Just Wow!
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
They didn't have CNN and the internet back then, but the demand to expand (and take over native occupied lands) came from the Europeans who immigrated here. The government facilitated the demands that people were making to move westward. I know you know this, especially if you are part NA. Did the European-Americans know that the Natives were being given diseased infested goods to kill them off? Or that their food source was obliterated to starve them out? Probably not exactly, just like the Germans mostly didn't realize that Jews were being backed in ovens, but neither did they care so much about it either. Out of sight, out of mind.
2quills
Well-Known Member
I don't see how you can have one without the other. Hitler couldn't have started his campaign without some general acceptance at first by the Germans.. And our nations early government wouldn't have gone out of their way to start killing and herding Natives if colonists weren't living in fear of the natives and the raids they launched on the colonists and their desire to expand. I doubt that our European ancestors but up much of a fight about it.
So what are we really talking about here? If there is a need then there is always someone willing to step in and fill the demand for the people. Some more extreme than others.
So what are we really talking about here? If there is a need then there is always someone willing to step in and fill the demand for the people. Some more extreme than others.
darthtang aw
Active Member
I don't see how you can have one without the other. Hitler couldn't have started his campaign without some general acceptance at first by the Germans.. And our nations early government wouldn't have gone out of their way to start killing and herding Natives if colonists weren't living in fear of the natives and the raids they launched on the colonists and their desire to expand. I doubt that our European ancestors but up much of a fight about it.
So what are we really talking about here? If there is a need then there is always someone willing to step in and fill the demand for the people. Some more extreme than others.
Not exactly true. Hitlers first election attempt was a complete failure. Pretty much the same beliefs he campaigned on both times. The difference? The first time the people didnt want a scapegoat yet as things weren't that bad as during his second campaign.
Beth, i honestly believe the general population had no clue about what was going on with native americans. Similar to abu ghraib and what not before those news stories were broke. The population today is not much different than then in that regard. The population in general is content to let government do what it wants/needs to without much thought. Hence why only 50% even vote.
So what are we really talking about here? If there is a need then there is always someone willing to step in and fill the demand for the people. Some more extreme than others.
Not exactly true. Hitlers first election attempt was a complete failure. Pretty much the same beliefs he campaigned on both times. The difference? The first time the people didnt want a scapegoat yet as things weren't that bad as during his second campaign.
Beth, i honestly believe the general population had no clue about what was going on with native americans. Similar to abu ghraib and what not before those news stories were broke. The population today is not much different than then in that regard. The population in general is content to let government do what it wants/needs to without much thought. Hence why only 50% even vote.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396088/just-wow/40#post_3528824
Not exactly true. Hitlers first election attempt was a complete failure. Pretty much the same beliefs he campaigned on both times. The difference? The first time the people didnt want a scapegoat yet as things weren't that bad as during his second campaign.
It's semantics. At which point do we separate the government and our elected officials from the general populous?
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396088/just-wow/40#post_3528824
Not exactly true. Hitlers first election attempt was a complete failure. Pretty much the same beliefs he campaigned on both times. The difference? The first time the people didnt want a scapegoat yet as things weren't that bad as during his second campaign.
It's semantics. At which point do we separate the government and our elected officials from the general populous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396088/just-wow/40#post_3528824
Beth, i honestly believe the general population had no clue about what was going on with native Americans. Similar to abu ghraib and what not before those news stories were broke. The population today is not much different than then in that regard. The population in general is content to let government do what it wants/needs to without much thought. Hence why only 50% even vote.
Many things were done to destroy the Indian culture starting with removing children from their families, segregating them into schools and teaching them that everything about their culture and beliefs were evil. These Indian schools were put in to place and funded by mostly religious organizations, not by the government.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 forced all southeastern native peoples to move westward into designated "Indian Territories" for the expressed purpose of making room for settlers to move in. Many, many settlers took over farming lands, plantations, and industries previously owned by Native Americans who had already been westernized prior to the forced removal. Southern whites could not wait for the Indians to depart and lobbied extensively for such. The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress and was well known. And then again, following the Civil War, the territory that Indians were pushed on to where taken over again to build railroads and open more settlements for whites.
The situation described above basically occurred time and again and European-Americans demanded more and more lands, more and more resources. And yes the government and the army were the arms that accomplished it, but it was certainly known and condoned and desired by the majority of the populace. Natives were destroyed or pushed onto resource-less parcels of lands.
