Interactive time-lapse map of the transfer of Native land between 1776 and 1887(slate.com)
slate.com
Interactive time-lapse map of the transfer of Native land between 1776 and 1887
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/06/17/interactive_map_loss_of_indian_land.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top
7 comments
Highly recommend the book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee which covers the last half of the 19th century time period and recounts the absolutely heartbreaking history of Native Americans going from having a reasonable amount of land, much of it useful, to having almost nothing after betrayal after betrayal by the US government. It’s unfortunate that this kind of treatment of indigenous peoples is so common around the world throughout history.
Most parts of the world have gone through similarly horrific waves of border expansion and contraction at the cost of human lives and cultures, going back to the beginning of civilization.
Take the borders of Europe, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI
I doubt the expansion of, say, the Roman Empire in what we now call Europe and Africa was any less violent than the expansion of the English-speaking world in what we now call North America.
Humankind's track record on this earth is full of atrocities.
Take the borders of Europe, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI
I doubt the expansion of, say, the Roman Empire in what we now call Europe and Africa was any less violent than the expansion of the English-speaking world in what we now call North America.
Humankind's track record on this earth is full of atrocities.
One big difference is Africa and Europe didn't have the one sided die-off from disease that North America did. Africa had sections that were quite dangerous for Europeans, and when Europeans had their plagues it was pretty universal.
If Africa had disease outbreaks like North America, then it would have probably gone the same way as North America, even more so really given the shorter distances.
If Africa had disease outbreaks like North America, then it would have probably gone the same way as North America, even more so really given the shorter distances.
While there was certainly a mass death from European diseases, it happened long before 1776. The unfortunate and shameful truth is that the United States violated agreements with the Native Americans and repeatedly failed to respect the various tribes' right to rule their territories (not to mention the war crimes and genocidal killing).
I am well aware of the treaty violations and other ongoing issues between the tribes and the US government since I have been on a reservation for large stretches over many years.
What I was saying that Europe didn’t have a mass death of one group but not another. In North America it was the natives who died off, but not the Europeans. Africa had no equivalent of what happened in North America so no colony was capable of having a sea to shining sea manifest destiny.
What I was saying that Europe didn’t have a mass death of one group but not another. In North America it was the natives who died off, but not the Europeans. Africa had no equivalent of what happened in North America so no colony was capable of having a sea to shining sea manifest destiny.
The mass death permanently crippled the native nations’ population, reducing their ability to meaningfully resist illegal immigration into their lands
No doubt. That is why it is so important to acknowledge and critique the past, to work towards the present and the future being less atrocity-filled.
Kind of sad to see all the rationalizations and what-aboutism going on here.
It is horrifying on a scale that most of us, fortunately, probably can't even appreciate.
How we continue to treat each other and our environment does not bode particularly well for humanity.
It is horrifying on a scale that most of us, fortunately, probably can't even appreciate.
How we continue to treat each other and our environment does not bode particularly well for humanity.
It's sad af, but it's human nature. Same shit why we can't trust our grandparents to handle their own money when they get older. Some slimey fuck out there is willing to put them in a poor grave to make a buck.
At this point I just hope the natives eventually make it into the modern world better. Pretty much all there is to do :/
At this point I just hope the natives eventually make it into the modern world better. Pretty much all there is to do :/
> It's sad af, but it's human nature.
Not it is not a nature, it is nurture.
One shouldn't use appellation to a nature in such a matters. Compare: rape is bad, but the sad thing it is in a male nature, isn't it? No, rape is bad and intolerable. It doesn't matter what male nature is, because male is perfectly capable to curb his impulses. If some is not, they should use some kind of medication.
It doesn't matter what the nature of human is, he is capable to be nice to natives, but he just do not want to, because profits are more desired.
Not it is not a nature, it is nurture.
One shouldn't use appellation to a nature in such a matters. Compare: rape is bad, but the sad thing it is in a male nature, isn't it? No, rape is bad and intolerable. It doesn't matter what male nature is, because male is perfectly capable to curb his impulses. If some is not, they should use some kind of medication.
It doesn't matter what the nature of human is, he is capable to be nice to natives, but he just do not want to, because profits are more desired.
You aren't even making a counter argument, you're just being emotional. Yeah sorry to tell you - not everyone's going to be nice. If that were the case we wouldn't have to make laws to protect citizens from one another. I'm not condoning anything. You just want to beat your chest and act holier. You're the problem.
No, I'm not being emotional. The question of nature vs nurture from a moral standpoint is a very interesting question which I thought trough length and breadth many times.
Therefore I see, that when people start to attribute psychological traits of people to a nature they do it mostly to justify genocide, segregation or something like. To attribute psychological trait to a nature is an emotional argument.
Therefore I see, that when people start to attribute psychological traits of people to a nature they do it mostly to justify genocide, segregation or something like. To attribute psychological trait to a nature is an emotional argument.
Did you just finish your psych 101 course? Harvard prisoner experiment and whatnot? Because that's what you sound like. You have no depth to your idea you're just stating it and that it's right and taking what you think is the moral high ground.
People are intrinsically competitive. If you think white people screwing natives was the first or only time this happened you should look into the history of the natives themselves. It's human nature - you can accept it or cover your ears, the choice is yours.
People are intrinsically competitive. If you think white people screwing natives was the first or only time this happened you should look into the history of the natives themselves. It's human nature - you can accept it or cover your ears, the choice is yours.
Ehhh, unfortunately I don't think it is that clear cut. Otherwise you're left arguing that gays either made a choice to be gay or were raised to be gay.
Don't think that's an apples-to-apples comparison.
Gays also have a choice. The difference is there is no reason for a society to force them to choose the one specific option. The choice belongs to gays, not to a society.
When society thought that gays is bad for a society, it was definitely an equivalent example then. Now society is wiser and do not think that gays are bad for a society. So the analogy breaks now.
When society thought that gays is bad for a society, it was definitely an equivalent example then. Now society is wiser and do not think that gays are bad for a society. So the analogy breaks now.
Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think you will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be attracted to men.
Assuming you're a straight male, are you able to look at a beautiful woman and not feel any feelings of attraction?
My point is that there are behaviors that definitely transcend "nurture". It's ridiculous to claim there aren't.
Assuming you're a straight male, are you able to look at a beautiful woman and not feel any feelings of attraction?
My point is that there are behaviors that definitely transcend "nurture". It's ridiculous to claim there aren't.
> Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think you will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be attracted to men.
It is not about to be attracted or not to be attracted. It is a choice between different kinds of behavior, not between different states of mind. It is bad to rob a bank. But it is neither bad nor good to be attracted by the money of the bank.
There is neither bad nor good to be sexually attracted by a woman, but it is bad to rape her in any case. I feel attraction to a women regularly, but I'm not raping them.
You know, there is an examples of sexual preferences that are forbidden. Pedophilia for example. But if pedophile keeps his preferences to himself, than it is ok, nothing wrong with it. We forbid pedophiles to follow their sexual desires, but we allow heterosexuals and homosexuals to follow theirs (while they respect legal constraints on an age of a partner). What the difference? Why we allow some people to follow their sexual preferences and forbid others to do so?
Lets clarify: it is bad to forbid human from following his sexual desires. Not just because he would be unhappy, it is bad for his psychological well-being, it might have harmful long term effects for his mind. As Freud taught there is 8 (or 9?) kinds of psychological defense and only one of them isn't necessary harmful to a person -- sublimation. Which one of those will choose the mind of pedophile?
But in some cases we forbid nevertheless despite of damages, why we think that it is ok?
It is all about harm to individuals and to a society inflicted by following a desires. Gays are harmless, they are not saints of course, but they are not worse than a heterosexual. There is no reason to harm gays by a ban to a homosexual relationships. Such a ban would inflict damage for some without benefiting others. But pedophile could do a lot of harm to children, so we accept harming pedophiles to protect our children. We accept harming robbers of banks to protect banks. We accept harming rapers to protect women. We do not accept harming heterosexuals, because they do nothing specifically bad. We do not accept harming gays, because they do nothing specifically bad.
It is not about to be attracted or not to be attracted. It is a choice between different kinds of behavior, not between different states of mind. It is bad to rob a bank. But it is neither bad nor good to be attracted by the money of the bank.
There is neither bad nor good to be sexually attracted by a woman, but it is bad to rape her in any case. I feel attraction to a women regularly, but I'm not raping them.
You know, there is an examples of sexual preferences that are forbidden. Pedophilia for example. But if pedophile keeps his preferences to himself, than it is ok, nothing wrong with it. We forbid pedophiles to follow their sexual desires, but we allow heterosexuals and homosexuals to follow theirs (while they respect legal constraints on an age of a partner). What the difference? Why we allow some people to follow their sexual preferences and forbid others to do so?
Lets clarify: it is bad to forbid human from following his sexual desires. Not just because he would be unhappy, it is bad for his psychological well-being, it might have harmful long term effects for his mind. As Freud taught there is 8 (or 9?) kinds of psychological defense and only one of them isn't necessary harmful to a person -- sublimation. Which one of those will choose the mind of pedophile?
But in some cases we forbid nevertheless despite of damages, why we think that it is ok?
It is all about harm to individuals and to a society inflicted by following a desires. Gays are harmless, they are not saints of course, but they are not worse than a heterosexual. There is no reason to harm gays by a ban to a homosexual relationships. Such a ban would inflict damage for some without benefiting others. But pedophile could do a lot of harm to children, so we accept harming pedophiles to protect our children. We accept harming robbers of banks to protect banks. We accept harming rapers to protect women. We do not accept harming heterosexuals, because they do nothing specifically bad. We do not accept harming gays, because they do nothing specifically bad.