Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search
 




Average Rating
0.00

(0 votes)

You must login to vote

WHAT IF AMERICA WAS INVADED?
by Larry S. Rolirad

What if the United States was invaded and occupied by a foreign military force? What if another country didn't like our leader and they used their superior army, navy, and air force to invade our country to remove him? What if another country invaded us because we have 1,000,000 times the stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons than all the other countries in the world combined? How do you think Americans would react if we were occupied by a foreign military?

And what if the United States was invaded by a foreign force in 1839 when our country was at the same stage of evolution as Iraq is today? What if the US was attacked because the invading country did not like the fact that President Andrew Jackson had ordered the genocide of tens of thousands of American Indians. What if the US was invaded because another country didn't like the way human rights violations were commonplace against Native Americans, blacks, and women? In just one ruthless move, President Jackson sent 4,000 Cherokee men, women, children, elderly, infants, and fetuses to their deaths.

President Jackson ordered Cherokees arrested and dragged from their homes and driven by bayonet point into the stockades. They were then loaded like cattle into six hundred and forty-five wagons and sent west, just like Hitler ordered the Jews loaded onto cattle cars to be exterminated. Most of the Native Americans who were forced on trains died from extreme exposure to freezing temperatures. Ninety tribes, in addition to the Cherokee, were removed from their rightful homes to the Indian Territory, now Kansas and Oklahoma. President Jackson even ordered smallpox-infected blankets to be given to unsuspecting Native Americans which killed them by the tens of thousands. The similarities between the abuses of human beings by Andrew Jackson, Adolph Hitler, and Saddam Hussein are striking.

Eight years earlier, in 1831, the Supreme Court of the United States, with the decision rendered by Justice John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the entire Cherokee Nation from their ancestral homes to be illegal, unconstitutional, and against US treaties made with the Cherokee Nation. President Andrew Jackson, having the executive responsibility for enforcement of the laws, had this to say: "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can." Jackson disregarded treaties and laws and deliberately ordered the genocide of American Indians from ninety different tribes. President Jackson's total disregard for the rights of the 90 tribes, the law, and treaties puts him on the same level as Saddam Hussein, who also had a total disregard for the Kurds, other factions of his country, UN Resolutions, and the law. Saddam Hussein callously and ruthlessly ordered the genocide of the Kurds, and others in Iraq. Hussein ordered the Kurds gassed to death by the thousands during President George H.W. Bush's presidency.

What would you do if our country was invaded in the early 19th century because another country didn't condone our practice of slavery? What if that country wanted to remove our president from office because he was pro-slavery? Just what is the difference between President Jackson's willful murdering of tens of thousands of American Indians or other US presidents in his time who were pro-slavery, and what Saddam Hussein did to his people? At least Saddam didn't support or participate in slavery as American leaders did.

I am not supporting Saddam Hussein, but when you compare the evolution of Iraq to that of our own country you must see the similarities. Should Saddam Hussein be tried? Certainly. Convicted? Certainly. But so should President Jackson, and other US presidents who supported slave trade of Africans and genocide of the Indian Tribes of North America.

What would you do if you lived in the early 19th century and you became aware of the atrocities committed by President Jackson? Would you support him or would you support an invading army from another nation who wanted to stand up for the oppressed in our country? This is the same dilemma that the present day Iraqis are facing. Should they fight for their own sovereignty or succumb to a foreign force's mandates?

Our country is now guilty of invading two foreign countries in the past three years. Does anyone expect the citizens of those countries to just lie down and not strike back? A great deal of Americans would strike back at any foreign military presence in the United States. They would call it patriotism. And they would be right, at least partially so.

US citizens would not tolerate being occupied by a foreign country. I believe it is the height of arrogance for US citizens to expect other invaded countries to be totally submissive to their invaders. We should not expect militants in Iraq or Afghanistan to just give up. To think otherwise is foolhardy. The Bush regime knew this fact. But they never said a word about the actual effort that we would have to invest there. They never told the citizens of the United States that there would be large numbers of troop casualties. They were being dishonest. They lied by omission. And their lies are not about the meaning of the word "is" is, or if someone had a private, consensual sexual affair. Their lies led to an unnecessary war, and the deaths of 1902 US soldiers (so far) and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. If lying about a private sexual matter between consenting adults is an impeachable offense, then lying that led to illegitimate wars and the deaths of more than a thousand of our service men and women is not only an impeachable offense, but it is also traitorous. But where is the republican outrage?

If our country was invaded, the foreign force would be met with force from millions of Americans. We would use every opportunity to strike back at them. If you are honest with yourself you would admit that you would be one of our country's defenders. And you would use deadly force to protect your country. So how can anyone believe that certain segments of the Iraqi population would not fight back against us, the invading military? There wouldn't be much difference between the hundreds of militia groups in the US and the 'insurgents' in Iraq. Our revolutionary colonialists who fought against England were also considered insurgents by King George. It is unfortunate that republicans are incapable of seeing the parallels between our country's revolutionary fighters and those in Iraq who are doing what they can to defend their country from foreign occupiers.

The Bush regime certainly knew of the propensity for massive resistance from the Iraqi people. If they didn't know, then they were completely incompetent and should have been removed from office. But President Bush, and everyone in his regime, chose to keep the risk of massive resistance a secret. They knew that if they were honest with the American people that we would have denounced Bush's plans for war. Bush lied to us. Cheney lied to us. Powell lied to us. Rice lied to us. Rumsfeld lied to us. They choose instead to continue to milk the fear and the wave of mutant patriotism from the 9-11-01 attacks to manipulate people. The Bush regime is the most dishonest administration in our country's history.

There is not a lot of difference between what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds and other indigenous peoples in Iraq, and what US presidents, such as Andrew Jackson did under his reign. Just as in Iraq, Native Americans and blacks were first demonized and described as less than human as justification for their persecution and murders in the United States. The comparisons between Iraq's past human rights violations are stunningly similar to the human rights violations practiced in the United States. How can the United States take the moral high ground on the international stage when they have never atoned for their sins against their fellow man in their own history?

Copyright 2005, Larry S. Rolirad, All Rights Reserved
This article may be republished as long as the author is clearly credited.




Comments

The following comments are for "WHAT IF AMERICA WAS INVADED?"
by AmericaIsMyCountry

An answer
Well, in short, this is what would have happened had we been invaded in the 1830's . . . America would have beaten them with an ugly stick and sent them home crying. As for the rest of what you have to say about America . . . it's neither fair nor true and to compare our treatment of the Native Americans (as crappy as it was) to Hitler is very questionable. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word genocide then retake the American History class that you obviously flunked.

Just a suggestion . . .

( Posted by: Tytus [Member] On: September 19, 2005 )

Tytus
Still waiting for that logic, Tytus. Instead of just telling us that he's wrong, why don't you explain why you believe so?

I believe in you! I believe you're as rational as you say you are!

But others aren't likely to believe in you unless you show your rationality instead of just telling people about it.

( Posted by: Viper9 [Member] On: September 19, 2005 )

Viper
Sigh, Viper, though as much as I disagree with you, I've never doubted you to be intelligent, I can see it in your writing. But as of late, I've been starting to doubt my notion. Let's look at history and here in my hand I hold a college textbook of American history called "the American Pageant." Yes, we did treat the Native Americans poorly, as I've said, but one thing we did not do is systematically slaughter them. THAT would be genocide and in case your too lazy to look into a dictionary, genocide means: "The systematic killing of of all people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this." It was NEVER America's goal to kill all of the Native Americans. Never, despite what cynics would say, it was not our goal. Now let me ask you this, Viper, is it REASONABLE or not REASONABLE to think that the death of thousands of Native Americans is comparable in any way to the Nazi's slaughter of 20 million innocent lives in their gas chambers and their execution lines and then steal their shoes and metal fillings? I hope to God that you can answer that correctly. I guess it takes a rational mind to see rationality when it's exercised. It also seems to me that you're becoming a bit of hypocrit yourself, berating me for "just telling us that he's wrong, how about you explain why you believe so." How about instead of telling me that I'm illogical and irrational, why don't you show me how I am being so, if you can. You seem to have all the facts, yet you never give any (besides saying, "There are many sources that support me" and no you brain washed students don't count), you claim that people are being one thing or another but you never say why. When someone asks you defend you statements you simply dance around the question and an answer is never given. Sounds very hypocritical to me. So please, for once in your life, actually answer or else I might be tempted to believe that you're pulling this argument out of your own "dark, lonely brown tunnel."

