Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
It's been said here that the Indians didn't believe that anyone "owned" the land and I'm assuming that this would also mean that each person (Indian) would only take the portion of land that they needed to exist. Just as they didn't wantonly kill the buffalo, but killed only what they needed to keep them alive. What a purist way of thinking.
From the beginning of time with each new country and culture that Americans have "invaded" they have not only known what was best for these other cultures (who, in my opinion, had been doing just fine on their own, but in their arrogance these newcomers include God Almighty saying that "He" has ordained that their way is THE way. Forget those Indians who'd been living peacefully on this land (FORGET altogether whether they thought it belonged to them. Does that even matter?) If Americans had got to this country before the Indians, do you think there would have been a shred of a doubt in their greedy rapacious little minds who owned the land?
The entire concept that Indians and these newcomers could live happily side by side was never even considered by the colonists. The white man invoked God to justify his startlingly large appetite for more and more land, but never once saw the hypocrisy of slinging God's name into it. At this stage in man's development he still needed to feel that "God's on our team so whatever we do must be right! Forget how many tribes they shoved across the country to live where they've never lived before, don't know how to survive...this is not a problem because in the backs of those colonist minds, just as man has done for centuries and just as men continue to do to this very day if they can get away with it, this theory needs no justification. Power and greed are in their very cells and sinews.
It is frightening to me, very frightening, that there are those on this board who condone pushing the Indians hither and yon all over this country, treating them like dogs, and in essence saying that they were not equal to any white man, therefore whatever goals the Indians might have had, no matter how startlingly small his aims for his family might be, they were not of any value whatsoever because Indians didn't even believe anyone owned property. This then justifies taking every bit of it away from them.And as this country, the United States has expanded they have found every reason under God's green earth to justify their own selfish motives. I am not saying that this was done by any certain group of white men, it was done and still is by all power hungry group in this country. (Please stick to the US when addressing any issue with me because I am only here to discuss the WBTS , the general greed and lust for power and the consistent justification under one reason or another (advancing "God's plan" for taking lands away from others. It would indeed be a far better place if, as one Indian elder told someone here that man should only have what he can take care of, what he needs to eat, and in general provide for his family. (Note here I'm not deciding that some of us are more capable than others to decide what is best for the common good. Inteference, arrogance, and the ability to justify our own means has been inbred since we crawled out of the pond and after eons decided we might enjoy land living rather than sitting on a lily pad.)
There is something disturbing going on with these threads; at least from my point of view, and that of at least a few others. From reading pages and pages of point and counterpoint on this thread it's become clear to me that there are certain people here who are adamant that the handling of the Indians was of no real import and thus they relegate serious points brought up by other members to being worthy of derision, mockery, and thus reduces the thread to pettiness. How this is being allowed to happen by the moderators astounds me but I would certainly like to see the type of courtesy and respect among debaters that we once enjoyed on these threads. This thread and The Philosophy of Coercion seem to have struck a nerve and some members have felt it incumbent to try to reduce the importance of the topics by a complete lack of respect for the opinions of others. Remarks that are blatantly disrespectful or snide and personal attacks have no place on these boards, they diminishes us all and serve no purpose whatsoever. I, for one, would sincerely appreciate it if this stopped so that we could get back to some worthy discourse among members seriously interested in studying the history of the WBTS and some of the off-shoot topics that arise. We frankly have quite enough to deal with discussing these United States instead of attempting to instruct others with our purportedly more enlightened views of the world.
If I have offended anyone I am truly sorry. I merely wish to try to save this board from becoming something cheap and demeaning as I've seen happen to other boards .We are all adults here. I sincerely hope that we can raise this board back to a level of civility and a modicum of courtesy towards all.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
It's been said here that the Indians didn't believe that anyone "owned" the land and I'm assuming that this would also mean that each person (Indian) would only take the portion of land that they needed to exist. Just as they didn't wantonly kill the buffalo, but killed only what they needed to keep them alive. What a purist way of thinking.
"Samoset knew that land came from the Great Spirit, was as endless as the sky, and belonged to no man." [Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West, p. 3]
Quote:
Originally Posted by thea_447
From the beginning of time with each new country and culture that Americans have "invaded" they have not only known what was best for these other cultures (who, in my opinion, had been doing just fine on their own, but in their arrogance these newcomers include God Almighty saying that "He" has ordained that their way is THE way. Forget those Indians who'd been living peacefully on this land (FORGET altogether whether they thought it belonged to them. Does that even matter?) If Americans had got to this country before the Indians, do you think there would have been a shred of a doubt in their greedy rapacious little minds who owned the land?
Since Americans haven't been around "from the beginning of time," I have to find the above to be nothing but overwrought, hyperbolic gibberish. The fact remains that Indian culture didn't conceive of land ownership until taught by experience with the white man, while the white man's culture had the concept of land ownership well established prior to Europeans setting foot on the North American continent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thea_447
The entire concept that Indians and these newcomers could live happily side by side was never even considered by the colonists.
Sorry, but this is just more hyperbole. Plenty of colonists not only considered living happily side-by-side with Indians but even went to live with the Indians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thea_447
It is frightening to me, very frightening, that there are those on this board who condone pushing the Indians hither and yon all over this country, treating them like dogs, and in essence saying that they were not equal to any white man, therefore whatever goals the Indians might have had, no matter how startlingly small his aims for his family might be, they were not of any value whatsoever because Indians didn't even believe anyone owned property.
Nobody that I've seen has done anything to condone that. What I, for one, have done, is attempt to rationally explain as objectively as I could, what was going on in the thinking of whites during the period of Manifest Destiny, and to show that not every tear shed for the Indian is as deserved as we would like them all to be. That doesn't mean no shed tears are deserved.
What I find frightening, disturbing, and offensive is the gross mischaracterization of another's words combined with such utterly hyperbolic vitriole that it cannot in any way be mistaken for reasoned discussion.
Cash you have missed your calling. A guy as smart as you are sould be President or maybe a world ruler. I never relized how dumb the rest of us are. Nothing we say is right and is gibberish to you.
Martin
__________________ "I want to bury myself in a den of books. I want to saturate myself with the elements of which they are made and breathe their atmosphere until I am of it."
--Lew Wallace, 1885
It amazes me how some on this board are incapable of noting anything positive... Some insist on taking a utopian view of history and the Native Americans especially if it fits their particular agenda. Native Americans did not live in peace, they fought constantly among themselves including exterminating other Indians. The Lakota, Apache, Commanche etc were some of the finest fighting men in history... claiming they were nothing but poor innocent hunters and gatherers demeans their memory. I assure you that when it came time to fight the invading White man... they gave every bit as well as they got. It was a kind of warfare that we have a difficult time understanding, a no quarter given and none asked type of conflict.
There were quite a few white people who lived quite happily & peacefully among or beside various Native American cultures & tribes. Unfortunately there were those who hungered for more and who took it by force of arms. Right or moral? No. Different than anyone else in the world since te dawn of time and predating the US? No. THe Spanish did it in the 15th Century, The French, English, Dutch etc n after. Prior to the Europeans doing so there were the Moors, Mongols, Chinese etc. History is replete w/ examples of the "Benevolance of Manifest Destiny." Such actions are not US alone, as they often predate the existance of the US. Right or wrong there was precedence, prior acts. The English have the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Hindi etc. Spain the Basques. Turkey the Kurds. Europe in general has the gypsies. The Chinese the Tibetans etc. The US has the Native Americans. All treated equally badly. In short the US isn't alone w/ its shame for the treatment or subjugation of another culture. Which is why I have come to my own conclusion that Manifest Destiny isn't so much an American sin as a human one.
Some like to minimize the role of slavery, the subjugation of a race... they do so by jumping up and down and screaming about how vicious the North was to the Native American... Reality check, there were Native Americans in the South and they were treated every bit as badly as those in the Northern Plains. An American sin.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Seems to me I've said that same thing ad nauseum. The entire subjugation this is a human trait. We have little reason to be proud of our past, but we did what humans do and have done since the beginning or history. **it happens, and we've had our share of participation. So we can wring our hands and weep, but it is OVER. All the regrets and accusations mean nothing -- it was wrong, but it is OVER. Shall we stir the graves some more?
Some like to minimize the role of slavery, the subjugation of a race... they do so by jumping up and down and screaming about how vicious the North was to the Native American... Reality check, there were Native Americans in the South and they were treated every bit as badly as those in the Northern Plains. An American sin.
Please check where the eastern terminus of the Trail of Tears was, and what Andrew Jackson was talking about when he said "Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.
I don't think it has ever been the intention to argue that Manifest Destiny and the treatment meted out to the Native American constitute some unique horror in the annals of human depravity.
But a great deal of the emotional force behind the War for the Union revolved around the belief that a uniquely virtuous form of government was being threatened. One designed by God. What this thread has shown is that the U.S. was as prone to cynical self-interest and brutality as any other country. For all its many virtues and strengths it was but an imperfect and all too human creation.
And thus the argument that there was something uniquely sinful and wicked about wanting to leave this country in 1861 falls to pieces.
But a great deal of the emotional force behind the War for the Union revolved around the belief that a uniquely virtuous form of government was being threatened. One designed by God. What this thread has shown is that the U.S. was as prone to cynical self-interest and brutality as any other country. For all its many virtues and strengths it was but an imperfect and all too human creation.
Bill:
It would seem that intense pietism creates an uncanny ability to misinterpret any contraposition, and further produces it's own brand of hyprocricy.
Reverend Samuel Harris (Maine, 1861):
“It is the embodiment of our great American idea into our institutions which constitutes us as a nation. This is indeed the Saviour's teaching; loosely interpreted and applied, that a man is not a Jew because he is descended from Abraham, but only because, whatever his descent, he has the faith of Abraham. He who is not in sympathy with the American idea that breathes in our political institutions, is an alien unworthy to bear the name of American citizen. But... everyone who seeks the protection of our government, intelligently sympathizing with its idea and spirit, he is an American, a native 'to the manor born,' by a new political birth, and entitled in due form of law to become a citizen." ("A Reassessment of Millenialism in American Religious Thought," James H. Moorehead)
If you believe that God is directing you to 'expand or die,' and to do otherwise would be both a national and individualistic sin; that very same notion can be applied to God's apparent preference for the Union cause. After all, killing innocent people is not a crime if it achieves a greater good, and this same logic would therefore view the formation of the Confederacy as an unpardonable sin, and Southerners as intruders on their own particular soil.
In exalting the wonders of the Union and heaping layer after layer upon God's foundation, the dichotomy becomes quite startling. How do you justify the death of thousands of innocent people who died 'preserving' the Union, in order to prove that the Federal government, sanctioned by God, had 'saved' the people?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
