break from this heart-wrenching subject. Have made a list of suggestions for future. I think I'm now up for a good "Reacher" book by Lee Child. Need to send my mind in another direction for a while.

[Enthusiast]

140. That is one of the few books I have read twice.

[treestar]

16. There are white people who care about each other

He's making a generalization about all from the behavior of some, or of the worst.

[tecelote]

17. Context.

It's so important here.

[treestar]

89. Or a lack of broad knowledge beyond one's own experience

That's always valuable and prevents people from making generalizations about others.

[Ash_F]

47. This would be the ones he met

I doubt he ran into many/any do-gooders in his time.

[Dr. Strange]

49. The important thing is...

he's not generalizing about Muslims. Don't want to get Ben Affleck all mad again.

[BrotherIvan]

75. whoosh

[treestar]

91. Why is this generalization OK?

And we know it is not true. No race is better than any other. Native Americans fought each other too. White people have helped each other out. It seems politically correct to allow Native Americans to make racist statements and we aren't to challenge them. Well, hell with that. His statement is overly broad.

[BrotherIvan]

110. His statement is overly broad????????????

HIS PEOPLE WERE SLAUGHTERED BY WHITE PEOPLE!!!!!!!! He fought at Wounded Knee where men, women and children were gunned down by US troops. He has EVERY RIGHT to say that whites were wrong. Good Lord, have you ever read the history of this country?

[bravenak]

111. You do realize he lived in the late 1800 to early 1900's?

He lived when we were still slaughtering them.

[grahamhgreen]

142. They're called DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS:)

[freshwest]

19. Always felt this to be the case. 'Whites' as generally identified, come from a continent that was at

war for thousands of years. Being competitive and organizing most of their society to do battle and innovate new means to win wars became a key to success in that milieu and later in others using those same means.

I've read native american writings online that show some pity Europeans. They said they suffer from a devastating disconnect of awareness and empathy, a form of tunnel vision that will destroy them if they cannot break free of their chains.

They felt what some of us call the 'desert religions' had robbed 'Whites' of the wisdom of their inner selves, creating fear and limiting their vision. And that the struggles to have 'freedom' or 'liberty' are still holding those things at arm's length, because they are oppressed and full of fear from that loss. Even more so than those they abused, which I saw as a remarkable idea.

They described the illness as a death of the soul covered with infinite attempts to recreate what they cannot accept, that they were conquered in their own lands and don't know any better.

Now, that is one specific way of looking at the problem of 'civilization' as presented by the past models embraced, that has no condemnation of any race. That was from a website of mostly native women and they thought that 'Whites' needed to be freed from that, not left to walk a destructive path that could take down the whole planet.

It fits my view of the race and cultural problems that 'Whites' bring to the world. I am a believer in diversity and think all groups have a place in time and space where they learn more about themselves. Then that is passed on to the rest of world, whether in good ways or bad ways. I think each group is part of a whole that contributes to the future of the human race and each has its time on the world stage either singly or as a coalition of many cultures.

I believe that each group serves a purpose to unite the world. The innovative genius for good or ill of the Europeans did cover the globe, and had made connections that may have never been made otherwise. If there is going to be an epitaph for a culture, race or people, the legacy left behind on the world stage will be both good and evil.

Or something like that, still working this out.

[bravenak]

28. Good post.

I agree with much of it.

[pangaia]

33. That is very nice. I hope you keep working on it.

In my view, you are doing well.
And it seems like the journey, the process, the search, is what is important.
This is true, appropriate to the season, in baseball-- the long, long season, one pitch, at a time, one swing. let go of any attachment. tomorrow one starts again.. from zero.
And so it is true for the seeker of the truth.

[appalachiablue]

81. Native people were much less reliant on and desirous of mfg. goods, materials

until introduced to them by Europeans. They saw that horses increase travel, hunting, contact with resources, other places and adopted them to defend against whites. Europeans were already driven, in their cultures, by quest for more materialistic goods and resources by the late 1400s conquest of the New World.

What about ME, African and Far East cultures, in general? Many of their centers had empires, resources, technology, travel and trade among themselves and with Europe since their land mass, though large, was connected and could be reached by horse or ship. Are these regions closer to Europe in their ways and culture? And Native Americans who are two oceans and many miles away from materially advanced societies therefore less greedy and selfish?

[BrotherIvan]

112. Agricultural societies vs hunter gatherers

The shift to agriculture allowed populations to grow quickly and then outgrow resources, so new land had to be taken. Hunter gatherers are limited by the food supply and often require large territories in order to support the population which leads to much more balance.

The common assumption is that Europeans were able to conquer indigenous peoples because of gun powder, and while this is true, just as important is that they had domesticated animals such as horses which could be compared to modern day tanks. That is how small groups of Spaniards could ravage a continent, not to mention large ships with cannon. But the greatest problem was disease. Indigenous peoples had no resistance and so were wiped out in great swaths.

But genocide of native peoples was systematic. The same happened in Australia, where colonists called Aborigines vermin and nearly completely wiped them out. Estimates of Aborigines before contact are between 750,000 to 1.2 million. After the invasion, the population became dangerously low, with estimates of 25,000 survivors. This pattern happened to all indigenous peoples including the Polynesians in Hawaii who only number 8,000 now with estimates over two million when Cook first contacted.

The Middle East and Asia were often at the same level of technology and agriculture (I am loathe to say the same level of civilization) so Europeans, though they tried, were unable to colonize. But most of all, it was a clash of cultures. And as Black Elk states, indigenous peoples had a far different culture in that they did not attempt to "acquire" more than they needed. It was part of what they simply could not understand about the behaviour of the whites and so were taken off guard. If one were to say the quote is a comparison of culture, rather than race, it show the difference in values.

[appalachiablue]

150. Genocide of Native Americans in N. A. through conquest and disease

took place alongside European measures 1500s-1700s to send Native Americans, Africans, Scots, Irish from British Isles to the Caribbean and SA as slave labor and to 'transport', get them out of the way. Pequot Native Americans of NE who survived smallpox and fought Prince Phillips War with the English and Dutch were sold as slaves, shipped to Bermuda where a small group still exists today. Natchez people of Louisiana were attacked and had lands taken, some were sent to the West Indies as slave labor.

In Carib. islands today, notably Barbados, there's a small number of poor whites living mostly in obscurity and poverty for generations, unknown even to modern tourists. The Redlegs of Barbados, descendants of ancestors shipped or transported from Ireland and Scotland as POWs and undesirables during mid-1600s wars of English aggression particularly under Cromwell. Redlegs toiled in brutal conditions as indentured servants in sugar cane fields like African slaves, Native Americans also in forced labor to the planter class in the sugar and rum business.

West Indies colonies run by France, Spain, Holland, even Portuguese Brazil profited heavily from the free slave labor system and Atlantic Slave Trade like northern enterprises from Florida to New York. Families were interconnected in business, investments; sons sent to West Indies and South Carolina plantations, relatives managed operations in London, Bristol, Bordeaux, Providence and New York. Families who profited still exist on both sides of the Atlantic, in Rhode Island, South Carolina, Latin America, England, France and Spain etc.

Many Redlegs don't know their history, family beyond recent generations, whether they originate from Ireland or Scotland. Sinclair and Bailey names suggest Scottish connections. Not owning land and marginalized, status declined from lack of economic opportunity and education, isolation, poor health and disease. Most have never left the C. islands. UK has denied them immigration and citizenship I've read.
Learned of Redlegs 1995 visiting a Bajan historic site with a photograph c. 1915 of white men outdoors, in ordinary clothes, others in crude, burlap tunics, barefoot- labeled 'the Redlegs'. I saw info. about them online years later, good 1 hour BBC (Scotland) narrative film, c. 2009.
Circumstances resemble most disadvantaged US communities, Appalach., Deep South, Native Americans in Pine Ridge, S. Dakota, Camden, NJ, Detroit, former high industry/factory cities. My family (not Scots-Irish) & friends include Hispanics, blacks, whites, Indians, Asians. At least one ancestor was a 1600s indentured servant. Planned to explore a family genie connection in B. but no time. PBS's excellent program "Finding Your Roots" with Prof. H.L. 'Skip' Gates is great; guests surprised by new ancestors, international roots.

Indigenous hunter gatherer culture in the Americans you wrote of I knew about; forgot the significance of guns; I wasn't aware of the extent of aboriginal genocide in Australia you mentioned.
The global, free market economic/political system of 40 years recalls some of the earlier area, esp. the topic of two articles NOW ON DU- illegal use of imported Indian workers in Silicon Valley's tech industry paid $1.21 an hour, placed in crowded housing. Common factor is human nature and greed. Lately I think of Ted Kennedy's infamous speech to the Senate, "When does the greed end?'. Appreciate your reply; agree that values inherent in Native American culture lacked European greed and consumption; matters are more about values than race.

[JustAnotherGen]

114. Beautiful

I can't add anything to this thread after those words - and words of a few people who have posted. Good job guys.

[Tikki]

34. Black Elk would be one of my ancestors...If he could see me now, I hope I would make him proud.

I search the Oglala tribal faces for the features of my grandfather, the smile, the kind eyes.

I love these words that Black Elk spoke...


Tikki

[pangaia]

37. :>)))

[tecelote]

51. What has passed, builds today.

Not sure who wrote that.

[Nye Bevan]

82. "Excavations at the Crow Creek site revealed the bodies of 486 people...."

Intertribal warfare was intense throughout the Great Plains during the 1700s and 1800s, and archeological data indicate that warfare was present prior to this time. Human skeletons from as early as the Woodland Period (250 B.C. to A.D. 900) show occasional marks of violence, but conflict intensified during and after the thirteenth century, by which time farmers were well established in the Plains. After 1250, villages were often destroyed by fire, and human skeletons regularly show marks of violence, scalping, and other mutilations. Warfare was most intense along the Missouri River in the present-day Dakotas, where ancestors of the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras were at war with each other, and towns inhabited by as many as 1,000 people were often fortified with ditch and palisade defenses. Excavations at the Crow Creek site, an ancestral Arikara town dated to 1325, revealed the bodies of 486 people–men, women, and children, essentially the town's entire population–in a mass grave. These individuals had been scalped and dismembered, and their bones showed clear evidence of severe malnutrition, suggesting that violence resulted from competition for food, probably due to local overpopulation and climatic deterioration. Violence among farmers continued from the 1500s through the late 1800s.

