I find it hard to imagine what the relations between whites and natives were

[howard112211]

during the first two centuries after the founding of the USA. Sure, one can look up the facts that are recorded in history books, and what the ultimate outcome was, but imagining what the everyday political climate was like seems hard.

I find it somewhat likely that to a large degree, the same rationalizations as today were used to rationalize actions against the native populations. I bet, if you had asked a common white settler what he thought of the levelling of a native village, he would have said something along the lines of "they attacked us first, they had it coming". I bet there were many people complaining about how the natives are "racists" that hate white people. I bet there were many native "terrorist" groups, who did in fact attack white civilians and were met with "disproportional justified self defense". And I bet there were many people lamenting on about how primitive and un-christian the "treatment of women and children" of the natives is. And the people who point out that "this is our land. it is in the holy books that this land was given to us". And I bet that the people who did in fact try to negotiate face saving deals with native populations were also denounced as traitors. And that there were lawyers who argued that everything which is happening is legal.

Would anyone today step out and say "yeah, mistakes were made on our side too, but ultimately the attacks on white settlements by American Indians is the root cause of what happened to them"? I doubt it. I wonder if future generations will think the same way about us.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. Good analogy, but with one exception

White women who were captured by Native tribes often refused to leave when they had the chance. On the frontier, life was hard for both settlers and Natives--basically their whole lives were like one endless camping trip in either case.

However, especially in the Eastern tribes, women had a lot of power in governing the community and could not be beaten or abused. If you were going to be cooking over an open fire and growing or hunting all your own food in either case, why not do it where you were treated with respect?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. Yup.

I grew up during the Munich/Black September days and, being an American, I only got a very one-sided "education" on the larger situation regarding the history of Palestine. It was only as an adult I sought out a fuller understanding of the conflict and how it all came to be.

Today I find myself fairly anti-Zionist.

And much of that comes from my views of our own country's efforts against the Native Peoples here.

[bobbolink]

3. We don't have to imagine. Fortunately, we still have native citizens who can TELL us, if we are

interested enough to ask.

[enlightenment]

4. They can tell us their history, true.

People do ask - historians ask. The idea that Native American history is still written - or taught - like it was 40 years ago is largely incorrect. I'm not saying that poor teaching doesn't happen, but historiography is not static and the history of the relationship between Europeans and Native Americans has changed as well.

[dmallind]

5. I THINK you are trying to make an analogy to anti-Islamic feelings, right?

While all the western powers have some, indeed great, responsibility for allowing fundamentalist attitudes to thrive in their vassal states though, the situations are hardly parallel.

[damntexdem]

6. There is an EXACT parallel: settlers taking the land of others.

And governments 'protecting settlers' by pushing natives off the land, or practicing genocide on them.

It IS history repeating itself, despite any argument that "it couldn't happen again, not nowadays."

[dmallind]

7. Where are we talking about here?

Doesn't apply to American anti-Islamic feelings. May apply to Israel/Palestine if you stretch the idea of "native" a bit, but then it just starts the argument of what historical era is the cut off for who was and is "native". Not really sure what the parallel being made is.

And of course I made no claim whatsoever about what can or cannot happen nowadays, only that what I thought was being used as an analogy was an inexact one at the very least.

[Tailormyst]

8. Why is it not? The Palestinians were robbed of their lands

Herded into small patches of land no one wants and oppressed there, lacking any real hope or opportunity.

[dmallind]

10. Which is relevant to American anti-Islamism and its roots how? NT

[Tailormyst]

11. It's relavant to the parrellel between what happened with the NA and what is happening now in Isreal

We NOW see how wrong what we did to the NA was and we understand why they fought back in whatever ways they could. But back then. NA were just hated savages picking on the poor white settlers.

[dmallind]

12. Well not sure, but OK

The issue there is who was native and when. There is no doubt the NAs were here long before us and that they come from entirely separate ethnic roots for tens of thousands of years, but since the Palestinians and Israelis are both Semitic and descended from nomadic and semi-nomadic groups it's not really as cut and dried here.

[Tailormyst]

13. The point is that it should have been and could have been shared in some way

But it has not been, by any stretch of the imagination. If the Israelis changed their own tone, and acted less brutally towards those whose lands and homes they now reside on, perhaps things would be different.

[apocalypsehow]

9. I guess if your sum knowledge of the American West boils down to having watched "Dances with Wolves"

the analogy is apt. Otherwise, it fails. :thumbsdown: