Is there such a thing as an evil person?

[Panther]

I should probably stay away from this thread simply because it is one that can be emotional for me and I don't want to be hypocritical by telling everyone to keep their emotions in check and use sources & cites and then turn around and jump in from an emotional standpoint. So, I will attempt to be brief and follow the rules...

The Native American was slaughtered by those who first settled this country and the slaughter continued by those who founded its government. Any alteration of that fact is rewriting history. There were over 12 million Native Americans made up of several different nations, different languages and different cultures populating North American at the time the US was first colonized.

It is important to note that most Native Americans call themselves "Nations" and the use of the term "tribe" was differentiated. The wasichu, ummm, europeans used the term "tribe" specifically as a way to denegrate the culture of the Native American Nations... that practice, unconciously, is carried on through today. History has already been rewritten so many times in so many ways it is hard to discern what is real, what is massaged and what is myth. Some Native American Nations lived in teepees and were nomadic. That was because they moved with the seasons and allowed the land (both from agricultural and hunting perspectives) to replenish itself. Others stayed in one place. Some Nations had a loose hierarchy (often with a chief at the top), while others (such as the Cherokee) were had a strict hierarchy dictated by their own version of a "constitution". Some were as advanced in their own way as the europeans who came here, while others were more primitive. And the myth that all Native American Nations got along is a bunch of manure as well... While they had created pow-wows, councils, and peace treaties between themselves, there were some who just didn't get along with "those folks over there". It is also a myth that they all had the same earth-loving religion. Those who are still alive seem to be the ones that adapted to the changing times and for whatever reason, there seems to be a somewhat common religious thread in the Nations that remain.

The US had 350 treaties with Native Americans and the US broke every one of them.

All but ONE... The Onandaga Nation in upstate New York have demanded that their treaty be maintained. That Nation (within a Nation) is completely an independent Nation... even have their own passports. The town of Seneca NY is completely within the Onandaga Nation and when the treaty for allowing use of their land ran out in the 90s (IIRC), without any real attempt at renegotiation from the various U.S. & NY governments, many folks who had "bought" property found out that they didn't really own anything! The treaty was basically a partial land-lease for all those years with the cost being furs delivered on January 1 every year from the U.S. government. After the treaty ran out, even the SCOTUS upheld the Onandaga claim to taking their own property back. It was resolved, but I don't know what the actual outcome was. The treaty with the Cherokee, Catawba, Navajo, Apache, and many others have all been broken in various nefarious ways.

Another interesting tidbit of information was the difference in how the colliding cultures looked at land and resources. While the Europeans believed in the concept of land (and thus resource) "ownership", the Native American Nations didn't share that. The Native Americans felt that no one could "own" the earth. That is partially why there were disputes between some of the Nations. One Nation would move away from an area during certain months to allow it to replenish and another Nation would move in to part of that same area during that time. One had the opinion that it was a new fertile area for them and the other was upset because they felt it was being disrespected and not allowed to replenish. Over time, there came to be agreements that dictated what areas were shared, open, closed, etc... but conflicts still arose because some smaller groups of one Nation or the other would ignore those agreements. The whole idea that the Europeans had to come in and "conquer" the Native American Nations is only partially correct. When Europeans first arrived here, the Native Nations (believing that no one could "own" the earth) were willing to work with the new-comers to share the resources and land. When it became evident that the Europeans weren't going to share and were growing more and more possessive of the earth, then trouble started. By the time the great expansion westward began, those Native Nations in the west had a track record of how the Europeans acted in this regard. Because of that, they attempted to make very strict treaties with the Europeans. When it became evident that those treaties weren't worth the paper they were written on or the tobacco smoked to seal the deal, then the Natives "grew restless"... OK, they got POed royally. Some tried to be "diplomatic" to no avail, others tried to enforce the treaty on their area with force even against the flood of people going west. Then the Calvary stepped in. Rather than seeing it as invading other Nations, they saw it as removing the obstacle savages from the world. Either way, regardless of some victories, the war was won by the Europeans who didn't care to live by the treaties they had signed and were more willing to be ruthless and take what they wanted. My Scottish ancestors had settled in VA, and the Carolinas... and (by the grace of God) had not only started to get along with the local Native Nations (Cherokee, Catawba, etc), but some started intermarrying. I have heard (but have no real proof beyond family folklore, which I used to discount, but after my Daddy's death found he was telling us the truth not just some stories and gotten the proof for many of those tales)... anyway, there is family folklore that we have cousins who are part of the Cherokee nation. Where I have a great-great-grandmother who was Cherokee, the folklore is that some of the Scottish women many years ago went off to marry and live with the Cherokee. Beyond the tales, I have no proof, but it certainly is plausible.

Go back to your history books in high school when they talked about General Custer he was remembered as a war hero who was ambushed and slaughtered at Little Bighorn. I bet you’ll have a hard time finding any mention of the tribes Custer and his men wiped out during his raids on Native American settlements, which includes the women and children.

And here is an interesting fact about that as well... The whole action of "scalping" was one first introduced by the U.S. Calvary because they paid a bounty based on the number of Injuns killed and there had to be some way to prove a kill. Soooooo, those seeking the bounty were told to bring back the scalp of those they killed to prove it and THEN they would get paid. The Native Americans, faced with the barbarity of the act, decided to retaliate in kind.

My apologies for the long post and I have tried to be as unemotional as possible about relaying the information as I know it... I doubt that I have, so I will try to refrain from this thread further. Regardless, this is one perspective that I hope you find interesting if not enlightening.

Take care and be good to each other...

[Paul_C]

CTX

I'm not trying to take sides here, If thats what it seems that's not my point. Thats why I started my last posting saying people have been killing each other since we've exsited. All I'm saying is that Evil seems to be defined by the winner. WE all agree that genocide is evil and that Hitler was evil since he made an attempt at genocide. But what this nation did to the NA is not considered genocide, why? It sure seems to fit the criteria.

[Med Tech]

I don't think the question is whether Georgia was a state or not. The question is whether that gives them the right to displace the Cherokee. In my book, We did not have a right to the land to begin with, we just conquered for it. Whether the supreme court said it was okay or not is irrelevant to the moral question.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I certainly never said that the USSC had any relevance to the morality of it. I was being sarcastic to Ian's 'Are you serious?' crack. The way I see it, we conquered, in one fashion or another, England, France, Spain, Mexico, and NAs to acquire the land that makes up the USA. Some of those encounters were dealt with honorably, ie; Spain, France and England. Others proved our actions to be reprehensible, ie; Mexico and the NAs. In the case of the Trail of Tears, I still think that for all involved, what happened was much preferable to what would have been the only alternative.

[Med Tech]

Med Tech,

My comments are to question why does one atrocity go down in the history books as a holocaust or great evil, and the other does not? My answer is because the winners wrote the history books and determined what an evil is. Med Tech by you denying the fact that what happened to the Native American was not genocide proves my point. The Native American was slaughtered by those who first settled this country and the slaughter continued by those who founded its government. Any alteration of that fact is rewriting history.

Well, there you go: I can't argue with you, because I'd be rewriting history. You've set your level of proof, and with a circular argument like that, I can't overcome it, and I won't try.

There were over 12 million Native Americans made up of several different nations, different languages and different cultures populating North American at the time the US was

Go back to your history books in high school when they talked about General Custer he was remembered as a war hero who was ambushed and slaughtered at Little Bighorn. I bet you’ll have a hard time finding any mention of the tribes Custer and his men wiped out during his raids on Native American settlements, which includes the women and children.

I don't have any of my history books from high school, but I can tell you that nowadays, you can read in school about an evil general custer who went around killing NAs at will, and was finally outnumbered and killed after making an idiotic stand against superior fighters and numbers. The balance has tipped the other way in our childrens' education, and I don't think that an imbalance in either direction is good.

Evils happen in this world that are forgotten or just ignored because they are too embarrassing to confront. Again, If Hitler wad won and his dream fulfilled do you really think he would go down in history as Evil? No he wouldn’t, it’s hard to imagine that but just imagine who would be writing the books and who would be teaching the history classes.

I have two names for you for historical context; Stalin and Mao. Even if somehow he DID win (which I think was unlikely, but that's another matter) he still would not have gone down as a good or great man in most of the history books, no matter who wrote them.

[Bill Glasheen]

Interesting thread.

I'd like to remind folks of a little-mentioned fact concerning the fate of Native Americans. The biggest killer of the first residents of this nation was disease, and not European warfare. Small pox, syphillis, influenza, measles, alcoholism, etc., etc. Read about various Native American sexual practices (for example, in Undaunted Courage) and you can see why this happened as quickly as it did.

Another point worth mentioning is the degree to which original inhabitants were displaced and/or eliminated. Venezuela has no Native Americans because they practiced ethnic cleansing. One hundred percent ethnic cleansing.

One of the great enigmas of this country is our ever-changing melting pot. Did the original Native Americans ever truly leave? And have you noticed that "African Americans" look nothing like "Africans?" Not all "evil" ends up "bad." Generations later (literally), life just is. We wouldn't be what we are as a nation without the richness of our DNA and our cultures.

- Bill

[cxt]

Panther

Couple of things.

1- The notion that NA had no real concept of "ownership" of land is a charming fantsy--but it simply is not true--according to the historical record--the handed down stories and lore of various "tribes" show this.

Specifc land/areas were "owned" by specific tribes--these claims were enforced by armed parties whom had no doubt that they were killing to protect "their" land.

From the far north Aluet- Northwest coast Tlinget, to the Huron, the Soiux, the Cheyanne, the Commache, the Navajo, the Apache.

Pick a region and youll find specifc territory claimed and defended by specific tribes.

Defended to the death.

2-Scalping--a horrible practice that sadly was used by many ethnic groups world wide.

But its use in North America predates the coming of the "white man."

Again there is a whole mass grave with bodies of men, women and children that had been slaughtered then scalped--well before the "white man" ever set foot in North America.

Plus I think the Southwest NA were also scalpling folks well before any outside influence.

Like I said before NO-ONES hands are clean here.

The history of the human race seems to written in blood.

Hope you don't decide to sit this one out--your perspective is both enlightening and interesting.

[Paul_C]

I have two names for you for historical context; Stalin and Mao. Even if somehow he DID win (which I think was unlikely, but that's another matter) he still would not have gone down as a good or great man in most of the history books, no matter who wrote them.

I would love to see one of the History books form the Soviet Union when communism was the ruling force. I have a hard time believing they spoke ill of Stalin. I agree I doubt they speak highly of Stalin in Russian schools now but a new government is writing the books. Which again strengthens my argument that evil is a perception determined by the victors.

Just to clairify, I never said Hitler would go down in History as a great man, I suggested if things happened differently he wouldn’t go down in history as an evil man. Remember this discussion is about whether or not evil exists. In all probability the books would say what Hitler did was misguided and wrong but ultimately strengthened the Arian race. Much like the sentiment of how we remember our own history; what we did to the NA was misguided and wrong but it lead the way to a stronger more advanced civilization.

[IJ]

"As proof that Georgia was an established state of the Union, I present Cherokee Nation v State of Georgia, a U.S. Supreme Court case, in 1831."

I really wasn't asking if the body that defines states had defined GA as such. I was basically asking why you thought that the fact we set up a government in the middle of Cherokee land made it ok to then displace them. I'd wonder, if I came over to your place and set upthe new state of IJ-ikistan in your living room, is it somehow less evil for me to displace you? That was the question asked.

Right after evil wins, I'm sure it's sometimes hard to get the truth into the history books. But with a little distance from the event, one can still see (applying the rules I mentioend a while back) who was evil. Or more evil.

Bill, are you familiar with the early biowarfare that was practiced, that is, the smallpox laden blanket of doom? There's a low cost WMD if there ever was one.

[Med Tech]

I was basically asking why you thought that the fact we set up a government in the middle of Cherokee land made it ok to then displace them.

Because settlers and NAs were developing the nasty habit of killing eachother. Since the federal government had and has a responsibility to protect its' citizens (note that the Cherokee were not citizens), even from themselves, the only way to prevent bloodshed was to remove the Cherokee.

[IJ]

I take it then, that if I occupy your living room, and we fail to get along, the only option is to forcibly remove the Med Techs???

You're speaking about expediency; the thread is about right and wrong. Should I point out that both Israel and the Terrorists are applying your strategy to each other and getting nowhere?

[Bill Glasheen]

Bill, are you familiar with the early biowarfare that was practiced, that is, the smallpox laden blanket of doom? There's a low cost WMD if there ever was one.

Yes. The British did it during the French and Indian war. It was one of the earliest examples of biological warfare that I know of.

But this, Ian, wasn't even a dent compared to what happened strictly by the coincidence of the arrival of European settlers (mostly the French and the British) bringing themselves over from a disease-infested land into the relatively sterile environment of the Western Hemisphere. The germ warfare is worth mentioning out of principle, but not from a practical standpoint.

Unlike the Europeans, the Native Americans hadn't gone through generation after generation of natural selection against pathogens common in Northern Europe. They were hit with plagues as well, but centuries after they developed and festered in Europe.

One practice noted in Undaunted Courage is that of sharing your wife with a respected gentleman from whom you wanted to acquire bravery and fighting skill. Actually when you think about it, that sort of worked... Just not in the way they thought. Unfortunately it caused these new diseases to spread faster than HIV did in the San Francisco bath houses.

It's interesting to consider the thesis that Judeochristian practices evolved partly because cultures that practiced them were more likely to survive. The Jews survived persecution partly because of their culture. Christianity rose out of the ashes of Rome. And Christian practices partly helped some of the settlers to work together and survive while others who were a bit more "wild" didn't. This was well before the germ theory of medicine, but then folks don't necessarily have to understand their success to benefit from it.

- Bill

[Panther]

One practice noted in Undaunted Courage is that of sharing your wife with a respected gentleman from whom you wanted to acquire bravery and fighting skill.

And this is but one problem with such books and partially quoting the customs documented in threads such as this...

While it was true that this was the practice in some Native American Nations, it was not a common practice or ritual in all Native American Nations. Mentioning such practices is historical fact, but without distinction, you are painting all Native American Nations' practices and rituals with that same brush... which is no more accurate than saying that anyone with a Scottish heritage must be actually a British bastard child because of the common practice of "first night"... or that anyone with central african ancestry was a cannibal because of the practice in some of those areas of eating their deceased... especially the brains...

The Cherokee were a matriarchal society and did not share those practices... Neither did the Navajo, Catawba, Onandaga or many others...

Also, it is true that Native American Nations had conflicts and that some of those conflicts were over land. Perhaps I didn't or can't explain my meaning well enough, but the concept of "owning" the earth was not the same between Native Americans and Europeans. True that the Native Nations had their own areas and guarded those areas, but no person "owned" the land. I guess I just don't really know how to explain the difference.

Interesting "takes" on history... Apologies for jumping back in and I will try not to do so again, but felt a little "clarification" was needed.

[Med Tech]

I take it then, that if I occupy your living room, and we fail to get along, the only option is to forcibly remove the Med Techs???

You're comparing apples and oranges again. Has everyone lost all sense of proportionality and historical context???

You're speaking about expediency; the thread is about right and wrong. Should I point out that both Israel and the Terrorists are applying your strategy to each other and getting nowhere?

I'm not talking about expediency, I'm talking about viability. It's easy to armchair quarterback and say that the American government was wrong, yet I haven't heard any viable alternatives. And I can't believe you're comparing this to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; They're an entirely different animal altogether.

[cxt]

Panther

Thanks for jumping back in.

I get what you mean.

[IJ]

MT, there was a tough situation in existance when the American Government came into conflict with native americans. Perhaps we can't expect a government to just admit they're on someone else's land and back away, especially not then. That's obvious. It happened. That doesn't make it right. That's the historical context, but for things to be compared, they don't have to be identical--just comparable. As for proportionality, what are you saying exactly? I'd say it was "x" thousands worse to displace "x" thousands people than it is to displace you from your living room. Proportionately worse.

Agreed, Bill, that the natural disaster of smallpox naiive populations exposed to the pathogen was far larger than the man-made problem.