( Posted by: Tytus [Member] On: September 19, 2005 )

Dear Tytus
I never said you were illogical or irrational, just that you had yet to show that you were logical or rational. Your posts don't contain any reasoning, just assertion.

But! Now you've stepped up to the plate to actually offer us some reasoning, and I thank you for it.

Your argument appears to be this (in an informal, semi-logical form):

P1 - Genocide is "The systematic killing of of all people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this". (Odd phrasing for a dictionary)

P2 - The American slaughter against the Native Americans either did not happen or was unintentional. You don't cite any evidence or sources for this, but I gather you believe that your textbook told you so.

C - Therefore, America did not attempt the genocide of the Native Americans.

Aside from that, you make your usual attacks against me. No worries there.

So let's take a look at the logic of your argument.

The first thing to note is that it isn't logically valid. In other words, even if your premises were correct, they wouldn't support the conclusion. So, on the face of it, the argument is laughable.

But why is that? It's because your premises have no relation to one another, and without that relation they can't establish any conclusion at all.

For instance, notice that the definition of "genocide" that you cite makes no reference to intention. That's because intention has nothing to do with it. What matters in deciding whether or not something constitutes genocide are consequences. If, say, a nation engages in systematic killing of a subpopulation, it's considered genocide, whether or not that subpopulation actually ceases to be, and whether or not the nation actually intended to wipe them out. The "attempt" is inferred from the actions.

Second, your second premise is a matter of fact, so in order to make a rational case for it, you need to establish its truth with evidence or the citation of authoritative sources. You don't do this. Instead, again, you merely make an assertion.

Compared to the American slaughter and subjugation of Native Americans, the Nazi slaughter of the Jews was a failure. Back in the day, I read that the Nazis managed to kill a smaller percentage of the Jewish population than the Americans managed to kill of the Native American population. Part of the reason was that so much of the Jewish population didn't live within the Nazis' reach, whereas America had a captive population of victims.

In other words, although the Nazis managed to kill a greater number of their victims, the Americans got closer to actually wiping out their victim population.

According to Michael Rogin in "Fathers and Children," between 1820 and 1844 the population of Native Americans was cut by 2/3. And that was before the most aggressive campaigns against them , which ran from the end of the Civil War to the 1880s.

Finally, we have your implied claim that the American slaughter of Native Americans was unintentional. It may have been. It's hard to say, since we can't read the minds of those who authorized and carried out the killing. On the other hand, it's hard to know what sorts of acceptable intentions they might have had, given what they were doing.

Regardless, as mentioned above, intention doesn't matter when we're talking about genocide.

I should say, too, that no one in academia, least of all textbook-writers, takes textbooks seriously, college or otherwise. They're watered-down, oversimplified, often inaccurate, and politically-censored. They're written to make money (get your textbook past the censors in Texas and California and you can be set), and because it's often cheaper to buy one book rather than 8-10 books, of which students would only read part. They're usually only aimed at the first and second-year students, who will eventually learn what they need to know in upper years anyway, so no one pays much mind to the problem.

That doesn't mean we like the situation, but until the Big Two Markets with their backward populations lose their stranglehold on the market, watered-down and inaccurate is what students get from textbooks.

On the plus side, lots of faculty are avoiding textbooks altogether, putting together their own packages of selected readings instead. As you can imagine, this has textbook publishers upset.

Godspeed, gentle soldier . . .

( Posted by: Viper9 [Member] On: September 19, 2005 )

Asked and answered
For one thing, my argument wasn't based on logic at all, rather rationality, and for another thing, I didn't bother taking the time to write my comment formally--as you would have preffered--because I was more focused on responding rather than form. What you said about genocide, all too true. Our treatment of the indians is the dark spot on America's history. I never said that it hadn't happened, I would never dream it because it did, I'm sorry to say. However, I'm sick of all of the grief that is thrown America's way for that for every country has its dark side. What about the Spanish? The Inquisition was horrific and they killed far more indians intentionally than America ever did. Germany, the Holocaust of course. Russia, the millions of murders committed under the rule of the communist dictator Stalin. Every country has done some awful thing, either intentionally or unintentionally . . . even Canada I'm sure. There were Native Americans all over America, not just the space occupied by the 48 states. I wonder, does Canada have any indian reservations? Did Canada partake in the harsh treatment of the indians? I wouldn't know, perhaps you would Viper.

The point is that the past is the past and we're all trying to be better people so let's not dwell on it.

( Posted by: Tytus [Member] On: September 19, 2005 )

Last time
"For one thing, my argument wasn't based on logic at all, rather rationality, and for another thing".

Do you routinely use words without knowing what they mean? Rationality refers to the giving of reasons and evidence for your conclusion, logic to the relationship between your claims. You don't need to put anything in a semi-formal structure to be logical. Doing that just makes evident the structure that's already present in your argument, and it wasn't much.

It's certainly true that every nation has done awful things, just that some do more than others. When Canadians laugh at the corruption and evil of the United States, I tell them I doubt Canada would be any less corrupt if it had the same level of power. It isn't that Canada is any better, necessarily, just that it hasn't reached the level of power in which the scope of its evil ambitions can become clear.

Canada has a terrible track record with its own native people. While it didn't try as hard as the US to kill them, it did try to destroy their culture. That was intentional. And, like the US, Canada exiled many of its native people to reservations.

But in the4 end I agree with you and Nae -- we shouldn't dwell on the horrible things our ancestors did. We should move on. Nor should we deny what they did, and that's what pissed me off in your earlier comment.

It's easy to think that, say, because you're American, a negative judgment about what Americans did 100 years ago is a negative judgment of you. And that makes you defensive. It isn't true, though. The only people responsible for what happened are those who did it or enabled it.

( Posted by: Viper9 [Member] On: September 20, 2005 )

I wanna teach LOL
I am in the process of getting the pieces of paper that prove I know what I know. This will allow me to teach our youth. Reader, be patient please, I've practiced my initial lessons, and it goes a lil something like this:
"Why do we study history?"
(Student will most likely give the BS reason; "Those who do not learn... blah blah blah."
I will yell (and I'm loud) "WRONG". We study history, or I do for a few reasons. Number one...I'm a geek. Albeit a physically fit one. I'm proof that, contrary to popular opinion, a jock can be a geek. I've always believed in the Greek "Sound mind in a sound body." Truly. I also believe that we learn best from the bad leaders. We learn how NOT to do things. I've studied the tactical mistakes of Hitler, and were it not for a few decisions he thankfully made, alot of us would not be here. This prompted me to write the "History" post that no one has commented on. Instead of studying the effects of his madness, I studied what led up to it. Not his being a failed artist etc. No, but how could a normally moral, "civilized", and industrious peoples allow this to happen? I see lines of congruity and see similarities between pre-war Germany, and my country today. I can hear the punching of monitors as I write, but maintain an open mind, my friend. There were conservatives and liberals back then too. They wrestled with the same things we do. The key to it all was that the average guy/gal did not speak up when others were wronged. THEY allowed it to happen. The herd changed direction because the shepards pushed them that way. Little did they know that the shepards were weak men with weak ideals. They as cows, even a single cow, had the power to run the weak shepard down. Instead they chewed their cud, and looked toward their next meal. Never seeing the slaughterhouse that loomed on the horizon. So I study history because I intend on leading, and I will not repeat the mistakes of my fathers. American or otherwise. I will lead from the front with courage in my heart, dreams in my eyes, and honor on my sleeve.
RW

( Posted by: robert walker [Member] On: September 20, 2005 )

Smallpox ,my Arse
You people will believe anything revisionists have to say when it comes to blaming America. I guess it's just the way you get your kicks.

No one, no one thinks that we treated native Americans right, we still don't today. I don't see anyone on this site or anywhere else propagating going to the rotten assed reservations and helping these people. So I say bullshit to your handwringing about our past treatment of them.

I have done a LOT of research about the so-called "smallpox-infected blankets" thing some of you seem to wholeheartedly embrace. While there is evidence that Amherst wrote of his DESIRE to exterminate the Indians, there is NO PROOF that he ever, ever, got anyone to go along with his crazy idea. When pioneers got smallpox and survived it, they thought that the strain of the disease was weakened, so they infected other pioneers with the diluted strain. There is evidence it worked and more people survived. Since we traded with Indians, it only follows that they would NATURALLY would get the disease too. Jackson did not order crap to be given to the Indians. FYI way more Indians died from the common cold and flu virus than bullits, smallpox, or any other thing. Just so you know, anyone can go to any website and get information on whatever they want. It doesn't make it true. People believe what they WANT to believe. If you are going to put out this bilge on a literary site such as this, at least get the totality first. If you want to manipulate folks for your own self-satisfaction, that's fine. But when I see it, I'm calling you on it.

You write so well, so wrong.

williamhill

( Posted by: williamhill [Member] On: September 20, 2005 )

Williamhill
Where did you get your information?

I should point out that most of the smallpox cases were over before 1820, when 2/3 of the native population was wiped out.

( Posted by: Viper9 [Member] On: September 20, 2005 )

Viper
We (my classmates and I) studied this in American History And Missouri State History when I was in high school. I'm sure you've heard of the "Trail of Tears" when the five Nations were marched off to Oklahoma. They came within a few miles of my home. You are correct in that the smallpox plague was mostly over between 1820 and 1826. There are many thousands, if not a million graves dotting the landscape from the east coast to just west of the Mississippi. The Indian Confederation led by (I think, Pontiac) was ready to push the white man back to the ocean until one event changed the course of history. It was the New Madrid earthquake which the Indian chiefs of the Confederation thought was a bad omen for their chances to succeed by warfare. Some of them held together and attacked anyway, but not enough of them could defeat the army. By the way, that earthquake shook the ground in Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri for an entire year. There were also Cholera outbreaks that decimated the Indian and white population. I imagine most of us who studied this true bit of history just shake our heads at the ignorance of the wild allegations purported here. I tire of the attempts to link George Bush with Hitler. I must say that each civilization conquers each past civilization with whatever means necessary. It always has been about power and real estate using religion or ethnicity as the springboard for takeover. We in America are blamed for everything. We are accused of isolationisn in WW1 and WW2 and then are blamed for the power grab when we won. Had we stayed out of those European wars, those people there would think quite differently of us today. What ingrates. I suppose they will say the only reason we stepped in was because of the corporations . Viper, I disagree with you on a good many things, but you know the truth of what I'm saying here. I'd appreciate a little respect for it. I am ignorant on certain subjects, but I'm not on this one. Why should other ignorant people be led astray by other ignorant self-serving people who hate George Bush?
That's what this little essay is all about anyway. I don't agree with a good many of Bush's policies. I didn't agree with many other president's decisions either.

williamhill

( Posted by: williamhill [Member] On: September 20, 2005 )

A Response to Other Posters
There has been a lot of debate about intent, concerning the eradication of Native Americans. All you have to do is read what Andrew Jackson said following a Supreme Court decision which favored Native Americans. As I stated in my original article, the Supreme Court in 1831, with the decision rendered by Justice John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the entire Cherokee Nation from their ancestral homes to be ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and AGAINST US TREATIES made with the Cherokee Nation. President Andrew Jackson, having the executive responsibility for enforcement of the laws, had this to say: "JOHN MARSHALL HAS MADE HIS DECISION, LET HIM ENFORCE IT NOW IF HE CAN" If Jackson's response to a supreme court decision is not loaded with intent I don't know what is. It is obvious by Jackson's total disregard for Native Americans that he actively participated in the eradication of ninety different Native American tribes.

There has also been a lot of debate about the meaning of the word "genocide". When a leader of a country speaks so openly about desiring the eradication of a specific indiginous people I don't know how you can not call what he did was genocide.

My comparison between what Hitler did and what Jackson did is valid. I stated that both of these leaders put human beings in cattle cars (or trains) and sent people off to die. No, there weren't gas chambers at the end of the line for Native Americans, but perhaps if 'gas chambers' had been available at the time who can say Jackson wouldn't have used them? After all, the goal of the leaders of the United States was to expand their territories, and they obviously were willing to do anything to succeed in their quest. Since Native Americans were 'in their way', leaders like Jackson did deliberately order Native Americans eradicated? Does anyone think that the eradication of Native Americans was only the work of people of lesser rank? That flies in the face of reason, and fact.

And by the way, to those who attacked me as being a pawn to "revisionist history" I challenge you to disprove anything I wrote in my original post. I do not believe in "revisionist history". I believe in the truth and the facts. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people 'out there' who rile in the face of the truth and want to believe the entire history of the United States was one big fairy tale. It wasn't. In the building of America there have been a lot of wrongs committed. When our country was founded blacks were considered only 3/5ths of a person. Women and blacks could not own land or vote. And on and on. America is not perfect. And many of those in leadership positions in America's history certainly were not perfect.

In the Preamble it states, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." In this preamble to our Constitution it states "...in order to form a more perfect union..." The founders of our country knew that our country was not perfect, but they were wise enough to pen a document which we could use as a roadmap toward a 'more perfect' union. Will we ever attain the status of 'perfection'? No, we won't. But we can continue to try. And in order to grow in any endeavor we must first accept the fact that we are not perfect and we have committed a lot of 'imperfect' acts.

( Posted by: AmericaIsMyCountry [Member] On: September 20, 2005 )

Long thread!
This has been a long, but fun thread. Thanks for getting it started, AmericaismyCountry!

Williamhill, I agree with you that all sorts of nations have used the powers at their disposal to wipe people out. That was something Tytus originally disputed, then retracted.

What I'm more interested in, however, is the morality of such behaviour. The fact that people have done such terrible things in no way excuses others from doing them.

We wouldn't accept such excuses (liberal propaganda!) in a court of law, and I see no reason why we should expect less from our leaders than we do of our serial killers and rapists.

Surely you agree?

( Posted by: Viper9 [Member] On: September 20, 2005 )

Viper
There has never been a moral war. Never. Not even the war on poverty. (And don't call me shirley)

But there have been several justified wars, wouldn't you agree, surely you must? You would also have to admit that in some past wars America was manipulated into them,yes?

williamhill

( Posted by: williamhill [Member] On: September 20, 2005 )

War
If a war was truly justified, that would make it moral. If was immoral, it couldn't be justified. Of course, even if there was a moral war, it would probably (perhaps necessarily) contain some immoral acts on the part of some of its participants.

The closest to justified a war has been, in my opinion, would be WWII. In that case there was clear agression on the part of at least one nation that couldn't be handled by any other means. Even in that case, though, once the war had begun, the "good guys" used it as an excuse to overstep the boundaries that would otherwise have been justified.

I can't think of a case in which the US has been "manipulated" into war, unless you're thinking of manipulation of its citizens by its government, in which case you're describing every war! What did you have in mind?

( Posted by: Viper9 [Member] On: September 20, 2005 )

Damn wars,Viper
From all I have read, and documentaries I have seen, it has been suggested that in both WW1&WW2 the French and British played the heavy intertwining us into both. There is no question in WW1 that we were isolationists, and that the French cave-in at Maginot and the pitiful unprepared response by the British forces moved us toward them. If there ever a war over purely real estate, it was this one. We were begged to join in to save "Humanity" in Europe. Our guys died for property.

It was even worse regarding WW2. The only thing that let Churchhill off the hook was Pearl Harbor. Otherwise, I think getting into it would have torn our country apart. It was certainly poisonous in Congress between Roosevelt and both Republicans and Democrats. And make no mistake, Churchhill was manipulating and massageing us. He put the strong arm on our corporations to support the war, because they would gain the most profit from it. What a lie. We forgave billions and billions of debt for what? I stand by my ingrate remark to the people who wear the hypocrit peace at any cost badge. There are others who are grateful, I do not accuse them. Going back a little further to the Civil War, there was European manipulation by the French, Germans, and Spanish, goading the South to secede, with promises to supply them and buy their goods. When the Mississippi was blockaded, those folks ran off, saying they didn't want to get involved. Eventually, they ended up backing the Union. Those folks didn't give a damn about slavery. It was all about the money.

williamhill

( Posted by: williamhill [Member] On: September 20, 2005 )

?
Viper, despite how you have twisted my words, I didn't dispute the notion that "all sorts of nations have used the power at their disposal to wipe people out." I have no idea where you got the from. I've said that every nation has commited shameful acts, not just America. I've said was that it was not America's goal to kill a majority of the indians. I've said that it is unfair to only speak of the shadier side of America (especially since the good that America has done far outweighs the bad, and I think you refuse to even consider that the US isn't anything more that a corrupt, money-grubbing, war monger). But I never said that the we never did wrong to the indians as you claimed I had said in an earlier post: "The American slaughter against the Native Americans did not happen," nor did I say that the hands of America was clean on this. So please, don't put words in my mouth.

( Posted by: Tytus [Member] On: September 20, 2005 )

America is my country too
Dear Larry, If, as you claim, Andrew Jackson wished the eradication of the Cherokee and other tribes, why when he rounded them up did he not kill them all? Why? Why? Why? If he felt he didn't have to obey the highest court in the land, why spare the Indians? Surely there was less risk killing unarmed men, women, and children with lead than exposing his own white supremists to smallpox infected blankets. Don't you see it yet? Why risk genocide on your own people to force genocide on another race? Do you not see the folly of your argument? Now if you want to talk genocide, look at Custers campaign to "pacify" the Indians. That was genocide. It was one of the ultimate irony's of the ages. Custer killed hundreds of unarmed Souix and Cheyenne(among other tribes) and they swore revenge. Years later at the "Greasy Grass River" they wiped him out. It also sealed Sitting Bull and Crazyhorse's fate along with many other tribes. And now, we pay for their reservations, and further, we gamble away our money in their Mafia run casinos. It is surreal. Just think, without these Indians, we'd only have Vegas to piss away our money in. I love this country. I don't mean to get on you, but you should study history a little more before you come out with this stuff. It hurts your credibility, and for what, your searing hatred of George Bush? Is it really worth that much to you?

williamhill

( Posted by: williamhill [Member] On: September 21, 2005 )

USA invaded- @t all
Interesting thread, ya'll. I have studied some, the "trail of tears". As humans, through-out history we have behaved abhorently to one another. It is our nature. Sad, but true. We, as nations, want to be 'top dog'. We forget that that position should require the care and nurturing of those we now enfold into our 'keeping'. Money is so much a part of our 'need'. It is our God.
We elect our leaders based on our bank accounts, and grumble because those with larger bank accounts do the same.
Compassion and empathy are just words in a dictionary- until a Katrina or a tsunami hit...
Then our humanity comes out-
Why does it take disaster to feel human? We are all drama queens.
If America was invaded? I have duct tape and plastic sheeting ready. I feel safe.
I read a lot. Some things I've picked up might come in handy.
I'll probably find some-one who needs more than I should do for them, but I'll pull them on along with me. Or maybe I'll be the needy one, and someone will help me out. I like to think that way, anyway.
I am an optimist.
I am not a GW Bush fan.
I also don't believe he wakes up in the morning thinking, "How can I fuck with the American people, hell- the world (!) today?
Like any politician, he has an agenda. We have played into his hands with great aplumb. 9/11 was a forte' hor him. Katrina, not so good-
(Personally, I hate the way he 'smiles
through all of his relevant comments. I find it highly placating, and annoying.)

