American Manifest Destiny & the "American Indian"

[Jagger69]

Much has been written over the years about the concept of manifest destiny and its impact on the original native Americans who are often referred to as "Indians". Being of partial "Indian" descent (I am 1/16th Cherokee), this subject has long been of particular fascination to me and, after doing much research on the history of events that led to and were involved in the direct conquest of the North American continent by those of primarily European descent, I have formed some very strong opinions on the matter.

What do you think? Was the systematic "Winning of the West" nothing more than an act of genocide deliberately planned and perpetrated by the United States government to attain its ill-gotten gains? Or, was it simply an abject consequence of what was necessary to fulfill the inevitability of manifest destiny that has enabled the USA to become the dominant world power that it currently is? Was the subjugation and subsequent slaughter of the Indians just an unfortunate by-product of our path toward world leadership or was it a calculated and sinister act of cruelty and horror on a par with the Nazi-led Holocaust?

Please discuss.

 

[Jeep!]

Genocide and ethnic cleansing, nothing less.

 

[xfire]

Is it really surprising that a nation that engaged in human trafficking until the 1860's would perpetrate a holocaust on the indigenous inhabitants of this continent?

 

[meesterperfect]

All I have to say is it was pretty shitty the way they were treated. It could have been handled much better, much fairer, and much more humanely.
Also it wasn't anything like 1930's, 40's Germany and countries they occupied, 2 very different things, practically opposite.
But stuff like this has happened all over the world throughout history, its just the nature of the beast.

 

[Mayhem]

Why does it have to be different for America than it was for all who came before? Greeks, Phoenicians, Persian Empire, Roman Empire, Ghengis Khan and an entire encyclopedia of others wiped out civilizations, enslaved and killed. What makes the Indians so special? This was how things were done back then.

With the exception of white man's diseases (which we had little understanding of at the time), the Europeans didn't bring anything to the Americas that wasn't already here. Slavery was widespread throughut the tribes, torture was commonplace, ethnic cleansing was commonplace, the Aztecs and Incas practiced human sacrifice. The only reason why more Natives didn't get chopped in one way or another was because, until the horse was introduced by the Spanish, everyone had to walk everywhere.

I have zero sympathy for Native Americans. They lost the same way nations, societies and cultures have lost all over the world. By not being strong enough.

 

[Rattrap]

What do you think? Was the systematic "Winning of the West" nothing more than an act of genocide deliberately planned and perpetrated by the United States government to attain its ill-gotten gains? Or, was it simply an abject consequence of what was necessary to fulfill the inevitability of manifest destiny that has enabled the USA to become the dominant world power that it currently is? Was the subjugation and subsequent slaughter of the Indians just an unfortunate by-product of our path toward world leadership or was it a calculated and sinister act of cruelty and horror on a par with the Nazi-led Holocaust?

Please discuss.

I would wager the latter - that the Indians' destruction wasn't really planned or intentional. The settlers just wanted what they wanted, and the Indians' destruction just happened to have had to happen (that's a wordful) for them to get it. I have to pretty much agree with Mayhem here:

Why does it have to be different for America than it was for all who came before? Greeks, Phoenicians, Persian Empire, Roman Empire, Ghengis Khan and an entire encyclopedia of others wiped out civilizations, enslaved and killed. What makes the Indians so special? This was how things were done back then.
[...]
I have zero sympathy for Native Americans. They lost the same way nations, societies and cultures have lost all over the world. By not being strong enough.

Although putting Andrew Jackson on the 20 after the Trail of Tears business and "The only good Injun is a dead Injun" does seem to be taking the piss a bit.

 

[Jeep!]

Why does it have to be different for America than it was for all who came before? Greeks, Phoenicians, Persian Empire, Roman Empire, Ghengis Khan and an entire encyclopedia of others wiped out civilizations, enslaved and killed. What makes the Indians so special? This was how things were done back then.

With the exception of white man's diseases (which we had little understanding of at the time), the Europeans didn't bring anything to the Americas that wasn't already here. Slavery was widespread throughut the tribes, torture was commonplace, ethnic cleansing was commonplace, the Aztecs and Incas practiced human sacrifice. The only reason why more Natives didn't get chopped in one way or another was because, until the horse was introduced by the Spanish, everyone had to walk everywhere.

I have zero sympathy for Native Americans. They lost the same way nations, societies and cultures have lost all over the world. By not being strong enough.

In all fairness, I don't consider it any different to those who came before or after--the scramble for Africa two or three hundred years later was just as brutal, and the roughly contemporary dismemberment of Ireland by the New Model Army is still an open wound today. But just because something is relatively commonplace doesn't mean we have to sit down today and think not only was it alright but that we should honour those responsible, like (as Rattrap as pointed out) sticking Jackson on currency (the equivalent of us seeing Cromwell or Fairfax on cash here).

 

[Philbert]

In all fairness, I don't consider it any different to those who came before or after--the scramble for Africa two or three hundred years later was just as brutal, and the roughly contemporary dismemberment of Ireland by the New Model Army is still an open wound today. But just because something is relatively commonplace doesn't mean we have to sit down today and think not only was it alright but that we should honour those responsible, like (as Rattrap as pointed out) sticking Jackson on currency (the equivalent of us seeing Cromwell or Fairfax on cash here).

If that was the only thing we knew of Andy then yeah...that would be so. But...Old Hickory had more in the fire than just one comment...he was a good for America Pres, and was homered for his place in history.
How do you not get such a simple thing as history?

 

[Mayhem]

I don't honor the people who did it. I just recognize that this was how things were done back then. I also refuse to fall into the trap of thinking that America was some kind of utopia back then.

 

[Jeep!]

If that was the only thing we knew of Andy then yeah...that would be so. But...Old Hickory had more in the fire than just one comment...he was a good for America Pres, and was homered for his place in history.
How do you not get such a simple thing as history?

I do get history. I get that there are many more suitable figures in American history to stick on a prominent piece of currency--instead of offering apologetics for one, how about honouring another instead? Stick up a staunch abolitionist like Thaddeus Stevens, or a civil rights figure like Martin Luther King, or even, god forbid, a non-political figure like Walt Whitman, Raymond Chandler, Leonard Bernstein, Neil Armstrong... To say "well, yes, he was a bastard to the natives, but he was good for the rest of us" is just a cop out.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I didn't do it. Them injuns have their casinos, smoke shops and fireworks stands. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

 

[meesterperfect]

Much has been written over the years about the concept of manifest destiny and its impact on the original native Americans who are often referred to as "Indians". Being of partial "Indian" descent (I am 1/16th Cherokee), this subject has long been of particular fascination to me and, after doing much research on the history of events that led to and were involved in the direct conquest of the North American continent by those of primarily European descent, I have formed some very strong opinions on the matter.

What do you think? Was the systematic "Winning of the West" nothing more than an act of genocide deliberately planned and perpetrated by the United States government to attain its ill-gotten gains? Or, was it simply an abject consequence of what was necessary to fulfill the inevitability of manifest destiny that has enabled the USA to become the dominant world power that it currently is? Was the subjugation and subsequent slaughter of the Indians just an unfortunate by-product of our path toward world leadership or was it a calculated and sinister act of cruelty and horror on a par with the Nazi-led Holocaust?

Please discuss.

To answer directly that question you asked......I don't know.
At least not for certain.
But from my knowledge of the history I would say it was more the former, but as time went on there certainly were many calculated acts against them.
And now that I think of it, it could happen again.
One possibility would be the GOV doing it to the people, probably when they start to revolt.
Another could be this GOV going broke and falling and everything shuts down and all hell breaks loose.......then some other country coming in and cleaning house.
And another some day could be a race war , and the victor annihilates the loser.

People say, "It cant happen here".......but it can.

 

[Jagger69]

To answer directly that question you asked......I don't know.
At least not for certain.
But from my knowledge of the history I would say it was more the former, but as time went on there certainly were many calculated acts against them.
And now that I think of it, it could happen again.
One possibility would be the GOV doing it to the people, probably when they start to revolt.
Another could be this GOV going broke and falling and everything shuts down and all hell breaks loose.......then some other country coming in and cleaning house.
And another some day could be a race war , and the victor annihilates the loser.

People say, "It cant happen here".......but it can.

I was hoping this thread would prove provocative in this fashion. I am very cognizant of the history of what was done to the Plains Indians in the period from 1865-1900 and, in my opinion, it was nothing short of genocide. Some here have said times were different back then but....were they really that much different? Could something similar happen again?

What makes the Indians so special?

Not a thing, evidently. Therefore, you could say that about any group, right? So....what makes the Jews so special? What makes the Palestinians so special? What makes the Croatians so special? What makes the Rwandans so special? What makes ANYONE so special? :dunno:

I didn't do it. Them injuns have their casinos, smoke shops and fireworks stands. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

:1orglaugh I was waiting for this. I must say that it figures that it was YOU who brought it up, Johnny!

All joking aside, it is true of course. You didn't do it. Your government did.

 

[Mayhem]

What makes the Indians so special? This was how things were done back then.

Not a thing, evidently. Therefore, you could say that about any group, right? So....what makes the Jews so special? What makes the Palestinians so special? What makes the Croatians so special? What makes the Rwandans so special? What makes ANYONE so special? :dunno:

As you see, I stressed "back then", as opposed to now. Things are different (and I'm not saying for the better, but that's a seperate conversation) than they were. Warfare and conquest were a much different animal than they are now.

Palestinians are a good parallel, the Jews and Rwandans are not. There were too many tribes to take any generalization too far, but these were not helpless people and many did not desire peaceful co-existence. They were warriors and soldiers who went into battle voluntarily. Having said that, they were also hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned, I grant you. Jews, Rwandans, Bosnians who were not affiliated with the violence around them were/are the ones getting hurt the worst. And yes, there are plenty of examples of this with the Indians, but I still challenge your comparison.

My whole point is that what happened wasn't in any way unique to the Native Americans.

 

[Jagger69]

I get your point but "peaceful coexistence" was never really an option for native Americans. Over 500 treaties were signed and subsequently broken by the United States government. Many tribes, including many of the plains tribes, knew that they were outclassed and did the best they could to do what the US wanted but it was never enough. Those who continued to resist knew they couldn't trust the white man and fought on against all odds. Seeing your women, children and elderly slaughtered like animals tends to harden one's resolve. Unfortunately for them, they were doomed from the minute Columbus set foot on the beaches of San Salvador. It just didn't become a matter of official policy to exterminate the Indians until after the end of the Civil War.

I'd also argue that such things can easily happen in a modern climate and that they really aren't that much different now than they were back then. For every Sand Creek example, there's a My Lai or Haditha that draws comparison. If such things are framed with proper references like "liberation" and "democracy" it becomes easy to justify at the time whereas history undoubtedly takes a much more critical view in years to come.

 

[vodkazvictim]

I think I'm gonna avoid participating in this thread on the basis that I would only dumb it down.

 

[Jagger69]

If that was the only thing we knew of Andy then yeah...that would be so. But...Old Hickory had more in the fire than just one comment...he was a good for America Pres, and was homered for his place in history.
How do you not get such a simple thing as history?

Andrew Jackson's treatment of the Indians (in truth, congress bears as much, if not more, culpability here) was abominable from my perspective. Prior to the passage of the Indian Removal Act (helluva name, huh??) in 1830, policy toward the "5 Civilized Tribes" (another ridiculous moniker) was laizzez faire in nature. Jackson's policies changed things forever.

In retrospect, the eradication of the Indians from the American landscape was inevitable. There was no chance that there could ever be a peaceful coexistence of cultures so diametrically opposed to each other and efforts to truly assimilate them were really never seriously attempted (the remnants of which exist even today in the form of the pathetic reservations that have managed to perpetuate). It was easier to just get them out of our way rather than to find a way to integrate them or allow them to exist outside "civilized" American society. Mayhem is right....in the final analysis, the Indians just weren't strong enough to compete with the white man and sheer might prevailed over the Indians' presumed right to exist. However, it could have (and should have) been handled in a much more humane and forthright fashion than it was. It's an ugly scar on America that can never be erased.

And where the hell have you been, Philbert? All of a sudden I see you posting again so I go :dunno: :wtf:

 

[Shindekudasai]

Jagger, you should be very careful with the use of the phrase "manifest destiny". That term was coined by a contemporary journalist and used by politicians and (ideologically and subjectively biased) American historians of that time and it was used to conceal the atrocities purposefully commited at that time (Reginald Horsman gives some interesting points in "Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism"). Generally I'd say what makes the "killing" of Native Americans especially abominable is that it was tolerated and even in part executed by a nation/government that considered itself to be a free democracy with equal rights for all. In that respect the treatement of the indigenous population is a bitter affair. Someone mentioned the "Nazis". The Nazis were at least so honest about their affairs that they propagated from the start who they'd kill and why they'd kill them. And the difference is: The Third Reich constructed a legal framework within which their actions were legal, no matter how vile. The US on the other hand were a democracy which makes the killing of Native Americans plain and simple murder.

How do you not get such a simple thing as history?

Sure, right, history is so simple. Keep thinking that. No wonder you are pathologically unable to change your point of view.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

The point is moot. The events happened. We're here. Move on.

 

[Philbert]

Jagger, you should be very careful with the use of the phrase "manifest destiny". That term was coined by a contemporary journalist and used by politicians and (ideologically and subjectively biased) American historians of that time and it was used to conceal the atrocities purposefully commited at that time (Reginald Horsman gives some interesting points in "Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism"). Generally I'd say what makes the "killing" of Native Americans especially abominable is that it was tolerated and even in part executed by a nation/government that considered itself to be a free democracy with equal rights for all. In that respect the treatement of the indigenous population is a bitter affair. Someone mentioned the "Nazis". The Nazis were at least so honest about their affairs that they propagated from the start who they'd kill and why they'd kill them. And the difference is: The Third Reich constructed a legal framework within which their actions were legal, no matter how vile. The US on the other hand were a democracy which makes the killing of Native Americans plain and simple murder.

Sure, right, history is so simple. Keep thinking that. No wonder you are pathologically unable to change your point of view.

You are still keeping your head pathologically up your ass...time has brought no new perspective to your rigid opinions.