Um, no they haven’t killed a damn thing yet. Not for lack of trying, I imagine. But still, whale fatalities = 0.
[/QUOTE]
And my point is that the execrable conditions of reservations today (high suicide rate, high alcoholism rate, low per capita income, low literacy rate) are a direct result of the injustices practiced upon those ancestors.
The playing field ain’t level.
**
[/QUOTE]
Of course Native Americans aren't going to escape any of those problems. They live on reservations isolated from the rest of society. If they want to be successful they'll have to be integrated into the general population. Of course that probably means losing a lot of their cultural identity.
Marc
[QUOTE]
**
When the Spanish were making their way through South America up into Mexico they found tribes that were dying of European diseases before one European made it there. European diseases spread faster then the Europeans themselves. I bet more were killed by disease then by the direct actions of Europeans.
Marc
I think we’re doing more damage with our ‘generosity’ than we could by just leaving them alone. We give them houses, the indians ruin them, we fix them, etc. We give them food stamps, we give them money, we give them everything but a reason to succeed. We need to get them into the real world. We need to make them citizens of the US, no more, no less. Equality means just that: Equal. Not ‘Those who can claim vicitm status get free food off of the taxpayer’s dollar.’ BTW, I have relatives that live on reservations. They see how badly the indians treat themselves and the things tax dollars buy them. So I’m not talking out of nothing, although you’ll accuse me of that anyway.
Look, folks, I do not owe the Amerinds, OR the Blacks a nickle. My Ancestors never shot 1 Amerind, never kept 1 slave, never violated any native treaties, never treated anyone as a subhuman because they were of a different Race. (There are, perhaps, some ancestors of the Serfs my Ancestors kept back in Ruthenia that might make a claim for mistratment & back pay, but…) And there is, perhaps, 6 Amerinds left who were PERSONALLY harmed by American policies from the 19th Century. Let’s give them each a nice house. There are NO ex-slaves left.
My ancestors were treated quite shoddily by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, who freed their serfs, stole their ancestral land, dertroyed their manor, and forced them to emigrate. As far as we know, some of those who remained died in Nazi slave Labor camps. Does anyone owe ME anything? How do I sue the Nazis or the Empire? To those who feel they are owed something by someone who is long dead,and who did something nasty to their ancestors, I say: Get in Line, and get a LIFE.
OH, and CERVAISE, yes, probably those who own land along Seattles Coast are probably living on land stolen a century ago. So are those in Los Angeles, so are those in New York, London, Paris, Peking, & & &… There is probably very little land ANYWHERE that had not been taken from someboby else by force, and in some cases, hundreds of times. Get over it. Unless, of course, you can show me someone who personally stole that land from the Amerinds around Seattle.
What part of “enduring institutional inequities” ne comprenez-vous pas? We’re not (at least I’m not) talking about reparations given to atone for the sins of the past, but about considerations made to better the conditions of the present.
Then WE don’t OWE them anything. I agree it is our RESPONSIBILITY to help those who need it, but we “owe” them nothing.
Okay, fair enough; I take the distinction. It’s just that when those who “need it” are all of a single class–gender, ethnicity, or even income–people start crying favoritism and advantage, without acknowledging the disadvantages that already exist.
Little anecdote: My girlfriend’s Mexican. When she was a senior in high school, she went to a leadership conference in New Hampshire with other kids from all around the country. The first day they participated in an exercise in which they all stood next to each other. A five dollar bill was placed about twenty feet in front of them. Then, the teacher asked them questions about their education, and the kids would take steps forward depending on their answer. For example, if they’d gone to a private school, they’d take one step forward. If they’d had a prep course for the SAT, one step forward. If their school offered three or more A.P. classes, one step forward, and so on. When the teacher was done asking questions, she asked them to look around. The students who were closest to the five dollar bill were almost all white, and the students who were furthest away were almost all minorities. The teacher then said, “Okay, you’ve all got an equal opportunity to get this five dollar bill. Everyone run towards it, and see who gets there first.” Pretty illustrative, I feel.
The idea that indians can keep their ancestral way of life AND enjoy the comforts of a developed society is ludicrous. It is contradictory. You wanna live like the white man? Ok, then you gotta live like the white man. Forget about hunting whales and go get a degree in computer science.
Nobody owes anybody anything, much less on account your ancestors land may have been stolen.
Human decency says we try to help those in need but not because they are Indian or Black. The law should not discriminate on the basis of race. You fulfill the requirements you get the help. Period. Granting privileges on the basis of race is not going to make things better and it is making them worse. On top of that it should go against the ethics of decent people.
The whole thing of the American revolution was: we don’t care who your parents were, everybody has same opportunity, same rights, same obligations. It is amazing how this principle is being screwed by the “some more equal than others” principle.
First of all, tell that to the slaves back then. Or the women.
Second of all, we all don’t have the same opportunity today. I was under the impression that my posts were making this clear. If you are a member of a class of people whose prospects as a class of people have been stunted by what amount to institutional caste systems (mandatory minimums are a perfect example), then why can’t steps be taken to recognize this fact?
Like I said, there is a discrete historical causality which has led to the poor quality of life “enjoyed” by Native Americans or urban blacks. If nothing is done to alter the outcome of that causality, blacks and Native Americans as a people will continue to be constrained by circumstance.
Give me a break. The fact that ethnicity and income are so unfortunately correlative in this country can only be due to three things: the innate superiority of one ethnicity over another (which is absurd), coincidence (which is counterintuitive), or enduring structural conditions. How is attempting to deal with those structural conditions asserting the “super-equality” of one group over another? It’s merely an attempt to equalize opportunity. You know, opportunity…the concept on which you say this country was founded?
.
First of all, you are making the assumption that there is indeed such a caste system. But that aside, tell me of one single university that bans NA’s. Tell me of one single company that will not hire an NA.
You can’t because none exist. Opportunity is not equal. If I am stupid, I do not have the same opportunity as a smart person. If I choose to live on a mountain in Alaska, I can’t be a famous chef. If I am 4’8" I can’t be a pro basketball player or a supermodel.
How would you propose that we make things fari for the Native American’s?
grin I dunno, how do we make things “fari” for the Native Americans? Is that some sort of textile?
Seriously, though…I answered that question already. Investment in infrastructure. Commitment to education. Bettering the lives of every American, regardless of ethnicity or gender. Unfortunately, some Americans–as a class-are already starting in the hole. Congenital shortness is one thing; structural poverty, on the other hand, is quite another. Structural poverty, theoretically, you can do something about. Do you argue that past events have not led us to a point where inner cities are overwhelmingly black, poor, and drug-ridden, and where Native Americans living on reservations have a poor quality of life? Why are arrest and incarceration so endemic within the young black male population? Is it because black people are more predisposed to crime and drugs than whites? I’d argue no; what would you say?
As far as an institutional caste system goes, I’m gonna talk about the situation of black people, since it’s the one with which I’m most familiar. African-Americans make up 12 percent of the population, but 45 percent of the prisoners in American jails. Black men and women are 6.8 times more likely than whites to become murder victims, yet only 65 percent as likely to own their own homes. 45 percent of black children now grow up in a household where the total income is less than the official poverty level, as compared to 16 percent of white children. The disparity between the unemployment rates of blacks and whites is nearly 300 percent, and growing. (Tunneen Chisolm, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, January 1999; Andrew Hacker, Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal, 1992)
Clearly, blacks have it worse off than whites, as a group. What do you suggest explains this, if not institutionalized inequity? The only other explanations, as I said, are that black people are somehow inferior to white people, or that the ethnic statistical divide is meaningless and coincidental.
You know, a stranger with no knowledge of American history and no context in which to place today’s society could almost be forgiven for blaming the African-Americans for these numbers. Are the citizens?, the stranger might ask. yes. Do they have the vote? Yes. Are they restricted from owning land, bringing suit, holding a job, entering college? Not technically, no. Are they discriminated against? It depends on who you talk to. (Dinesh D’Souza doesn’t think so.) Well, then, the stranger would conclude, it must be their fault. They must not be good enough.
What’s frightening is the number of people who seem actually to believe this. There’s a strong temptation to assume that since the Civil War ended slavery and the civil rights movements gave African-Americans all the rights of a free citizen and a voter, any subsequent lack of progress by black people–especially the urban poor–must be attributed not to failings of the system but to failings of the individual…or, since the disparities are so pronounced, to failings of the race. Believing the alternative–that the social structure which exists today has distinct and enduring historical roots which require active effort to change, not rhetoric about equality of opportunity–yields disturbing conclusions about the nature of American society.
But back to caste. (Stop me any time you need clarification, Zambezi.) The term’s most commonly used to describe the rigorously stratified culture of India, but it has broader sociological meanings. E. R. Leach defines sociological caste as “almost any class structure of exceptional rigidity,” and W. Lloyd Warner goes on to say that caste is
While America’s race and caste structure may not be explicitly atomized in the way of India, the barriers faced by groups such as urban blacks–and Native Americans–are sufficiently unyielding as to be indicative of a caste. Gunnar Myrdal, in his seminal 1944 book on race relations in America–An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy–devotes over seventy pages specifically to the idea of American society as a caste system. I’d say there hasn’t been much progress in the intervening half-century.
Any other questions?
>> class of people
i dislike the sound of that… It was the justification for the class division in the feudal system: “my ancestor did a great deed and was made a noble for that so I should benefit for that sole reason”
today it would be “my ancestor suffered and for that I should benefit with preference to others who may need it more than me”
I prefer a society without classes where each individual is judged individually on his merits. But that’s just me. I was under the impression that was the foundation of the good old US of A but I guess I was mistaken.
I cannot see why a black or indian kid of middle class should get preference over a poor white kid. I really cannot comprehend how it can be defended. maybe I am just not bright enough. sorry.
And, again, it’s just my opinion.
I would love it if everyone was judged individually on his or her own merits. Too many damn legacy babies getting into coughthe presidencycough Ivy League schools. Unfortunately–and I don’t know how much more explicitly I can state this–some people start off at a disadvantage. In and of itself, that’s fine–it’s the way life works. But when the overwhelming majority of a particular ethnicity start off at a statistical disadvantage to the overwhelming majority of another ethnicity, that’s when we have to start examining the structure of things.
When I used the phrase “class of people”, by the way, I wasn’t labeling people or “justifying class divisions” or anything else you might have inferred. The sentence was
Substitute “group of people with a shared background, gender, ethnicity, or otherwise distinguishing characteristic,” if you like, but I thought that was somewhat wordy.
And I’ll ask again: If the “foundation of the good old US of A” was “a society without classes where each individual is judged individually on his merits,” then what about slaves and women? Hmmm? Can it be that this country didn’t have quite the egalitarian beginning you describe?
Gad, we are not talking about blacks.
If your measure of a caste system is inequity, then there is only one way to fix it: government forced equity of wealth and assets. Otherwise there will always be disparities.
[ to answer your question, the reason there are so many black convicts is…now tell me if I am going to fast for you…because so many blacks commit crimes. Do you totally disbelieve in the concept of personal responsibility? are you trying to blame the White man for the black guy who pulls the trigger?]
NA’s (and other groups) have easier standards for getting into college and have nmore scholarship money. They already have state funded free primary education. But they have one big problem: they live in the middle of nowhere. I don’t care how much money you dump into the La Push reservation in Washington, there will never, ever, ever be any jobs there.
I’ve got a solution for the indians: Go to school, move off the reservation and get a freaking JOB like all of us white and black and asian and gay and hispanic people have to.
I don’t know about you, but if I didn’t work at all and lived in a town with no businesses, I wouldn’t be too terribly surprised if I was flat broke and living in a shack.
Red and Black people are not the only people still feeling the effects caused by the crimes committed. Whites are still reaping the benefits stolen from others. The wealth of this country could not have been achieved without the sacrifices of Red and Black people. Sacrifices that no one bothered to ask if they were willing to undertake. To keep the descendants of these people from all of the benefits of the wealth that was created is unconscionable.
Some of the posters here seem to be assuming that Native culture is static. This is untrue. When cultures meet, the exchange can spark new ideas, different ways of looking at things and doing things. In Sociology this is called Cultural Efflorescence. This is 1 of the assumptions underlying Cultural Diversity.
Cultural Diversity is not about inventing lies about minorities to make THEM feel better about themselves, it is about learning truths about others to make US better people. ( How about that sentence? ) There Is No Them ( TINT ), it’s all us.
The cultural efflorescence that took place when the Old World met the New, was earthshattering. The new concepts revolutionized cultures and spawned new ideas. Life will never be the same. To denigrate the role that American cultures had in forming the America of today is bigotted and wrong. The rationalization of “2 ways of life, eternally incompatable” is just as erroneous and selfserving today as it was then.
PEACE
Well, I was, and I said so.
No, that’s not the only way to fix it. Quit trying to paint me as a freaking communist. (No offense, oldscratch.) I’m not railing against inequity but inequity which has been historically institutionalized–that is, it’s built into our society, and can be divided along lines of ethnicity. There’s no need for radical and continued redistributive policies, as you seem to suggest–just improve the schools for everyone, improve the infrastructure for everyone, improve the prospects of everyone. But recognize that the urban black community (I’m talking about them again) are at present worse off than most others, and will continue to be until specific remedies are found.
And what’s your measure of caste, Zambezi? How do you see our society? With what part of my last couple posts do you disagree?
sigh A direct question: Why do you think a greater proportion of black people commit crimes as compared to whites? What’s your explanation?
Easier than who? I’d argue that any upper middle class kid, regardless of ethnicity, will have an easier time getting into and affording college than most Native Americans.
And? So does every American.
Out of curiosity, why do you say that? At the risk of a complete non sequitur, look at Las Vegas. I’m not saying it could still (or should still) be done, but…
Ah, progress… Reminds me of that Firesign Theatre sketch, “Temporarily Humboldt County.” Anyway.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought he meant scholarship wise, they have alot of scholarships for minorities, but you never see the one for the “Straight, White, C minus student.”
Nice use of words though, “Afford.” Well duh he can afford college, he’s middle class, and the other is poor. It’s like saying Bill Gates can “afford” property the size of Texas + California + Alaska over the homeless man on main street(Or equivelent.).
I agree that Native Americians deserve the same chance as others, but if they don’t go for them, then it’s useless. A.M.'s(Africian Americians) could do it (Yes, there are successful ones in the world, funny you hear of the ones in the gangs, but never the executives of big companies. Go Fig!).
-PPKue
2sense & others: I feel I OWE the Amerinds (& Blacks) nothing. You feel otherwise. So, there are still a few Amerinds who were alive when the US was actively persecuting them. There are still lots of their decendents. So, drive to the Reservation, take out your paycheck & hand it to the Tribal Elders. Not going? Oh, so it’s MY money you want to give to the Amerinds to assuage YOUR guilt? I’ll pass. :mad:
>> Substitute “group of people with a shared background, gender, ethnicity, or otherwise distinguishing characteristic,” if you like, but I thought that was somewhat wordy.
Well if your criteria for helping people were something like poverty I would have much less problem. If it is race I have a BIG problem and I’ll tell you why.
Let us start with stating that the ends do not justify the means (in spite of what many bleeding heart liberals may think). Something is good or bad regardless of what you are doing ot for. Lying is bad and is not justified by the fact that I did it for a good purpose.
If it is OK to divide people into classes according to their race for the purpose of handing them money, why would it be wrong to do it for any other purpose?
If I can say, “gee this young man is black which makes him part of an oppressed minority so I’ll give him some dough without further ado” then I should also be able to think to myself when I am walking down the street in SE Washington DC “Gee, this young man walking my way looks pretty tough and he happens to be African-American which happens to be the class of people who commit the great majority of the crimes around here, and since I wish to keep my life and my wallet and my virtue, I think I will walk the other way” or when I am hiring someone “gee this young lady is a member of a class of people that has given us less than satisfactory performance in the past so I think I will not hire her”.
Can you explain if and why it would be acceptable in one case and unacceptable in the others? Remember that the ends do not justify the means (I hope we can agree at least on that point).
>> what about slaves and women?
huh? what about them? I believe there have been no slaves in the US for quite a while now. And women? what about them? Am I allowed to make sweeping statements based solely on their gender? OK then, here I go… as a class of people they are … no, you really do not want to hear this. I better quit now.
As Daniel says, whoever believes some class of people deserve help is free to send them some dough. But why do they want to help them with other people’s money?