They Screwed Them Over But Kinda Had A Point - Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (2007) Discussion

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ichabod_Fletchman 17 years ago

True. But I'm talking about what they were doing in the most basic sense. Killing each other over land.

Bender: I was God once.
God: Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died

reply

[–] mshawobx 16 years ago

this has been going on with all colors of peoples around the world. tribes have been fighting over hunting grounds since tribes started forming together in our earliest history. all races. look at the middle east now.... look at asia....

true the whites overpowered them and took their lands but they were doing it to each other long before, they just didnt have the overwhelming weaponry that made the conflict so one sided. they brought knives to a gun fight.

it is only demonized because it was such a lopsided situation because of the whites advanced weapons and abilities. kind of like one tribe of natives with rifles and another tribe without..... this would create a one sided affair.

we overpowered them and took their land. now they have casinos.

"shuffle up and deal"

reply

[–] Ichabod_Fletchman 17 years ago

screwed 7 ways till sunday yeah.

Bender: I was God once.
God: Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died

reply

[–] manuel2734 17 years ago

The only actual point that was made was that the natives were human - not the perfect species that some claim them to be, and not the savages that have stigmatized them to the present - they killed each other for reasons that are all too familiar to every other ethnic group that has spawned in this earth.

That being said however, to compare the mass genocide conducted by the settlers with the scuffles between native trives and to somehow suggest as if the settlers' actions were justifiable is misleading and outright irresponsible. As someone mention erlier, tribal warfare was conducted under surtain guidelines with the inevitable aberrations. They also, to my knowledge, never exterminated or at least attempted to kill of another tribe. Even if that were so, it would not match the astoundidng numbers of those massacred by the hands of the settlers. This too me is as valid as saying that the holocaust was not really a bad thing because Israel massacres and subjugates the Palestinians of today. To even suggest such a dumdass assesment will designate you as a bigot - and rightfully so. I don't see why the argument regarding Native Americans should be any different....

reply

[–] Ndnpunk247 17 years ago

Yeah um, ndns vs. ndns fighting over land was cool. but having white people coming in and throwing us off our land was not cool. They had treaties and they lied to us about our land. At least if ndns fought other ndns it would still be ndn land instead of all the whites taking over. Destroying camps and kjsdgkahgjfdghjffgdfg this stuff makes me mad..this is our peoples land!!!! Our people never deserved to be run over like we were!!!!! sjghdsughruh!!!!

*Suffering: You Haven't Seen Anything Yet*

reply

[–] Hresvlegr 17 years ago

Another thing is the fact that Indian wars were very different than white wars. Destroying villages, entire tribes, and killing noncombatants were unknown among them before the whites came.
You'll all call me crazy, but I'm not crazy, I'm the only one who's not crazy!

reply

[–] newcastle99 17 years ago

The Indians could have lit each other on fire; that was THEIR business. Europeans had no right or business trying to destroy them and take their land. How would you like it if someone came to your home and started killing everyone in your house and taking your stuff while alleging all sorts of crap about you while they did it?

Depp Head
I Scottish Lads.
Instant Fan: Just add water.

reply

[–] Ichabod_Fletchman 17 years ago

Wow I wish I hadn't made this thread. I really only meant that the basic concept was the same. Not talking about if they had the right to or had good reasons. because they didn't.

Bender: I was God once.
God: Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died

reply

[–] chaseusa11b 17 years ago

Nobody has a right to try and destroy anyone and take their lands, I wouldn't like anyone coming to my home and killing, and taking things-- whether they were they same culture or not. What happened to the Native American people by the "white man" was terrible, but saying that it was ok for them to do it to each other is a racist double standard. Not to mention that theese supposed honorable conflicts of the Native Americans didnt always follow such strict guidlines, and women and children were definitly killed, people were displaced, and lands were taken. People are alike all over, and war is always a bloody, and ruthless. Later, Natives also massacered white settlers, including woman and children, who were not attacking them, of course this was in response to white encroachment, and other killings, but this adds to my point that violence begets violence, and that the Native Americans were humans as an earlier poster mentioned and they were just as capable as any white man of doing terrible things.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mshawobx 16 years ago

"Nobody has a right to try and destroy anyone and take their lands"

what state do you live in? was it "taken" from somone else to become part of america? did the british take it from france? spain? many of our states in the southwest were taken from the spanish.

our nation wouldn't be what it is today if not for this fact. nor would most countries of the world. since the earliest times, dominant regions and groups of peoples have taken over lands from the romans and even earlier.....

reply

[–] spmcevoy 16 years ago

That point makes no sense at all. "That was THEIR business"? Which THEIR are you talking about? The Sioux? The Pawnee? The Iroquois? The Chippewa? The point is that there was not one, distinct, Native nation before the whites came. There were many different tribes and nations, who all fought amongst each other over land and resources, the same as the whites did. The original poster's point is that what the whites did to various native tribes was not different in theory to what they did to each other, just on a grander scale. You want the whites to give back all the land that was stolen from them ("stolen" being a subjective term, it could easily be called land that was taken after conquest)? Fine, we'll give this land back to the Sioux, as long as they turn around and give it to the Pawnee (who they stole it from), and then they turn around and give it to the Cheyenne (who they stole it from), etc. The point is that people have been fighting over land and resources since the dawn of time, so why is it only considered a travesty when the whites did it?

And please, enough about how when native tribes fought each other, it was somehow cleaner and more honorable. They did not fight under a higher set of morals and rules. There is no evidence to support that, except for some sense of white guilt. The fact that they did not wipe their enemies completely off the face of the earth is because they did not HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SO, not because they had some higher sense of morality. Once again, it's only bad when the whites do it. Whites fought natives and took the land after defeating them? That's genocide! How evil! The natives fought each other and took land after defeating them? Oh, that's ok, that's noble and honorable. White Europeans enslaved Africans by millions? How horrible! How evil! Africans enslaved each other for centuries? Oh, that's ok, they really didn't treat them like slaves, and it was mor honorable. Forgive me, that is ridiculous. And please, I am not conding any of these actions by whites. I am simply protesting the false sense of morality superiority I hear when one group of people do the same thing that another group does, they just don't do it on the same scale becasue they lacked the ability to do so. Natives were people, and unfortunatley that is what people have done for centuries.

If someone came into my home and started killing everyone in the house and taking my stuff, I'd be mad as hell and would fight like hell to stop them. But if I had done the same thing to the previous tenant of the house, and was living in that house after forcing out the previous tenant, then at least I wouldn't think that I had some kind of moral high ground over the person that was doing the same thing to me. I'd wish that I had the knowledge and ability to stop the people who were doing to me, and be grateful that the people I did it to previously did not have the same knowledge.

reply

[–] Hershe 17 years ago

That argument is weak and seriously flawed.

reply

[–] Ichabod_Fletchman 17 years ago

FINE, forget I ever started it. I just think that no matter the reasons, violence and death are still violence and death no matter the reasons behind it. We go to Iraq and shoot people there. Hitler shots Jews in WW2. We used to hang criminals in the old west. The KKK hung black men. No matter the justification, its still killing and violence. Honorable, justified, or other wise. The Native Americans were killing long before the white man showed up. We just added to it. It's called survival of the fittest. It's in the very nature of all human beings.

Bender: I was God once.
God: Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died

reply

[–] CarpeNoctu 17 years ago

HellBoy_Chick:

While I do disagree with some of the finer points of your statement, I do agree with the principle idea. In the end, no matter what the reason, dead is dead.

It would be nice if there were always diplomatic solutions for problems. It would be nice if bloodshed were not necessary. It would be nice if humans were not violent, but as you said, "It's in the very nature of all human beings."

The major difference here, and what I most disagree with, is that my people did not fight for land. The Indians did not believe it was possible to own the earth. They did fight for hunting territory and the water. They fought for their families and their horses. They fought for preservation from annihilation from some of the... Less honorable tribes. Yes there were tensions between many of the tribes. But there was also trade and prosperity. The Indian did not concern himself with the acquisition of wealth and power. They did not break their word. They did not take more than they needed, and they made use of everything that they took. There were a great many skirmishes, but there was no war. there was no genocide. There was no wholesale slaughter of an entire nation or tribe. These things did not exist until the white man came.

I appreciate you bringing this up. It is a point which, I feel, should be discussed.

reply

[–] sperlingsanatomy11 17 years ago

oh give me a *beep* break!!!

HB_C, you're talking like the whites NEVER ever fought each other back in Europe...

reply

[–] Ichabod_Fletchman 16 years ago

of course hey fought each other in Europe. and cavemen probably got in some fights amongst themselves too. It only proves my point more. people fight each other. its in our nature. people pick sides and start thinking up reasons to kill the other side. so don't act like native Americans were perfect a perfect group because they weren't. what happened to them sucked big time but that doesn't erase anything they ever did to themselves. the white man didn't create violence. Human beings as a whole did.

Bender: I was God once.
God: Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ichabod_Fletchman 17 years ago

thank you to the last person. i'm at least trying to give a reason for my argument.

Bender: I was God once.
God: Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TemporaryOne-1 16 years ago

I agree that conquest is a valid method of obtaining land (Nelson Miles' argument), but in this instance, the land was already obtained.

Nelson Miles's logic was valid and logical and acceptable, but not applicable to that particular situation because the US Government had already conquered the land and were already in the process of administering it - they had already legislated treaties granting Natives land to live on.

The Government was taking the next step of forcibly removing people from the land irregardless of the treaties, in order to create conditions for land sales.

Although conquest is defined as forcibly obtaining property, the property in question was already obtained and administered by the US Government. What occurred was expulsion, and the explusions evolved into pogroms and genocide.

That exchange between Miles and Sitting Bull was one of the finest and boldest and controversial moments in the film.

The dialogue was precise and exact, non-inflammatory, not exaggerated, not biased, strictly businesslike, and extremely fair.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Max_Johnson 16 years ago

Apparently people killing other people is fine and trying to wipe out your enemy is fine but if somebody else comes along who does the same exact thing but is just way better at it then they are evil.

reply

[–] DiangeloWolfer 16 years ago

I seriously cannot believe that some of you are trying to equate what the colonizers did with what was going on between tribes. If you can't see the difference between localized conflicts on a small scale compared to the systematic annihilation of an entire race of people, then you're truly lost.

So basically, what's being said here? That the Natives had it coming because they weren't perfect little angels themselves? Or maybe you're saying that any given society that has experience with violence shouldn't be surprised when a bunch of strangers invade your home, take your children away, destroy your language and culture, infest your community with fatal diseases, impose an alien system of government, betray you with false promises, while raping you of your history, land, and self-worth?

What's the point here? That death is death and it's the same no matter the motive, circumstance, or number? Think about this: 130 years after the colonizers stepped foot on Indigenous soil, 95% of the Native population was wiped out. I guess in principle, though, that's the same as small-scale tribal warfare. Dumbasses.

It's pretty much unacknowledged and erased from the school textbooks because your government wants you to be proud of your country and keep celebrating Thanksgiving and Columbus Day, but screw that. There is no justification for making excuses of a technical nature in a situation like this. He has a point? Well, so did Bush, if you're into that crock of $h!t.

Yes, it is human nature to compete and one may argue that warfare is an inevitable part of living in society, but that's just pointing out the obvious isn't it? It's like logging onto a Holocaust board and saying that death is a part of life, so get over it. The Jews have blood on their hands, so it's all gravy with the concentration camps. Everyone is guilty of violence, so nobody can really blame their oppressors, right? That's just too goddamn nihilistic for my tastes.

A significant problem I have with some of your rationalizations is your attempts to neutralize the field of oppression. Because blacks fought other blacks and Natives fought other Natives, why can't whites colonize, oppress, and enslave them? Everybody is equal and no matter how many other races the white man subjugated and how much MORE they did it, it's still all the same. The white man is thus, no more guilty than the rest, and that is the point some of YOU are trying to make. If you can't sense the difference by now, though, you've got some serious issues.

reply

[–] malistou 16 years ago

you are absolutely right, Nightraincity, and your arguments are well said. I totally agree with you and can't believe people, to this day, think that what happened in this country (or all of American, from South to North) was part of "normal" warfare. Is it still warfare when a govrement makes legal to kill, scalp, and sell the scalps of women, men and children??? What kind of human being kills a child, and then sells the hair of that same child??
Just because the people who lived on this continent before the arrival of Europeans, did engage in small battles doesn't mean that they should accept wars and destruction.
When there is explanation, there is justification. The first justification used was that the "Indians" were savages because they weren't catholics. So, if they are savages, they are animals without a soul and can be used as slaves.
Australia has asked for forgivness for what they did.
Shouldn't the U.S. and Canada do the same?

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aimei2006 16 years ago

Yeah they did fight amongst themselves before the whites came, but the whites also fought amongst themselves in Europe too, with far more devasting consequences than any intra Indians wars ever had.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]