Didn't mean to go on so, but got on a roll.
Thank you for the productive thought from your article.
best to you-
Elizabeth

ps- Robert Walker- I really liked what you had to say. WillHill, you always give me a perspective that I may not agree with, but is so beneficial to one who wants to know what is real. You give me the opportunity to konow WHY I disagree with you. Love and respect intended.
And Viper. I read your comments so often, I feel like I KNOW you: always smart, challenging, cool, and amusing. ty to you-
night all-

( Posted by: emaks [Member] On: September 21, 2005 )

Very Well Said Elizabeth
The first thing I should ask you is what are you doing up this late? But here I am at 2:30 am, unable to sleep myself. I have been busy writing a couple of articles. When I get on a roll I don't like to stop. Thank you Elizabeth (or emaks) for your insightfull inputs. Everything you said I agree with. I hope you and everyone on this thread will be safe from Hurricane Rita. From the looks of it the eye of Rita might come right over where I live. I hope the phone lines stay intact so I can still keep in touch with people via emails. It looks like it will be a pretty severe hurricane. The last big one to come this way (houston area) was Alicia. And it destroyed most of the house I was living in. Tomorrow I will be boarding up a lot of the most vulnerable windows. Yeah, it will be loads of fun. But I have to protect myself and my cat. All the best to everyone. And I really appreciate everyone's comments, pro and con, about my original article.

( Posted by: AmericaIsMyCountry [Member] On: September 21, 2005 )

Histories
Dear William,
Though I often find myself at odds with your opinions, I do love the way you write, and your efforts to be accurate. That said. I've been to foxwoods casino in Connecticutt. It's nice, huge, but nice. I didn't spend anything there. I was working. Until that time I'd never really heard of that particular tribe. According to what I know now the Pequot were the dominant tribe in that area. When the "crackerassedcrackers" lol came the other tribes would not help the Pequot. (Kinda the top dog syndrome I guess). The only hard ( if you wanna call it that) evidence of bio-warfare is this: "Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote as follows to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt: "You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race." Now, I'm not saying every American had an interest in making the Indians a past tense, but I think these "revisionists" have a few good points. Would you argue that "he who wins the war gets to write the history"? Hell no. You have to admit that while there were wars between the Natives of this continent, the settlers and Europeans in general had been bathed in blood for centuries. Perhaps this was one of the things they werre innately trying to get away from. Who knows. Another point is that our forbears made treaty after treaty and broke them. All this was based on greed. Plain and simple. "My" family came here in the early 1900's, yet I call Washington the father of my country. I love this place more than any. I love the ideals with which we were founded. No I don't believe our forebears wanted a theocracy. They wanted a place free from the old European hang-ups. While I've heard some claim that there were a few "shit-stirrers" in the revolutionary mix, and I've heard the British side of the argument too. As always, both sides have truths to them. This leads us to the present day, where our fingers are in the world's pies. We have soldiers in just about every country. We are almost at the brink with North Korea, and I understand Kim's thought process there. "Why build up infrastructure at the cost of almost everything when I can just build some nukes, and threaten to use them if I don't get what I want?"
"Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." P. 202, "Adolph Hitler" by John Toland Now, I don't know much about Toland so take that for what it is.
The war that was waged against these peoples was fought on many fronts. One of those being the weapon of words. I remember watching a rerun of the Brady Bunch and they were still called savages. I then remember the crowd in Iraq (I think) hitting the bodies of those Americans, and the caption in the Boston Globe the next day was one word. "Savages!" I'm not saying that beating the burned corpses of anybody is good, or that I understand it. But living here in relative safety gives us perspective, or a lack of it. We've only been invaded a couple of times in our history. Imagine being invaded, by some superior force, your daughter's head gets booted in, in front of you. Your wife gets the shit raped out of her...also in front of you, but you only get your ass beat. Personally, if I lived through the ass whipping, I would dedicate my life to the complete vengeance against those that did such evils. So would you, my reader. A friend of mine said he'd run for the hills, and plot. I had to laugh because he's a self proclaimed gun nut/ first amendment advocate, but then I experimented. One peaceful night, I walked on over to his house, scared the hell out of him, and berated his wife in front of him. He did nothing. I told ehr what I was doing ahead of time (no worries). The problem with this friend (as I see it) is that he talks about fighting and justice etc, but is not willing to defend it or even stand up to take the blow that his wife would have. Sorry it's soooo long but I'm jammin' out to 311, I guess the point is for us to TRY and put ourselves in other people's shoes, as hard as it is to do.
(Damn my fingers hurt)
RW

( Posted by: Robert Walker [Member] On: September 21, 2005 )





Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.


Username:
Password:
Subject:
Comment:





Login:
Password: