Native americans

Hey there folks ! so here's the thing: I have to write an article about the situation of the native Americans and I thought It'd be interesting to tackle it with a Sup Forums point of view. What argument do you have to condone the American government schemes regarding the native population.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Which ones?

Talk about their alcoholism and how native american reservations is basically just neetbux for them and thats why they are fucked

Natives are just prairie niggers

Well I'm not sure...Were each tribe treated differently enough to address them separately ?

That may be a little to straight forward for an article. those are consequences and I would like
to deal with the causes of the present situation.

nice one lel

Also we saw that white settlers basically drained all their resources (land, food) before "asking" the local chiefs to sell their land so this argument wouldn't apply here. We also saw that the government broke every treaty they made to preserve their land and sent them to religious schools were they were abused and mistreated, hence the alcoholism and the disorientation. I'd need some solid arguments/facts to counter those

It's an excellent chance to point out that free money can help break a person's or a group's will to strive for better. We absolutely did have a policy of suppressing them to make room for the white man, and it still works today so we haven't changed much. We made them move and split them up into groups, and give them an allowance, free tax money for being Native American. I think it's still supposed to be capitalized, at least.

If you're actually French you probably haven't had a chance to go on a reservation, but they're usually shitholes. They tend to live in trailers or manufactured homes, and they usually have broken cars on their lawn. They don't need to fix or sell their old cars because they're just getting another 18 grand or whatever next year. Living on the rez is usually free for them, and they can get an additional allowance for every kid, depending on the tribe.

Another thing, there isn't really a "Native American community" the way there is an African American community. The tribes don't really team up, and they're each concerned with preserving their own dying language and customs. We hit them with apathy, hard. Which, by the way, I'm ok with. They hadn't even invented the wheel by the time whitey got there, let alone metallurgy. Literally Stone Age culture, preserved until a couple hundred years ago. Look that up, by the way, they get real defensive when you say they didn't invent the wheel, and point out some ancient Mayan toys with wheels and imply it wasn't important enough for anything but toys.

Woe to the conquered.

You're right actually, I've never even seen a native American... Also I see the beginning of an argument right there. What you're telling me is that:
- the state of advancement of a civilization only concerns the technical breakthrough.
- it also determines the prevalence of a community on the other

could you elaborate a little ?

you need to develop mang

Natives largely were barbaric savages that in reality cared little for their land when powerful enough, butchered men, women and children in battle and have no real accomplishments. Whites did this continent a favor otherwise itd be a third world shithole.

The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must, they should have considered it a blessing to have been defeated by such a noble and merciful enemy, you wouldn't expect such treatment from the Ottoman Empire

Um that's how shit went back then. Indians were savage tribes whod been killing each other forever. Brits came over and gave them smallpox and they died.

>Natives largely were barbaric savages
So you're opposing to mode of development, saying that the one striving for progress (which is an inherently destructive impulse (since the new must ceaselessly overtake the old) must prevail while the one based on allegedly primitive values (like the spirits of nature, a relative stagnation, and the preservation of a certain balance between what's taken/given) must abdicate. I could argue that the native's lifestyle (which is truly conservative) isn't the one driving use to a social/environmental/cultural disaster What would you argue against that. why isn't singing to the moon and sinking our attention into debilitating habits the right way to do ?

>that in reality cared little for their land
how could it be, considering the fact that they worship the wildlife in which they genuinely include themself

>butchered...
that's basically what the US did to them

>the strong > the weak
I must agree factually on this one. The strong has the capacity to do so. But what about morally ? Does he has the right to ?

Native Americans vary depending on the continent but they're almost entirely all backwards. The ones that live in cities are all degenerate, violent drunks and drug addicts.

The ones that live on reserves are all on welfare but they're not really lazy, they just don't contribute to society. Instead of actually getting jobs useful to the entire country they're content going out on skii-doos or quads, hunting shit and bringing food back to their reserve.

There were some "tribes", particularly in eastern USA (Iroquois Confederation), Eastern Canada (Algonquin), and the Arctic (Inuit) that were in the very early stages of building some semblance of civilization, in the sense that they were diplomatically uniting their tribes much like the first civilizations in the Old World and were way ahead of the technology curve compared to western American natives. If we'd have waited another 500 years before colonizing the Americas, there might have been "civilization" comparable to the really early middle-eastern civilizations of 6000 years ago.

Also natives like to pull the "EVUL WHITE MAN KILLED US ALL :(" card, but their population was already really fucking low by the time Europeans came to America. 85% of Natives had died to warfare or illness 5-10 years before Europeans discovered the continent, and it was the natives that started fighting the Europeans, not the other way around.

Dude stfu you fucking frenchie. Whats better for the white race?

I admire certain aspects of native culture, which are basically pagan cultural attributes, ableit perhaps more animistic. But its much better for us to be here than China

Why can't the Native Americans countries be free of white multiculturalism?

The bottom line OP, is a couple centuries after Europeans got here, we used this land to subjugate the entire planet by threat of force (uranium from Washington) and put boots on the fucking moon. This is a death planet, where the weak are consumed and the strong thrive. They didn't make the cut.

Don't forget, French settlers got scalped too. You know, that thing where they stick arrows into you until you fall down, then they walk over and cut your hair and scalp off and leave you to die? You're pretty clearly a bleeding heart dipshit, and I don't know what you're doing here of all places. You might end up under a muslim's knife though. I'm glad I'm an ocean away.

> they just don't contribute to society.
>Instead of getting jobs useful to the entire country
The settlers invasive behaviour (physically and culturally) shattered their singular approach of things. One could argue that these "jobs" and "society" weren't part of the set of value they were committed to. Why should they be held accountable for this inherent and rightful divergence. They didn't asked for immigrants to come *wink wink*

>lazy/drunk
there willpower has been broken by years of abuse, delusion, and systematic animosity

>tribes =!= civilization
could you define civilization ?

> "EVUL WHITE MAN KILLED US ALL"
those were intraterritorial conflicts. Also pointing out their initial number isn't really relevant, is it ?

Well it is debatable. How could a society based on a global growth ever be viable on the long term. Personal interests will always collide...

You honestly came to the wrong place frog. Notice how not one of these posters has given you a single source on anything other than their ass.

The situation is extremely complwx. Yes, the various North American Native communities are riddled with problems. But there is a lot of good too.

Imagine a group of people who experienced a literal apocalypse. No one else on this planet has this experience. Not a single group from any continent other than the Native Americans has experienced this much destruction.

On the issue of violence, not one inhabited continent on this earth hasn't had their share of savages. But they were not all like that. Many of them indulged in trade and had fairly sophisticated trading policies.

Doestrogen your assignment say which NA you had to talk about? Northern? Central? Southern? All of them?

Another thing to consider is that the natives had no rights to own jack shit and build actual progress through property and investment in their own land. I want you to try and imagine that.

And no, they didn't "dindu nuffin". They have their problems, but what they experienced was almost complete and utter extinction and no other group of people on this planet, not even fucking Abbos, has had that happen to them.

>doestrogen
God damn autocorrect whatever

>tribes =!= civilization
I'm saying that east-coast and arctic natives were in the extremely early stages of building civilization. East-Coast natives were uniting smaller tribes diplomatically and spreading around their one language and culture to these tribes, exectly just like how civilization began to form in Europe, the Middle-East, and Asia.
Natives in the Arctic (the inuit) had a different approach and systematically genocided every single group in the arctic for being "too primitive" by their standards, effectively meaning they could spread their one culture from eastern Siberia to western Greenland, and somehow still keep up contact with their widely spread out tribes via dogsled.

>multiculturalism
It would imply that "whites" are trying to make both cultures coexist, which seems pretty inaccurate. There is undoubtedly an attempt to wipe every natives demand, including the right to exist

>the weak are consumed and the strong thrive
Again, I can't deny this as a factual statement. but what about morally ?

> French settlers got scalped too
sure ! understand that I'm not embracing either one of the two main opinion on this particular subject, I'm just here discuss a critical matter (some may also argue with that, and I even encourage you to)

>morality

LOL

you're incredibly ignorant on such a complex issue.

Tribes reacted differently. Presidents reacted differently. Settlers reacted differently.

Some tribes worked with the Europeans, some fought them on sight without even talking. Some tried to pillage the Europeans and some were pillaged by the Europeans.

Some President's worked in the native's favor and some worked against the native's favor.

Some settlers had no issue with the natives, some killed the natives.

If you ever hear some bullshit statement claiming Europeans killed 80 million natives, just know it has no factual evidence.

The actual number is closer to 800,000 over the period of a couple centuries and a vast majority of the deaths due to disease.

Remember most of the tribes were NOMADS. They didn't own land. They would use the land and then move to another area.

Tribes that did own land could be attacked by another tribe and have their land stolen. The land didn't belong to a singular native tribe.

Morals are a social construct, when you need/want something and you have the means to seize that with minimal backlashing you will take the chance no matter the situation, thats why all these wars happened, if someone thinks he has an edge over the other they will attack, if they dont they will wait until they can attack.
Thats how the corporate world works, thats how our society works. Morals and common-sense only works to preserve some kind of unity between a group.

Well I knew the responses wouldn't always be constructive but I thought eventually some based user would throw some meaningful idea in there.
My assignment is basically "200-300 words about indigenous people" wherever they may be from. The able to tackle the subject from is also up to us. But since It's pretty hard to say something original about it, I decided to come check what yall Sup Forumstards were thinking about it.

>extremely early stages of building civilization
I see what you mean, but what makes you think that those community (how small and "primitive" they may be) weren't entitled to be called civilizations. What makes a civilization ?

I feel like you're some teacher talking down to me online in front of your class. You're terribly diplomatic and condescending and it makes me a little hostile, but I'll put that aside.

As far as the "moral" argument goes, there are no guarantees in this universe. A huge meteor or some crazy radiation shit from the sun could wipe us all out tomorrow, there are a million things that can kill us that we don't even know about. We need to get onto other planets as soon as possible. Period. Full stop. We know for a fact there have been multiple mass extinctions on this planet. Shit happens where almost everything dies, and it's been a different thing that happened each time. All our eggs are in one basket here. As the very first species this planet has grown that can make it off the planet, we have a "moral" duty to do that. Humans are only the torch that carries the flame of intelligence, casting the light of reason. This universe DESERVES to be seen, to be measured, to be understood. Humans are just not really that important, nor are their cultures or languages, save for creating an environment where technological breakthroughs that allow us to spread and see more are fostered.

What I'm saying is it's morally more wrong to hold back the smart kid than to let the slow one fail. Because we don't know how much time we have here.

>Again, I can't deny this as a factual statement. but what about morally ?
Morally both sides did awful things to each other over a long period of time. Neither side is particularly right or wrong at a high level. Specific instances of violence could be judged right or wrong one way or another, but keep in mind that the Europeans didn't wipe out the natives so much as diseases they had no control over did.

In absolute terms, I totally agree with you but since the course I'm making the article for is called 'modern dilemmas" I cant' just write "there's no universal truth" in each of them...

I am indeed, and I must say that your approach intrigues me in a good way. I was pretty much told the story from a "victim" point of view. I'll try to broach the problem with a more neutral angle

I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm French so my limited vocabulary doesn't allow me to achieve a total control over what I'm saying, again I'm sorry. Also that's an interesting argument, although one could state that the assimilation of the natives land wasn't necessary in order to achieve what you're so unanimously praising.

Here's the main thing. The tech gap was too large. Europeans would destroy the natives without even trying through disease and simply out competing them. The hierarchies, the technology involved, the methods those technologies were employed with. All of it just makes the Europeans a better organism as a whole than the various native american societies. The ones that did arguably the best early on where in the North East because they had settlements and actually teamed up and such, but a lot of it was too little, too late. Also, trying to frame this as an 'immigrant' problem and being cute is looking at it the wrong way. The Europeans were essentially an invading force, and power does what it will. They expanded to the limits of their capabilities because they could.

Something to think about with how Native Americans were. The iconic representation of them is the Great Plains Indian, riding on horseback and being nomadic and all romantic and shit. But, its worth recognizing, that wasn't some ancient lifestyle Europe ruined. That was a new lifestyle Europe created. Horses are an old world animal. That lifestyle existed for a few hundred years after Europeans arrived and most of the tribes, like the Apache, were basically just assholes. They'd use their horses, bows and whatever guns they had to push out all the other native groups while the Europeans were farther east.

What you always needs to remember is that anyone can write their history, there are no clear villains or heroes, only winners and losers, even someone who spend their life researching a single juridic case might still be wrong because absence of evidence.
If they can turn the Bastille invasion into a paragon for the freedom of the west, just imagine what they can do to prove their point that the natives were dindus.
Just for the sake of an objetive point of view, here in brazil, natives have a fuckton of priviledges, more than niggers.
Do you know what they do? Steal crops and invade farms that were bought legally, force people to pay to use roads outside their settlements and threaten anyone who goes into their territory if they dont come in a car that has the FUNAI letters written onto it.
Do you know what the amazonian tribes that have no connection to outside society do?
Kill themselves in a ever lasting war, some of these tribes are cannibal too).
Mind you that in Brazil there wasnt a massive native genocide ( i know this hoaxnativecide also didnt happen in the US but anyway here we dont have this friendly lore to worry about).

diseases brought by...

also I forgot to say: one needs land to move from one part to the other. The fact that the locality they're currently occupying is defined by its instability doesn't mean they don't own it, one could say

It's alright just remember that there really is no one take.

For example most of the Native tribes in the Appalachian mountains were relatively peaceful. Probably due to abundance of resources. These were the first tribes to actually interact with the Europeans. They taught us how to farm in such rugged soil.

When you get into the southwest / midwest you start to find the warrior tribes similar to the mayans. Probably due to scarcity of resources it created a much more hostile environment.

Then with the Europeans of course it's different as well. The Quakers, Puritans, and Pilgrims were almost entirely pacifists and settled in New England and the original colonies.

You did get some groups like the Scots-Irish who were more aggressive with the Natives when they settled in Appalachia. They wouldn't hesitate to kill Natives if they got fucked with.

The only two things (IMO) the American government ever did that could be considered wrong was the trail of tears, forcing the largely peaceful tribes on the east coast out to the hostile tribes of the midwest. As well as forcing Americanism and subduing them to reservation pockets.

Everything else that happened between the Settlers and the Natives is largely neutral.

>i know this hoaxnativecide also didnt happen in the US but anyway here we dont have this friendly lore to worry about
It did, it just was largely unintentional. Entire tribes got wiped off the map by smallpox before they ever even saw a European.

>diseases brought by...
Europeans. You're going to try and argue they understood germ theory in the 1500s and intentionally weaponized disease for conquest? The diseases could have just as easily gone the other way, and Syphillis did. It was a nasty bugger that killed god knows how many people before it literally devolved into the annoyance it is today. The original strain of that shit was fatal, relatively quickly and awfully fatal.

I think Earth should always be reserved for natural unaugmented humans, like a nature preserve, so it's a shame to lose any natural variation in them. Much worse is losing the other human species like neanderthals and floresians. In any case, humans tend to always fight each other over little misunderstandings like those caused by language barriers. When we get onto Mars, eventually Mars and Earth will have a war. That's just how we are.

The best option I see is intelligently designing ourselves to be better. Maybe engineering a common language, new communication channels. Obviously space-proof bodies would be on the list, and then something that deals with surviving long travel times and we're invincible. At that point, the Native Americans can have their continent back.

I meant as in an actual war "im gonna kill you filthy indian" type of shit, mr doubles.

They weren't exactly the peace loving people the liberals would have you believe. They were a group of tribes always warring with each other. taking each others land, slaughtering their own people.

Then a far better tribe comes in (whitey) with better weapons and technology and joins in, establishing one of the most significant countries of all time

thanks a bunch for your honest and globally mildly courteous responses guys. I think I've enough matter to work with

I see. So, to summarize the situation:
-the world is a cynical place where the arbitrary course of the humans actions is punctually but not substantially impacted by absolute moral values. The question therefore isn't if we "shall" but if we "can" do something. Also, in this very case, what we DID is to be understood globally, both European and indigenous people acted accordingly to their own local set of values.

-natives have committed atrocities too

-natives don't properly OWN their land

nice ! I actually haven't thought of that

das pretty sage

You're a basic bitch if you're seriously unaware smallpox was intentionally weaponized.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt

250 years before that battle? Against the entire continent? On purpose? The Europeans didn't even meet most of the tribes utterly devastated by small pox, and we have no way of even knowing the total casualties because of it. They've flung dead bodies into cities for centuries, but couldn't care less for the exact mechanic behind it. They didn't drop off on the new world and expect their mere presence to start a plague that would kill 80% of the native inhabitants.

OP here

Is everyone ok if I screen cap the entire conversation in order to include it in the article ?

This is a fucking anonymous shemale and cuckold fetish forum, son.

And syngaporean animations, obviously.

Are you an earthling? Take what you need to succeed.

Remember, disease killed 97% of the native population before whites ever showed up.

> t. Full-blooded Cherokee