Considering their options, you have to admit that they at least ended up with SOMETHING. You see, if it wasn't the Americans that had taken the land, it would have been someone else. That someone else could have decided to just eradicate them completely and take EVERYTHING. How little that they ended up with and the process by which Americans at that time took their land disgusts me. But I also know that their land being taken away would have been inevitable. Like I said. What SHOULD BE and what IS are two different things. Logically speaking, they had a ton of land that was valuable. They were a small culture compared to others in the world that had very little to defend themselves. Someone would have taken it. A good analogy would be if you sit me naked in the middle of skid row with a box full of money, hypo needles, heroine and booze with no gun or way to protect myself. What do you think would happen? SHOULD I be beaten, raped and robbed? No, I shouldn't, but WILL I? At least with the scenario that played out, they ended up with something and some kind of protection in the end. In other words, it could have been worse.
Melicious wrote:However now they enjoy some of what the white man has brought to them and are more protected than if some others would have come in to take their land away. Just ask the Indian Casino owners here in California..lol. Those bastards are rich!!! The economy within the Indian bands is 200% better than America's right now.
Mel, you're a nice girl, but you got to admit that this is a weak argument. Indians lived on these lands for thousands of years in happiness and prosperity (in their own terms), living very closely to the Earth and respecting it. I'm sure that despite of all the advantages that they're being presented with by their occupants, they would be much happier if their land was left for them to develop into whatever they'd wish it developed into.
It is as if a woman who's beautiful was kidnapped from her family she loves and given to a rich sheik in the Middle East. She'd live in a castle and have anything she could wish for, only she wouldn't be able to develop her own life in a surrounding of her choice - she'd have to play by somebody else's rules.
Yes, Indians are given the rights in North America, but they are still restricted to live the way their occupants say. They are forced to live the way western society lives, not the way they would have lived had their lands not been stolen from them. Do you see where I'm coming from?
Do I agree with human tendencies like this? NO, if it were up to me everyone would spit rainbows, shit ice cream and eat fluffernutters in peace for all existence. But does this mean it's viable?
Another example of not getting involved. Ireland and the British. It didn't end up in the favor of Ireland, but they have learned to live with what land they were able to keep. Are they happy about it? Hell no, but do you think that things would have ended up better if someone else had stepped in? You can't be moderator. Like the two little kids pouting in the corner. They'll agree to disagree to appease the teacher, but the minute that teacher leaves the room they'll start fighting again. Only now, the two kids also hate the teacher for punishing them and not just each other anymore.