| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
As this forum is full of Americans and Canadians, I would like to have an answer about this horrible phenomenon.
Last edited by Echetlaeus; 18-06-14 at 17:18.
Οι ηδονές είναι θνητές, οι αρετές αθάνατες.
Because they were near exterminated by the Anglos, same happened in Australia or New Zeland with the natives, it's the Anglo mentality of segregating. See the difference with the SPanish or French colonizations, the indigienous have been more respected, and not pushed or elminiated. Just look at the population of Latin America, most people have indian blood (mestizos).
The difference is that the Spanish and Portuguese enslaved those Native people they didn't massacre, instead of putting them on reservations. Native people, to this day, are often horribly abused by the white and mestizo people in some South American and Central American countries.Originally Posted by Wilhelm
When the British and their descendants in North America conquered and took the land of Native Americans (a process that has happened repeatedly throughout world history), they didn't think the Native people were ready to become part of their society, because of the racist assumptions that most of the British had. However, they didn't want to just kill off the few survivors, so Native people were herded onto reservations, with the idea they would be confined there until they evolved enough to become part of society. Of course, as the white population increased, they still didn't want to let Native people integrate, so the Natives stayed on the reservations, which was not the original intention - reservations were originally thought of as a temporary solution until Natives became "civilized" enough to become part of society. In the end, laws confining Native people to reservations were repealed and many Native people moved to cities. However, those who wished to preserve their language and culture chose to remain on the reservations, where they generally live in poverty but they want to stay among their people. Even those Natives who leave for the cities want to find the reservations still there for them when they return. The reservations were a mistake, but it's now the Native people who cling to the concept, as a means of preserving their identities. That's the story here in Canada, and I believe it's quite similar in the U.S.
Does Aberdeen's answer satisfies your "curiosity"?
Besides you using word camps was intentional to suggest similarities to "concentration camps". There are not camps, these are "reservation lands".
Now tell me why do you think the reservation lands are terrible tragedy. Reservation lands are owned by Natives with rights to build anything, explore natural resources and make money, give them rights to hunt with no restrictions, and living there you don't need to pay income taxes as citizen of Canada? They have very wide autonomy, and as a resident of reservation you will get 20,000 in government subsidies a year, in housing, roads, etc., and of course you can leave reservation any time you want without border security or customs. They are not locked in these reserves, they can travel and work anywhere in Canada, and anytime they want they can go back on reserve and enjoy these special privileges no other citizen of Canada can.
So again, why being a resident of reservation land is such a terrible thing in your eyes?
They are not locked in reservation camps, as your title suggest but instead try thinking of reservation as land reserved for Natives only.
Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.
It is a terrible tragedy because you don't want them around your feet, that's why, but instead you gave them land to guild the pill of taking their lands and killing their people by force. You have segregated them way too bad.
I changed the word "camps" with "lands" to better describe what I meant, but you, as always, want to make people to have negative feelings towards me.
Amerindians like most tribal people are fearlessly independent. The reservations in the US are a compromise to the American Indian Wars that raged until 1890. The US had a policy to eradicate Native Americans east of the Mississippi. Because of conflicts escalating in Oklahoma in 1851 the US passed The Indian Appropriation Act, which authorized the creation of semi-autonomous regions for native Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
Are you able to comprehend today what I wrote? They are free to live wherever they want! To make it simple for you, here is an example: If you own a house in New York, it doesn't mean that people in Los Angeles don't what you "at your feet"!
Well, it had to be by force because they didn't wanted to get killed voluntarily. Anything more intelligent you can write?that's why, but instead you gave them land to guild the pill of taking their lands and killing their people by force.
Yes to the point of creating super citizens of more privileges and rights than me or Aberdeen have, the ordinary citizens. I hope you got the picture now of modern meaning of being on reservation land.You have segregated them way to bad.
I cannot deal with LeBrok anymore. He seems to be a lost case of the Anglo-Saxon educational system.
Not sure how it was in Canada, but this doesn't apply to the history of the United States at all. There was a long period, roughly 100 years or so beginning in the middle of the 1800s and ending in the middle of the 1900s, in which integration was the goal. The Dawes Act is a famous example of the US using government tricks to attempt to assimilate the natives.
The thing is, although many American Indians took up the government offers to assimilate into white society, as it came with major economic benefits, many preferred to be on reservations in order to better preserve their culture. So the reservations, which were created just before the integration attempts, remained, and still do.
The Indians were a small population of mostly hunter-gatherers with a fragile ecosystem depending on animals such as buffalo for example. Now there is hardly any buffalo left on North-America because their skin became a valuable item in world markets. This gives a hint as to what happens to hunter-gatherer fragile ecosystems when they meet modern ones.
Another of your misconceptions. I never had Anglo-Saxon education.
Before you criticize someone else's education please work on yours. Your lack of knowledge about Indian "Camps" or WW2 (Germans attacked Russia in Winter), and on many other topics is in shambles. These days knowledge is at your fingertip, you fail or are too lazy to find it.
You said the same thing about my education before ("a lost case of the Greek educational system").
I reckon that my education is superior than yours, except if you have a PhD.
I never mentioned "Camps" the way you had in mind. Camp does not mean necessarily the Nazi style camps.
Of course I have read what these camps are, but I want the opinions of people leaving there, to see what their mentality about those things is like.
But "LeBrok" has to be that way. A person whose family [probably] has suffered from communism, and now in the New World tries to be a super liberal and supporter of globalization, hence the 'citizen of the world'.
So put your tongue in your mind prior to speaking. You always have the tendency to 'ruin' certain threads that you do not like. I advise you to be more tolerant to the other opinion. The dictatorship of the third kind ain't that good.
That's pretty much the "Black Legend", concocted by Spain's rivals, specially England. Spain was actually more benign towards indigenous peoples who accepted Spanish rule than the Anglo-Americans were towards the ones under their rule. Spain considered Indians who accepted Spanish rule free citizens of the empire and gave them rights even as early as 1542. Indians under Anglo-American rule were not even considered citizens of the country as late as the 19th century.
So you had to say it back, lol. How mature.
And yet you're to amaze us with your knowledge, never mind critical thinking or being creative.I reckon that my education is superior than yours, except if you have a PhD.
We know what your intentions are, like in every thread you start and from day one you showed up here. Warmongering efforts to use your warrior nature, so useless in time of peace.I never mentioned "Camps" the way you had in mind. Camp does not mean necessarily the Nazi style camps.Of course I have read what these camps are, but I want the opinions of people leaving there, to see what their mentality about those things is like.
I would be glad answering your questions if they were from pure curiosity.
Why don't you start a thread asking "Why Spartans where homosexuals, men and women, and did it lead to their demise?". After all their population shrunk from 10 thousand to 1 thousand before their disintegration. Don't you think it is an interesting subject? War and homosexuality together!
Are you criticizing or praising me, I'm not sure? lolBut "LeBrok" has to be that way. A person whose family [probably] has suffered from communism, and now in the New World tries to be a super liberal and supporter of globalization, hence the 'citizen of the world'.
What does that mean? Is this a Greek saying?So put your tongue in your mind prior to speaking.
I'm tolerant to tolerant people. Intolerant individuals don't deserve tolerance of others, otherwise they are abused by intolerance.You always have the tendency to 'ruin' certain threads that you do not like. I advise you to be more tolerant to the other opinion. The dictatorship of the third kind ain't that good.
^ Oh, what a scholar, what a beacon of light!
Your excellency, lord moderator of this forum:
I follow the third law of Newton.
I have no warrior nature when there is no need for it, but I shall 'fight' you via dialogue until the end. I am sure that we do not have anything in common or at least many things in common. Let me not exaggerate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am criticizing you. Liberals tend to be very annoying sometimes.
Yes it is a Greek saying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to the point.
First of all I don't get it, why do you talk about gays so much?
Homosexuality in Ancient Greece may have been the case (we do not know for sure, do you? And if yes, how?), but until a certain age. Recall, the same was true in the Roman Empire as well.
All Spartans had kids, for it was a duty to society (actually this was the case for the whole Greece). They had to follow the laws of Lycurgus. Someone would have been mocked by the society should he had continued these practices afterwards.
I suggest you 'lift' a little bit more and then talk again.
How do you know that I am intolerant? Don't you understand that this person is thyself. You are the one who mocks all others with different opinion than yours. You are the one who uses his absolute power in this forum.
Reminder: I am not historian, nor anthropologist, like most people here are. I just study history for fun.
This saying of yours ain't politically correct. Restate.
Actually this is another incorrect thing you said. Here is a simple definition:
I vindicated them to higher status, right? Be kind and try to explain in what way I offended our Natives? For your information formally our Canadian Natives call themselves "First Nation". This indicates a distinction above other peoples of Canada, and it is also mirrored in their rights and privileges.politically correct
adjective: agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people
Anything else I could help you with?
I heard that the buffalo was slaughtered by having buffalo herds panicked into running over cliffs with gunshots to reduce the population of natives.
I said only about peculiar Spartan situation not the whole Greece. Secondly, if you want to know more start the thread about this.
Lol, what a tricky question, how about this:How do you know that I am intolerant?
And we know all your threads radiating love and tolerance to all your neighbors.I am criticizing you. Liberals tend to be very annoying sometimes.
It comes handy to control intolerance and abuse.Don't you understand that this person is thyself. You are the one who mocks all others with different opinion than yours. You are the one who uses his absolute power in this forum.
Then listen more, talk less and avoid having strong opinions if you don't know much about a subject. How difficult is this?Reminder: I am not historian, nor anthropologist, like most people here are. I just study history for fun.
I am pretty sure Lebrok is a Canadian Polish immigrant, and so he has nothing to do with oppressive things Canadians have done in the past. Even if he has Canadian ancestors who massacred innocent people he doesn't deserve the blame.
The Swedish (Finns and Swedes) of New Sweden interacted the best with the natives;
http://explorepahistory.com/displayi...?imgId=1-2-53C
http://people.virginia.edu/~mgf2j/finns.html
Old settlers remenisced to Peter Kalm in 1747 that with "no other people to associate with than the native Indians" the settlers "soon began to differ in their actions and manners from the Europeans and old Swedes and began to resemble the Indians. At the arrival of the English," Kalm said, "the Swedes to a large extent were not much better than savages."
The Slash & Burn method of agriculture was even adopted by the natives; And the "Susquehanna" even allied themselves with the Swedish and declared a protectorate as the protectors of the Swedes.
This is a good point. It's less useful to play blame games about people's ancestors than it is to discuss things as they are, and it's even less useful to play blame games about the historical sins of a nationality. There's rarely continuity. For example, an ancestor of mine was a militia captain who enforced the Trail of Tears. Have his moral values been passed directly to me? Hardly. So blame may rest with him, but not me.
What's even more grating to me is bickering about which nationality treated the natives worse. People get defensive about things that they shouldn't even be blamed for to begin with. Was Spain or Britain worse? I don't know, what's worse, the higher levels of slavery and serfdom under the Spanish, or the higher levels of forced displacement under the British? Both are bad, and disease has both the Spanish and British beat anyway, in terms of how many suffered and died.
I'll restate it for him.
Unlike the Bronze Age Greeks, who probably murdered or enslaved the people that they conquered, the British created a reserve system where Natives could keep their language and culture, and provided some economic support, a practice that the Canadian government has continued. So, while most of us have the freedom to work or starve, Natives are guaranteed some degree of financial support by the government.
I think that's a fair summary of things. What was worst, the behaviour of the Spanish or the behaviour of the British? Answer - in both cases they behaved very badly, as conquerers have done, in various ways, ever since us hairless apes came down from the trees and started fighting over land.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote