Re: Racism, Slavery and the Founding Fathers

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/2006 10:19:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

And while you talk about things that have happened "a few years ago" I can assure you that those same things that have happened "a few years ago" in America are happening "right now" in Canada.Raven

For the most part, the "native issues" you might say were settled a long time ago here in the US. A lot of that depended on the tribes and who was running the country at the time. In many places in the South, a number of tribes have claim to their original lands in the form of reservation that encompass what had been the tribe's range. Those were usually tribes that remained friendly to the settlers. Those that weren't didn't get that treatment.

It is also not uncommon to see large populations of Natives still living in the areas. Down in Alabama, a ways south of my place there is still a large population of Creek Indians. It is rather surprising that they are still there at all given how brutal the wars were with that tribe. There were several massacres where the tribe attacked forts and settlements killing hundreds of people. Still, they weren't wiped out or driven off completely.

Other tribes weren't so lucky. Sometimes they had the misfortune of acting up when a tough President was in office. It was under Presidents like who hated Indians, that sent many west to reservations, including tribes that were completely peaceful. The Cherokee are a good example of that. The Cherokee were developing a hybrid culture that kept their alive but also adopted the better parts of Western society. They were doing quite well at it too, which may have been part of the problem. If I remember correctly, what really brought matters to a head was when gold was discovered on their land. Certain interests exaggerated charges against them (land issues with settlers and hunters) and made up others and so the Cherokee (not all of them but a large number) were forced west. The result was the Trail of Tears. It was entirely possible to have worked out a civil agreement between all parties concerned. After all, the Cherokee weren't miners so outside help was needed to get at the gold. An agreement paying the tribe a share of the proceeds could easily have been done. It also didn't help the Cherokee and a few other tribes that they sided with the Confederates in the Civil War. In that, they suffered probably worse than the white Confederates, and they got it bad enough.

Today, some of the reservations are ok, some are good but others are terrible. A lot this can be traced back to the usually corrupt Indian Agents who were technically responsible for the logisitical support of the reservations. Most of them cheated on giving out food, cutting rations and selling what they stole for a profit. This sort of continued in the way the government funded the reservations. Usually the funding was low. Schools were also not given the highest priority. All of that lead to the unfortunate consequence of devastating the Indians morale and psyche. Several reservations in the Southwest have all kinds of problems.

On the other hand, there are reservations with casinos, which are referred to as the Indian's revenge, because they take in so much money. This doesn't always mean wealth for the tribe though. There are cases of this proceeds going only to the higher ups in the tribe or being spent on lobbying and crooked deals with politicians. There was a bit row about that kind of thing recently, though I don't recall the specifics.

For the most part though, relations have been good for a long time, the few bad reservations aside. These days, everyone is getting done wrong by the government.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/2006 10:19:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

And while you talk about things that have happened "a few years ago" I can assure you that those same things that have happened "a few years ago" in America are happening "right now" in Canada.Raven

For the most part, the "native issues" you might say were settled a long time ago here in the US. A lot of that depended on the tribes and who was running the country at the time. In many places in the South, a number of tribes have claim to their original lands in the form of reservation that encompass what had been the tribe's range. Those were usually tribes that remained friendly to the settlers. Those that weren't didn't get that treatment.

It is also not uncommon to see large populations of Natives still living in the areas. Down in Alabama, a ways south of my place there is still a large population of Creek Indians. It is rather surprising that they are still there at all given how brutal the wars were with that tribe. There were several massacres where the tribe attacked forts and settlements killing hundreds of people. Still, they weren't wiped out or driven off completely.

Other tribes weren't so lucky. Sometimes they had the misfortune of acting up when a tough President was in office. It was under Presidents like who hated Indians, that sent many west to reservations, including tribes that were completely peaceful. The Cherokee are a good example of that. The Cherokee were developing a hybrid culture that kept their alive but also adopted the better parts of Western society. They were doing quite well at it too, which may have been part of the problem. If I remember correctly, what really brought matters to a head was when gold was discovered on their land. Certain interests exaggerated charges against them (land issues with settlers and hunters) and made up others and so the Cherokee (not all of them but a large number) were forced west. The result was the Trail of Tears. It was entirely possible to have worked out a civil agreement between all parties concerned. After all, the Cherokee weren't miners so outside help was needed to get at the gold. An agreement paying the tribe a share of the proceeds could easily have been done. It also didn't help the Cherokee and a few other tribes that they sided with the Confederates in the Civil War. In that, they suffered probably worse than the white Confederates, and they got it bad enough.