Archeological data on war among the nomadic Plains hunters are few, but some nomads were attacking farmers on the edges of the Plains by at least the 1500s. By the eighteenth century, war was common among the nomads, apparently largely because of conflicts over hunting territories.

Prior to the introduction of European horses and guns, Plains warfare took two forms. When equally matched forces confronted each other, warriors sheltered behind large shields, firing arrows; individual warriors came out from behind these lines to dance and taunt their opponents. This mode of combat was largely for show and casualties were light. However, sometimes, large war parties surprised and utterly destroyed small camps or hamlets. Increasing interaction with Europeans from the eighteenth century on changed these patterns dramatically. Massed shield lines could neither stand against mounted warriors nor protect against firearms; this mode of battle largely disappeared with the introduction of horses and guns, although equally matched mounted war parties sometimes used the old tactics. Early access to horses also allowed some groups, notably the Comanches, to overwhelm and displace neighboring tribes who lacked such access. Documentary and archeological evidence indicate that horses and guns contributed mightily to this more destructive mode of Plains warfare, most intensively along the Missouri River.

http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.023

[bravenak]

85. How many White were killed by other whites during that time?

Did you look that up too, or just lookin for native native violence?

[Nye Bevan]

92. I don't have the exact number, but I would guess many more,

mostly due to their technological advancement of weaponry to beyond bows and arrows and tomahawks.

[bravenak]

95. I would agree with that.

[treestar]

97. Like any other peoples in the world

in fact, it is infantilizing to the Native Americans to insist they were nothing but innocent children before the evil white man showed up.

[Zorra]

123. More speculation from white anthropologists, archaeologists, and

historians, explaining, without seeing or getting eyewitness accounts, all the horrible things that indigenous people did to each other before the Euro-christians genocided them and stole their land.

That said, people are people, and, unfortunately, a lot of people have been doing shitty things to each other for a long time.

[Enthusiast]

118. Very perceptive of Black Elk.

[Android3.14]

120. It's amazing

That people applaud positive racial stereotypes but call negative stereotypes unfounded.

Wouldn't it be great that if, just by having Native American parents, you were spiritually connected with the universe and just a better human being all around?

[redruddyred]

121. in those old photographs (and even in the paintings)

those native american leaders looked so noble, and so sad.

then again so did lincoln. could it have been the convention of their day, or perhaps a product of their culture?

[Bluenorthwest]

124. The 'sad' look in old portrait photos stems from long exposure times

A 'neutral' expression was favored as it is easier to hold steady and true. That's why people look sort of stern even in celebratory photos from those periods. The base line expression was no expression. Smile for the camera came later, with improvements to the photographic process.

[redruddyred]

125. thanks for the history lesson.

tho some of them really do look quite depressed. particularly the man pictured above.

[whistler162]

126. Sounds nice until you put thought

into the statement.

[liberalmuse]

134. Condescending and uncalled for

but you and one other person in these comments appear to be the new face of DU. Instead of creating your own OPs, you take dumps on everyone else's. Evidence of this is all over DU these days, and frankly, it's a huge turn off and has ruined a once decent forum.

[ctsnowman]

128. Thanks for the post.

[liberalmuse]

131. So very true.

Thank you for posting this reminder that people closer to the earth tend to have different values and priorities.

[spanone]

136. ....in a nutshell.

[Sunlei]

137. The USA Gov.will never allow a Ghost Dance for peace, prosperity, and unity across the regions

[AgingAmerican]

143. Chief Seattle's reply to a Government offer to purchase the remaining Salish lands:

"When the last red man has vanished with his wilderness and his memory is only the shadow of a cloud moving across the prairie, will these shores and forests still be here? Will there be any of the spirit of my humans left?"

[tecelote]

145. Before Columbus, the story of man and nature was one.

Thanks for the reminder

[tecelote]

146. Please post this separately.

We are so lost. This gives perspective.

[tecelote]

148. Today, people discuss Climate Change

We have done it. We have gone past the point of no return.

Our disconnect from nature is so severe that the sea levels will rise and droughts will scorch the earth.

We have not just crippled ourselves, coastlines and whole islands will disappear and farms will fail worldwide because of our inaction.

Mother nature will correct things.

I sure do hope we humans survive.

[AgingAmerican]

149. He was a Duwamish chief

I look off my deck and see the Duwamish river, which is one of the most polluted industrial rivers in the USA. It is lined with cement factories and junk yards and rusty half sunken boats tied up to broken down abandoned docks. It was at the mouth of this river where his tribal lands were located. It is probably worse here now than he ever imagined it would be.

He was very accommodating to the white settlers, and he is very beloved here in Seattle.

"And when the last Red Man shall have perished, and the memory of my tribe shall have become a myth among the White Men, these shores will swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe, and when your children's children think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway, or in the silence of the pathless woods, they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night when the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled them and still love this beautiful land. The White Man will never be alone."