Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Desantis revision of Native American history

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    The fact that DeSantis is a liar pants on fire arrogantly trying to rewrite US history to suit his conservative view.
    That's nice, yes he tried to rewrite history to suit his view. And you and the article you posted are trying to rewrite US history to suit YOUR views.

    Land being 'stolen' has happened since there were humans being around to 'steal' it. The Native Americans were 'stealing' one another's land, killing, raping, slaving, etc., since the land was first 'stolen' when the first humans and hominins came over to the Americas
    "When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing"
    -Trump Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders


    "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
    - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

      No
      Oddly enough, you don't seem to start threads on that rewriting.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

        Oddly enough, you don't seem to start threads on that rewriting.
        Nor does he start threads about Biden's lies - though they are legion...
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

          Source: https://www.wral.com/fact-check-desantis-says-u-s-wasn-t-built-on-stolen-land/20594671/



          Fact check: DeSantis says U.S. wasn't built on stolen land

          In the only gubernatorial debate before the Nov. 8 election, Gov. Ron DeSantis said: "You have people that are teaching -- and actually his running mate has said this in the past -- that teaching the United States was built on stolen land. That is inappropriate for our schools; it's not true." PolitiFact checks his claim.

          As Florida's governor, Republican Ron DeSantis has repeatedly stated his conviction that leaders need to fight attempts to "indoctrinate students" in classrooms.
          In the only gubernatorial debate before the Nov. 8 election, Gov. DeSantis contrasted his record on education with that of Democratic challenger Charlie Crist and Crist's running mate Karla Hernández-Mats.

          "You have people that are teaching — and actually his running mate has said this in the past — that teaching the United States was built on stolen land," DeSantis said Oct. 24. "That is inappropriate for our schools; it's not true."

          We wondered what DeSantis was referring to and whether he was right in his assessment of whether the U.S. was built on "stolen land."

          DeSantis' campaign did not get back to us. But his remark echoed tweets from Christina Pushaw, rapid response director for DeSantis' re-election campaign. One tweet included a screenshot of a June 24, 2018, Facebook post from United Teachers of Dade, where Hernández-Mats, a former special education teacher, has been president since 2016.

          The Facebook post included an image of a sign that read: "No one is illegal on stolen land." Hernández-Mats did not respond to specific questions about the image. The post was shared at a time when U.S. immigration policies were dominating the news.

          We reached out to historians of Native and non-Native descent. All of them said it is well documented that the U.S. acquired Native American land through dubious treaties and, at times, forcefully confiscated ancestral territories to bolster the country's expansion.

          "As a general statement, yes, the United States stole land from Native Americans," said Philip Deloria, a Native American history professor at Harvard University.

          Sometimes the U.S. and Native American tribes struck treaties that defined boundaries and determined land sale prices and forms of compensation. Other times, tribes signed land-ceding agreements under duress.

          Deloria said the U.S. often placed compensation for these deals in U.S.-controlled trust funds or promised payment over a number of years, but then failed to follow through.

          The Sioux Agreement of 1877 is an example of the U.S. acquiring land from Native Americans through fraudulent practices and treaty violations.

          Fact check: Trump says he sent agents to stop Florida 'steal' and help DeSantis win In 1868, the U.S. signed a treaty recognizing the Black Hills, a 7-million-acre South Dakota mountain range, as part of the Great Sioux Reservation. It set the land "apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of the Sioux, a Native American tribe.
          The treaty between the U.S. government and the Sioux said that non-Native people "are not permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory." Speculation that the Black Hills contained gold, however, led miners to trespass on Sioux territory.

          The U.S. then moved to negotiate with the Sioux to acquire the land. The deal fell through, which led to a war and hundreds of deaths. The tribe later surrendered and signed a treaty that ceded the Black Hills to the U.S.

          The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled in 1975 that the Sioux are entitled to damages of around $17 million for this land seizure. The court remarked: "A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will never, in all probability, be found in our history."

          In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government had acquired the Black Hills through "unfair and dishonorable dealing" and affirmed that it owed the Sioux tribe "just compensation," including interest.

          In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "There was tragedy, deception, barbarity, and virtually every other vice known to man in the 300-year history of the expansion of the original 13 Colonies into a Nation which now embraces more than three million square miles."

          The U.S. sometimes bought Native land from European countries, like France, and claimed ownership even though "France did not treaty with the many tribes who lived upon that land," said Randy Woodley, director of intercultural and indigenous studies at George Fox University.

          Fact check: Biden takes credit for increase in Social Security checksThe federal government also forcibly removed Native Americans from their ancestral lands after former President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830. That expulsion became known as the "Trail of Tears," which killed thousands of Native Americans.
          The Seminoles resisted relocation, and the result was a half-century of warfare.
          Andrew Frank, a Florida State University professor who specializes in the history of the Seminoles, said the U.S. annexed much of Florida through treaties that a majority of the tribal leaders opposed. The U.S. military drove out more than 3,000 Seminoles from the state, according to the Florida Department of State. Around 300 members of the tribe remained in Florida.

          "The post-Civil War period is full of people being compressed, contained, and confined onto small reservations within their territory, in order to accommodate non-Native settlement," Deloria told PolitiFact.

          In 1946, the federal government created the Indian Claims Commission to resolve legal claims that the U.S. obtained Native American land through questionable or fraudulent economic transactions.
          It lasted until 1978, and unsettled claims were transferred to the U.S. Court of Claims. The commission found that the U.S. government's payment of $152,500 to the Seminoles for about 23 million acres of land in Florida was "clearly unconscionable."
          The Indian Claims Commission completed 546 cases, awarding about $818 million to Native American tribes.

          "It is historically inaccurate to say the land was not stolen from Native Americans," Woodley said.

          © Copyright Original Source

          Hi Frank. I've read the responses in a bit of disbelief ... as if the fact internal tribal warfare existed somehow makes the decimation of those same tribal civilizations by Europeans acceptable or justified. Or that somehow the fact internal tribal warfare existed makes the fact this decimation occurred somehow less true.

          What happened here to the native Americans, and in many other parts of the world through slavery and other atrocities at the hand European power and arrogance, the utter disregard for basic humanity and what we now call human rights, is in fact something to be ashamed of, not hidden, and definitely not painted over with a mythology of justifed conquest.


          Jim
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-27-2022, 11:16 PM.
          Don’t waste your time with explanations, people only hear what they want to hear.
          --- Paulo Coelho

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

            Hi Frank. I've read the responses in a bit of disbelief ... as if the fact internal tribal warfare existed somehow makes the decimation of those same tribal civilizations by Europeans acceptable or justified. Or that somehow the fact internal tribal warfare existed makes the fact this decimation occurred somehow less true.

            What happened here to the native Americans, and in many other parts of the world through slavery and other atrocities at the hand European power and arrogance, the utter disregard for basic humanity and what we now call human rights, is in fact something to be ashamed of, not glorified or made part of some glorious mythology of justifed conquest.


            Jim
            No one is apologising (edit: i.e. offering a defence) for the treatment of Native Americans [by the US]. The problem is the anti-US bias. There's no reason to arbitrarily end consideration at European activities. The political expedience to not consider the treatment of Native Americans by other Native Americans does not negate actual history.
            Last edited by Diogenes; 11-27-2022, 11:20 PM.
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

              No one is apologising (edit: i.e. offering a defence) for the treatment of Native Americans [by the US]. The problem is the anti-US bias. There's no reason to arbitrarily end consideration at European activities. The political expedience to not consider the treatment of Native Americans by other Native Americans does not negate actual history.
              Interesting response. In the scope of teaching the history of American history as an extension of European civilization, one can't possibly be unbiased unless the brutality of the Europeans treatment of the Indians is presented in its fullness. To be clear, presenting that plainly is not 'anti-US bias', though it's plain teaching is embarrassing and shameful if one views the formation of the US as a purely good endeavor. OTOH, the fact it happened does not make the US itself inordinately evil either. The history of Humankind is filled with brutal stories of conquest one nation or people over another even from the advent of the written word.

