- This topic has 10 voices and 69 replies.
-
Posts
-
As I said, I doubted it and your article backs both you and I up in our doubt. A few of the framers are counted among the ranks of the Philosophes of the Enlightenment, most notably, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. It could even be argued that the US Constitution represents the essence of what the Enlightenment was about even more than the tenets of the French Revolution. I would argue that way at least.
The bit that Franklin wrote (quoted in the article) was a double edged sword. While it did indicate that he took notice of their unity, he did not exactly confer a lot of respect on them. It didn't sound like he got the idea from them but just used them as an example of it working, even when the implementors were “savages”.
Wasn't seeing the natives as “savages” fairly universal among the Colonists and people in the early Republic. I know people now who still think Indians are “savages”.
Wasn't seeing the natives as "savages" fairly universal among the Colonists and people in the early Republic. I know people now who still think Indians are "savages".
If we aren't careful, we may have another verbal skirmish over a semantics issue, but I will offer my opinion anyway...Yes, it was a common perception. Had we considered them a civilized people with significant cultural differences, we would have had to call frontier families invaders instead of settlers. I don't think this was lost on the Colonial leaders; I think the depersonalization (it would not be much of a stretch to call it dehumanization) of the natives was intentional. It virtually eliminated the legitimacy of their claims.
Is that like the argument about one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Of course that viewpoint was intentional, but it also may have been sincerely held given the cultural prejudices that existed at the time. Cultural prejudice is not a new phenomenon nor has it been eliminated.
Wasn't the view more like they were unsaved heathens who needed Christianity rather than just savages? The wilderness was a place that needed to be tamed…which justified their taking of Indian land.
Is that like the argument about one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Of course that viewpoint was intentional, but it also may have been sincerely held given the cultural prejudices that existed at the time. Cultural prejudice is not a new phenomenon nor has it been eliminated.
Yes, it is largely the same argument. There is one major twist with respect to early Colonial/US history. Terrorists (or freedom fighters) often operate on foreign soil. By declaring the natives as savages, we eliminated the concept of foreign soil completely.I don't think the religion of the natives was or is relevant to calling them savages. Again, we may have some semantics at play here, but I don't think the difference between savages and a civilization whose ideology you disagree with is the least bit subtle. When expanding the frontier, no thought was given to where wildlife would relocate to when you ran off wolves who had been there for untold generations. Classifying the natives as savages allowed them to be treated the same way.I do think it is very probable that most people truly believed they were savages.
Ski guy justifing taking native land because it was wilderness is not true. Natives did managed burnings of forests used seasonal areas that produced different foods medicine. Basicly they were living green maybe if we all lived that way the world would be a better place. Just because a sky scraper or a landfill is not on a piece of land dosent mean its not used.
This is becoming a Sociology thread isn't it? LOL
To a large extent, yes. I don't know whether I love or hate the semantics type arguments/debates.
This is becoming a Sociology thread isn't it? LOL
To a large extent, yes. I don't know whether I love or hate the semantics type arguments/debates.
I love the debates, but hate the arguments... 😀
Yea, debate is ok, as long as it remains civil. Debates that descend into name calling and ad hominem attacks are fairly pointless in my opinion.
Yea, debate is ok, as long as it remains civil. Debates that descend into name calling and ad hominem attacks are fairly pointless in my opinion.
To my knowledge, I don't think we've ever had a problem with ad hominem attacks here at WCF. This board has always attracted class act folks who usually know a thing or two about History. We have had some "unique" posters who hold unconventional views, but that's okay so long as they can support their claims to a reasonable degree. I've probably popped off some sarcastic remarks myself, but I don't think I've ever crossed the line or Phid would have scolded me if I had. That's why this board rocks the way it does. 🙂
Two studies have been conducted that attempt to number the natives killed by the United States. The first of these was sponsored by the United States government, and while official does not stand up to scrutiny and is therefore discounted (generally); this estimate shows between 1 million to 4 million killed. The second study was not sponsored by the US Government but was done from independent researchers. This study estimated populations and population reductions using later census data. Two figures are given, both low and high, at: between 10 million and 114 million indians as a direct result of US actions. Please note that Nazi Holocaust estimates are between 6 and 11 million; thereby making the Nazi Holocaust the 2nd largest mass murder of a class of people in history. REF: American Holocaust: D. Stannard (Oxford Press, 1992) - "over 100 million killed" "[Christopher] Columbus personally murdered half a million Natives" God, Greed and Genocide: The Holocaust Through the Centuries: Grenke (New Academia Publishing 2006) Holocaust: Critical Concepts in Historical Studies: Cesarani, (Routledge 2004)
