"We're the good guys" Five Hundred Years of Injustice

"We're the good guys"
Doctrine of Discovery, Manifest Destiny, Bush Doctrine, a rose by any other name..

this piece contains some interesting history:
http://ili.nativeweb.org/sdrm_art.html

Five Hundred Years of Injustice:
The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice
by Steve Newcomb 1992

When Christopher Columbus first set foot on the white sands of Guanahani island, he performed a ceremony to "take possession" of the land for the king and queen of Spain, acting under the international laws of Western Christendom. Although the story of Columbus' "discovery" has taken on mythological proportions in most of the Western world, few people are aware that his act of "possession" was based on a religious doctrine now known in history as the Doctrine of Discovery. Even fewer people realize that today - five centuries later - the United States government still uses this archaic Judeo-Christian doctrine to deny the rights of Native American Indians.

Origins of the Doctrine of Discovery

To understand the connection between Christendom's principle of discovery and the laws of the United States, we need to begin by examining a papal document issued forty years before Columbus' historic voyage In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories.

<snip>
Charters and patents thus turned acts of piracy into divine will. The peoples and nations that were colonized did not belong to the pope who "donated" them, yet this canonical jurisprudence made the christian monarchs of Europe rulers of all nations, "wherever they might be found and whatever creed they might embrace." The principle of "effective occupation" by christian princes, the "vacancy" of the targeted lands, and the "duty" to incorporate the "savages" were components of charters and patents.
<snip>

Steve Newcomb is an American Indian of Shawnee & Lenape ancestry. For over a decade, he has studied the origins of United States federal Indian law and international law dating back to the early days of Christendom. He is currently completing a book on his findings titled, Pagans In the Promised Land: Religion, Law, and the American Indian.

Rub our noses in the truth. It's too bad nobody is taught this side of history. Kick and Recommended.

We just recorded our acts more than others, but I think there are few, if any, without similar blood on their hands.

The various American Indian tribes were pretty bad in how they treated others, so were we.

Humankind in general has been sucky to each other.

It's such a nicer, softer way of saying "I want your shit, you brown savage, now fuck off or I'll kill you"

You want the real truth or the rewritten truth? The actual truth is the Native Americans
came in and replaced existing populations. We killed other people. And while my grandfather's
people were killing my grandmother's, my grandmother's cousins were exacting revenge.

We're all human. Nobody's an angel, and while we should definitely be vigilant and aware of the
sins of the past, it does no one any good to promote hate of one culture over another.

All to often I see that as justification for manifest destiny, the whole "we didn't do anything to them that they weren't already doing to themselves"

Even through 10,000 years of typically human conflict, there are a lot of differences between the warfare the natives conducted on each other, and the warfare conducted against them by Europeans. Native American warfare was not about genocide. Even the Aztec never indulged in total slaughter of entire people. There was no Manifest Destiny - The Muscogeans did not believe that they had a divine right to the entire continent, and to kill or drive off everyone else who happened to be living there. Most tribes engaged in skirmish warfare - kill a few people and scare the bejeezus out of whoever's left. Not huge battles between forces each seeking the others annihilation, like European warfare. While Native peoples did take prisoners and slaves, it was not wholesale. They did not round up survivors and force them into concentration camp prototypes and steal their children. Theoretically, a tribe that was driven off their land could come back with friends and take it the hell back. I don't forsee native lands being retaken anytime in the future, primarily due to heavily discriminatory law - It's hard enough to reclaim your grandparents' remains, after all.

Yeah, natives were pretty awful to each other. It still doesn't compare in the least with what happened to them, and certainly isn't any sort of justification.

But we don't know if it compares with what was done to the earlier civilizations. We have no
idea -- we just don't know. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be very aware of what was done to the
Indian in our time, but it should inform our awareness so we don't fall into another kind of
prejudice.

of any kind is uncool, I do not think that the OP does that. I think it is making a point about the type of people who do that, and making the point that the same "reasons" that were used to justify it in the past, are being used today. Saying that the people in the Middle East have been fighting each other for hundreds, or even thousands of years, really cannot be considered as justification for the Bush-Cheney aggression in Iraq .... any more than historic battles between tribes in North America be considered justification for the Euro-American actions from 1492 to present.

It is interesting to study the history of humans in an objective manner. We find that various phases of cultures are more prone to produce violent societies, and that most tribal people do not actually engage in "warfare." Battles and blood-feuds, while violent, are distinct from war.

The Cherokee, of course, are Iroquoian peoples. Though not one of the Iroquois Confederacy, they are of the same ethnic stock as the Haudenosaunee. With both groups, much of what we "know" about their lives before the colonies became the United States is a result of the oral and written histories that involve the contact/trade eras. Previous to that, we can rely primarily upon the oral histories of the tribal people, and the modern interpretation of the archaeological record -- neither of which really support the ideas of significant conflict between cultures, especially not before agriculture created surplus and larger trade routes, etc.

More, when we examine the early records made by those who were not looking to take advantage of the native populations in the northeast, we find some interesting surprises. For example, the Moravian missionary John Heckewelder wrote of his experiences in Pennsylvania in 1643: "Whatever liveth on the land, whatsoever groweth out of the earth, and all that is in the rivers and waters flowing through the same, was given jointly to all, and everyone is entitled to his share. With them it is not a virtue but a strict duty. Hence they are never in search of excuses to avoid giving, but freely supply their neighbor's wants from the stock prepared for their own use. They give and are hospitable to all, without exception, and will always share with other and often with the stranger, even to their last morsel. They rather would lie down themselves on an empty stomach, than have it laid to their charge that they have neglected their duty, by not satisfying the wants of the stranger, the sick or the needy."

AsGary Nash pointed out in his classic "Red, White, and Black: The peoples of early America": "Throughout the colonial period European observers stood in awe of the central Indian traits of hospitality, generosity, bravery and the spirit of mutual caring. Indians seemed to embody these Christian virtues almost without effort in a corner of the earth where Europeans, attempting to build a society with similar characteristics, were being pulled in the opposite direction by the natural abundance around them -- toward individualism, disputatiousness, aggrandizement of wealth, and the explotation of other humans." (page 318)

No society is perfect, and we do not benefit from fantasies of a perfect past, any more than by promoting hatred. But we do benefit from looking at what traits have helped past cultures reach a higher ground.

We should advise ourselves with a trans-national/trans-tribal perspective that makes us
aware that we are all human and all make equal mistakes. The fantasy of a perfect past
that is often promulgated is one put forth by the left wanting to spin the fallacy
of the holy, noble savage brought down by western culture.

One form of racism is no more valid than another, Aniyunwiya (Tslagi, Cherokee, whatever)
or European.

does not seem to support the idea that we all make equal mistakes, either as individuals or nations.

A simple knowledge of human psychology and some basic rules of reason assures us that
we're all capable of equally barbaric acts.

fairly good record of different types of societies, and there are cultures that tend to produce a higher percentage of healthy adults, and cultures that produce a higher percentage of unhealthy adults. Hence, while psychology is a wonderful study of individuals -- including the potentials that you correctly identify -- sociology provides wonderful studies of groups (and group psychology).

One area of interest related to this topic can be found in Erich Fromm's "The Sane Society." He examines levels of violence in various cultures, and identifies some of the factors that are connected to higher rates of homicide, suicide, and substance abuse. One might consider him biased or incorrect, I suppose, but I think his work is accurate, on target, and of value in our present state.

What may seem to be a positive trait may actually end up with a negative outcome, etc.
Any attempt to assess the relative qualities of groups of people is bound to be influenced
by subjective opinion which makes their overall assessments immaterial from an external
context.

the vast majority of people would agree that a community with high rates of employment, good schools, available medical care, and a low rate of crime is healthier than one with high rates of joblessness, inadequate schools, lack of medical care, and a high rate of violence. Of course, there are going to be people who take the position that this is "subjective." But that stance cannot be considered serious, either from a study of groups or individuals.

"The vast majority of people" would agree ... "that stance cannot be considered serious", etc.

I've had anti-black bigots in my family recite the same rationale for their belief that black
culture is inferior. When we want to prop up our own emotional preferences, we knock away the
context to explain them. All of history happens in context.

in posting this piece. We are are witnessing the same attitudes today in modern garb. I have no intention of trying to make anyone feel guilty about the past and neither, I believe, does the author. This is a lesson in history. If I didn't think it applied to TODAY I wouldn't have brought up the "Bush doctrine". If people want to feel guilty about something let them feel guilty about what is going on TODAY and the fact that the powers that be still believe in Manifest Destiny!



>I always welcome H20 MAN's input because he knows a hell of a lot.

At the same time, down near Rosebud (my friend Robin Kickingbird was an emissary out there),
they had a recent murder with a group of young Indian men killing a young white guy who
was just out washing down his motorcycle. The group got drunk, got angry and went out looking
for a target for their understandable rage, but that kid with the motorcycle never did anything
to them.

BTW, the Bush administration policy toward mining has started destroying the Appalachian mountains,
too, which cuts across all cultures there. They're an equal opportunity destroyer.

though I still don't think that was the point. Racial violence is a curse on humanity for sure, but are not we talking about the "dominant culture" and the "doctrines" it uses to subjugate and oppress others?

Racial violence is the result of primate psychology. And that explains the doctrines
of the dominant culture, but those same forces come into play, no matter the nature
of the dominant culture. Doesn't matter which nation or which gender, the nature of
primitive human dynamics is subjugation and oppression. It's only by rising above those
things that we see beyond them.

Then it is easy for me to imagine that a culture can rise above these things, at least to a far greater degree than cultures which value and reward what you call "primate psychology"

Thus a culture may indeed value peace and be less violent than another.
Sometimes humans make collective choices as a group/culture. Their cultural doctrines may not include subjugation and oppression.

The whole idea of comparing one culture to another is itself primitive. While there have
been horrendous misdeeds by western culture, good has also come from it. In the end, it
all evens out, no matte what you consider to be "positive" aspects of a culture.

And they were fair on it all - we screwed the Indians, et al, and they and others screwed those they had power over.

People in power do bad things, we ain't the first, we won't be the last :)

Funny how all the world's ills seem to be centered on one specified part of the North American continent; the rest of the world OR HISTORY blissfully forgotten because, oh no, only America has problems and it's far more fucking fun to wallow in the past than to think of a superior future. :eyes:

How many of us have heard this said about people and nations. For some reason the USA thinks they're immune to this.

But then how many countries go around flagellating themselves over shit that happened hundreds of years ago?

On one hand we have a portion of this country that ignores history, but on the other we have a portion that is hyper-observant of anything wrong the US has ever done.

If you don't know you have a problem, you can't fix it.

that the US treats Indians so well today, that we can say things like "shit that happened hundreds of years ago" .... because if the US still was treating Indians poorly, such a statement would sound pretty stupid.

The things the USA did was done in my name. It's kinda like clean up your own house before you start on others.

Genocide, slavery, Manifest Destiny, corporate exploitation, Iraq. We're going to pay. And pay. And pay.

And the idea of transmission of guilt by blood is as creepy as any fundy gets.

Why do all these minorities keep dragging up these pesky little genocides. If you didn't kill a minority, don't worry about how everything you've got is because a whole bunch of other white people did it for you!

Or so I was informed earlier tonight.

:hi:

G_j

There is little difference between Iraq and the treatment meted out to Newcomb's people. The catholic church and the 'white man's' burden have been horrendous burdens on the rest of humanity.

K & R

Of my post. It's not about rehashing guilt trips of the past, it's looking at attitudes that exist to this day and determine policy. The "Great White Father" still "knows best".

Thanks

Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq

http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wTANhSB8L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

The effects from the past are still there obviously, but I don't see how our decisions today are apart of it.

of the British Empire, which held that Europeans had not only a right but a duty to "civilize" the peoples of the world (and incidentally to take their natural resources).

When Bush talks about bringing "democracy" to Iraq (and incidentally privatizing their oil), he is being--and here the language that the Soviet news agency used to use is sadly appropriate==a "colonialist imperialist."

It's the same ideology that the British Empire used to justify conquering half the world, just updated for 21st century consumption.

(One of my English friends thinks that Tony Blair is still in thrall to the White Man's Burden ideology, which is why he went along with the invasion of Iraq.)