# General Discussion > Opinions >  Why are there reservation lands for native people in America and Canada?

## Echetlaeus

As this forum is full of Americans and Canadians, I would like to have an answer about this horrible phenomenon.

----------


## Wilhelm

Because they were near exterminated by the Anglos, same happened in Australia or New Zeland with the natives, it's the Anglo mentality of segregating. See the difference with the SPanish or French colonizations, the indigienous have been more respected, and not pushed or elminiated. Just look at the population of Latin America, most people have indian blood (mestizos).

----------


## Aberdeen

> Because they were near exterminated by the Anglos, same happened in Australia or New Zeland with the natives, it's the Anglo mentality of segregating. See the difference with the SPanish or French colonizations, the indigienous have been more respected, and not pushed or elminiated. Just look at the population of Latin America, most people have indian blood (mestizos).


The difference is that the Spanish and Portuguese enslaved those Native people they didn't massacre, instead of putting them on reservations. Native people, to this day, are often horribly abused by the white and mestizo people in some South American and Central American countries.

----------


## Aberdeen

> As this forum is full of Americans and Canadians, I would like to have an answer about this horrible phenomenon.


When the British and their descendants in North America conquered and took the land of Native Americans (a process that has happened repeatedly throughout world history), they didn't think the Native people were ready to become part of their society, because of the racist assumptions that most of the British had. However, they didn't want to just kill off the few survivors, so Native people were herded onto reservations, with the idea they would be confined there until they evolved enough to become part of society. Of course, as the white population increased, they still didn't want to let Native people integrate, so the Natives stayed on the reservations, which was not the original intention - reservations were originally thought of as a temporary solution until Natives became "civilized" enough to become part of society. In the end, laws confining Native people to reservations were repealed and many Native people moved to cities. However, those who wished to preserve their language and culture chose to remain on the reservations, where they generally live in poverty but they want to stay among their people. Even those Natives who leave for the cities want to find the reservations still there for them when they return. The reservations were a mistake, but it's now the Native people who cling to the concept, as a means of preserving their identities. That's the story here in Canada, and I believe it's quite similar in the U.S.

----------


## LeBrok

> As this forum is full of Americans and Canadians, I would like to have an answer about this horrible phenomenon.


Does Aberdeen's answer satisfies your "curiosity"?
Besides you using word camps was intentional to suggest similarities to "concentration camps". There are not camps, these are "reservation lands".

*Now tell me why do you think the reservation lands are terrible tragedy*. Reservation lands are owned by Natives with rights to build anything, explore natural resources and make money, give them rights to hunt with no restrictions, and living there you don't need to pay income taxes as citizen of Canada? They have very wide autonomy, and as a resident of reservation you will get 20,000 in government subsidies a year, in housing, roads, etc., and of course you can leave reservation any time you want without border security or customs. They are not locked in these reserves, they can travel and work anywhere in Canada, and anytime they want they can go back on reserve and enjoy these special privileges no other citizen of Canada can.

*So again, why being a resident of reservation land is such a terrible thing in your eyes?*

They are not locked in reservation camps, as your title suggest but instead try thinking of reservation as land reserved for Natives only.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Does Aberdeen's answer satisfies your "curiosity"?
> Besides you using word camps was intentional to suggest similarities to "concentration camps". There are not camps, these are "reservation lands".
> 
> *Now tell me why do you think the reservation lands are terrible tragedy*. Reservation lands are owned by Natives with rights to build anything, explore natural resources and make money, give them rights to hunt with no restrictions, and living there you don't need to pay income taxes as citizen of Canada? They have very wide autonomy, and as a resident of reservation you will get 20,000 in government subsidies a year, in housing, roads, etc., and of course you can leave reservation any time you want without border security or customs. They are not locked in these reserves, they can travel and work anywhere in Canada, and anytime they want they can go back on reserve and enjoy these special privileges no other citizen of Canada can.
> 
> *So again, why being a resident of reservation land is such a terrible thing in your eyes?*
> 
> They are not locked in reservation camps, as your title suggest but instead try thinking of reservation as land reserved for Natives only.


It is a terrible tragedy because you don't want them around your feet, that's why, but instead you gave them land to guild the pill of taking their lands and killing their people by force. You have segregated them way too bad.

I changed the word "camps" with "lands" to better describe what I meant, but you, as always, want to make people to have negative feelings towards me.

----------


## ebAmerican

Amerindians like most tribal people are fearlessly independent. The reservations in the US are a compromise to the American Indian Wars that raged until 1890. The US had a policy to eradicate Native Americans east of the Mississippi. Because of conflicts escalating in Oklahoma in 1851 the US passed The Indian Appropriation Act, which authorized the creation of semi-autonomous regions for native Americans. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

----------


## LeBrok

> It is a terrible tragedy because you don't want them around your feet,


 Are you able to comprehend today what I wrote? They are free to live wherever they want! To make it simple for you, here is an example: If you own a house in New York, it doesn't mean that people in Los Angeles don't what you "at your feet"!






> that's why, but instead you gave them land to guild the pill of taking their lands and killing their people by force.


 Well, it had to be by force because they didn't wanted to get killed voluntarily. Anything more intelligent you can write?





> You have segregated them way to bad.


 Yes to the point of creating super citizens of more privileges and rights than me or Aberdeen have, the ordinary citizens. I hope you got the picture now of modern meaning of being on reservation land.

----------


## Echetlaeus

I cannot deal with LeBrok anymore. He seems to be a lost case of the Anglo-Saxon educational system.

----------


## sparkey

> Of course, as the white population increased, they still didn't want to let Native people integrate, so the Natives stayed on the reservations...


