This isn’t a meme.
tHiS iSn’T a mEmE
I’m glad you agree
Oh Jesus, it’s the same annoying guy that posts the stupid Dale Earnhardt “memes”.
This guy would upload the IRS tax handbook as a meme if he could
The bottom picture isn’t accurate, I live on a reservation that isn’t listed.
If there’s one mistake I notice immediately there’s definitely more.
Additionally, most of Oklahoma is still various reservation lands. That was a recent court ruling, so I suspect this is a few years old.
My favorite part is not being able to read the font whatsoever.
Pretty sure this is saved from an attachment from a forwarded email of a scan of a photo copy of a mimeograph.
Im gonna fax this to my group chat
Unironcally it looks like a picture from a fifth grade social studies book
That’s ok, this map of native American lands is definitely outdated. The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) lands are much smaller than it should be. As that’s the only tribal name I can actually read, I imagine it’s a similar story for the other tribes.
me2
So… Average history?
Yeah, you can do the same for Russia, China, most European countries. Basically the entirety of Africa.
China/Russia/Europe are largely inhabited by people whose ancestry traces back 1000s of years to the same region. That’s very different from North America, where most natives where killed (either through disease or “policy”).
That’s not to excuse their past behaviour (Europeans started the genocide in North America), but it’s still very different.
Yup. That’s the biggest difference. My ancestors trace back to Beringia (what is now the Bering Strait) but my national leader is an 80 year old European American.
How’s the genocide of a whole continent “average history”? The magnitude of destruction in the Americas is not common and this downplay of a continent-wide genocide is annoying.
Because there are other examples of continent wide genocide.
Humans are the fucking worst and it isn’t unique to one area
The Mongols genocided two continents and a sub continent.
Did they? I was under the impression they came in, did a conquer, and basically left with the conquered understanding that the horde’d be back for their tribute.
Because you’re lumping in the unavoidable disease transfer of first contact with intentional conquest and violence. Take away that, which was going to happen whenever any Afro-Eurasian community first interacted with people from the americas, and you get a very comparable situation to many things throughout history.
The genocide didn’t happen solely after the first contact, the massacre of natives lasted centuries. Many nations were wiped out in the XIX century.
And a quote for you
Proponents of the default position emphasize attrition by disease despite other causes equally deadly, if not more so. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease.
Professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
Did disease not account for the vast majority of death? Even still, I never discounted the brutal conquest that was engaged in. My point is that Europeans aren’t special for brutal conquests. Imperial Japan is a prime example this.
You’re also treating a bunch of competing individuals as a hive mind with a coherent plan. I find that “grand scheming entity” kind of narrative to be just as naive as the people buying into racist narratives. It doesn’t make sense when it’s Jewish people and they’re a smaller demographic than “Western European”.
Look, the reality is that disease did kill the majority of natives.
The genocide after that is not made any less horrible by that reality, but it was made POSSIBLE because of it.
If European settlers had to deal with the full original population, things would have been VERY different.
It wasn’t just disease that killed them. See: the Trail of Tears
I never said it was the only thing so I wouldn’t disagree with you on that.
But you and I did NOT. I see a lot of people online who can’t make the distinction.
EDIT: Thanks for replies, all. Some good conversation here
Of course I’m gonna assume good faith from you here, but I feel like some people boil down issues like this to “well I mean I didn’t do it so stop complaining”, and that’s wildly reductive and irresponsible at minimum.
Arguing the situation in this way sidesteps the uncomfortable and inconvenient reality that the United States is yet still occupying native land, whether it be Hawai’i, Alaska, or the contiguous territories. Yes it’s entirely possible that mine or your ancestors didn’t perpetuate these things as immigration is and has always been ongoing, but the point everyone misses is that we are still here.
I couldn’t possibly imagine belittling natives for acknowledging the fact that their land was taken from them by force. Some real colonialist shit.
I feel you, and also acknowledge it is a hairy subject on a grand scale.
I also try to frame the issue in the actual, real moment. I try my damndest to do as little harm as humanly possible to anyone. Should I be forced to give money to someone affected? Land? Should I be punished?
Who benefits? A grandson of someone displaced? A great great grandson? Whole family trees? How do you make shit like this right after so much time?
Mostly, I’m trying to encourage thought and discussion. Fundamentally, I think people should be judged on their own merits and actions, not their lineage.
The way I understand it is that even if we omit any ancestral blame for what happened, the Native Americans are still dealing with the impact while European descendants benefit from it. It’s kind of like if I went to school with a very bright kid that was horribly abused and kicked out into the streets, so they performed poorly and dropped out, allowing me to get into the best college possible and have a great career. Why should I have any compassion for this kid if I didn’t abuse them myself? Why would I help them get housed and into college? Why would I even acknowledge that they were abused and forced out of their home? I’m one that earned it by working hard to get into college and graduate.
This omits the possibility that this kid might have outperformed me and taken the college spot, leaving me to be in a worse off situation.
Not 1000% on board with your analogy, but I understand and fully agree lol.
I just wish most people had the empathy and mental capacity to understand the intricacies of this stuff. It’s a hell of a lot easier to just say “uH wOw I ain’t payin reparations for no dang indians” than it is to actually think for a minute about and acknowledge the real history of where you live
How far back in time are we going to enact justice? My 36x Great uncle Olaf never got his comeuppance (/s a little)
As far back as required to make those involved feel as if they were compensated. If you feel that 36x Great uncle Olaf’s loss affects your Family Today, then you should have your day in Court to make the case. However, as most likely 36x Great uncle Olaf was in fact not involved in anything in a currently oppressed People’s past, it’ll be a hard case to make.
That will always be an issue until the US government actually has real communication and cooperation with native people.
I don’t necessarily think that citizens of occupied land are automatically responsible for the past actions of a government (not to say that’s what you implied), but said government that committed the atrocities is. As far as the other part of the equation, I suppose the beneficiaries should be determined by the natives themselves.
I like that approach. It’s in line with what Amnesty International is proposing for Isreal and Palestine
The outcome needs to be negotiated and yes, the Tax Payer should foot the bill for the redress for the actions of the State and individual wealthy Families should foot the bill for the crimes their wealth stems from. For example: the entirety of Oklahoma’s rather impressively inhumane treatment of the Native Tribes needs to be dealt with as the People that profited from the malfeasance are still holding the proceeds of those crimes.
Doesn’t the pioneer woman’s family own the land involved in Killers of the Flower Moon? Pretty wild stuff
Yes. As well as all the oil money pumped out of OK over the Years.
What about the tribes that lost wars to other tribes? Do they get their old land? How far back are we going?
Irrelevant, only considering land taken by settlers
Why is only one relevant? Is it the brutality of the war that matters? Or the recency?
No reason to not give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re giving off heavy “they were already killing each other so it’s no big deal” vibes. No insult intended, just what I’m picking up.
Intertribal conflict is the tribes’ business, colonizing and displacing is colonists’ business. To be clear, external invasion is the concern here
Because those Tribes are not currently benefiting from the land they took. And most likely are in the same boat if they still exist.
That doesn’t mean everyone living on stolen land gets a pass just because they weren’t the ones to steal it. They have an obligation to make it right.
How do you propose this be done? FAIRLY?
I know, this might sound crazy, but: Listening to the native Americans?
You don’t have to listen to the dead, have you? Just sayin’
Just sayin’ but there are still several native tribes still existing across the Americas. We can talk to them.
The American genocide wasn’t as thorough as you think it was.
Unfortunately it was pretty thorough, especially so on the East Coast. Many states
Land shouldn’t be owned indefinitely and passed through families. It’s not right to have created a dynasty based on one guy in the 1800s claiming everything in sight and having his idiot descendents be wealthy simply based on the fact. They didn’t do anything except inherent land.
Land that isn’t your primary home should have to be leased and not owned, that way it’s being used most effectively and not privatized for the sole benefit of the owner. It leads to land speculation and squatting of land that someone else would like to use.
Additionally, natural resources should also belong to the people and companies should have to pay fair compensation for their extraction.
Define “make it right”. And for who, exactly?
Both sides must come to an agreement that both agree to, without coercion by sword. All involved.
You say stolen, everyone else says conquered.
… So, robbery on a national scale, then?
Are you new to this earth?
What’s your point?
My point is that this is the history of every country.
I agree. Nation-states are built on violence.
Does that make the genocide any better?
Right, conquered is worse because it implies it’s stolen via violence at a large scale. While just stolen could mean taken quietly and without violence. Thank you for addressing the seriousness of the issue.
And the Conquered get the say in Pacified or not.
If you steal someone’s TV and give it to your kid, does that mean the person who it was stolen from shouldn’t get it back? Its the kid’s now???
Allow me to complicate the trial. What if the robbed is no longer alive?
Native people’s were not completely wiped out, despite euroamerikkkan attempts. Their survival is resistance.
Never forget? In some states it’s downright illegal to teach kids that complex, sophisticated and civilized societies existed here before white people showed up.
That’s too bad, couldn’t find one in jpeg?
deleted by creator
How many centuries, please tell me.
Hint: less than one.
And in many cases, is present reality and not past History at all.
Your comment is equal measures funny and absurd to be honest. Please do explain how looking back on events, decisions made, etc to better frame modern happenings is so ridiculous.
Let’s do a slavery.
