|
Iamsemisweet -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 10:05:46 AM)
|
The only part of that post that made any sense was when you said "what are you saying."
Here is what I am saying. Trying to minimize the genocide of the native American population by saying "they were doing it to each other" is, well, I can't really find a word to describe it. And that is about the only way to interpret what you said. At least Kirata's argument, which I will summarize as "get over it" is not so intellectually dishonest.
As to Kirata's argument that he is "sick of hearing people with nothing better to do than nurse grievances and consume themselves with hatred ranting about shit that never happened to them and that wasn't the fault of anybody alive now", well, that isn't exactly true. Prior to 1978, when the Indian Child Welfare act was passed, it was fairly common to remove Native American children from their families in order to assimilate them. Part of that conqueror mentality, and not that long ago. Here is a little information about that:
ICWA was enacted in 1978 because of the high removal rate of Indian children from their traditional homes and essentially from Indian culture as a whole. Before enactment, as many as 25 to 35 percent of all Indian children were being removed from their Indian homes and placed in non-Indian homes, with presumably the absence of Indian culture.[3][4] In some cases, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) paid the states to remove Indian children and to place them with non-Indian families and religious groups.[5] Testimony in the House Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs showed that in some cases, the per capita rate of Indian children in foster care was nearly 16 times higher than the rate for non-Indians.[6] If Indian children had continued to be removed from Indian homes at this rate, tribal survival would be threatened. Congress recognized this, and stated that the interests of tribal stability were as important as that of the best interests of the child.[7] One of the factors in this judgment was that, because of the differences in culture, what was in the best interest of a non-Indian child were not necessarily what was in the best interest of an Indian child, especially due to extended families and tribal relationships.[8] As Louis La Rose (Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska) testified: "I think the cruelest trick that the white man has ever done to Indian children is to take them into adoption court, erase all of their records and send them off to some nebulous family ... residing in a white community and he goes back to the reservation and he has absolutely no idea who his relatives are, and they effectively make him a non-person and I think ... they destroy him."[9] Various other groups also played a factor. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had an Indian Placement Program that removed Indian children from their tribes and into church members homes. By the 1970s, approximately 5,000 Indian children were living in Mormon homes.[9] The lack of knowledge of most social workers also played into the high removal rates. Most social workers are conditioned by the "best interest of the child" as outlined by Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (Second Edition), which advocates bonding with at least one adult as a parent figure[10] rather than taking into consideration the tribal culture of the extended tribal family. The common Indian practice of leaving a child with an extended relative was viewed as abandonment by these well-intentioned social workers, but was viewed as perfectly normal by tribal members.[11] During congressional consideration, at the request of Native American advocacy groups, opposition was raised by several states, the LDS Church, and several social welfare groups. The bill was pushed through by Representative Morris Udall of Arizona, who lobbied President Jimmy Carter to sign the bill.[9] Congress’s overriding purpose in passing the ICWA was to protect Indian culture and tribal integrity from the unnecessary removal of Indian children by state and federal agencies. Awareness of the issues facing American Indian children came about from the advocacy and research by the Association on American Indian Affairs. Congress reasoned that “there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children.”[
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:
ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
So then, the rendering of what had transpired for for hundreds of years, by these people's own account, is taken by you as "justification" by anybody, for the Euro invasion? Are you trying to tell us that they were seeking "justification" of (yet another) invasion by relating their history?
What are you saying here?
|
|
|
|
