My ancestors were not on the Mayflower but....

Africans too, of course.
But Australians would have to know the secret handshake.

Europeans cannot be considered native americans because there were other people living here with established civilizations when they arrived.

The original people of the americas were mostly of asian descent and immigrated across the Bering Strait, although others could have come across the ocean (see the Mexican Olmec civilization).

there is a very big difference

between coming to a land, where people already live and joining them by their rules and by peaceful arrangements

and between a genocide

And yet there are reasonable people who consider persons of European descent to be native americans if they were born here. You just said they "cannot be considered native americans." Strike one.



Olmec Civilization owned the entire Western Hemisphere,
you are saying? Ball one.



You just made that up. You do not know who was here first. If you are saying Asians were "the first people to arrive in large numbers of whom we have significant archeological evidence," that is to propose a criteron for the word "original," but not the only reasonable criterion. So you are really saying they are Asians, not native americans. How about the ones who came across the South Atlantic from North Arican regions, or the South Pacific, or, yes, Europe? There is information of such people being here before the later waves of people from Asia.



So, they can't be considered native american because you're saying they came from across the ocean.
Okay.

If your statement is to imply this is a good
summary of early human history in America,
then I will reply to that. If not, please advise.

Is it true that you were prevented from
studying this period in American history
by some personal emergency?

Your post is so simple a statement that if it
were true, it would be a big help. But it was made
simple by allowing untruth to creep in.
Several key facts are omitted and innuendo has replaced
them.

blah blah

I see you conceded the point.
You must be very passionate about
knowledge and justice and realized
you were being unjust and displaying
a lack of knowledge.

u like fancy talk, huh

[link to www.dickshovel.com]

My grandfather was runned over by the Mayflower.

It was a float in the Thanksgiving Day parade. He had a bad knee and couldn't move out of the way fast enough.

That was back in Saint Olaf.

-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------
There is a little considered aspect of the covert means through which the United States maintains its perpetual drive to exert control over the territory and resources of others. It concerns, however, matters internal rather than external to the geographical corpus of the U.S. itself. It seems appropriate to quote a man deeply involved in the struggle for African liberation, Kwame Toure' (formerly known as Stokley Carmichael). In a speech delivered at the Yellow Thunder demonstrations in Rapid City, South Dakota, on October 1, 1982, he said:

We are engaged in a struggle for the liberation of ourselves as people. In this, there can be neither success nor even meaning unless the struggle is directed toward the liberation of our land, for a people without land cannot be liberated. We must reclaim the land, and our struggle is for the land-first, foremost, and always. We are people of the land.


So in Africa, when you speak of "freeing the land," you are at the same time speaking about the liberation of the African people. Conversely, when you speak of liberating the people, you are necessarily calling for the freeing of the land.


But, in America, when we speak of liberation, what can it mean? We must ask ourselves, in America, who are the people of the land? And the answer is-and can only be-the first Americans, the Native Americans, the American Indian. In the United States of America, when you speak of liberation, or when you speak of freeing the land, you are automatically speaking of the American Indians, whether you realize it or not. Of this, there can be no doubt.


Those in power in the United States understand these principles very well. They know that even under their own laws aboriginal title precedes and preempts other claims, unless transfer of title to the land was is or agreed to by the original inhabitants. They know that the only such agreements to which they can make even a pretense are those deriving from some 371 treaties entered into by the U.S. with various Indian nations indigenous to North America.


Those in power in America know very well that, in consolidating its own national landbase, the United States has not only violated every single one of those treaties, but that it remains in a state of perpetual violation to this day. Thus, they know they have no legal title-whether legality be taken to imply U.S. law, international law, Indian law, natural law, or all of these combined-to much of what they now wish to view as the territoriality of the United States proper.


Finally, they are aware that to acquire even a semblance of legal title, title which stands a chance of passing the informed scrutiny of both the international community and much of its own citizenry, the U.S. must honor its internal treaty commitments, at the very least. Herein lies the dilemma: In order to do this, the U.S. would have to return much of its present geography to the various indigenous nations holding treaty-defined and reserved title to it (and sovereignty over it). The only alternative is to continue the violation of the most fundamental rights of Native Americans while pretending the issues do not exist. Of course, this is the option selected-both historically and currently-by U.S. policy-makers.

Native American
Genocide Still Haunts
United States

-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------


By Leah Trabich
Cold Spring Harbor High School
New York, USA

In the past, the main thrust of the Holocaust/Genocide Project's magazine, An End To Intolerance, has been the genocides that occurred in history and outside of the United States. Still, what we mustn't forget is that mass killing of Native Americans occurred in our own country. As a result, bigotry and racial discrimination still exist.

"In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" . . . and made the first contact with the "Indians." For Native Americans, the world after 1492 would never be the same. This date marked the beginning of the long road of persecution and genocide of Native Americans, our indigenous people. Genocide was an important cause of the decline for many tribes.

"By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand.



In 1493, when Columbus returned to the Hispaniola, he quickly implemented policies of slavery and mass extermination of the Taino population of the Caribbean. Within three years, five million were dead. Las Casas, the primary historian of the Columbian era, writes of many accounts of the horrors that the Spanish colonists inflicted upon the indigenous population: hanging them en mass, hacking their children into pieces to be used as dog feed, and other horrid cruelties. The works of Las Casas are often omitted from popular American history books and courses because Columbus is considered a hero by many, even today.

Mass killing did not cease, however, after Columbus departed. Expansion of the European colonies led to similar genocides. "Indian Removal" policy was put into action to clear the land for white settlers. Methods for the removal included slaughter of villages by the military and also biological warfare. High death rates resulted from forced marches to relocate the Indians.

The Removal Act of 1830 set into motion a series of events which led to the "Trail of Tears" in 1838, a forced march of the Cherokees, resulting in the destruction of most of the Cherokee population." The concentration of American Indians in small geographic areas, and the scattering of them from their homelands, caused increased death, primarily because of associated military actions, disease, starvation, extremely harsh conditions during the moves, and the resulting destruction of ways of life.

During American expansion into the western frontier, one primary effort to destroy the Indian way of life was the attempts of the U.S. government to make farmers and cattle ranchers of the Indians. In addition, one of the most substantial methods was the premeditated destructions of flora and fauna which the American Indians used for food and a variety of other purposes. We now also know that the Indians were intentionally exposed to smallpox by Europeans. The discovery of gold in California, early in 1848, prompted American migration and expansion into the west. The greed of Americans for money and land was rejuvenated with the Homestead Act of 1862. In California and Texas there was blatant genocide of Indians by non-Indians during certain historic periods. In California, the decrease from about a quarter of a million to less than 20,000 is primarily due to the cruelties and wholesale massacres perpetrated by the miners and early settlers. Indian education began with forts erected by Jesuits, in which indigenous youths were incarcerated, indoctrinated with non-indigenous Christian values, and forced into manual labor. These children were forcibly removed from their parents by soldiers and many times never saw their families until later in their adulthood. This was after their value systems and knowledge had been supplanted with colonial thinking. One of the foundations of the U.S. imperialist strategy was to replace traditional leadership of the various indigenous nations with indoctrinated "graduates" of white "schools," in order to expedite compliance with U.S. goals and expansion.

Probably one of the most ruinous acts to the Indians was the disappearance of the buffalo. For the Indians who lived on the Plains, life depended on the buffalo. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, there were an estimated forty million buffalo, but between 1830 and 1888 there was a rapid, systematic extermination culminating in the sudden slaughter of the only two remaining Plain herds. By around 1895, the formerly vast buffalo populations were practically extinct. The slaughter occurred because of the economic value of buffalo hides to Americans and because the animals were in the way of the rapidly westward expanding population. The end result was widescale starvation and the social and cultural disintegration of many Plains tribes.

Genocide entered international law for the first time in 1948; the international community took notice when Europeans (Jews, Poles, and other victims of Nazi Germany) faced cultural extinction. The "Holocaust" of World War II came to be the model of genocide. We, as the human race, must realize, however, that other genocides have occurred. Genocide against many particular groups is still widely happening today. The discrimination of the Native American population is only one example of this ruthless destruction.

Here in Central America, there are about 10 Indian Tribes, one of them is the Chirique Tribe. (Cherokee in USA)

In a letter (1763) to Colonel Bouquet, Lord Amherst wrote, "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them".


There is no evidence that Col. Bouquet took any action on Amherst's letter, but there is evidence that during an Indian siege at Fort Pitt Captain Ecuyer did.

"Out of our regard for them (two Indian chiefs) we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect (William Trent)."

NATIVE AMERICAN
GENOCIDE


TRAIL OF DEATH:after years of researching the Wicocomico Nation, it has led me to various other sources of study concerning the brutality that Native Americans suffered at the hands of the English and later the United States.These stories will not be found in our history books and if by some chance one is found in the history books, it will be written so that it would be difficult to realize it was the same story. Our children were brought up on the story of Pocohantas and how understanding the English were.

When stories of this nature are read, many people try to make excuses for the brutality that was imposed on the Native Americans. Many readers will mention the atrocities the Native Americans imposed on the English and citizens of the United States.KEEP IN MIND THIS LAND BELONGED TO THE NATIVE AMERICANS; they reacted just as any citizen would in defense of their land and family.

When Indians came in contact with the Europeans ( Spanish,French,English) it was a disaster for the Indians in the form of out right slaughter, or through diseases which the Indians were not immune to. I believe that is sufficient enough to make the Indians wary of the Europeans.

When the English arrived to settle Jamestown, Chief Powhatan fed and kept the English alive, however after a short time it was evident the intent of the English was to steal the land in any manner possible.

more at:
[link to www.wicocomico-indian-nation.com]

Native American Genocide

Raina Delema

History behind the News

Spring 2005



Introduction

When people think of genocide, there are many different examples that may run though their heads. For example, right now there is an intensely watched genocidal issue in Sudan. Another important genocide which occurred was during World War II when Adolph Hitler wanted to exterminate everyone who was of the Jewish faith. This example may be the most prominent in history, but it may not have been the earliest. Many think that issues of genocide only occur in foreign countries, but it may have in fact occurred here within the United States.

When Europeans first came to the Americas, they thought that they were discovering new land. Instead they were greeted with a land which was already inhabited by people with their own way of life. What happened after that is described by some as an American Holocaust. A lot of death and destruction came to Native American tribes when the European explorers and settlers landed.

more at
[link to www.lcsc.edu]

"The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world." David E. Stannard. 4
"This violent corruption needn't define us.... We can say, yes, this happened, and we are ashamed. We repudiate the greed. We recognize and condemn the evil. And we see how the harm has been perpetuated. But, five hundred years later, we intend to mean something else in the world." Barry Lopez. 3
"By then [1891] the native population had been reduced to 2.5% of its original numbers and 97.5% of the aboriginal land base had been expropriated....Hundreds upon hundreds of native tribes with unique languages, learning, customs, and cultures had simply been erased from the face of the earth, most often without even the pretense of justice or law." Peter Montague

more at:
[link to www.religioustolerance.org]

two more sites about the american holocaust:

[link to www.worldfreeinternet.net]

[link to www.unitednativeamerica.com]


lack of info, huh

The topic commands our respect.
The tragedy of these lost loved ones
can never be explained, nor justified nor
be unwept for. We all have these situations
in our past. It is only recently that
such wars were followed by honest writers
who reported the merits of both sides with
such completeness.

History, until recently, was almost all
"pre-anthropology." We are learning to
respect one another. American Indians
might be right to be wary of Europeans
to this day...and they were wary of
other Indian tribes before the Europeans came.
There were ferocious wars between American
tribes in the pre-Europe times.

What I ask is
that the record be NOT FURTHER DISTORTED.
Let us find the truth, not decide what we
want the truth to be in our anger and then
demand that everyone agree.

The quote from David Stannard says the
experience of the American Indians
was the greatest genocide ever.
Such an important claim -- why not
print out the evidence of that?

We have to go look for it at the links?

What about the
Europeans slaughtered by Julius Caesar's
army.
Are you familiar with this period in
history?
How about the Mongolian invasions?
The Chinese civil war?
The Nazi invasion of Eastern Europe?
The Ukraine famine in the early 20th Century?

_______
A quote from a website cited in this thread:

"Many readers will mention the atrocities the Native Americans imposed on the English and citizens of the United States.KEEP IN MIND THIS LAND BELONGED TO THE NATIVE AMERICANS; they reacted just as any citizen would in defense of their land and family."
______

Turf wars, back then decided who owned ground.
Ownership of land, with surveys etc., annoys
whoever does not own the land. How did a big part of France become Catholic? The Pope sent armies to conquer
the French of those people and replaced them with Catholics.
Now, it is difficult to find a sympathetic description of
those "Cathars" who had lived there, because the Church
wants to paint them as horrible so their genocide will
not seem so big a crime.
In America, we can read about the plight and history
of American Indians freely in any corner bookstore.
Surely this is a reason for hope. It is a new era.
Genocides, wars for land and dominance, were the norm
in the world of yesteryear. Almost all of us have had ancestors genocided.
I hope We will see a different future and work together.

By Leah Trabich
Cold Spring Harbor High School
New York, USA


"By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million.

That is not a conservative esimate at all.
Oh, wait....a lot of conservatives are liars.
So, maybe.

No. Native is not a good word. We should use the technical term.

I was born in Texas. I am a native Texan. But my ancestors arrived here from England and Ireland, so I am not an indegenous American.

And no, I didn't make that up. I happened to take North American archeology in college. Which totally dealt with early americans. Some thoughts in the field have changed, but the basic premise is that the first immigration to the americas occured when people immigrated from siberia via the bering strait to the northwest passage, moved down to the southwest us, then to the rest of the continents.

There are outliers, though, such as the olmecs of mexico and perhaps the incans of peru.

T

gaius julius' army killed about a million gauls. by far not 97 %

the huns were not commiting genocides, they were after roman treasures

the vatican derived from the roman empire and it supported the american genocide with its condensed experience in
- violent christianization, crusades and inquisition

but the point is not to show other atrocities

and no, we are not "all equally genocized"

euro-americans should respect the native americans

only the natives should have the right to make political decissions

that s why ur country is so fucked.

u r ignoring the truth

"oh, it s horrible but it s so far away"

blah blah

it is here

You verge on being a demagogue -- appealing to emotion,
not reason or fact.

Julius Caesar's army KILLED them.

Please cite the European military campaigns in
North America which killed a million American Indians.
Oh...right...You can't.

When Europe's plagues killed tens of millions,
did they blame Asia or Africa? Because
those would be the most likely source of a
germ to which the Europeans were not immune.
It's here, all right -- the opportunity to
build the future together or keep
wandering around in liar_land with a grudge.

You say only natives have the right to make decisions. Who's a native? My family arrived in the american colonies in the 17th century. Through the years it spread west and sometimes intermarried with the native population. My grandmother grew up in indian territory alongide the cherokee and choctaw.

I also have a large part of my family the lived in the south. There's a large possibility that I have african blood running through my veins.

I have family by marriage that descends from spain and the indigenous peoples of mexico.

It's very difficult to narrow down "nativeness" in the us.

I attended some public lectures by this guy,
Jim Chatters. There are new finds in archeology
since your textbooks were written.


[link to www.ashbrook.org]

Russell Means, first national director of the American Indian Movement,
said,"Everyone who is born in America is a native American."
[link to www.imdb.com]

And
[link to scicom.ucsc.edu]
is interesting. As long ago as 20,000 years ago, our ancestors from 8,000 miles away across the water are seen travelling along shorelines until they reach North America. Elsewhere (Science New some years back) I have seen Johanna Nichols quoted saying the same voyagers
helped settle Scandinavia 11,000 years ago.

"Science News, some years back," was the reference
that Johnanna Nichols said people from the South Pacific
reached Scandinavia 11,000 years ago.

fuck you

u r the demagouge, sweettalk

the gauls killed were mainly warriors

and the romans didnt settle in large numbers in gaul. gauls still hold their land, it is now called france

the european military campaign is now the usa campaign and it killed 97 % of all natives already some time ago

live by the rules of the natives or get back to ur ancestors' land.
any ancestor

adoption was the legal procedure of becoming a native by the indigenous americans

as they were quite generous with the custom, i m pretty sure, your family would be by long considered a native even by the indigenous

Some of this is a re-statement and some is
a continuation.
There were ferocious wars between American
tribes in the pre-Europe times.

The quote from David Stannard says the
experience of the American Indians
was the greatest genocide ever.

This is apparently based on deaths by disease
-- germs -- and not diseases given
deliberately either.

Do we compare this to the plagues in Europe
which apparently came from Africa or Asia?
Please, be clear on this.

The population numbers are sometimes
estimated very high...in the very earliest
days-- even before the first European-American
fur trappers.
But while there were counts of Europeans
available that long ago, it seems no census record
was found north of the Rio Grande.

What about the
Europeans slaughtered by Julius Caesar's
army.
Are you familiar with this period in
history?
How about the Mongolian invasions?
The Chinese civil war?
The Nazi invasion of Eastern Europe?
The Ukraine famine in the early 20th Century?

_______
Now, it is difficult to find a sympathetic description of
those "Cathars" who had lived in France, because the Church
wants to paint them as horrible so their genocide will
not seem so big a crime.
In America, we can read about the plight and history
of American Indians freely in any corner bookstore.
Surely this is a reason for hope.

people have always moved and mixed.

in europe we r mixed of africans asians ancient europeans and probably also americans

the gulf stream would take any boat from american coast to the european coast. who can assure this never happened?

the point is that it makes a BIG difference between coming to a land and adapting to the natives

and between killing the inhabotants and claiming history is responsible, because it is bloody anyway

some history is more bloody than other

repent