What, exactly, does a white man act like?
PeeQueue
Jim Carrey. Don’t get much whiter than that.
Lazlo - i dont need to reread his post, he made an analogy about not getting assistance in order to live as his forefathers… it involved serfs… (and i assmused it was a joke) and i entered a counter joke - which is why (i assume) i didnt see jeel reply with any type of defense -> the reason being it wasnt nessicary for it was an notso apparently obvious joke… the point of which to show how out of whack said analogy was…
to… i forget the name… the guy with questions about genetics in reference to tolarence… if you go out and find 10 alcoholics at random, at least 6-7 of them will have an alcoholic father, mother, uncle, etc… why? because tolerance/resistance to alcohol dependence is influenced by genetic factors…
MGibson - This is a bit different from the Pusher/Junkie relationship you will find today… for one thing the affect alcohol had on the two groups where signifcantly different… ok, you and me are geneticly different… lets propose that you have never encountered chocolate… and lets say to me chocolate is a tasty treat and while i am quite fond of it and will partake of it when i can… im not addicted (phyically) to it or anything… now lets say you see me enjoying said chocolate and decide you would like to try some… we work out a deal and you get your chocolate… but to you chocolate is more than a tasty treat… chocolate exacts a change in your body’s chemical balance and now that your chocolate is gone… you crave it… you go through chocolate withdrawal… you neeeeed it… and i happen to have more… so we work out another deal… now i notice the effect chocolate has on you… so i begin to work out deals with you on a regular basis… giving you more and more chocolate… for higher and higher cost (not nessicary $$) … now am i exploiting your chocolate situation?
**
Time honored tradition among all sorts of people even in recent history. We conquered Germany and Japan and considered that to be a pretty honorable thing.
I certainly hope that’s a joke. I certainly don’t believe anyone with Indian blood has any more right to the land then I do.
Marc
Of course chocolate and sugar did have an unbalancing affect on Europeans when it was introduced. But at any rate I’ll agree that the whites did exploit this particular weakness among the Indian population. I still don’t put all or most of the blame on the white man. Nobody forced them to drink or accept booze as trade.
Marc
MGibson - Thank you for your concession… 
and I shall make one of my own in return… I agree that all of the blame does not fall on the europeans, and that native americans had/have both have choices in the matter and accountibility for their actions… i just wanted show/state that the europeans “pushing” the chocolate where not merely innocent parties… and likewise for the various chocolate pushers of today…
andros:
Good answer. 
PeeQueue
We fought them because they were a threat to us. After we defeated them, we and our allies tried our level best to make sure the lands they had taken were returned to the previous owners. We didn’t totally succeed, but perfect solutions are rare, perhaps even non-existent. Look for maps and books that show how much land Germany and Japan had taken in WW2 and then see what happened to that land afterwards.
When Europeans invaded this continent, they took land and gold and oil and other resources from their rightful owners with absolutely no intention of giving any of it back or compensating them for it. It was theft, plain and simple. (So much for obeying the Ten Commandments.) They were no better than bank robbers or muggers.
To fucking hell with anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong with conquering someone and taking everything they own. Stronger doesn’t make you more moral or more deserving.
Depends on how you got it. If you legally purchased it, fine. But if your great-great-great grandfather stole it from the Indians and you own it today, then you are in possession of stolen property and, morally, you are obligated to return it to the descendants of whomever originally owned it.
But I know that’s never going to happen, is it?
The White Man’s Song:
This land is my land,
It’s no longer your land.
If you wanted to keep it
You should’ve had guns.
(So it doesn’t rhyme. Big deal!)
Indians and Alcohol-- A History.
Why are so many Indians alcoholics?
No one knows for sure if alcoholism is genetic or not. Sure, it runs in families, but is that because of genetics or family traditions?
jab1:
You’re being pretty blatantly racist with the poems and comments and such. Do you really feel that way? If so, why do you feel it is acceptable?
PeeQueue
PeeQueue: Racist how? If he had entitled that “The European Colonists’ Song” instead, would that have made it more copacetic for ya?
jab1 - I would say that it is due to both genetics and family traditions… however i would think that a genetic disposition would be particularly dangerous for someone who was not prepared for such dire concequences… for they are many examples of children who have alcoholic parents and see what it does to them and refuse to let alcohol dominate their lives who grow to have children who are suseptible to alcohol dependance… in this case it would have skipped a generation… and the third generation would not have been raised around alcohol… and environmental factors can also act as deturents as one has seen the damage it can do and might avoid alcohol because of it…
as an aside… possible continued lyrics…
… if you dont get off
ill blow your head off
its my land by manifest destiny…
Er, PQ, read Jab’s last post again. The little song was meant to be sarcastic, I think.
racist eh? … well i didnt think so jab1, … i thought it was pretty funny myself… but then again im not a white man… though it seems the sort of thing most of the white men i know would laugh at… i dunno… maybe i just know a lot of twisted people… or perhaps G was being a tad sensitive… the last few posts suggest the latter… but maybe we should wait and tally the votes later… hey, i know… i think they have mods or something around here… im sure they’ll straighten this whole thing out… later…
Just to set the record straight, in American and international law “right of conquest” is perfectly legitimate, odd as it sounds.
The problem is, we didn’t conquer the Indians. John Wayne might have, but the United States did not. It’s a force to space thing. America didn’t have a big enough army to “conquer” the Indians. By the time America began its land acquisitions, Indians had learned that they didn’t have to roll over like their neighbors to the south did for Coronado.
Some individual tribes were conquered, yes. But the number of tribes that were defeated by the United States in war is in actuality a small number. When a tribe was defeated, in most cases the United States did not attempt to annex that tribe’s entire land base. Instead, they treated for the good parts and left the Indians with the shitty land or gave them new, shitty, land elsewhere–the reservations.
At roughly the same time, as American settlers advanced through the midwest, the United States paid a lot of money to make sure that settlers did not occupy Indian land. Instead, they bought the Indians off, peaceably. Almost invariably, however, land particularly important to Indians was reserved for their use. And almost invariably, some of that land was later stolen.
That land was land held in trust for American Indians by the United States. As I said before, there is no statute of limitations on alienated trust land. Title to alienated trust land is automatically void, so any five-generation whiner living on stolen land hasn’t got a pot to piss in–they never owned that land. Legally, we have to either pay the Indians off or give it back. That’s the law.
Okay. Show me where I mentioned anything about serfs. I don’t remember that. In fact let me quote myself.
As one last post. I am not questioning the legality of the compacts and treaties the US government made with the Indians. I just don’t agree with them. The Indian tribes near me are doing just fine, and get the same amount of funding as all the “not so well off” tribes. There’s a definite imbalance. When I go onto a reservation with my friends, I am often treated as second class because I am not Indian. There is reverse discrimination if you are not Indian around the reservations.
The governor of a local Indian reservation was upset at the locals’ opposition to building a casino in our neighborhood, so he said something to the extent of: “Okay, if that’s the way you want it, instead we’ll put a toxic waste dump here!” So, the next time you think that they are all people with the utmost dignity, respect for their neighbors, and respect for nature, think again.
There are many many Native American people who are wonderful human beings with all the respect for Indians, non-Indians, the environment, their culture, and other local cultures. I know this becasue I personally know hundreds of them. But there are the ones who take advantage of their Indian blood and fly non-Indians the bird, because they can. Part of this is caused by the money that they receive with little or no clear need or justification.
The way these “bad apples behave” has caused me to have these view. The way they behave…Last time I checked…It still was not the American way.
jeel: The Indian tribes near me are doing just fine, and get the same amount of funding as all the “not so well off” tribes. There’s a definite imbalance.
But as Sofa King and others have been explaining, that’s because not all monies given by the US to tribal nations are based on “need”. According to its voluntarily assumed legal obligations, the US owes money to various tribes, as compensation for alienated lands or what have you. Payment of such money should not be affected by whether the tribe in question is rich enough to do without it. When you go to the grocery store and buy a bag of carrots, you don’t argue that you shouldn’t have to pay for it just because the store owner is rich. And you don’t automatically pay a poor store owner more for the same carrots than a rich one, either.
*When I go onto a reservation with my friends, I am often treated as second class because I am not Indian. There is reverse discrimination if you are not Indian around the reservations. *
Personally, I think that’s a pity. But legally, you have to remember that the reservations are the homes of semi-sovereign nations. They’re not required to set up their governments or societies in accordance with the rules in the US Constitution. If I go to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, I’ll be treated as second class in many ways because I’m female. Personally, I think that’s a pity, but it’s their country and I don’t have some kind of right to be treated there as I would be in the US. Your only recourse is to try to persuade people that fairness and equality is a better system.
*The governor of a local Indian reservation was upset at the locals’ opposition to building a casino in our neighborhood, so he said something to the extent of: “Okay, if that’s the way you want it, instead we’ll put a toxic waste dump here!” So, the next time you think that they are all people with the utmost dignity, respect for their neighbors, and respect for nature, think again. *
Hands up everybody who was previously under the impression that all Native Americans were uniformly wonderful, courteous, and sensitive people, with no exceptions whatever, before jeel favored us with that enlightening anecdote. …No hands up? Didn’t think so.
*Part of this is caused by the money that they receive with little or no clear need or justification. *
If Sofa King has not managed to get through to you what the “needs” and “justifications” of various tribes are for receiving money from the US government, I despair of being able to do it myself. I’m not saying that the tribal nations have no problems, but you’ll have to produce some better and more detailed evidence if you want me to believe that one of their major problems is getting too much money from the US.
As for your complaint about this “not being the American way”: hey, I happen to love the American way myself, but you need to bear in mind that tribal nations are not only American citizens. They are also separate semi-sovereign nations with their own rules and customs, and they are not answerable to you or me or any other non-Indian for them. And that doesn’t diminish the legal obligations that our government has towards them, either as US citizens or as semi-autonomous governments. If you don’t think that’s fair, answer me this: do you think that the nations have received a full and fair recompense for all the land the US took? Life isn’t fair, and neither is history.
I’m the one that said this. Here’s what you originally said about the matter:
I asked for a cite on this because as far as I know, a tolerance or immunity to something does not get passed on genetically. For example, if I catch measles and then years later father a child, that child can still catch measles even though I have an immunity to it.
Your post about finding 10 alcoholics, etc, is probably accurate, but you’re confusing what is the cause and what is the effect. From what I remember, relatives of an alcoholic have a greater tendency to become alcoholics because of a glitch in their blood sugar levels (I know this is not very specific, but I’ll try and find where I read this). This would be akin to why relatives of diabetic people have greater tendencies to become diabetic themselves.
However, by your reasoning, I would have a greater chance of becoming diabetic because my parents and their parents before them ate an excessive amount of glazed donuts? I can’t see how this would be the case, but I may be wrong. Again, this is the reason I asked for a cite.
I have waivered sooooo far off topic. Sigh. I had something related to the OP, but I completely forgot what it was.
Oh well, I’m off to see if I have a high tolerance to booze on the sole basis that my grandpa was a drunkard…
Lazlo stated:
I think your logic on this may be flawed a bit. Although Diabetes can be triggered by improper diet, there is a genetic factor involved in diabetes that goes beyond diet and habit (as diabetes runs in my family, it is much more likely pounding too many glazed donuts will set it off in me than in someone without a family histoery of diabetes). There are indications that alcoholism has a genetic factor as well (I don’t have a cite, but I can find one- I thought this was common knowledge). The fact that your mom/dad/uncle/whatever was an alcoholic/drug addict does not mean you will become one, but it gives you a greater risk of having problems with drugs/alcohol should you be foolish enough to put yourself at risk.
Most accounts of Native Americans and alcoholism I have read indicate that there is a genetic link that makes many native americans ‘at risk’ for alcoholism (much like how sickle cell anemia affects Americans of African descent more than other ethnic groups). If you want to say the link between alcoholism and genetics is hogwash, you are entitled to (I don’t think it has been proven beyond doubt), but the argument is not made with just Native American people.
doh. My apoligies Lazlo I just reiterated what you had stated above…
Lazlo said:
However, if you were so susceptible to measles that you died as a child your genetic susceptibility would not have been passed on. An immunity need not be absolute to have an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps it would be better to speak of a resistance being inherited than an immunity. As a matter of fact the European settlers did have a much greater genetic resistance to measles, and many other diseases, then Native Americans at the time of first contact precisely because the most susceptible individuals had been progressively weeded out over many centuries of exposure to the Old World diseases.
I don’t know if the hypothesis of Europeans having a greater genetic resistance to alcohol is actually accurate, but the logic behind it is plausible- over the centuries, in cultures exposed to alcohol those most susceptible to its effects would have succumbed to it before reproducing, or at least have died so young that their children would have been left starving orphans who died before they could reproduce. Similarly to the process outlined above for diseases, the longterm effect would be a population more resistant than that naturally found in cultures without the exposure.