Today, some of the reservations are ok, some are good but others are terrible. A lot this can be traced back to the usually corrupt Indian Agents who were technically responsible for the logisitical support of the reservations. Most of them cheated on giving out food, cutting rations and selling what they stole for a profit. This sort of continued in the way the government funded the reservations. Usually the funding was low. Schools were also not given the highest priority. All of that lead to the unfortunate consequence of devastating the Indians morale and psyche. Several reservations in the Southwest have all kinds of problems.

On the other hand, there are reservations with casinos, which are referred to as the Indian's revenge, because they take in so much money. This doesn't always mean wealth for the tribe though. There are cases of this proceeds going only to the higher ups in the tribe or being spent on lobbying and crooked deals with politicians. There was a bit row about that kind of thing recently, though I don't recall the specifics.

For the most part though, relations have been good for a long time, the few bad reservations aside. These days, everyone is getting done wrong by the government.

[Guest guest]

Tom wrote: " ... <snip> ... I guess it took a white man, Abraham

Lincoln to end slavery in THIS country. Perhaps it will take white men

to end it in African countries ... <snip> ... "

Colour sometimes is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Yes,

Abraham Lincoln was a white man and he DID end slavery. There are

many people from different races who have done good things that have

benefitted humanity and even though I talk about the white man in a

general sense when I am on my soapbox, I would hope that people --

regardless of colour -- know that what matters most to me is what is

in the heart of the individual and not the pigmentation in his skin

cells.

Raven

[Guest guest]

, while I respect your post, I have to remind you that I am

in Canada and therefore the things you mentioned are not things I

would have learned about in school or that I would have reason to

know.

And while you talk about things that have happened " a few years ago "

I can assure you that those same things that have happened " a few

years ago " in America are happening " right now " in Canada.

Raven

>

>

> In a message dated 12/16/2006 1:20:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> ravenmagic2003@... writes:

>

> And when is the last time that the government walked onto your

land,

> took it back from you, did not compensate you for it, and then

gave

> it to a land developer to do what he wanted?

>

>

> Actually this almost happened a few years ago. The Alabama

governor, tried

> to raise some $3 billion in taxes for education shortfalls.

However, the actual

> shortage was only about $1.3 billion. The bill was loaded with

all kinds of

> political pandering.

>

> 1. All land would be taxed at its highest possible rate. That is,

if a farm

> were near a town or a major road, it could be taxed as comercial

or

> residential rather than agricultural. This would have forced many

farmers to have to

> sell, and most likely to big developers who have been after land

due to the

> growth of Southern Alabama.

>

> 2. Limits were placed on land use. A person could own all the land

they

> wanted, but could only work a maximum of 2,000 acres. Many farmers

own more than

> that. So they would have to sell that land either to developers or

to large

> timber companies.

>

> 3. Can't think of what the third one was at this moment.

>

> The measure was soundly defeated.

>

> As for family shot for protecting land, that happened after the

Civil War

> when an ancestor refused to give up his land to the Freedman's

Bureau and they

> killed him for it. He wasn't a big land owner either, just that he

had a good

> farm.

>

> These days lots people are having their land taken by the

government. Some

> are being killed for it or having their lives ruined. Remember the

Kelso

> decision by the Supreme Court that legalized municipal theft of

property to give

> it to commercial concerns in order to " increase tax revenues. "

That just

> greenlighted what has been going on for some time. Try reading

about the

> foundation of the National Parks. Lots of people were forcibly

removed from their

> land, white people. Some were killed by the Federals in the

process.

>

> The only thing I or my family hasn't been subjected to, aside from

the

> women, is the vote issue.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... The psychological affiliation to the

white man phrase is connotatively perceived as negative in some

respects. A person who is white that had nothing to do with the

great injustices might feel guilty, bad and or hated for something

he or she didn't do. While still feeling a compassion and or type of

empathy positively for the struggle and some will justify the past

actions hatefully. The injustice while clear is hard to correct.

Time is the enemy of justice really and some of these injustices

those involved are dead that were white ... <snip> ... "

I agree, . When I post 'white man' I am referring to those

who are either long dead or who continue to discriminate against

Aboriginals because they feel it is their right to diminish other

people (regardless of their culture).

And while it is hard to correct past wrongs, it is important not to

let ongoing injustices continue that grow out of these past wrongs.

Things like the Ontario government stealing land from the

Aboriginals at Ipperwash to sell to a developer for condos and then

buying the land back from the developer but not returning it to the

Aboriginal people from whom it was stolen. We're not talking land

that was stolen hundreds of years ago. This is RECENT history.

Aboriginals were good enough to fight in WWI and WWII and the Korean

War but they were not good enough to be given the same rights as all

other cultural groups in Canada ... not until 1960!

In recent history, Aboriginals women who married non-Aboriginals

were no longer Aboriginal and lost their status. If they divorced,

they could not reclaim their status and became displaced persons in

many regards because they could not go back and live on the

reservation due to government rules and they were left to live in a

world that was foreign to them in many respects. My mother, as an

Aboriginal with a lofty Grade 8 education, lived this truth when she

married my father, a non-Aboriginal with a doctorate (and that's a

whole other story entirely).

While we cannot correct wrongs that were visited upon a people

hundreds of years ago, we CAN correct wrongs that are allowed to

continue in the present in order to build a more cohesive and

supportive future for ALL people.

Raven

[Guest guest]

wrote: " ... <snip> ... The psychological affiliation to the

white man phrase is connotatively perceived as negative in some

respects. A person who is white that had nothing to do with the

great injustices might feel guilty, bad and or hated for something

he or she didn't do. While still feeling a compassion and or type of

empathy positively for the struggle and some will justify the past

actions hatefully. The injustice while clear is hard to correct.

Time is the enemy of justice really and some of these injustices

those involved are dead that were white ... <snip> ... "

I agree, . When I post 'white man' I am referring to those

who are either long dead or who continue to discriminate against

Aboriginals because they feel it is their right to diminish other

people (regardless of their culture).

And while it is hard to correct past wrongs, it is important not to

let ongoing injustices continue that grow out of these past wrongs.

Things like the Ontario government stealing land from the

Aboriginals at Ipperwash to sell to a developer for condos and then

buying the land back from the developer but not returning it to the

Aboriginal people from whom it was stolen. We're not talking land

that was stolen hundreds of years ago. This is RECENT history.

Aboriginals were good enough to fight in WWI and WWII and the Korean

War but they were not good enough to be given the same rights as all

other cultural groups in Canada ... not until 1960!

In recent history, Aboriginals women who married non-Aboriginals

were no longer Aboriginal and lost their status. If they divorced,

they could not reclaim their status and became displaced persons in

many regards because they could not go back and live on the

reservation due to government rules and they were left to live in a

world that was foreign to them in many respects. My mother, as an

Aboriginal with a lofty Grade 8 education, lived this truth when she

married my father, a non-Aboriginal with a doctorate (and that's a

whole other story entirely).

While we cannot correct wrongs that were visited upon a people

hundreds of years ago, we CAN correct wrongs that are allowed to

continue in the present in order to build a more cohesive and

supportive future for ALL people.

Raven

[Guest guest]

Why don't they sue and make a public relations mess of the government?ravenmagic2003 <ravenmagic2003@...> wrote: wrote: " ... <snip> ... The psychological affiliation to the white man phrase is connotatively perceived as negative in some respects. A person who is white that had nothing to do with the great injustices might feel guilty, bad and or hated for something he or she didn't do. While still feeling a compassion and or type of empathy positively for the struggle and some will justify

the past actions hatefully. The injustice while clear is hard to correct. Time is the enemy of justice really and some of these injustices those involved are dead that were white ... <snip> ..." I agree, . When I post 'white man' I am referring to those who are either long dead or who continue to discriminate against Aboriginals because they feel it is their right to diminish other people (regardless of their culture). And while it is hard to correct past wrongs, it is important not to let ongoing injustices continue that grow out of these past wrongs. Things like the Ontario government stealing land from the Aboriginals at Ipperwash to sell to a developer for condos and then buying the land back from the developer but not returning it to the Aboriginal people from whom it was stolen. We're not talking land that was stolen hundreds of years ago. This is RECENT history.

Aboriginals were good enough to fight in WWI and WWII and the Korean War but they were not good enough to be given the same rights as all other cultural groups in Canada ... not until 1960! In recent history, Aboriginals women who married non-Aboriginals were no longer Aboriginal and lost their status. If they divorced, they could not reclaim their status and became displaced persons in many regards because they could not go back and live on the reservation due to government rules and they were left to live in a world that was foreign to them in many respects. My mother, as an Aboriginal with a lofty Grade 8 education, lived this truth when she married my father, a non-Aboriginal with a doctorate (and that's a whole other story entirely). While we cannot correct wrongs that were visited upon a people hundreds of years ago, we CAN correct wrongs that are allowed to continue in the present in

order to build a more cohesive and supportive future for ALL people. Raven Turning In Big BrotherMy First Authored BookOnline For Free..http://www.nathanyoung.net __________________________________________________