Don't think that all of this was not widely publicized in the press and in popular literature, because it was.
Like Germany, there were those who objected, but that was not in the majority. We probably didn't know all the nasty dirty details, but we knew enough to get the picture about what was going on. There has been little evidence of understand or sympathy for native peoples in the USA. Goodness, they are the poorest of the poor in our society even today. In free societies, government atrocities do not occur in a vacuum but with a nod of approval from the governed.
Harped enough now.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396088/just-wow/40#post_3528824
Beth, i honestly believe the general population had no clue about what was going on with native Americans. Similar to abu ghraib and what not before those news stories were broke. The population today is not much different than then in that regard. The population in general is content to let government do what it wants/needs to without much thought. Hence why only 50% even vote.
Many things were done to destroy the Indian culture starting with removing children from their families, segregating them into schools and teaching them that everything about their culture and beliefs were evil. These Indian schools were put in to place and funded by mostly religious organizations, not by the government.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 forced all southeastern native peoples to move westward into designated "Indian Territories" for the expressed purpose of making room for settlers to move in. Many, many settlers took over farming lands, plantations, and industries previously owned by Native Americans who had already been westernized prior to the forced removal. Southern whites could not wait for the Indians to depart and lobbied extensively for such. The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress and was well known. And then again, following the Civil War, the territory that Indians were pushed on to where taken over again to build railroads and open more settlements for whites.
The situation described above basically occurred time and again and European-Americans demanded more and more lands, more and more resources. And yes the government and the army were the arms that accomplished it, but it was certainly known and condoned and desired by the majority of the populace. Natives were destroyed or pushed onto resource-less parcels of lands.
Don't think that all of this was not widely publicized in the press and in popular literature, because it was.
Like Germany, there were those who objected, but that was not in the majority. We probably didn't know all the nasty dirty details, but we knew enough to get the picture about what was going on. There has been little evidence of understand or sympathy for native peoples in the USA. Goodness, they are the poorest of the poor in our society even today. In free societies, government atrocities do not occur in a vacuum but with a nod of approval from the governed.
Harped enough now.
2quills
Well-Known Member
So are we special because we're Americans?
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Manifest_destiny?qsrc=3044
In the United States in the 19th century, Manifest destiny was the widely held belief that American settlers were destined to expand across the continent. The belief has been described as follows:
Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny. 1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions; 2. America's mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America; 3. A divine destiny under God's direction to accomplish this wonderful task.[sup][1]
Historian Frederick Merk said this concept was born out of "A sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example [...] generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven".[sup][2][/sup] Historian Daniel Walker Howe wrote, "Nevertheless American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity."[3][/sup] That is, most Democrats strongly supported Manifest Destiny and most Whigs strongly opposed it.
Manifest destiny provided the rhetorical tone for the largest acquisition of U.S. territory. It was used by United States)">Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to divide half of Oregon with Great Britain. But Manifest destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, said Merk. It never became a national priority. By 1843 John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter, had changed his mind and repudiated Manifest Destiny because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas.
Historian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of manifest destiny:
[list type=decimal]
[*]
the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
[*]
the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the United States;
the destiny under God to do this work.[sup][20][/sup]
[/list type=decimal]
The origin of the first theme, later known as American Exceptionalism, was often traced to America's Puritan heritage, particularly John Winthrop's famous "City upon a Hill" sermon of 1630, in which he called for the establishment of a virtuous community that would be a shining example to the Old World. In his influential 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine echoed this notion, arguing that the American Revolution provided an opportunity to create a new, better society:
The second theme's origination is less precise. A popular expression America's mission was elaborated by President Abraham Lincoln's description, in his December 1, 1862 message to Congress. He described the United States "the last, best hope of Earth" The "mission" of the United States was elaborated on in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in which he interpreted the Civil War as a struggle to determine if any nation with democratic ideals could survive, has been called by historian Robert Johannsen "the most enduring statement of America's Manifest Destiny and mission".[sup][23]
The third theme can be viewed as a natural outgrowth of the belief that God had a direct influence in the foundation and further actions of the United States. Clinton Rossiter, a scholar, described this view as summing "that God, at the proper stage in the march of history, called forth certain hardy souls from the old and privilege-ridden nations...and that in bestowing His grace He also bestowed a peculiar responsibility". Americans presupposed that they were not only divinely elected to maintaining the North American continent but "spread abroad the fundamental principles stated in the Bill of Rights".[24][/sup] In many cases, this meant neighboring colonial holdings and countries were seen as obstacles not the destiny God had provided the United States.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Manifest_destiny?qsrc=3044
In the United States in the 19th century, Manifest destiny was the widely held belief that American settlers were destined to expand across the continent. The belief has been described as follows:
Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny. 1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions; 2. America's mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America; 3. A divine destiny under God's direction to accomplish this wonderful task.[sup][1]
Historian Frederick Merk said this concept was born out of "A sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example [...] generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven".[sup][2][/sup] Historian Daniel Walker Howe wrote, "Nevertheless American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity."[3][/sup] That is, most Democrats strongly supported Manifest Destiny and most Whigs strongly opposed it.
Manifest destiny provided the rhetorical tone for the largest acquisition of U.S. territory. It was used by United States)">Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to divide half of Oregon with Great Britain. But Manifest destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, said Merk. It never became a national priority. By 1843 John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter, had changed his mind and repudiated Manifest Destiny because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas.
Historian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of manifest destiny:
[list type=decimal]
[*]
the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
[*]
the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the United States;
the destiny under God to do this work.[sup][20][/sup]
[/list type=decimal]
The origin of the first theme, later known as American Exceptionalism, was often traced to America's Puritan heritage, particularly John Winthrop's famous "City upon a Hill" sermon of 1630, in which he called for the establishment of a virtuous community that would be a shining example to the Old World. In his influential 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine echoed this notion, arguing that the American Revolution provided an opportunity to create a new, better society:
Many Americans agreed with Paine, and came to believe that the United States' virtue was a result of its special experiment in freedom and democracy. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Monroe, wrote that "it is impossible not to look forward to distant times when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits, and cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent."[sup][21] To Americans in the decades that followed their proclaimed freedom for mankind, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, could only be described as the inauguration of "a new time scale" because the world would look back and define history as events that took place before, and after, the Declaration of Independence.[22][/sup] It followed that American owed to the world an obligation to expand and preserve these beliefs.
The second theme's origination is less precise. A popular expression America's mission was elaborated by President Abraham Lincoln's description, in his December 1, 1862 message to Congress. He described the United States "the last, best hope of Earth" The "mission" of the United States was elaborated on in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in which he interpreted the Civil War as a struggle to determine if any nation with democratic ideals could survive, has been called by historian Robert Johannsen "the most enduring statement of America's Manifest Destiny and mission".[sup][23]
The third theme can be viewed as a natural outgrowth of the belief that God had a direct influence in the foundation and further actions of the United States. Clinton Rossiter, a scholar, described this view as summing "that God, at the proper stage in the march of history, called forth certain hardy souls from the old and privilege-ridden nations...and that in bestowing His grace He also bestowed a peculiar responsibility". Americans presupposed that they were not only divinely elected to maintaining the North American continent but "spread abroad the fundamental principles stated in the Bill of Rights".[24][/sup] In many cases, this meant neighboring colonial holdings and countries were seen as obstacles not the destiny God had provided the United States.
reefraff
Active Member
Before you go donating a kidney to sooth your soul over the treatment of Indians consider how many of the tri8bes gained and maintained their land long before we stepped foot on the land. It's the same deal around the world. People been fighting for land as long as we've been around
2quills
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/396088/just-wow/40#post_3528845
Before you go donating a kidney to sooth your soul over the treatment of Indians consider how many of the tri8bes gained and maintained their land long before we stepped foot on the land. It's the same deal around the world. People been fighting for land as long as we've been around
Seems like we all agree on that. Or at least, I do. Warring over territory, resources, beliefs or ideals is in our blood as humans. Ironically, we are capable of peace. But historically it has been an ugly road to get there. Conflict, in nature is law.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/396088/just-wow/40#post_3528845
Before you go donating a kidney to sooth your soul over the treatment of Indians consider how many of the tri8bes gained and maintained their land long before we stepped foot on the land. It's the same deal around the world. People been fighting for land as long as we've been around
Seems like we all agree on that. Or at least, I do. Warring over territory, resources, beliefs or ideals is in our blood as humans. Ironically, we are capable of peace. But historically it has been an ugly road to get there. Conflict, in nature is law.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Many things were done to destroy the Indian culture starting with removing children from their families, segregating them into schools and teaching them that everything about their culture and beliefs were evil. These Indian schools were put in to place and funded by mostly religious organizations, not by the government.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 forced all southeastern native peoples to move westward into designated "Indian Territories" for the expressed purpose of making room for settlers to move in. Many, many settlers took over farming lands, plantations, and industries previously owned by Native Americans who had already been westernized prior to the forced removal. Southern whites could not wait for the Indians to depart and lobbied extensively for such. The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress and was well known. And then again, following the Civil War, the territory that Indians were pushed on to where taken over again to build railroads and open more settlements for whites.
The situation described above basically occurred time and again and European-Americans demanded more and more lands, more and more resources. And yes the government and the army were the arms that accomplished it, but it was certainly known and condoned and desired by the majority of the populace. Natives were destroyed or pushed onto resource-less parcels of lands.
Don't think that all of this was not widely publicized in the press and in popular literature, because it was.
Like Germany, there were those who objected, but that was not in the majority. We probably didn't know all the nasty dirty details, but we knew enough to get the picture about what was going on. There has been little evidence of understand or sympathy for native peoples in the USA. Goodness, they are the poorest of the poor in our society even today. In free societies, government atrocities do not occur in a vacuum but with a nod of approval from the governed.
Harped enough now.
Sure Jackson signed it. Sure he had congress pass it. But he also spoke about humane and compassionate treatment of native Americans and the preservation of their human rights in public.
See the difference yet?
President Monroe spoke the same things. Yet had the indians removed from the Ohio area onto reservations.
Unless the newspapers were reporting inhuman treatment of native americans. The average american assumed they were just trading land. A far cry from Hitlers rhetoric and blatant speeches that the Jewish race is subhuman animals.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 forced all southeastern native peoples to move westward into designated "Indian Territories" for the expressed purpose of making room for settlers to move in. Many, many settlers took over farming lands, plantations, and industries previously owned by Native Americans who had already been westernized prior to the forced removal. Southern whites could not wait for the Indians to depart and lobbied extensively for such. The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress and was well known. And then again, following the Civil War, the territory that Indians were pushed on to where taken over again to build railroads and open more settlements for whites.
The situation described above basically occurred time and again and European-Americans demanded more and more lands, more and more resources. And yes the government and the army were the arms that accomplished it, but it was certainly known and condoned and desired by the majority of the populace. Natives were destroyed or pushed onto resource-less parcels of lands.
Don't think that all of this was not widely publicized in the press and in popular literature, because it was.
Like Germany, there were those who objected, but that was not in the majority. We probably didn't know all the nasty dirty details, but we knew enough to get the picture about what was going on. There has been little evidence of understand or sympathy for native peoples in the USA. Goodness, they are the poorest of the poor in our society even today. In free societies, government atrocities do not occur in a vacuum but with a nod of approval from the governed.
Harped enough now.
Sure Jackson signed it. Sure he had congress pass it. But he also spoke about humane and compassionate treatment of native Americans and the preservation of their human rights in public.
See the difference yet?
President Monroe spoke the same things. Yet had the indians removed from the Ohio area onto reservations.
Unless the newspapers were reporting inhuman treatment of native americans. The average american assumed they were just trading land. A far cry from Hitlers rhetoric and blatant speeches that the Jewish race is subhuman animals.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396088/just-wow/40#post_3528848
Sure Jackson signed it. Sure he had congress pass it. But he also spoke about humane and compassionate treatment of native Americans and the preservation of their human rights in public.
See the difference yet?
A paradoxical president?
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396088/just-wow/40#post_3528848
Sure Jackson signed it. Sure he had congress pass it. But he also spoke about humane and compassionate treatment of native Americans and the preservation of their human rights in public.
See the difference yet?
A paradoxical president?
ironeagle2006
Active Member
In IL near where I used to live there is a State Park called Starved Rock. It is Called Starved Rock for a Very Good REASON. 200 Indians where Starved up there in a Siege by the Ottawa Tribe in a War between their Tribes. They had 2 Choices Starve or Throw themselves off the cliff into the River.