              However, as has often been noted, he who is not a student of history is necessarily doomed to repeat its mistakes. We must teach as accurate and unbiased a history as is possible, coupled with clear and noble principles and expectations for ourselves, if we are to be an upright and good civilization.


              Jim
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-27-2022, 11:47 PM.
              Don’t waste your time with explanations, people only hear what they want to hear.
              --- Paulo Coelho

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                No one is apologising (edit: i.e. offering a defence) for the treatment of Native Americans [by the US]. The problem is the anti-US bias. There's no reason to arbitrarily end consideration at European activities. The political expedience to not consider the treatment of Native Americans by other Native Americans does not negate actual history.
                Exactly. It isn't "whataboutism" or a defense, but simply putting things in perspective. The fact is that almost every current country on this planet came about through warfare and "stealing" land from someone else, so singling out the US is just more Leftist dogpiling. It is fashionable for the Left to kick dirt on the US while completely ignoring other equal offenders. Their agenda gets a bit boring, actually.
                "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
                "
                Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                  Interesting response. In the scope of teaching the history of American history as an extension of European civilization, one can't possibly be unbiased unless the brutality of the Europeans treatment of the Indians is presented in its fullness. To be clear, presenting that plainly is not 'anti-US bias', though it's plain teaching is embarrassing and shameful if one views the formation of the US as a purely good endeavor. And it could in fact evoke anti-US sentiment (and often does). OTOH, the fact it happened does not make the US itself inordinately evil either. The history of Humankind is filled with brutal stories of conquest one nation or people over another even from the advent of the written word.

                  However, as has often been noted, he who is not a student of history is necessarily doomed to repeat its mistakes. We must teach as accurate and unbiased a history as is possible, coupled with clear and noble principles and expectations for purselves if we are to be an upright and good civilization.


                  Jim
                  Some lands that the US is founded upon were "stolen" and some lands weren't. Some tribes were nomadic and some weren't. Some tribes attacked settlers and some did not. To say "The US is founded upon stolen lands" is one of those broad brushes that is best avoided. The US paid for the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska, which is most of the country. So maybe schools should trash the French and Russians for selling the US "stolen lands."
                  "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
                  "
                  Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                    That's nice, yes he tried to rewrite history to suit his view. And you and the article you posted are trying to rewrite US history to suit YOUR views.

                    Land being 'stolen' has happened since there were humans being around to 'steal' it. The Native Americans were 'stealing' one another's land, killing, raping, slaving, etc., since the land was first 'stolen' when the first humans and hominins came over to the Americas
                    The issue is specifically whether the USA stole Native American lands, and of course broke treaties with Indian nations along the way. Did this happen or not?
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                      Exactly. It isn't "whataboutism" or a defense, but simply putting things in perspective. The fact is that almost every current country on this planet came about through warfare and "stealing" land from someone else, so singling out the US is just more Leftist dogpiling. It is fashionable for the Left to kick dirt on the US while completely ignoring other equal offenders. Their agenda gets a bit boring, actually.
                      I think you are oversimplying. The wrongs committed were quite majorly wrong, independent of party, and by any viable judeo/christian ethic. Further we have for generations painted over that history with mythologies where the Europeans are always the 'good guys'. Yet there are, in fact, whole populations that still suffer to this very day because of what was done. It is not a trivial or long lost sin, but rather one with significant consequences in the here and now. A just society, a society that could perhaps fairly claim "in God We Trust" , can not just turn a blind eye to such things.

                      So arguing that we weren't somehow 'actually steeling' is a dodge - and a poor one at that.
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-28-2022, 12:14 AM.
                      Don’t waste your time with explanations, people only hear what they want to hear.
                      --- Paulo Coelho

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                        Some lands that the US is founded upon were "stolen" and some lands weren't. Some tribes were nomadic and some weren't. Some tribes attacked settlers and some did not. To say "The US is founded upon stolen lands" is one of those broad brushes that is best avoided. The US paid for the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska, which is most of the country. So maybe schools should trash the French and Russians for selling the US "stolen lands."
                        Somehow I see this as more "squirrel" than a point of actual value in the discussion of a fair and complete history of the European conquest of the New World. Nevertheless, from those Native Americans that claimed ownership and that fought to preserve ownership we did indeed steal. For we kept it for ourselves and cared nothing about how it came to be theirs, taking it from them by force ... until of course such time as it became politically expedient to argue they didn't really own it therefore somehow we can't be accused of stealing.

                        likewise, for those that regarded the land as belonging to all, we also stole, because we took it away from all of them and claimed exclusive ownership of that which previously had no owner.
                        Don’t waste your time with explanations, people only hear what they want to hear.
                        --- Paulo Coelho

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                          The issue is specifically whether the USA stole Native American lands, and of course broke treaties with Indian nations along the way. Did this happen or not?
                          Are you physically incapable of resding?
                          "When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing"
                          -Trump Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders


                          "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                          - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Hi Frank. I've read the responses in a bit of disbelief ... as if the fact internal tribal warfare existed somehow makes the decimation of those same tribal civilizations by Europeans acceptable or justified.
                            You appear to be reading different responses than I did.

                            Nobody is justifying the near eradication of Native Americans (which was mostly nondeliberate and the result of diseases) but rather are pointing out that the taking control of land through less than peaceful means was hardly unique or started with the arrival of European settlers (we were simply far more efficient and effective at doing it).

                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Or that somehow the fact internal tribal warfare existed makes the fact this decimation occurred somehow less true.
                            It seems that you are reading things into what was said.

                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            What happened here to the native Americans, and in many other parts of the world through slavery and other atrocities at the hand European power and arrogance, the utter disregard for basic humanity and what we now call human rights, is in fact something to be ashamed of, not hidden, and definitely not painted over with a mythology of justifed conquest.
                            It is what happens whenever a large powerful group moves into new lands. Look at the migration of various Germanic and Slavic people into Europe in the early Middle Ages. Should the Huns living in Hungary or the Lombards in northern Italy constantly wring their hands over the fact that they took their lands through violence, slaughtering the inhabitants -- likely from a people who did the same thing to earlier inhabitants?

                            You can even see the same thing taking place today, in western China, as the Han continue to exterminate or assimilate the Uyghurs and other western Chinese people and take control of their lands. But we seem far more concerned with what happened a century ago and earlier and which cannot be undone than with what is taking place here and now.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                              Exactly. It isn't "whataboutism" or a defense, but simply putting things in perspective. The fact is that almost every current country on this planet came about through warfare and "stealing" land from someone else, so singling out the US is just more Leftist dogpiling. It is fashionable for the Left to kick dirt on the US while completely ignoring other equal offenders. Their agenda gets a bit boring, actually.
                              that.gif


                              The left focuses like a laser on things done a century and longer ago while cheerfully turning a blind eye when such behavior continues -- if it is committed by anyone who isn't white and specifically not American. The Chicoms get a free pass to what they are doing right now in western China as we continue to buy their products made by slave labor.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                                Interesting response. In the scope of teaching the history of American history as an extension of European civilization, one can't possibly be unbiased unless the brutality of the Europeans treatment of the Indians is presented in its fullness. To be clear, presenting that plainly is not 'anti-US bias', though it's plain teaching is embarrassing and shameful if one views the formation of the US as a purely good endeavor. OTOH, the fact it happened does not make the US itself inordinately evil either. The history of Humankind is filled with brutal stories of conquest one nation or people over another even from the advent of the written word.

                                However, as has often been noted, he who is not a student of history is necessarily doomed to repeat its mistakes. We must teach as accurate and unbiased a history as is possible, coupled with clear and noble principles and expectations for ourselves, if we are to be an upright and good civilization.


                                Jim
                                Except here's the thing. In the scope of teaching the history of American history, the brutality of European behavior IS taught in every school I know of. What tends to NOT be taught is the brutality of Native behavior toward one another before Europeans arrived and even after. What ALSO tends to not be taught is native involvement in slavery.
                                "When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing"
                                -Trump Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders


                                "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                                - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:45 AM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:13 AM
                                21 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 04:29 AM
                                3 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by Starlight, 01-28-2023, 10:15 PM
                                67 responses
                                334 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seer, 01-27-2023, 07:58 PM
                                133 responses
                                722 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X