And the resentment that Stefan Molyneux feeds upon as well...

http://counterpunch.org/levine08072009.html

Great article. Read and discuss.

(or thread side-barred)

I can't get into the article for getting irritated at the presumptions in the opening jargon/terminology. Specifically, first, that concept/dogma of "Native Americans". Then "Indians".

Well, hell, I'M a Native American aren't I? And apart from summer tanning, you won't find many any "whiter" (or is that "pale facer", Kimmosabe?) Do I ask how many generations, much less the relative [sic] perspective it takes to see Natives (and upon what authority?)?

What a false dichotomy. Yeah, keep 'em distracted and it'll work nicely into hiding the submitizen facts. As for those physically here when some Anglisters aka victors arrive here, well, today they're Nativer at best; or Nativest. They were arguably only distinguishable Natives when those first other-than-born-on-this-ground set foot upon said ground. And their descendents? Sorry, not any more Native (or in more contemporary/legal jargon, "Natural-born") American than I am (and some 100's of millions of others; especially if we factor in "North" in this America doing?!). [granted, we're just talking about word definings here; but after all, you and I are all the authority there is, or is then needed, with such! Of course, the more the merrier...]

And how degrading/insulting/presumptuous (and convoluted) to still refer to them as "Indians", when from my recollection, that was a slipus of the doofusous who in 1492 sailed the ocean blue...* in search of friggin' INDIA (*fairy tale codification for: plunder/booty). The One and of the same who subsequently opened the door to them being not only "Indians", but also "heathens" and "pagans", in need of Conversion to Xtianity or holocausting. Included in that Conversion was it's other cult tenet, the cult'ure of "Civilization" that rejected, violently, a different/significant insight into 'property'/society.
[side-bar within a side-bar: anyone know what those generations referred (and perhaps some still refer) to themselves by? Best as I can tell, it wouldn't have been "Americans" either, as that too is a whiteman later arrival's tag as well?]

Heck on that rationale, let's start calling African-Americans, instead, "Egyptians". [so why didn't They call these "Indians" instead, "USers"?! I mean Canada and Mexico are American...]

Yupp, to the victor go the spoils --sometimes, quite perpetually. And the blind keep leading the blind, spoiling still. Verbally in this link's case. "Right" out of the gate.

Trail of Tears, indeed.
Too bad they were not of yet another similar cult's such goings on group's undue influence or we'd indeed refer to such as The Holocaust (and distinguish it from the German 40's Holocaust at minimum --oh, and add a Russian and Chinese one etc to the Holocaust museuming while we're hear). *[caveat: indeed, just as with most any lumping of individuals, there were cruel ("savage") ones among these 15-18th century American peoples, just as there are among most if not all others]

Ok, now I'll try to get back to the author's other/stated objective...
with blinders on...

I think these leftists (I'm supposing the author is a leftist since that's from counterpunch, but I could be wrong) are mentally incapable of analyzing this issue without confining themselves to these frivolous superficial commentaries about how the kids have it rough, how no-one understands their needs etc etc. Well tough shit. How about focusing on something of actual substance, for instance the institutional reasons for the issue at hand? For example, the fact that these kids' parents are forced at gunpoint to send their children to these prison-like places, which recieve payment no matter what service they (don't?) provide.

Hmm. I had read this before and thought it excellent. I agree that there are a few leftist things in there which bother me, but mostly it seems to be a thoughtful look into how we as humans tend to reject anyone's lifestyle which is outside of our own specific prejudices.

I particularly like this paragraph:

Quote:

Conservatives who have had an easy time fitting into society believe that those people who cannot fit in are lazy, stupid, or undisciplined. Liberals who easily fit into society believe that those people who cannot fit in are diseased or disordered. It is difficult for either of these conservatives or liberals to imagine that their view of progress is another group’s view of insanity.

I will point you to another article which shows this mindset wherein if you are not part of the corporate submitizen herd you are seen as mentally ill and dangerous, and just plain wrong. Kinda like the idea of "illegal alien." I want to know exactly how it is possible for a PERSON to be ILLEGAL. What a concept. "Hey YOU! You're evil simply because you exist!" Oh, that's right... I'd forgotten that we're all born in sin. Forgive me. [/sarcasm off]

- NonE

speaking of "evil/born in sin"... FWIW/CE

Quote:

Father of Lies: The Pope's Genocidal Revisionism Thursday, 25 October 2007 source: Chris-floyd.com Almost no one in the West seems to have noticed the truly perverse and morally obscene remarks made by Pope Benedict in Brazil. But genocide scholar Adam Jones at CounterPunch noticed, and calls out Herr Ratzinger for his remarkable historical revisionism, which paints the genocidal destruction of America's pre-Columbus cultures as a "purifying" act which gave the natives just what they were "longing" for. ... Ask Pope Benedict: When Does Genocide Purify? (CounterPunch) Excerpts: On the last day of his visit, in the city of Aparecida, the Pope "touch[ed] on a sensitive historical episode," in the blandly understated language of an Associated Press dispatch (May 13). In other words, he ripped the bandages off a still-suppurating wound. According to the official text of Benedict's comments on the Vatican website, the Pope declared that "the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean" were "silently longing" to receive Christ as their savior. He was "the unknown God whom their ancestors were seeking, without realizing it ..." Colonization by Spain and Portugal was not a conquest, but rather an "adoption" of the Indians through baptism, making their cultures "fruitful" and "purifying" them. Accordingly, "the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbian cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture." So there we have it. The invasion and conquest of the Americas, which caused the deaths of upwards of 90 percent of the indigenous population, was something the Indians had been pining for all along. They weren't just "asking for it," as sexist cranks depict women as complicit in their own rapes. They were actually "longing" for it, since salvation and "purification" came with it… Benedict's astounding comments attracted barely a flicker of media attention in the West -- almost all of it on the wire services, and some of it problematic in itself. A May 13 Reuters dispatch noted blithely that, contrary to Benedict's claims, "many Indian groups believe the conquest brought them enslavement and genocide." This is rather like writing that "many Jewish groups believe that the Nazi Holocaust brought Jews enslavement and genocide." The reality exists independently of the belief. As blogger Stentor Danielson points out: "In the real world, it's a basic historical fact that the Indians were enslaved. It's a basic historical fact that entire tribes were wiped out. The reason [that] 'many Indian groups believe' these historical facts is because people like Reuters' craven reporters won't admit when there's a fact behind the claims.""

---quote source

=== asked again: why do only the Jewish/Jews get a capital "H" "Holocaust"? (and these Peoples, too typically, a lowly lower case "genocide"?); why even the word Holocaust when genocide covers it?!? Oh maybe because of what this survey's report includes??

Quote:

Survey: Most Americans Believe God Uniquely Blessed U.S. ... The nationwide survey of 1,400 adults, including an oversample of 400 evangelical Christians aged 18-29, was conducted to find how religion shapes people’s view of America’s role in the world and its foreign policy. ... What the general American public and white evangelicals most sharply contrast on in terms of foreign policy priorities is supporting Israel - 65 percent of white evangelicals consider this extremely or very important compared to 46 percent of the general American public; ... The survey was conducted Sept. 4-21, 2008, with a margin of error of +/-3.1 percent for the total survey sample, +/- 4.1 percent for white evangelical Christians, and +/- 5.5 percent for white evangelical Christians ages 18-29.

---source

Back to (hjack) point...

Quote:

Authors such as the Holocaust expert David Cesarani have argued that the government and policies of the United States of America against certain indigenous peoples constituted genocide. Cesarani states that "in terms of the sheer numbers killed, the Native American Genocide exceeds that of the Holocaust". He quotes David E. Stannard, author of American Holocaust, who speaks of the "genocidal and racist horrors against the indigenous peoples that have been and are being perpetrated by many nations in the Western Hemisphere, including the United States ..."

---source

Thank you, sirs, thank you. Tho Mr. Stannard, I wish you'd have included "Godist" (aka "theist") with your "genocidal and racist" horrors.

*no dishonor intended in pulling only this section from the site; merely seeking to work within some attachment to the OP*

[/threadjack]

Good post, Eye2.

- NonE

I recommend THIS ARTICLE for your perusal.

And maybe even moreso THIS ARTICLE.

Thanks, & thanks --the latter being for your assuring that I'd, though I had, read Lorenzo's LR posts. Good to know.

[and to threadjack within a threadjack (is there no shame?!), there's this awesome (now) snippet in the latter LR post:

Quote:

So out of the blue she wrote Professor Wilson (who now describes himself as a recovering academic historian)---emphasis mine; eye2i2

... which rings very nicely in my ears relative to a certain [unnamed teacup] Godist's post(s) relative to "popular Academic Philosophers"]