Not sure how it was in Canada, but this doesn't apply to the history of the United States at all. There was a long period, roughly 100 years or so beginning in the middle of the 1800s and ending in the middle of the 1900s, in which integration was the goal. The Dawes Act is a famous example of the US using government tricks to attempt to assimilate the natives.

The thing is, although many American Indians took up the government offers to assimilate into white society, as it came with major economic benefits, _many preferred to be on reservations_ in order to better preserve their culture. So the reservations, which were created just before the integration attempts, remained, and still do.

----------


## kamani

The Indians were a small population of mostly hunter-gatherers with a fragile ecosystem depending on animals such as buffalo for example. Now there is hardly any buffalo left on North-America because their skin became a valuable item in world markets. This gives a hint as to what happens to hunter-gatherer fragile ecosystems when they meet modern ones.

----------


## LeBrok

> I cannot deal with LeBrok anymore. He seems to be a lost case of the Anglo-Saxon educational system.


Another of your misconceptions. I never had Anglo-Saxon education.
Before you criticize someone else's education please work on yours. Your lack of knowledge about Indian "Camps" or WW2 (Germans attacked Russia in Winter), and on many other topics is in shambles. These days knowledge is at your fingertip, you fail or are too lazy to find it.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Another of your misconceptions. I never had Anglo-Saxon education.
> Before you criticize someone else's education please work on yours. Your lack of knowledge about Indian "Camps" or WW2 (Germans attacked Russia in Winter), and on many other topics is in shambles. These days knowledge is at your fingertip, you fail or are too lazy to find it.


You said the same thing about my education before ("a lost case of the Greek educational system").

I reckon that my education is superior than yours, except if you have a PhD.

I never mentioned "Camps" the way you had in mind. Camp does not mean necessarily the Nazi style camps.

Of course I have read what these camps are, but I want the opinions of people leaving there, to see what their mentality about those things is like.

But "LeBrok" has to be that way. A person whose family [probably] has suffered from communism, and now in the New World tries to be a super liberal and supporter of globalization, hence the 'citizen of the world'.

So put your tongue in your mind prior to speaking. You always have the tendency to 'ruin' certain threads that you do not like. I advise you to be more tolerant to the other opinion. The dictatorship of the third kind ain't that good.

----------


## Drac II

> The difference is that the Spanish and Portuguese enslaved those Native people they didn't massacre, instead of putting them on reservations. Native people, to this day, are often horribly abused by the white and mestizo people in some South American and Central American countries.


That's pretty much the "Black Legend", concocted by Spain's rivals, specially England. Spain was actually more benign towards indigenous peoples who accepted Spanish rule than the Anglo-Americans were towards the ones under their rule. Spain considered Indians who accepted Spanish rule free citizens of the empire and gave them rights even as early as 1542. Indians under Anglo-American rule were not even considered citizens of the country as late as the 19th century.

----------


## LeBrok

> You said the same thing about my education before ("a lost case of the Greek educational system").


 So you had to say it back, lol. How mature.




> I reckon that my education is superior than yours, except if you have a PhD.


And yet you're to amaze us with your knowledge, never mind critical thinking or being creative.




> I never mentioned "Camps" the way you had in mind. Camp does not mean necessarily the Nazi style camps.Of course I have read what these camps are, but I want the opinions of people leaving there, to see what their mentality about those things is like.


 We know what your intentions are, like in every thread you start and from day one you showed up here. Warmongering efforts to use your warrior nature, so useless in time of peace.
I would be glad answering your questions if they were from pure curiosity.
Why don't you start a thread asking "Why Spartans where homosexuals, men and women, and did it lead to their demise?". After all their population shrunk from 10 thousand to 1 thousand before their disintegration. Don't you think it is an interesting subject? War and homosexuality together!




> But "LeBrok" has to be that way. A person whose family [probably] has suffered from communism, and now in the New World tries to be a super liberal and supporter of globalization, hence the 'citizen of the world'.


 Are you criticizing or praising me, I'm not sure? lol




> So put your tongue in your mind prior to speaking.


What does that mean? Is this a Greek saying?




> You always have the tendency to 'ruin' certain threads that you do not like. I advise you to be more tolerant to the other opinion. The dictatorship of the third kind ain't that good.


 I'm tolerant to tolerant people. Intolerant individuals don't deserve tolerance of others, otherwise they are abused by intolerance.

----------


## Echetlaeus

^ Oh, what a scholar, what a beacon of light!

Your excellency, lord moderator of this forum:

I follow the third law of Newton. 

I have no warrior nature when there is no need for it, but I shall 'fight' you via dialogue until the end. I am sure that we do not have anything in common or at least many things in common. Let me not exaggerate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am criticizing you. Liberals tend to be very annoying sometimes.

Yes it is a Greek saying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now to the point.

First of all I don't get it, why do you talk about gays so much? 

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece may have been the case (we do not know for sure, do you? And if yes, how?), but until a certain age. Recall, the same was true in the Roman Empire as well.

All Spartans had kids, for it was a duty to society (actually this was the case for the whole Greece). They had to follow the laws of Lycurgus. Someone would have been mocked by the society should he had continued these practices afterwards.

I suggest you 'lift' a little bit more and then talk again.

How do you know that I am intolerant? Don't you understand that this person is thyself. You are the one who mocks all others with different opinion than yours. You are the one who uses his absolute power in this forum.

Reminder: I am not historian, nor anthropologist, like most people here are. I just study history for fun.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Yes to the point of creating super citizens of more privileges and rights than me or Aberdeen have, the ordinary citizens. I hope you got the picture now of modern meaning of being on reservation land.


This saying of yours ain't politically correct. Restate.

----------


## LeBrok

> This saying of yours ain't politically correct. Restate.


Actually this is another incorrect thing you said. Here is a simple definition:




> *politically correct*_adjective_: agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people


I vindicated them to higher status, right? Be kind and try to explain in what way I offended our Natives? For your information formally our Canadian Natives call themselves "First Nation". This indicates a distinction above other peoples of Canada, and it is also mirrored in their rights and privileges.

Anything else I could help you with?

----------


## oriental

I heard that the buffalo was slaughtered by having buffalo herds panicked into running over cliffs with gunshots to reduce the population of natives.

----------


## LeBrok

> Homosexuality in Ancient Greece may have been the case (we do not know for sure, do you? And if yes, how?), but until a certain age. Recall, the same was true in the Roman Empire as well.
> 
> All Spartans had kids, for it was a duty to society (actually this was the case for the whole Greece). They had to follow the laws of Lycurgus. Someone would have been mocked by the society should he had continued these practices afterwards.
> 
> I suggest you 'lift' a little bit more and then talk again.


 I said only about peculiar Spartan situation not the whole Greece. Secondly, if you want to know more start the thread about this.




> How do you know that I am intolerant?


 Lol, what a tricky question, how about this:



> I am criticizing you. Liberals tend to be very annoying sometimes.


 And we know all your threads radiating love and tolerance to all your neighbors.






> Don't you understand that this person is thyself. You are the one who mocks all others with different opinion than yours. You are the one who uses his absolute power in this forum.


 It comes handy to control intolerance and abuse.




> Reminder: I am not historian, nor anthropologist, like most people here are. I just study history for fun.


 Then listen more, talk less and avoid having strong opinions if you don't know much about a subject. How difficult is this?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> It is a terrible tragedy because *you don't want them around your feet*, that's why, but instead you gave them land to guild the pill of taking their lands and killing their people by force. You have segregated them way too bad.


I am pretty sure Lebrok is a Canadian Polish immigrant, and so he has nothing to do with oppressive things Canadians have done in the past. Even if he has Canadian ancestors who massacred innocent people he doesn't deserve the blame.

----------


## Nobody1

The Swedish (Finns and Swedes) of _New Sweden_ interacted the best with the natives;
http://explorepahistory.com/displayi...?imgId=1-2-53C
http://people.virginia.edu/~mgf2j/finns.html
_
Old settlers remenisced to Peter Kalm in 1747 that with "no other people to associate with than the native Indians" the settlers "soon began to differ in their actions and manners from the Europeans and old Swedes and began to resemble the Indians. At the arrival of the English," Kalm said, "the Swedes to a large extent were not much better than savages." 
_
The Slash & Burn method of agriculture was even adopted by the natives; And the "Susquehanna" even allied themselves with the Swedish and declared a protectorate as the protectors of the Swedes.

----------


## sparkey

> I am pretty sure Lebrok is a Canadian Polish immigrant, and so he has nothing to do with oppressive things Canadians have done in the past. Even if he has Canadian ancestors who massacred innocent people he doesn't deserve the blame.


This is a good point. It's less useful to play blame games about people's ancestors than it is to discuss things as they are, and it's even less useful to play blame games about the historical sins of a nationality. There's rarely continuity. For example, an ancestor of mine was a militia captain who enforced the Trail of Tears. Have his moral values been passed directly to me? Hardly. So blame may rest with him, but not me.

What's even more grating to me is bickering about which nationality treated the natives worse. People get defensive about things that they shouldn't even be blamed for to begin with. Was Spain or Britain worse? I don't know, what's worse, the higher levels of slavery and serfdom under the Spanish, or the higher levels of forced displacement under the British? Both are bad, and disease has both the Spanish and British beat anyway, in terms of how many suffered and died.

----------


## Aberdeen

> This saying of yours ain't politically correct. Restate.


I'll restate it for him.

Unlike the Bronze Age Greeks, who probably murdered or enslaved the people that they conquered, the British created a reserve system where Natives could keep their language and culture, and provided some economic support, a practice that the Canadian government has continued. So, while most of us have the freedom to work or starve, Natives are guaranteed some degree of financial support by the government.

----------


## Aberdeen

> This is a good point. It's less useful to play blame games about people's ancestors than it is to discuss things as they are, and it's even less useful to play blame games about the historical sins of a nationality. There's rarely continuity. For example, an ancestor of mine was a militia captain who enforced the Trail of Tears. Have his moral values been passed directly to me? Hardly. So blame may rest with him, but not me.
> 
> What's even more grating to me is bickering about which nationality treated the natives worse. People get defensive about things that they shouldn't even be blamed for to begin with. Was Spain or Britain worse? I don't know, what's worse, the higher levels of slavery and serfdom under the Spanish, or the higher levels of forced displacement under the British? Both are bad, and disease has both the Spanish and British beat anyway, in terms of how many suffered and died.


I think that's a fair summary of things. What was worst, the behaviour of the Spanish or the behaviour of the British? Answer - in both cases they behaved very badly, as conquerers have done, in various ways, ever since us hairless apes came down from the trees and started fighting over land.

----------


## Fire Haired14

I think you made some great arguments on this thread but the way you express them is wrong. I think everyone has good incentive but we take insults and dis respect from others to seriously, and it causes us to make the same mistakes.*

What I have noticed your intolerance is like*

When politics are the subject your usually tolerant only to people who agree with you or anything that fits your agenda(openly against negative prejudice towards homosexuals but not negative prejudice towards religious people) and call it tolerance. You can't stand people who don't have your political agenda which explains many of your outbursts, and you accuse them of being the only ones with intolerance. You are also commonly intolerant towards people for reasons outside of politics like their personality(i.e.,Echetlaeus). 

A great way you can stop childish fights before they happen is if you don't insult anyone. It is not very difficult to stop with the insulting, dis respect, and intolerance, because it is the right and the smart thing to do. 




> I'm tolerant to tolerant people. Intolerant individuals don't deserve tolerance of others, otherwise they are abused by intolerance.


You should be tolerant to everyone no matter what(there are some acceptations). If you dis agree with someone, they are dis respectful to you, you think there are errors in the way they think, etc., you should give your opinion in a respectful way. You should want to improve them in the areas you think they need improvement, not be their enemy, and not have a goal to destroy them.

----------


## LeBrok

> The Swedish (Finns and Swedes) of _New Sweden_ interacted the best with the natives;
> http://explorepahistory.com/displayi...?imgId=1-2-53C
> http://people.virginia.edu/~mgf2j/finns.html
> _
> Old settlers remenisced to Peter Kalm in 1747 that with "no other people to associate with than the native Indians" the settlers "soon began to differ in their actions and manners from the Europeans and old Swedes and began to resemble the Indians. At the arrival of the English," Kalm said, "the Swedes to a large extent were not much better than savages." 
> _
> The Slash & Burn method of agriculture was even adopted by the natives; And the "Susquehanna" even allied themselves with the Swedish and declared a protectorate as the protectors of the Swedes.


Interesting, I didn't have an idea about this Swedish and Finnish emigrants so early on. It was amazing how well adopted these axe wielding people to local wilderness. Perhaps it is not surprise when we are dealing with Europeans of most ANE and WHG proportions. If it would have been done by Sardinian emigrants I were shocked, lol.

----------


## LeBrok

[QUOTE=Fire Haired14;434189]I think you made some great arguments on this thread but the way you express them is wrong. 


> *
> 
> What I have noticed your intolerance is like*
> 
> When politics are the subject your usually tolerant only to people who agree with you or anything that fits your agenda(openly against negative prejudice towards homosexuals but not negative prejudice towards religious people) and call it tolerance. You can't stand people who don't have your political agenda which explains many of your outbursts, and you accuse them of being the only ones with intolerance. You are also commonly intolerant towards people for reasons outside of politics like their personality(i.e.,Echetlaeus).


 I stated before that I'm intolerant towards intolerant people, and don't dream that it will change ever. I have no respect, tolerance, friendship or any fuzzy feeling towards them and they better avoid me or there will be war.
Having said that, do you think Echetlaeus could be posting here if I were really intolerant?




> ou should be tolerant to everyone no matter what(there are some acceptations). If you dis agree with someone, they are dis respectful to you, you think there are errors in the way they think, etc., you should give your opinion in a respectful way. You should want to improve them in the areas you think they need improvement, not be their enemy, and not have a goal to destroying them.


 I guess he lost my respect some time ago. Unfortunately, not like Angela, I don't have liberty to use Ignore button and don't read his crap anymore. Someone needs to keep an order here.

----------


## oriental

The Scandinavians were hunter-gatherers for so long they probably felt a kinship with the Natives.

----------


## Nobody1

> Interesting, I didn't have an idea about this Swedish and Finnish emigrants so early on. It was amazing how well adopted these axe wielding people to local wilderness. Perhaps it is not surprise when we are dealing with Europeans of most ANE and WHG proportions. If it would have been done by Sardinian emigrants I were shocked, lol.


Well even the Sardinians have ~17% WHG and at one point (within the TRB frame) Sardinian-like peoples (_Neolithic Farmers_) interacted just fine with the SHG (_Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers_) for Gök2 was 12% more hunter-gatherer admixed than Ötzi; Plus the entire archaeological spectrum that goes along with the TRB culture in Scandinavia (_all pre-Indo-European of course_);

The Swedes and Finns of New Sweden are most def. a good example on how things could have also been i.e. an alternative model during the colonial era; Not only did they understood and adapt to the nature but also to the native peoples; Learning their language and customs to the point they were considered as '_brothers_' by the natives;

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I stated before that I'm intolerant towards intolerant people, and don't dream that it will change ever. I have no respect, tolerance, friendship or any fuzzy feeling towards them and they better avoid me or there will be war.
> Having said that, do you think Echetlaeus could be posting here if I were really intolerant?


I mainly dis agree with you but some situations I would agree. I guess for most situations we will have to agree to dis agree. 




> I guess he lost my respect some time ago. Unfortunately, not like Angela, I don't have liberty to use Ignore button and don't read his crap anymore. *Someone needs to keep an order here.*


I don't understand why you dis like Echetlaeus so much. 

This is where I strongly dis agree. Echetlaeus is not a rabble-rouser, and I think your definition of an 'enemy" and an "intolerant person" is too wide and includes mostly people who honestly want to find the truth but think in a way differently than you. This mind set in people is discrimination in disguise, and many people with power in the western world use it in an attempt to destroy the right.

----------


## bicicleur

> When the British and their descendants in North America conquered and took the land of Native Americans (a process that has happened repeatedly throughout world history), they didn't think the Native people were ready to become part of their society, because of the racist assumptions that most of the British had.


Do you really think the Native people were ready to become part of their society?
A few maybe, most were not, and above all, were not interested. They just wanted to persue their traditional lifestyle, which was not compatible with the lifestyle of the colonisers.

And - beside the subject of this thread - I'm fed off with those who blame racism for whatever goes wrong.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Do you really think the Native people were ready to become part of their society?
> A few maybe, most were not, and above all, were not interested. They just wanted to persue their traditional lifestyle, which was not compatible with the lifestyle of the colonisers.
> 
> And - beside the subject of this thread - I'm fed off with those who blame racism for whatever goes wrong.


I think one needs to consider the level of social development of Europeans at the time of first contact with Natives. Most Europeans were illiterate or semi-literate farmers or landowners with very narrow horizons, and the more educated part of the social and political elite was a very narrow group. Many of the people who first came to North America were traders and adventurers, some of them failed members of the social elites but others very rough individuals. And the farmers who first settled in North America would generally have been poorly educated, probably with narrower horizons than most of the Native people they met. One advantage they had was iron tools and firearms, but the main advantage for settlers was the initial lack of immunity by Natives to European diseases - that really thinned the ranks of the Native people. But during the early period, it wouldn't have been difficult for the two cultures to merge if either side had wished it - remember that most Native people in eastern North America were subsistence farmers, just like most Europeans, but without the same tools or livestock. I doubt if either side was interested in integrating, for the most part, but in the southeastern U.S. there were some Native tribes, especially the Cherokee, who adopted European ways and tried to become part of American society. They were forcibly removed to the west, with great loss of life. It's one of the most shameful episodes in American history. And here in Canada, although British and later Canadian authorities did try to accommodate Native people to some extent, as long as they didn't prevent white expansion, many white individuals were quite hostile to Native people and in some parts of the country they still are.

Of course, Native people aren't blameless, and they're the ones who now cling to the reserve system, and they often have a very negative attitude toward white people. Racism unfortunately seems to be part of the human condition. We tend to favour our tribe, however it's defined, and to fear "the other", however it's defined. And that less than admirable human trait has certainly been a major factor in relationships between Natives and others here in North America.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> I'll restate it for him.
> 
> Unlike the Bronze Age Greeks, who probably murdered or enslaved the people that they conquered, the British created a reserve system where Natives could keep their language and culture, and provided some economic support, a practice that the Canadian government has continued. So, while most of us have the freedom to work or starve, Natives are guaranteed some degree of financial support by the government.


Oh, what a scholar!

----------


## Angela

> I stated before that I'm intolerant towards intolerant people, and don't dream that it will change ever. I have no respect, tolerance, friendship or any fuzzy feeling towards them and they better avoid me or there will be war.
> 
> Having said that, do you think Echetlaeus could be posting here if I were really intolerant?
> 
> I guess he lost my respect some time ago. Unfortunately, not like Angela, I don't have liberty to use Ignore button and don't read his crap anymore. Someone needs to keep an order here.


The ignore button system has a flaw from my point of view; if I start reading the activity thread before I sign in, I'm done for, because then the beginning of the post shows up. Often, I then don't have the self-discipline to "ignore" it on my own. For the sake of my blood pressure, I am now trying to remember to sign in before I look at it.  :Smile:  Poor you, you have to wade through it all: the spams, the silly, the uninformed, the propaganda, and the outright malicious. I don't envy you. 

Of course, "ignoring" certain posters then means that misinformation can go unchallenged, and we all know from Dr. Goebel's, that master propagandist, that a lie repeated often enough will be accepted as truth. It doesn't even have to be a lie...it can just be error, or bias, or adherence to one's published opinions because one's reputation depends on it. So, that's the dilemma.

----------


## LeBrok

> The ignore button system has a flaw from my point of view; if I start reading the activity thread before I sign in, I'm done for, because then the beginning of the post shows up.


My browser appears to be signed in all the time, or at least when I open Eupedia Forum page. Perhaps you want to mark "Remember me" option at the sign in page. Should be located close to User and Password.

I wonder, if you blocked someone, can you still see the blocked person writing when others are citing them (blocked person) in their posts?

----------


## LeBrok

> Well even the Sardinians have ~17% WHG and at one point (within the TRB frame) Sardinian-like peoples (_Neolithic Farmers_) interacted just fine with the SHG (_Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers_) for Gök2 was 12% more hunter-gatherer admixed than Ötzi; Plus the entire archaeological spectrum that goes along with the TRB culture in Scandinavia (_all pre-Indo-European of course_);


I don't have doubts that we can find few Sardinians who love wilderness and could pull it off, however to do such switch to hunter lifestyle en masse only could be done by people of North. I think we have to look with statistical eye on such phenomena.

----------


## Angela

> My browser appears to be signed in all the time, or at least when I open Eupedia Forum page. Perhaps you want to mark "Remember me" option at the sign in page. Should be located close to User and Password.
> 
> I wonder, if you blocked someone, can you still see the blocked person writing when others are citing them (blocked person) in their posts?


Yes, you can, _unfortunately_.  :Smile:

----------


## Angela

> I think one needs to consider the level of social development of Europeans at the time of first contact with Natives. Most Europeans were illiterate or semi-literate farmers or landowners with very narrow horizons, and the more educated part of the social and political elite was a very narrow group. Many of the people who first came to North America were traders and adventurers, some of them failed members of the social elites but others very rough individuals. And the farmers who first settled in North America would generally have been poorly educated, probably with narrower horizons than most of the Native people they met. One advantage they had was iron tools and firearms, but the main advantage for settlers was the initial lack of immunity by Natives to European diseases - that really thinned the ranks of the Native people. But during the early period, it wouldn't have been difficult for the two cultures to merge if either side had wished it - remember that most Native people in eastern North America were subsistence farmers, just like most Europeans, but without the same tools or livestock. I doubt if either side was interested in integrating, for the most part, but in the southeastern U.S. there were some Native tribes, especially the Cherokee, who adopted European ways and tried to become part of American society. They were forcibly removed to the west, with great loss of life. It's one of the most shameful episodes in American history. And here in Canada, although British and later Canadian authorities did try to accommodate Native people to some extent, as long as they didn't prevent white expansion, many white individuals were quite hostile to Native people and in some parts of the country they still are.
> 
> Of course, Native people aren't blameless, and they're the ones who now cling to the reserve system, and they often have a very negative attitude toward white people. Racism unfortunately seems to be part of the human condition. We tend to favour our tribe, however it's defined, and to fear "the other", however it's defined. And that less than admirable human trait has certainly been a major factor in relationships between Natives and others here in North America.


Very well said, Aberdeen. 

I do think, however, that the case of the Cherokee is proof of the fact that it wouldn't have much mattered whether the Native Americans in larger numbers tried to adapt to "European" culture. The increasing numbers of European settlers wanted their rich lands, and they took them. Once the flood gates to European immigration opened and the massive increase in population began, it was over. What happened to the advanced civilizations of Mexico and Peru is another example. The Spanish wanted their wealth and their lands, and thanks to their iron weapons and the diseases they happened to carry and for which the natives had no immunity, they got them. The same thing happened with the Portuguese in Brazil. Nor, in my opinion, should we expect any civilization to take kindly to "integration" at the point of the gun of invaders. 

I also don't see the reservation system as at all motivated by any benign intent, unless one were to say that not setting out deliberately to exterminate these people is benign. (And yes, at least the the Native Americans in North America weren't enslaved, as were the Amerindians of the Caribbean and Mexico and South America.) The Sioux provide a pertinent example of how the reservation system worked in practice, I think. They had reservation lands in the Black Hills of the Dakotas, but then gold was discovered there. So, they were forcibly moved to barren lands incapable of sustaining agriculture even had they wished to adopt it. Or, take the Indians of the American southwest. Has anyone ever been on those reservations for any length of time? It's heartbreaking. There are *no* sources of water, for God's sake. It's a desert. How were they supposed to adopt agriculture? And the Dawes Act was, in my opinion, a joke. Those poor people had no concept of individual land ownership. Within a few years, most of them had sold their land to Europeans for a pittance. 

Just from a legal standpoint, the treaties that were signed with the Native Americans weren't worth the paper they were written on, as they were routinely abrogated. As for the reservation system, all it meant was that the Native Americans were progressively shunted on to poorer and poorer land, land incapable of sustaining any kind of agriculture even had they wished to adopt it. 

As for the Indian schools as an "integration" tool, the record is very mixed, in my opinion. I will admit that the impulse was benign in that there was a desire to integrate them into "modern" culture. However, when the children stubbornly clung to the language and the culture of their parents, and the dormitory system was enforced, we're talking about a different thing. Forcibly tearing children away from their parents, and sending them to schools where they were routinely whipped for speaking in their native languages is _not_ the way to win hearts and minds. 

In terms of integration, the best results were probably those from the Mission system which was used to some extent in the west, including California. Of course, it could be said that in that case the Amerindians were little better than serfs. 

I'm sure you're familiar with all these sources, but for those who aren't:
The Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears:
http://www.amazon.com/Cherokee-Pengu...ETMV35EAX61N7R

The Trail of Tears and the Forcible Removal of the Five Civilized Tribes:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Trail-Tear...ETMV35EAX61N7R

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, primarily about the Sioux, forever changed the way that I view this issue.
http://www.amazon.com/Bury-My-Heart-...ETMV35EAX61N7R

There are also some excellent videos and movies:
http://www.amazon.com/Trail-Tears-Am...ETMV35EAX61N7R

The last two chapters of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee made into an Emmy Award winning documentary narrated by Aidan Quinn.
http://www.amazon.com/Bury-My-Heart-...HJPE4DN8CT1BG8

One of the finest and most honest movies ever made, in my opinion, about the encounter between Europeans and Native Americans: The Mission. It also has an extraordinary musical score by Ennio Morricone and great performances by Robert DeNiro, Jeremy Irons, and Aidan Quinn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mis...281986_film%29

As an antidote, just so that we don't romanticize Amerindian culture: Black Robe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Robe_%28film%29

Of course, it goes without saying that this kind of behavior shouldn't be laid entirely at the door of "Europeans", much less solely "Anglo-Saxon" Europeans. This is, unfortunately, to one degree or another, _human_ behavior.

----------


## Angela

Just a word about "racism".

If some group invades my country, and tries to kill me and take my land, is it "racism" to hate them? Now, if I am a descendent of those people, and I hate the descendents of those invaders in general without any indication that they share those attitudes, is it "racism" to hate them? Most people would probably say yes. On the other hand, if I find that the modern day descendents as a general rule share those "attitudes", is it "racism" to hate them? 

I know that this is perhaps annoyingly abstract, but once modern examples are used, logic tends to go out the window, to be replaced by emotion, and that's as true for me as it is for anyone else. 

I try to reserve the term "racism" for a belief that other "ethno groups" are inherently inferior to one's own, and therefore it is acceptable, or perhaps even admirable to disrespect them, to violate their human rights if one has the power to do so, and even to, in extreme situations, attempt to exterminate them as a "people".

----------


## Angela

> Interesting, I didn't have an idea about this Swedish and Finnish emigrants so early on. It was amazing how well adopted these axe wielding people to local wilderness. Perhaps it is not surprise when we are dealing with Europeans of most ANE and WHG proportions. If it would have been done by Sardinian emigrants I were shocked, lol.


I'm not so sure about that. They've been farmers for at least 3,000 years. I would think that's a long enough time to lose any specific predilection for the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

I think the very early French Canadian settlers, and even more, the coureurs de bois, are an apt example. They also "went native" rather quickly. When you're a small, isolated group, in an alien environment, there's all the incentive in the world to do so. That's part of the reason, I think, that admixture so often occurred in these very early settlers, whether it was the Caribbean, South Africa, or French Canada.

----------


## bicicleur

> I think one needs to consider the level of social development of Europeans at the time of first contact with Natives. Most Europeans were illiterate or semi-literate farmers or landowners with very narrow horizons, and the more educated part of the social and political elite was a very narrow group. Many of the people who first came to North America were traders and adventurers, some of them failed members of the social elites but others very rough individuals. And the farmers who first settled in North America would generally have been poorly educated, probably with narrower horizons than most of the Native people they met. One advantage they had was iron tools and firearms, but the main advantage for settlers was the initial lack of immunity by Natives to European diseases - that really thinned the ranks of the Native people. But during the early period, it wouldn't have been difficult for the two cultures to merge if either side had wished it - remember that most Native people in eastern North America were subsistence farmers, just like most Europeans, but without the same tools or livestock. I doubt if either side was interested in integrating, for the most part, but in the southeastern U.S. there were some Native tribes, especially the Cherokee, who adopted European ways and tried to become part of American society. They were forcibly removed to the west, with great loss of life. It's one of the most shameful episodes in American history. And here in Canada, although British and later Canadian authorities did try to accommodate Native people to some extent, as long as they didn't prevent white expansion, many white individuals were quite hostile to Native people and in some parts of the country they still are.
> 
> Of course, Native people aren't blameless, and they're the ones who now cling to the reserve system, and they often have a very negative attitude toward white people. Racism unfortunately seems to be part of the human condition. We tend to favour our tribe, however it's defined, and to fear "the other", however it's defined. And that less than admirable human trait has certainly been a major factor in relationships between Natives and others here in North America.


I don't know any details, but indeed I heared the story of the Cherokee once. So I overgeneralized.
The situation happened before, around the year 1400 when Greenlandic Vikings tried to engage in trade relations with the Inuit and with some Native Indian tribes.
Those tribes were not interested. And when the climate turned colder, the Vikings left Greenland. 
If these Vikings would have had firearms then, and if they'd known about more fertile lands further south, they'd probably also would have colonised the country.
It's just the way things went these days.

----------


## bicicleur

> Just a word about "racism".
> 
> If some group invades my country, and tries to kill me and take my land, is it "racism" to hate them? Now, if I am a descendent of those people, and I hate the descendents of those invaders in general without any indication that they share those attitudes, is it "racism" to hate them? Most people would probably say yes. On the other hand, if I find that the modern day descendents as a general rule share those "attitudes", is it "racism" to hate them? 
> 
> I know that this is perhaps annoyingly abstract, but once modern examples are used, logic tends to go out the window, to be replaced by emotion, and that's as true for me as it is for anyone else. 
> 
> I try to reserve the term "racism" for a belief that other "ethno groups" are inherently inferior to one's own, and therefore it is acceptable, or perhaps even admirable to disrespect them, to violate their human rights if one has the power to do so, and even to, in extreme situations, attempt to exterminate them as a "people".


I agree, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, 'racism' is a word that is being used far to often nowadays.
If we want to fight racism, we should not abuse the word.
Racism is the tribal equivalent of religious fundamentalism.

----------


## motzart

They are a huge embarrassment for Canada. Alcoholism, drug abuse, teen prostitution, basically any kind of criminal activity you can imagine runs rampant on them. The government can't intervene without looking like they are taking over so we are forced to sit back and let it happen. Imagine little pockets of Brazilian Favaelas scattered around your country, or if you prefer something like the Kowloon walled city. Every week in the news you hear about some awful thing happening like someone getting murdered or raped on one. Canadians are fed up with it but not enough to do anything about it yet. I don't think we are helping them by enabling them to continue on this way, but we had an experiment at assimilation called residential schools that went very badly and it is too fresh in the memory for most to attempt anything similar again. You may think Euro-Canadians are racist against Native Canadians and are oppressing them, but this is absolutely not the case. The first nations people have a culture of hopelessness and depression that is deeply ingrained. They are an intelligent and sensitive people but the majority opinion among them seems to be f*** the white man and his world. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia..._school_system

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I don't have doubts that we can find few Sardinians who love wilderness and could pull it off, however to do such switch to hunter lifestyle en masse only could be done by people of North. I think we have to look with statistical eye on such phenomena.


If you raised a Sardinian as a Lithuanian, he would behave like a Lithuanian, and love wilderness as much as an average Lithuanian. "Farmer" vs "hunter" ancestry probably doesn't effect the mind. The "hunters" and "farmers" had alot of recent common west Eurasian ancestry, plus the "farmers" had ancestors in the near east who were "hunters" at least a few thousand years before they arrived in Europe. Who knows there could be mental differences and possibly the Mesolithic Euro's and Neolithic west Asian's ancestors adapted to feel more familiar with certain environments. It would be interesting to see a poll test whether someone's ancestry effects what environment they feel familiar with.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> The ignore button system has a flaw from my point of view; if I start reading the activity thread before I sign in, I'm done for, because then the beginning of the post shows up. Often, I then don't have the self-discipline to "ignore" it on my own. For the sake of my blood pressure, *I am now trying to remember to sign in before I look at it.  Poor you, you have to wade through it all: the spams, the silly, the uninformed, the propaganda, and the outright malicious. I don't envy you*.


Ok, I've had enough. I see you, Lebrok, Aberdeen, and every other know it all snob on this forum won't change and become respectful human beings. Y'all think you're so smart and informed, I'll be smarter, no matter what subject it may be. I WILL DESTROY YOU WITH MY MIND!!! Lebrok, you want war I'll give you war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Angela

> Ok, I've had enough. I see you, Lebrok, Aberdeen, and every other know it all snob on this forum won't change and become respectful human beings. Y'all think you're so smart and informed, I'll be smarter, no matter what subject it may be. I WILL DESTROY YOU WITH MY MIND!!! Lebrok, you want war I'll give you war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Fire Haired, take a breath...*I* made the comment, not LeBrok, and it's a very general one about the downside of a moderator's job...everything is not about you. FWIW, I have been faithfully reading your posts...I usually don't agree, but as they've been on topic and respectful for quite a while, I've been reading them. Take it easy.

----------


## LeBrok

> Ok, I've had enough. I see you, Lebrok, Aberdeen, and every other know it all snob on this forum won't change and become respectful human beings. Y'all think you're so smart and informed, I'll be smarter, no matter what subject it may be. I WILL DESTROY YOU WITH MY MIND!!!


 Looks like self destruction. Your hair is on fire already.





> Lebrok, you want war I'll give you war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 So far I have better weapons.

Angela is right. She made a general comment and you thought it was about you.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Looks like self destruction. Your hair is on fire already.








> So far I have better weapons.
> 
> Angela is right. She made a general comment and you thought it was about you.


I didn't care who she was referring to(I think it is mostly the Greek guy), it was the meaning of it.

----------


## LeBrok

> Just a word about "racism".
> 
> If some group invades my country, and tries to kill me and take my land, is it "racism" to hate them? Now, if I am a descendent of those people, and I hate the descendents of those invaders in general without any indication that they share those attitudes, is it "racism" to hate them? Most people would probably say yes. On the other hand, if I find that the modern day descendents as a general rule share those "attitudes", is it "racism" to hate them?


 Despising enemy, the invaders, is not exactly racism. To degrade them as lesser humans and treat them as garbage or slaves, based on ethnicity, culture or look, is racist.

----------


## Angela

> I didn't care who she was referring to(I think it is mostly the Greek guy), it was the meaning of it.


It was a general comment which could have been made about any forum. If you choose not to believe that, there's nothing I can do about it. 

As for Echetlaus, I often think he is playing a role, just trying to be provocative, and doesn't totally believe what he is posting in various threads. That's why I generally don't respond, or respond ironically. If I really believed he wants to set up a theocracy in the Balkans, I might indeed try to avoid his posts for fear of losing my temper. I just don't think there's any harm in him. 

So, I'm afraid you've got it all wrong.

----------


## Angela

> Despising enemy, the invaders, is not exactly racism. To degrade them as lesser humans and treat them as garbage or slaves, based on ethnicity, culture or look, is racist.


Yes, exactly. You said it in a much more succinct way than I did.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> As for Echetlaus, I often think he is playing a role, just trying to be provocative, and doesn't totally believe what he is posting in various threads. That's why I generally don't respond, or respond ironically. If I really believed he wants to set up a theocracy in the Balkans, I might indeed try to avoid his posts for fear of losing my temper. I just don't think there's any harm in him.


1. Say my name right.

2. Do not come to silly conclusions, e.g., theocratic state in Balkans. You don't get my point at all!

3. What role am I playing? This is a heavy accusation on your behalf. You should put your tongue in your brain prior to speaking. If I recall right, I have never accused you of anything. So either don't talk specifically about me, or talk only about my posts per se. If it becomes personal (like the case of the hideous person called 'LeBrok') it is not right.

----------


## Sile

clearly, the bigger the nation the more racist they are to their own people and strangers
Are castilians racist to Catalans
Are Italians racist to Sicilians
Are french racists to Bretons ...............all yes...............because the race that runs that nation wants to run it their way...........so to conclude ~90% of the world are racists

PS...maybe the swiss are not racist to each with their 14 cantons which make a confederated nation.................but they are racist to strangers

----------


## kamani

racism is something learned or something you have been infected with, because it can be quite contagious. Often the people that claim to be the victims are the ones with the worst version of the disease. Now, who spreads this disease and for what motives is still up for debate, but there is definitely groups that benefit from it and it sure keeps people busy with pointless stuff to fight over.

----------


## FutureEarth

I heard that they do not wish to mix with the rest of canadians or american's because they want to keep their culture rich and pure. So they choose to separate themselves with the support of the government in order to preserve their culture. You have to remember that American's essentially just came and took over/kicked them off their own land. They also did things like purposely giving them alcohol and opium in order to take advantage of them. They're a strong culture to still keep segregated from the rest of the country. To stay away from the temptation to just join in. So its essentially to just keep their culture rich.

----------


## LTE-21

I live in British Columbia Canada... I have contact with first nations everyday... they aren't corralled onto reserves to be kept away from society... you guys are funny... we are neighbours here.. there are many interracial relationships... yes, there are reserves, and yes they have problems. you guys are funny acting like u Canadians are xenophobic... we are practically the most successful example of multiculturalism. and claiming that spain treated the first nations better is pretty laughable... even the british considered them too harsh... THE BRITISH!

----------


## LTE-21

oh but please continue acting like "intellectual Europeans" acting like your better than everyone... you guys are probably a bunch of closet racists on this site anyway... lol

----------


## Dominicanese

people just haven't accepted the fact yet that change needs to happen therefor

----------


## Tomenable

They probably want to have these reservations.

----------


## smartB

Thanks for sharing!

----------


## JuliaVong

I'm Greek! And I love my nation very much)

----------

