Free Allegiance Forums

Cyre wrote:QUOTE (Cyre @ Jul 16 2011, 12:43 PM) human being live or die by their ability to adapt to their conquerors, it's the law of natural selection because I am apparently a fan of Social Darwinism, or otherwise I wouldn't try to apply that law here.

Fixed

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jul 16 2011, 05:11 AM) Where the hell do you guys get that "300 years ago" crap? First of all, that isn't such a long time when you talk about utterly destroying entire peoples and cultures. Secondly, you should know that the abuse continue way longer than that. The systematic destruction of the Buffalo Herds for instance kept on until 1895, until there was basically nothing left to destroy anymore. Check the dates for forced adoption and state schooling of native american children, and again you can eat crow about the "300 years ago" stuff.

Sorry about the number. I didn't spend much time on it, because it wasn't at all important for my argument. No matter what you use, I think it qualifies as "a long time ago", which means the rest of my argument, the difference between the 2 perspectives, remains relevant and intact..

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jul 16 2011, 05:11 AM) Don't make excuses for the @#(!ty things your countries have done. Don't try to squirm away from responsibilities to fix the damages of conquest and empire building.

I'm not making excuses or squirming away from responsibility, because I'm not American. That solves it pretty quickly doesn't it? I was merely posting what I thought was an interesting moral and logical dilemma, a dilemma you failed to see because you're too busy raging at the injustice to look at it from an emotionally (and I guess also somewhat morally detached) point of view.

My view is simply that Native Americans definitely deserve reparations (once again the Country/Race level), but the story Don presents raises interesting questions on it's fairness on an individual level. I'm simply exploring the moral strangeness of the situation.


EDIT: To clarify one last thing: I do not condone what was done to the Native Americans. In fact, I agree with most posters here that it was terrible, and that reparations are deserved. However, the "reparations are deserved" side of the story has been discussed to the death, so for the sake of discussion, I'm trying to post a bit of a different perspective (which I feel is mostly neutral, since I'm not actually taking a side, I'm just exploring the moral problems this situation presents).

sambasti wrote:QUOTE (sambasti @ Jul 16 2011, 01:26 PM) No matter what you use, I think it qualifies as "a long time ago"

Umm...

sambasti wrote:QUOTE (sambasti @ Jul 16 2011, 02:18 AM) When you look at it from the frame of a race/country (Country US gets land by killing race NA, US has wronged NA, US should pay reparations), it makes perfect sense, but when viewed from the frame of an individual persons life (someone 300 years ago committed murder, person must pay for the crimes by living as a second class citizen), the idea is seems like absolute bull@#(!. In that sense, Weylin and all the people telling him to STFU are right at the same time. It really depends which viewpoint you take.

So, the state as a whole should provide reparations -- but it should do so without inconveniencing any US individual, and presumably without providing any NA individual with actual benefits from said reparation?.. I think you're trying to separate individuals from states and societies a bit too much, almost as if a state or a society was some completely independent concept floating out there, an entity that could do things or have things done to it without affecting any actual individual human being...

girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Jul 16 2011, 01:00 PM) Umm...


So, the state as a whole should provide reparations -- but it should do so without inconveniencing any US individual, and presumably without providing any NA individual with actual benefits from said reparation?.. I think you're trying to separate individuals from states and societies a bit too much, almost as if a state or a society was some completely independent concept floating out there, an entity that could do things or have things done to it without affecting any actual individual human being...

I'm not stating what the state should and shouldn't do. There is no one solution to the problem. Rather, I'm exploring the ambiguity of morals in this situation, as what was done to the NA was a clear wrong, but the the treatment that Don got on the reservation was also a clear wrong (and that's exactly why there doesn't seem to be a clear solution to the problem).

Well, he was bullied badly by some Native American kids and the admins didn't do anything about it, and that's definitely very unfair. Otherwise the complaints mostly seem to be "they get free stuff that I don't get", which is, you know, kind of how reparations should probably work, so I see nothing wrong with it -- except that it doesn't seem to be helping most reservations enough, so perhaps those resources should be used more efficiently, but that doesn't mean a previously oppressed group getting some special benefits is automatically "morally wrong."

And I'm sorry, but I think "what was done to the NA was a clear wrong, but the the treatment that Don got on the reservation was also a clear wrong" is, uh, an odd statement, considering the, uh, somewhat different scales of the two wrongs.

P.S. If anyone tries the old trick of getting mad at me for not respecting their personal experiences enough or something, which is how arguments usually seem to go on this board, I'm gonna break out a rant about my opressed childhood in the evil Soviet Union.

Invade Canada! Attack!!

On that subject, Canada's record on Native rights is probably far, far worse than America's...

Yeah, to add another personal anecdote.

This one is about my mother, who is half white and half Native. (White father, native mother) My mom is also white skinned. She was taken from her mother shortly after her birth (around the age of two or three) and forced to live with her father (presumably) and a "fake" mother who has claimed to be the real mother for some time.

I have a whole set of relatives I know nothing about, a culture that intrigues me but I am forbidden to explore thoroughly (because I cannot prove I have a native lineage), and a mother who has stories of one of the most $#@!ed up childhoods I have ever heard (Think "Child called It").

She was born in 1965, so her forced removal from her mother was not necessarily "legal" but was actually commonplace and accepted for Native women who bore white children.

1965 was not a "long time ago". GBs link is pretty clear and accurate as well.

We have only just begun to pay back all of the wrong we have done to the Native American people. Hell, the U.S. Government Issued A Formal Apology in 2009 for $#@!s sake. The native people have only just begun the process of rebuilding their culture and their pride.

The government of Spain/portugal should issue a Formal Apology to Central and South America for the purpose of Rape, Pillage, Genocide, and Overall Douchebagginess. The Incan and Mayans have only just begun the process of rebuilding their culture and their pride (not to the Aztecs, those were just *asking* for it).

Let's Tone Down The Sensitivity Factor A Bit Amrite?

Shut the $#@! up before I Tomahawk your face into a bloody pulp which I will then use as lubricant to impregnate your wife/girlfriend.