BREAKING NEWS! Defense Ministry says, "Natives not ready for their own state"

WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) – A Defense Ministry spokesman today discounted the possibility that Natives will be allowed to form their own independent state, alluding to recent terrorism as evidence that Natives are not ready for self-rule.

The nation has been shocked recently by a series of “suicide scalpings,” whereby Native terrorists infiltrate settlements and scalp and knife settlers, including women and children, before being felled by the guns of the local militia.

However, due to the high death toll among terrorist perpetrators, recent Native attacks have seemed to indicate a gradual abandonment of the “suicide scalping” tactic in favor of making lightning-fast strikes with dozens of horsemen and simply burning the whole blamed settlement down.

The President reiterated yesterday that no peace is possible as long as Native Authority leader Sitting Bull remains in power, and has called for the election of new native leaders. “Every time a White man is killed,” continued the President, “it is Bull’s responsibility. The Native people need more moderate leadership.”

Hearing of this statement, an unidentified Native retorted, “We will choose our own leaders, not Big White Wanker.”

Bull has been under house arrest since surrendering to Federal troops, but is still suspected of supporting the Ghost Dancers, a hard-line militant organization.

Recently the option of “mass removal” has been gaining popularity among the White citizenry, particularly in frontier areas. A settler spokesman, speaking to a local assembly, fulminated in the following fashion: “Let’s ship them all to Canada! Let those soft-hearted limeys take care of 'em!”

The governments of Great Britain and Canada have strongly rejected all such proposals. Worldwide condemnation of the United States’ treatment of the Natives has largely fallen on deaf ears.

One seemingly intractable sticking point in this conflict has been the disposition of the 1836 refugees. Native spokesmen claim that international law as well as several Supreme Court decisions give them the right to return to their ancestral homes in Georgia and Tennessee, from which they were removed by the Jackson Administration.

According to Administration sources, this is no longer a viable solution. "We already have our own people living on those lands now, " said one source, "and they don’t want no danged Natives living near them. Sorry, but that’s a ‘fact on the ground.’

“Besides, all we did in 1836 was remove the Natives from one Native territory to another. Hey, sorry about the people who died on the way, but that’s progress and manifest destiny.”

The prospects also seem dim for the withdrawal of more recent settlements on Native lands in the West. Native spokesmen have accused these settlers of taking the best hunting grounds and killing all the buffalo, leading to economic hardship in Native communities.

Settler communities on the Western frontier constitute a powerful bloc of votes, and settler spokesmen have often justified their presence on the land in patriotic or even Biblical terms.

Natives dwelling outside the White frontier are not considered citizens of the United States or any other country, and hence cannot vote in United States elections.

So far the death toll in this conflict is up to 1,000 white deaths and an undetermined number of Native deaths. Native spokesmen, as well as notorious Native sympathizer Helen Hunt Jackson, claim the figure is many times the number for Whites, including both civilian and combat deaths.

Testifying before Congress last week, a United States Army spokesman downplayed the importance of Native non-combatant casualties, such as those at Sand Creek and the Washita River, calling them “tragic, but necessary.”

“Those cowardly Natives hide among their civilian population, and in close-quarters fighting it is very difficult to avoid harming women and children,” declared the spokesman. "Besides, you know as well as I do that those children would only grow up to be indoctrinated with hatred for Whites. It may be more merciful to nip that in the bud.

“For Christ’s sake, don’t you remember Little Big Horn? Don’t you remember Minnesota in '62? These people hate us and will always hate us. We cannot let up on them for even a second.”

The spokesman also strongly defended the practice of “collective punishment,” whereby the home villages of suspected terrorists are destroyed by the Army.

-60-

Where’s the debate? TCLouie, why don’t you and December get a room?

I see the parallel, of course. What I don’t see is the point.

The point is that if they’re parallel there is no point. If there was a point they would not be parallel or at least they would not be euclidian. If you get my drift.

There goes gobear, adding something significant to the debate once again.

OK, TCLouie, I’ve been looking in the cupboards and under various bits of furniture, but I can’t seem to locate your premise. Any chance you could help us out here?

I’m remembering an old saying . . . something about a pot and a kettle . . . .

Hmm, three other posters asking the same question, and I get singled out for a puerile comment. Lissener, if you stalk me, I’m going to get the mods on you. You’re lucky I didn’t after the namecalling in GD.

Knock it off now–you’ve been warned.

I think lissener was referring to your jab at the end. That was uncalled for.

Now THAT’s jus pwecious.

OK, lissener, let’s not try to escalate this here in this thread. Take it somewhere else.

As for the OP…it’s a nice little fake analogy. Of course, the natives didn’t start the three wars that led to the loss of their land. And much of their land wasn’t claimed by their “allies.” So yeah, it’s cute, but not relevant.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Lissener, if you have a problem with gobear, take it to the Pit. Gobear, you do the same. When you are in this forum, stay away from personal potshots.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

I think I goofed, putting this thread in here.

Mods, please move this thread to a forum where people have a sense of humor.

This thread’s still here? And still on the front page…hm, must be a boring day in GD.

Here’s an amusing comment by someone who saw my little satire on another message board:

“You’re right! It’s been some time since we’ve had any real trouble from those red devils. We should treat the Palestinians the same way.
Reservations and casinos and Israeli football teams named ‘the intifada’ or ‘the jihadis’. I’m glad we’re in agreement.”

:smiley:

OK…NOW I’m gonna get mean. NOW I’m gonna piss some people off, and bring a bucketful of flames down on my head.

And, hopefully, someone else will post.

snif It’s so wonewy in dis widdow thwead…

Oooooooooookey, where do I start? First off, the “point” and the “premise” of my little allegory, for those three people who wanted to know, is that there are significant parallels between American treatment of the Indians and Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. Duh. Let me count the ways:

  1. The Indians and the Palestinians progressively lost most of their living space to the gradual but inexorable encroachment of the colonizers. First the Indians were expelled from the East to Oklahoma, then they even lost Oklahoma, and eventually they were given some substandard land that the white man didn’t want – that is, until uranium and coal were discovered on the rez. The Palestinians have followed their own Trail of Tears, from mass expulsions in 1948 to gradual encirclement by settlements in the West Bank. How long before they’re rounded up and put into reservations on the rockiest, saltiest, least fertile land imaginable?

  2. Throughout its entire sorry history of broken treaties, the US has tried to pick compliant Indian “leaders” to put their names on a piece of paper thereby giving everything to the white people. Real leaders like Osceola wanted nothing to do with those fake treaties, and so there was war. Today, America and Israel both want to tell the Palestinians who their leaders should be. Didn’t work before, won’t work now.

  3. Hi, Guinastasia!!!

  4. Indians then, and Palestinians now, were/are considered “stateless.” No citizenship anywhere, and a very precarious existence.

  5. Not least of all is the similarity between how the Indians were seen then and how the Palestinians are seen now. Back then, even humane, intelligent people such as L. Frank Baum viewed the Indians as irredeemable savages who would never live in peace with their neighbors, and therefore must be crushed. Today, a lot of otherwise humane, intelligent people believe that the Palestinians will always hate Israelis and want to kill them, so forget about any peaceful settlement.

The “fear factor” is startlingly similar as well. The modern Israeli cannot relax for fear that the gentle, hardworking Arab man who rides that bus every day will suddenly explode (in every sense) in indiscriminate, homicidal violence. There are plenty of precedents in American history: the Western pioneer constantly worried about his Indian neighbor getting drunk and scalping every white within reach, and the slaveowner lived in fear of his smiling, docile servants suddenly rising up to butcher their masters.

This uncertainty, this equation of “trust equals death,” inevitably leads to calls to crack down ever harder on the subject population. The oppressors always feel as if they’re living on top of a volcano, and of course a smothered volcano erupts with even greater fury in the end.

