The current plight of Native Americans, African Americans, Maoris, and the Aborigines

Aug 2018
490
Southern Indiana
#31
I recently read some things about Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act. The man was certainly racist, but he claimed that his decision to remove the natives from east of the Mississippi may have actually saved them from extinction. He was not a humanitarian and it is suggested that his decision was made because it was "practical". Settlers were swarming into the areas and in some cases, whites were on the verge of taking matters into their own hands and taking the land by force, especially in Georgia. If Jackson hadn't removed the tribes, massacres of the remaining natives by angry mobs could have been likely.

* I am not defending Jackson's actions, just relating something that I read and found to be an interesting historical perspective.
 
Oct 2011
3,738
the middle ground
#32
I recently read some things about Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act. The man was certainly racist, but he claimed that his decision to remove the natives from east of the Mississippi may have actually saved them from extinction. He was not a humanitarian and it is suggested that his decision was made because it was "practical". Settlers were swarming into the areas and in some cases, whites were on the verge of taking matters into their own hands and taking the land by force, especially in Georgia. If Jackson hadn't removed the tribes, massacres of the remaining natives by angry mobs could have been likely.

* I am not defending Jackson's actions, just relating something that I read and found to be an interesting historical perspective.
It is always a matter of perspective in history. And "unraveling" things only ends up showing where the last 'lesser of two' decision had to be made...
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,776
United States
#33
I'm not well read on the subject, but my understanding was that Jackson was driving the aboriginal people off the land and then sending in his private surveyors to divide it up and sell it. He was doing it for money.
 
Aug 2018
490
Southern Indiana
#34
I'm not well read on the subject, but my understanding was that Jackson was driving the aboriginal people off the land and then sending in his private surveyors to divide it up and sell it. He was doing it for money.
Not sure about that. The US government sold a lot of that land to pay off it's debt from the War of 1812, but I don't know that Jackson personally profited from it. Washington on the other hand, did exactly as you described, surveyed and sold thousands of acres of Indian land for his personal profit.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,355
Australia
#35
I'm going to be controversial here and state that these cultures are completely unable to function alongside those of those who colonised them. Whether they are Native Americans, African-Americans or the Aboriginal peoples, their respective cultures are all defined by historical oppression and ancient grievances. It's why African-Americans will often claim their entire country was built by their racial group, ignoring the others who did just as much work to mold the USA. It's why Native Americans will continually act as if they have more right to their land based on their ancestry.
I wont speak for any Americans, but here Aboriginals act as if they have more right to their land based on their ancestory and long standing land tenure. technically though, their right to the land was also protected by British law ..... its just that the British decided to ignore their own law.

In this case, I am talking about the technical legal issues and those that started the problems .... not "the others who did just as much work."


And I am not downplaying the hardships they have faced, I am saying that this sense of of hostility, this unwillingness to assimilate is vital to who they are, and simultaneously is the reason why even in more enlightened times they are viewed as alien.
How can white Americans fully accept a minority whose entire cultural identity is based around villifying them, and retroactively painting their cultural heroes as oppressors and monsters? Again, I'm not saying that to insult anyone, it's a genuine question on my part.
By saying, yes, our 'culture heroes', and a whole range of other people in some cases WHERE oppressors and monsters . I have realized that, and said it to the indigenous. It totally changed their opinion of me and that helped me to 'accept them'.

If people want to retain someone who slaughtered tribe of women and children in massacre as some sort of 'cultural hero' , while they are living with those peoples few remaining descendants ... dont you think that indicates some sort of deep problem within them ?

People's ignorance astounds me at times ! The local town here, in its surrounding area, has had 3 indigenous massacres , in very recent history ( considering white settlement began after 1830 ); drove them off cliffs with whips on horseback, gave them poison flour and the third, a free party ..... with poison beer.

Just the other day a friend asked me " I wonder why no Aboriginal people live in this town . "

:eek:

A society can only just about tolerate other cultures within it, so long as some effort is made at assimilation. But those who insist on standing on the sidelines, who protect their otherness, will always be victims. If you don't believe me, look at the treatment of the Romani community in the UK and Ireland. Some of whom were actually driven from their homes by mobs throwing bricks. Those who don't bend tend to break.
Look , I have personally experienced, time and time again, Aboriginal people that have a range of horrible stuff done to them, their families, their fore bearers , their land , etc. and they continually try to forgive, get over it and assimilate. Actually, it has totally blown me away, I cant actually comprehend their ability to forgive atrocity and just get on with each other, and then some white or Euro person, who even agrees with them, is sympathetic, supports them, etc. then does a similar thing to them, in some other way , usually in total ignorance . The they patiently smile and start again .

Not all of them, obviously. But this has led me to understand something about them that rather mystified me . Even in some of the worst areas, in a run down tin shack, with a half decayed mattress on the floor, shared by 5 people, you might see a tattered picture of Jesus on the wall . I could never figure out why he was so popular with them, and why they would trade their own spiritual beliefs for something like that.

It finally hit me .... becasue they relate to the story, they have lived the story themselves . The people I am talking about, just want peace and are willing to forgive ..... but it often gets spat back in their face .... but then they try again . I cant comprehend how they can keep doing it .

And when one finally does snap , its " Oh look ..... typical Aboriginal ! "

As I say, I won;t speak for any American here , but I do know, in meeting, there has developed a great brotherhood between Indigenous American and Australian, groups of them travel to and fro for meetings and conferences ( one Aboriginal friend of mine proudly wears a huge turquoise bracelet given to him by Hopi elder ).
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,776
United States
#36
There is a problem if your identity and culture is (even partially) defined by victimhood. I think this is true for many of these minorities and is the fault of politically-motivated people who either want to be given subsidies and others who want to give the minorities stuff to keep them under their thumb or just want to feel good about themselves and their extreme generosity.

As the old saying goes, "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and feed him for the rest of his life."
Politicians almost as a rule are giving them fish instead of teaching them to fish. This of course serves a dual purpose: make a show of generosity (mostly with other people's wealth) and feel good about themselves, and to keep these people dependent.

I see this as a human problem. People oppress each other, kill each other, and steal from each other. Members of one or another group happen to be the perpetrators in a given time place and time; it's pointless to mull over who did what except individual cases of oppression or violence or whatever.

Government handouts are just another scheme for those in power to feel deserving of their power and to keep the have-nots dependent and under control. If you wanted to actually help these people providing means for them to sustain themselves and build up their communities would be the way to go: jobs, economic opportunity, less restrictions, perhaps charity to tide individuals over until they are able to stand on their own feet, etc.

I'm actually somewhat in favor of forming aboriginal (non-territorial?) republics that have a high degree of autonomy like US states.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
6,472
#37
I recently read some things about Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act. The man was certainly racist, but he claimed that his decision to remove the natives from east of the Mississippi may have actually saved them from extinction. He was not a humanitarian and it is suggested that his decision was made because it was "practical". Settlers were swarming into the areas and in some cases, whites were on the verge of taking matters into their own hands and taking the land by force, especially in Georgia. If Jackson hadn't removed the tribes, massacres of the remaining natives by angry mobs could have been likely.

* I am not defending Jackson's actions, just relating something that I read and found to be an interesting historical perspective.
It's a pretty poor excuse. If Natives were moving into white people's land, I doubt Jackson would have relocated white people to prevent them being harassed by Natives. Instead he would have sent the army to defend the land against encroachment. Equality means treating everybody equally.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#40

Interesting question. I've always thought Maoris were the first human in New Zealand, arriving around 1300CE.

I did a bit of looking.

A slight warning; contrary to popular belief, myths do not "usually have some basis in fact". Some do, a lot don't.


First I found this:

Arriving in Aotearoa

According to Māori, the first explorer to reach New Zealand was Kupe. Using the stars and ocean currents as his navigational guides, he ventured across the Pacific on his waka hourua (voyaging canoe) from his ancestral Polynesian homeland of Hawaiki. It is thought that Kupe made landfall at the Hokianga Harbour in Northland, around 1000 years ago.

The arrival of Māori | New Zealand



Then I found this:

MAORI RADIO CARBON DATING
Radio Carbon dating of early skeleton remains found in New Zealand proves there were people living in New Zealand long before the Maori. While these pre-Maori people have disappeared, there is evidence throughout New Zealand of their existence in their skeleton remains, dwellings, vegetables, plants, trees, animals and birds.
Further information can be found on www.celticnz.co.nz

Proof of Pre Maori | One New Zealand Foundation Inc.


Then this:


The status of Maori as the country's indigenous population could be in danger if research, which suggests previous civilisations lived in New Zealand before Maori arrived, is proved true.



Ngapuhi leader David Rankin said books by authors such as investigative journalist Ian Wishart and historian Noel Hilliam presented "clear evidence" that some of New Zealand's earliest residents might have arrived before the Polynesians.



He pointed to numerous Maori oral histories which referred to people being here when the first Maori arrived, including fair-skinned people.

Rankin: Maori are not the indigenous people of New Zealand




Right now, I'm a bit confused. I can't guarantee the reliability of any of the quoted sources, as this has been done in a hurry.

It seems the Maori as first settlers is mainstream, and the earlier settlers hypothesis is more recent. Not sure what has actually been proved. The claim of carbon dating from several sources ,at various distances, is convincing, if true.