And as for the quote…heh. Well, the first part assumes two things: that the Indians never started any wars, and that the Palestinians started the wars that led to their dispossession. Both wrong!

The Indians were not wimps; like other tribal peoples, they went to war when they felt they had to fight, or when they felt it would be to their advantage.

As for the Palestinians? Well, I don’t know which “three wars” you’re referring to, but the Palestinians did not “start” any of the wars Israel fought in its first quarter-century of existence. The 1948 war was started by the surrounding Arab states. The Suez War of 1956 was started by Israel, Britain and France. The 1967 war was started by Israel with a surprise attack. The 1973 war was started by the surrounding Arab states with their own surprise attack. None of them were started by the Palestinians.

Besides, it took a lot more than just three wars for the Indians to lose all their land.

I don’t know what you’re referring to with “allies,” but there is another parallel if you look at the disunity of the Arab world and the disunity of the Indian nations. Some have attributed the Indians’ ultimate defeat to their lack of unity; certainly they did not lack for courage and fighting skills. Only two massive confederations were attempted, Pontiac’s in 1763 and Tecumseh’s in 1811, both defeated quickly. The Lakota and Cheyenne had a kind of regional confederation in the 1870’s that helped them muster enough warriors to defeat Custer, but by then it was too little, too late.

So there’s nothing “fake” about my analogy. Of course no analogy is perfect, but the similarities here are very compelling. The only thing that’s not “relevant” here is the counter-argument I have heard so far.

Of course, you ignore that Israel is the Jewish homeland. Y’know, the land of Abraham, Moses, Jacob, David, Solomon and so on? The Palestinians are the invaders, coming in after the Muslim conquest of Palestine from the Byzantines. Not that they don’t have a right to be there, but so do the Jews because Israel was theirs, since the Canaanites aren’t around to contrest it. The white folks/Jews parallel doesn’t work.

Of course, you ignore that Israel is the Jewish homeland. Y’know, the land of Abraham, Moses, Jacob, David, Solomon and so on? The Palestinians are the invaders, coming in after the Muslim conquest of Palestine from the Byzantines. Not that they don’t have a right to be there, but so do the Jews because Israel was theirs, since the Canaanites aren’t around to contrest it. The white folks/Jews parallel doesn’t work.

Ridiculous. If you go back far enough, everyone’s land belonged to someone else.
By your logic, we should give Britain back to the Celts and give Denmark, Northern Germany and the Frisian Islands back to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes.

“But,” you say, “there are no longer any distinct populations of Angles, Saxons and Jutes. They’ve all been mixed with Celts, Vikings and Normans to form a common English heritage.”

Well, uh, yeah.

Just as the people known as “Jews” today are no longer genetically or culturally identical to the people who lived in Judea 2,000 years ago. Those people were dispersed and intermarried with the people of the lands where they settled.

If you don’t believe me, look at a Russian Jew and a Yemenite Jew. The physical and cultural differences are enormous. Because one is from Russia and the other is from Yemen, of course.

The only thing they have in common are some books and religious practices, as do Russian and Arab Christians and Russian and Arab Muslims. It’s even possible the Russian Jews, Christians and Muslims have more in common with each other than with their Yemeni co-religionists.

Hell, while we’re at it, let’s give all of Europe back to the Neanderthals. They certainly must have some genetic descendants who can assert that 30,000 year old claim.

Let’s also kick the Navajo and Hopi out of the Southwest and give their land back to the Anasazi. No Anasazi around? No problem, there must be plenty of people who can trace or fabricate a convincing family tree.

Come to think of it, Israel better watch out. Sooner or later somebody will claim to be descendants of the Canaanites, and claim old Canaan as their homeland.

In a world where 2,000 year old land claims are taken seriously, it’s virtually certain to happen.

:smiley:

I’m pretty sure gobear doesn’t have a problem with himself.

:smiley: