Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Holocaust of Native American Indians

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

  • American Holocaust of Native American Indians

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Native American Peoples
    A History of Genocide





    In the entire history of colonisation, no people has been subjected to a more ruthless regime of land-seizure, economic exploitation and genocide than have the original inhabitants of North America.

    At the time the present-day United States was settled by Europeans, it was abundantly populated by scores of separate nations with diverse civilisations and cultures -- from the Cheyenne and the Navajo in the west and the Sioux and Arapahoe in the north to the Seminole and Choctaw of the South and the Cherokee and Mohawk of the east. Their numbers were never accurately recorded, but one major American encyclopedia estimates that the territory's pre-settlement population may have been as high as 112 million.

    Today, fewer than two million survive in the U.S. (a mere 1.4 million according to the 1980 census), and many of their ancient languages and cultures have been lost except for the names given to towns, rivers and other landmarks.

    Like other colonised regions, the indigenous people suffered first from the introduction of "old world" diseases to which they had no immunity. It is believed that millions died as smallpox, measles, whooping cough, and influenza swept the countryside. Some scholars estimate that such epidemics were responsible for more than 80 million deaths during the early colonial period alone. As the settlers advanced, they claimed new lands and drove the "Indians" -- so called because the European explorers mistakenly believed they had landed in India -- farther and farther into toward the west.

    Aided by high birthrates and vigorous immigration, the European population expanded rapidly during the 18th and 19th centuries. When the census of 1790 was taken, there were slightly fewer than 4 million of them in the U.S; nearly 10 million were counted in 1830, and the population passed the 50 million mark by the national census of 1880. By this time, white settlements extended from coast to coast, and the surviving native peoples had been relegated to tribal "homelands" or "reservations."

    Interestingly, local inhabitants fared better in other parts of the western hemi- sphere. Canada had an estimated native population of 200,000 before colonisation, and its indigenous people today number 300,000 -- just a tiny part of Canada's 27 million people, but nonetheless an increase, rather than a decrease, over the past 400 years.

    In Latin America, several of the original ethnic groups were completely eradicated under European domination, and others were forced into slavery, where they intermingled with other races, leaving only descendants of mixed heritage.

    In those regions most densely inhabited at the time of colonisation, however, the native populations generally still survive. About 30 percent of Mexico's people belong to indigenous ethnic groups, as do 45 percent of the Peruvian people and over half the population of Bolivia.

    The elimination of the native populations in the U.S. has historically been portrayed in text books and folklore as something that "just happened." The whites rapidly became more numerous and the original people were dispersed to unsettled regions, where they either killed each other off or just "disappeared."

    In reality, however, the demise of the original American people in the United States was the result of a well-planned programme of population control. Many of the tribes, forced to migrate to unfamiliar areas, died of starvation and cold. The British and the Dutch launched a programme of land "purchases" which led to conflict, as the colonisers claimed permanent ownership of land which the indigenous people were led to believe had been acquired for temporary use. And as the frontier moved west, these confrontations grew increasingly brutal, and millions of indigenous people -- men, women and children -- were simply massacred by land-hungry settlers and speculators.

    Between 1778 and 1871, a total 389 treaties between the United States government and various indigenous American groups were signed and, for the most part, promptly broken. In 1815, the U.S. officially adopted a policy of forced land confiscation, compelling the "Indians" to relocate to remote homelands administered by the government. And as the European population expanded, the land allocated to native peoples dwindled from 155 million acres in 1887 to barely 47 million acres in 1934.

    Essays written by the new republic's most esteemed leaders give a glimpse into the attitudes that prevailed at the time.

    Benjamin Franklin is one of the United States' best known and most influential intellectuals, a statesman and a hero. In fact, the name of the 18th century political leader has graced everything from colleges to stores and streets across the U.S.A.

    Franklin was also a racist, whose hatred of the original Americans is well documented. He publicly described them as "barbarous tribes of savages that delight in war and take pride in murder." Franklin, like most of his contemporaries, was keenly aware of the demographic realities confronting the settlers, and argued repeatedly for the speedy acquisition of lands held by indigenous Americans on the explicit grounds that depriving them of land would place them at a reproductive disadvantage.

    In 1751, Franklin wrote his notorious racialist manifesto: "The number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal Body of White People on the face of the Earth. I could wish their numbers were increased."

    In pursuit of his vision of acquiring vast open spaces for the expansion of the white race, he defended cruelty to the native peoples by charging that they posed an obstacle to settlement and thus were guilty of nothing less than "killing thousands of our children before they are born." Those who seized "Indian" land were praised by Franklin as "the fathers of their nation, as they are the cause of the generation of multitudes by the encouragement they afford to marriage."

    Early population control strategies were, by no means, directed solely at the indigenous land dwellers. By the 1770s, Franklin had come to oppose the institution of slavery, but his papers make clear that he was primarily concerned with the importation of Africans who might out-breed the European settlers. The traffic in slaving must stop, he wrote, because the presence of large numbers of African captives will only "prevent the increase of whites."

    Franklin's views were echoed by others high on the ladder of political influence in the new country. For example, the nation's second president, Thomas Jefferson, wrote in 1804 against further introduction of slaves to America on the grounds that "this blot in our country increases as fast, or faster, than the whites."

    The plan to clear the land of its natural inhabitants was pursued ruthlessly for more then two centuries. Indeed, the first known incident of biological warfare in the United States occurred in 1763, when white colonisers gave a "gift" of smallpox-infested blankets to a group of native Americans who sought a peace treaty.

    The original Americans were subjected to varying degrees of cultural warfare, too, their languages and customs buried forever under the mudslide of "assimilation" imposed on them by the economically dominant Anglo-Saxons.

    The near-complete replacement of the native American population in the continental United States with persons of European extraction achieved every basic objective of population control.

    First of all, it gained for the settlers formal and absolute control of the territory and its vast resources. The colonisers rapidly advanced from their original settlements on the eastern seaboard toward the west, continually seeking new horizons for conquest and exploitation, and ultimately setting the stage for the present international policy that relentlessly pursues new frontiers for the expansion of American influence.

    Second, it assured that the Anglo-Saxon elite gained the power to exercise social control, to set the standards under which the civic order of the "new world" was to develop, and to define the dominant or "mainstream" culture. The importance of this last aspect of control cannot be overestimated, although it would probably be a mistake to view cultural conquest in purely racial terms. The ability of a dominant group to debase and eliminate competing cultures is the very foundation of the class-structured society, which, in turn, is essential to the potency and permanence of a racist system. Moreover, by gaining the power to authenticate certain cultural norms and to reject others, an elite group is able to dictate to its own advantage the value and usefulness of a broad range of societal and personal characteristics and civic ethics, to mold the aspirations, expectations, beliefs, and lifestyles of the society at large, and thus to facilitate physical control.

    Last, the removal of the indigenous inhabitants of the region achieved the most fundamental goals of population control, "stability" and "security." The potential for conflict between the original Americans and the settlers declined both in proportion to the loss of population suffered by the native peoples and the gain in numbers experienced by the European migrants. In the late 15th century, indigenous groups were 100 percent of the population of what is now the continental United States. Today, using 1980 census figures, they amount to a mere one half of one percent of the total U.S. population.

    The relative size of one's adversary, of course, is a key factor determining the capability of that adversary to resist force and interference. As the native population declined, both in absolute numbers and in comparison to the numbers of whites, their capacity for presenting an effective military obstacle to the expansionist goals of the settlers decreased dramatically. The smaller a minority they became, the less their economic concerns constituted a threat to whites, ensuring that the new economic establishment of the Europeans would not be unduly disrupted by pressures to bend to "Indian" interests. And as a political entity, the indigenous peoples were eventually rendered irrelevant by their insignificant place in the demographic order.

    Thus the conquest of America serves as a terrifying example of the dangers of expansionist goals, cultural and political hegemony, and demographic intervention -- one that will have crucial significance in the developing world in the coming years.


    #

    Navajo Family Planning Project Unwanted
    Native American birthrates are about twice the U.S. average, according to a report in the July/August edition of Family Planning World, a journal written by and for international population control professionals. The report notes that the promotion of birth control among the Indian population is made difficult by "centuries old anti-family planning traditions," but that Indian Health Services (IHS) contraceptive clinics have "made strides since the 1970s in creating a greater acceptance of contraceptives."

    According to Georgia Crawford, director of a Navajo family planning clinic, propaganda and persuasion are the necessary elements for success. "You've got to learn how to reach different tribes," Crawford told the publication. She added that it is important for clinics not to fall under tribal control. "We're separated from the reservation politics that goes on," she explains.

    Birth control is becoming acceptable to those Native Americans "who are closer to urban areas and who have more experience outside reservations," said another government family planning operative.

    The report explains that promotion of family planning on reservations has "long been hobbled by fear and mistrust of white society. Sensing a conspiracy to reduce their population, Indians have often met outside family planning programs with disdain."

    Adds Patricia De Asisa, assistant secretary of IHS, "There are always some radicals who think that family planning is another word for genocide."




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DESPITE COMPLAINTS BY HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS ABOUT FORCED STERILIZATIONS AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT, THE `INDIAN' POPULATION CONTROL PROGRAM IS STILL IN FORCE. AND SOME FAMILY PLANNING GROUPS ARE NOW SAYING THERE NEVER WAS ANY GENOCIDE....

    Sterilization Abuse
    Several studies and reports indicate that minority women in the United States, including Native American women, are at least twice as likely to be sterilized as are their white counterparts. S. B. Ruzek, in a 1978 book about women's health issues, revealed that only seven percent of all married white women in the U.S. have been sterilized, whereas 14 percent of indigenous American women and fully 20 percent of African-American women have undergone the procedure. Ruzek added that despite political protest against involuntary sterilizations, a survey of doctors in four cities found that 94 percent of gynecologists favored mandatory sterilization of welfare recipients under certain circumstances. (The Women's Health Movement: Feminist Alternatives to Medical Control, New York, Praeger, 1978).

    In 1977, a Native American physician, Dr. Constance Redbird Uri, published even more alarming findings. Uri interviewed one thousand Native women who had been sterilized, and concluded that only one of them had freely decided to forego childbearing. In her report, which was published in the Medical Tribune of August 24, 1977, Dr. Uri stated that she had became involved in the issue of sterilization abuse 1972, after learning that the government was conducting large numbers of permanent sterilization procedures on relatively young Native American women. She reported that thousands of sterilizations had been done in just four Indian Health Service (IHS) regions between 1973 and 1976, and projected that at least 20 percent of all Native women in the U.S. have had the operation. Dr. Uri warned that if the coercive sterilizations continued at the same rate, all pureblood Indian races would be eliminated in only 15 years.


    Informed Consent
    In testimony presented August 6, 1987 before a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. a feminist critic of the IHS family planning program charged that the long-term injectable contraceptive, Depo Provera, was being widely misused. Both of the nature of the drug and the target population suggest, the statement said, that Depo-Provera simply cannot be ethically used as a family planning method. The drug, it was noted, causes such side effects as abnormal bleeding, permanent infertility, cancer, sickness, depression and birth defects; and because of its impact on the immune system, it may also increase the risk of AIDS. The testimony also questioned whether adequate informed consent was obtained from incarcerated and institutionalized women, the mentally ill, the retarded, the poor, and minorities such as Native American women. Because the injection supplies a slow-release anti-fertility agent, it is essentially irreversible, in that users cannot simply discontinue. Depo-Provera was used to curb births on Native American territories long before the government considered approving it for general contraceptive use.


    Denial
    Despite charges of genocide, family planning advocates continue to target indigenous peoples. At the annual meeting of the Population Association of America in April 1979, two scholars presented a paper demonstrating the effectiveness of the IHS family planning campaign. The authors, R. G. LeNoir and J. H. Gundlach, found that fertility had fallen by about 26 percent in four years among the population using the IHS clinics, and credited an active family planning recruitment scheme with most of the decline in fertility.

    While many within the population establishment have become sensitive to charges of genocide, their response has primarily been to deny that it happened. An article appearing last June in the journal Human Biology, for example, claimed that the indigenous peoples declined in numbers because of problems associated with "overpopulation," that the settlers had little or nothing to do with it, and that present growth rate of the indigenous population -- along with new concepts of "who is a Native American" -- could make up for the loss.

    "Recent research on human skeletal samples and related archeological materials suggests that morbidity and mortality were increasing throughout much of the Western Hemisphere before 1492 in response to increased population density," the report states. "The evidence suggests that after 1492 population reduction was caused not by continental pandemics but by localized or regional epidemics augmented by social and economic disruption." In any case, insists the publication, there has been a "remarkable Native American population recovery," which has been the result of higher-than average fertility, better health care and "changing definitions of 'being Indian.'"




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NEW FOREIGN POLICY -- OLD IDEAS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At least one contemporary scholar has argued convincingly that America's colonial and post-colonial policy of racial expansion forms the basis of modern U.S. foreign policy.

    In a 1987 book, Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy, Michael H. Hunt, a professor of history at the University of North Carolina, argues that the old concepts of America's "manifest destiny," deep-rooted beliefs in the "superiority" of the white race and its culture, and an innate horror of revolution abroad ("global instability") are still the theoretical basis for U.S. actions overseas.

    Hunt notes the similarities between the cold war military and political strategy for the "containment" of communism and today's "international development" programme:

    "Like containment, development policy drew inspiration from the long-established ideology. But while containment underlined the obligations of a great nation to defend liberty, development theory drew its inspiration from the old American vision of appropriate or legitimate processes of social change and an abiding sense of superiority over the dark-skinned peoples of the Third World," he writes.

    The foreign aid programme, he continues, may also "be seen as a response to the fourth wave of revolutions Americans had had to confront. Rolling across the face of Latin America, Africa, and Asia, the most recent wave of radicalism and unrest raised for American leaders the specter of Soviet meddling at the same time that it directly challenged American values. ...Condescending and paternalistic, development theory also carried forward the long-established American views on race... [T]he idea of the Third World as a single entity survived, sustained by the American conviction of its backwardness and the repressed American consciousness of the color of its peoples."

    In the early years of the United States, as Hunt's book shows, each different section of the country "fought the war for racial supremacy in its own way and in accord with the economic prize in question, the nature of the opposing people, and the power disparities between them. Seizing Indian land in New England in the 1600s differed from holding a black population under control in the antebellum South, just as evicting Mexico from the Southwest and subordinating the resident Latino population differed from the struggle to control the immigrant tide washing the urban East at the turn of the century." But the basic concept of Anglo- Saxon privelege remained the same, and this concept continues to motivate foreign policy.

    J.D. Jackson, an architect of the "international development" strategy and a key Eisenhower advisor in the 1950s, explained the American view in terms loaded with colonial arrogance: "The western world," said Jackson, "has somewhat more experience with the operations of war, peace, and parliamentary procedures than the swirling mess of emotionally super-charged Africans and Asiatics and Arabs that outnumber us."

    The tactic of reducing population among those who "outnumber us," likewise echoes the territorial and racial struggles of the settlement period, waged against indigenous people and African slaves alike. As Hunt ob- serves about the early U.S., "The exploit- ation of blacks had become a way of life, and their submission essential to a sense of security among often outnumbered white commu- nities." The maintenance of a "proper order" among races, he adds, required highly- organised repression. "Close supervision and control and the threat of severe punishment, including castration for sexual as well as other offences, served to keep them in check."

    As the depopulation of the country's indigenous strains and its watchful eye toward black fertility allowed European- Americans to dominate the country both politically and demographically, present-day interference with lifestyles, economies and birthrates in the developing world facilitates international hegemonism.

    As Hunt explains it, the geopolitical stage was seen by early leaders as being "like a chessboard. Each major power would seek to control the greatest expanse of space. The more territory it controlled, the greater its population and natural resources, and the greater in turn would be its power and capacity to acquire yet more territory and further augment its power in a cycle that would leave a rival weakened and isolated."

    Hunt further comments on the fears of demographic marginalisation that have historically haunted U.S. policy planners. "In international competition among the races," he explains, America's Anglo-Saxon leaders worried that "victory might not go to the refined and peaceful peoples but rather to the amoral, the cunning, the fecund, and the power hungry." In other words, the world would be treated in much the same way as was the U.S. frontier, with population growth among non-whites viewed as a direct threat to western expansion.

    As Hunt reveals about the early 20th century presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, it was then assumed America's rise to power could only be achieved through a kind of "warfare of the cradle" (Roosevelt's own words) which was to be waged "against the more prolific lower orders" across the oceans.

    Indeed, long before Roosevelt, American leaders were consumed with the idea of increasing the numbers of whites. John L. O'Sullivan, a well-known proponent of the "manifest destiny" theory, predicted in the mid 19th century that the United States would "soon surpass the greatness of any European power," exceeding all rivals in size and eventually overtaking the Chinese in population.

    A striking comparison can likewise be made between the "public rhetoric" which was common during the North American settlement era and the propaganda that supports contemporary development activities "in the national security interest," as U.S. leaders are fond of saying.

    At the height the continental expansion, native Americans were almost exclusively portrayed as vicious degenerates who preyed on innocent women and children. General William T. Sherman, who either led or oversaw several military conquests in native American territories, wrote in 1868: "The more we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians the more convinced I am that all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper." And an 1813 school book titled Guardians of Tradition explains the demise of the indigenous groups as nothing less than essential to "the increase of mankind, and for the promotion of the world's glory and happiness."

    Today's selective reporting of droughts and natural disasters in the so-called "third world," of failed insurrections, religious conflicts, and growing indebtedness, serve in the very same way to portray the people of developing nations as a dependent, unproductive species, unfit for real self-government and undeserving of equality with the more "advanced" or "civilised" na- tions in the hierarchy of global politics. At the same time, of course, this impression helps U.S. leaders to justify enormous expenditures on foreign operations which have the potential to become as unpopular at home as they are abroad.

    As Hunt points out, "Public rhetoric is not simply a screen, tool, or ornament. It is also, perhaps even primarily, a form of communication, rich in symbols and mythology and closely constrained by certain rules." In other words, such rhetoric creates the images and defines the perceptions that mold public opinion.

    It was not until the last two decades that any significant general protest was made by U.S. citizens about America's treatment of its original inhabitants. Today, however, increasing numbers of activists are challenging official histories that ignore the genodical aspects of western nation-building and attacking the ugly racial stereotypes of indigenous Americans that are still prevalent in the media.

    The developing world, too, is beginning to have a constituency in the north. But, say many opponents of imperialism, controversy at home is no guarantee that genocidal policies toward the south will cease to do harm. Only when the people of the developing countries themselves become fully aware of the dangers of western hegemonism and of its sordid history, they argue, will the poison of intervention begin to lose its potency.



    Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy is published by the Yale University Press in London and New Haven, Connecticut.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Timothy Wirth

    During an "Open Forum" in July, State Department Counselor Timothy Wirth discussed the "new diplomacy" of the Clinton White House and the administration's "new approach to global issues." Four goals will become State Department priorities in the coming years, Wirth announced, and these will be reflected in USAID policy. The four are: "democracy, population, the environment and sustainable development."

    Plainly troubled by of the growing public hostility toward interference abroad, Wirth stressed the urgency of "constituency building as a necessary ingredient to foster support for these four goals," according to an in-house USAID newsletter.

    He added, "We in the State Department ... have a major job to do to think much more clearly and much more carefully about who our constituents are, how we deal with them and how we let them know that their scarce taxpayer dollars are, in fact, producing what they have requested of the United States of America."


    Quotes from USAID's Front Lines, September 1993. Subscriptions to Front Lines are available free upon request from the Agency for International Development, Office of External Affairs, Washington, DC 20523-0056.)


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Sure It's Racist, But...
    A proposed amendment to the Foreign Assistant Act, known as the Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act, would double Congressionally-appropriated population funds. Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, a sponsor of the legislation, said of the population bill, "People don't like to deal with it. It has elements of ethnicity, religion, racism ... but [the population funding bill] is a very important step."

    Sponsors in the House of Representatives are Maryland Representative Constance Morella and Congressman Tony Bielenson of California. At a September 22 hearing, Morella, who herself has nine children, urged a House Foreign Affairs panel to take into consideration "the growing impact which population issues have on our ability to pursue our nation's foreign policy objectives and to maintain the quality of life of citizens of the United States."

    Said Beilenson at the same hearing, "This rapid [population] growth underlies virtually every environmental, developmental, and national security problem facing the world today."





    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Copyright 1993
    Baobab Press/IPFA
    Please Re-update your Signature

  • #2
    How you you feel about it.. being American as well?
    Please Re-update your Signature

    Comment


    • #3
      I am just curious. Since you outlined the fact that greater atrocities have been forced upon Native American Indians than Palestinians in Israel, how many times has a Native American Indian strapped a bomb to his chest and blew himself up in a shopping mall? Humiliation and Human Dignity and all that.
      Please Re-update your Signature

      Comment


      • #4
        In the entire history of colonisation, no people has been subjected to a more ruthless regime of land-seizure, economic exploitation and genocide than have the original inhabitants of North America.
        not true, you should have seen what happened to the summerians at the hands of Sargon and the akkadians.

        who can forget how the chaldeans ran off all the local tribes for their own gain, or how the hittites invaded, raped, pillaged, and generally spent all the resources of the conquered land. oh dont get me started on the hittites ...

        of course, all this stuff is in the history books, and there for a good reason, for future people to learn from without the mistakes of the past. (hopefully)
        Please Re-update your Signature

        Comment


        • #5
          Right.. though it's regretable, it's unchangable. And everyone learns from thier mistakes regardless of how evil one person might think they are. ;)
          Please Re-update your Signature

          Comment


          • #6
            how i feel

            it's your history not mine. before you judge everyone look at your history first and i will keep bringing more post about how america is a terroristic country.
            Please Re-update your Signature

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: how i feel

              Originally posted by arabianknight
              it's your history not mine. before you judge everyone look at your history first and i will keep bringing more post about how america is a terroristic country.
              If you're not American, then what are you doing here? In Texas, no less. If you are referring to ethnic background, then it's not mine either. Im mostly Welsh.

              My point being is that if you have citizenship, it's every bit your history as it is mine.
              Please Re-update your Signature

              Comment


              • #8
                Arabian knight,

                Nice one mate!

                And this genocide against the real Amrikkans and the founding of a European settler colony (as in Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa) explains why the Amrikkans and others staunchly support 'Israel' and the real Genocide, in Palestine.
                Please Re-update your Signature

                Comment


                • #9
                  ypur welcome bro

                  Originally posted by Bilquis
                  Arabian knight,

                  Nice one mate!

                  And this genocide against the real Amrikkans and the founding of a European settler colony (as in Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa) explains why the Amrikkans and others staunchly support 'Israel' and the real Genocide, in Palestine.
                  just look how they are acting on this thread. they always prove me right
                  Please Re-update your Signature

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Re: how i feel

                    Originally posted by AllMostCar


                    If you're not American, then what are you doing here? In Texas, no less. If you are referring to ethnic background, then it's not mine either. Im mostly Welsh.

                    My point being is that if you have citizenship, it's every bit your history as it is mine.
                    my point is i am here to slap fools like you around. your points and life is irealivant and whu did your forfathers slander lie and kill native indians why tell us please oh brainless one
                    Please Re-update your Signature

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      American Holocaust of Native American Indians



                      I just watched it. "No indians or dogs allowed"

                      It is only 30 minutes.
                      Last edited by AbuMubarak; 27-11-16, 01:48 AM.
                      "They are Shuhadaa (witnesses) to the fact that this Deen is greater than life, that values are more important than blood and that principles are more precious than souls" - Sheikh 'Abdullah Azzam

                      Lost in Islamic History :inlove:

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: American Holocaust of Native American Indians

                        Life virtues

                        Joseph Marshall is a member of the Sicunga Lakota Sioux and has dedicated his entire life to the wisdom he learned from his elders. Here he focuses on the twelve core qualities that are crucial to the Lakota way of life--bravery, fortitude, generosity, wisdom, respect, honor, perseverance, love, humility, sacrifice, truth, and compassion. Whether teaching a lesson on respect imparted by the mythical Deer Woman or the humility embodied by the legendary Lakota leader Crazy Horse, The Lakota Way offers a fresh outlook on spirituality and ethical living.
                        ..............

                        Honor


                        A wise man asked what virtue he would choose if he were to be known by only one. "Honor" he replied without hesitation.
                        "If I am known for being honorable, it can only mean That I have demonstrated many other virtues."

                        The application of virtue is the positive core of any culture., society or nation. Like individuals, nations can be kind, generous, truthful, honest, generous and courageous. Those individuals, cultures, societies, and nations that indiscriminately---blindly if you will---apply all virtues in their conduct and dealings will establish themselves and emerge as the most honorable. To be honorable is to have integrity---to be honest---and to do what is morally correct. As much as judgement is based on what we do, it is also, and perhaps more indelibly, defined by what we fail to do.
                        ..............

                        It is perhaps incongruous or illogical to speak of honor within the context of warfare and combat given the terrible efficiency of modern weaponry and the horrific record of wartime atrocities. Any extremely difficult situation demands courage. As despicable as war is, it is a saving grace for the human species that most who participate in it endeavor to do so with honor. Honor can be as simple as a cease-fire when the vanquished lay down their arms. It can be as grandiose as General Ulysses Grant allowing the surrendering Confederate soldiers to keep their horses at the end of the civil war. Among the Plains Indians prior to the so-called Indian Wars of the 19th century, honor was often associated with warfare for practical and moral reasons.

                        War is, and has been, basically the same the world over. If it is a defensive action, it is usually to resist encroachment or invasion---imperialism. As an offensive action it is usually to encroach or invade, which are imperialistic notions. Consequently, a nation or a culture is judged by how and why it engaged itself in a war. Intertribal warfare on the pre-european Plains of North America was perceived to be rooted in savagery, first and foremost, simply because the people of the Plains were considered to be savages. Savage is as savage does. However, intertribal warfare had a different meaning and purpose than the usual defensive-offensive aspects of imperialistic warfare. It was in a real sense an intentional proving ground.
                        .......

                        There was one highly significant difference between European style warfare and Plains Indian warfare. Europeans and Euro-Americans fought to kill as many of the enemy as possible while doing considerable damage to their supplies and support functions. Plains Indian warriors endeavored to demonstrate courage and honor in the face of the enemy, and defeating an enemy didn't necessarily mean having to kill him. Lakota and other Plains warriors considered it far more courageous, therefore more honorable, to touch a live enemy in battle and live to tell about it because that courage and honor were the basis for the strength of the tribe.
                        ........

                        Defeating the enemy in his own mind was better that taking his life.
                        .......

                        An underlying rationale was that if a man was capable of acting bravely and honorably in the midst of the most violent and chaotic, and frightening circumstances, he was capable of bravery and honor in the time of peace. The benefit for the people was two fold. Their fighting men were totally committed to the defense of families, home and homeland, and the lessons of courage and honor learned under the most difficult of circumstances would serve to benefit all of the people in any circumstance.





                        Excerpted from
                        .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
                        نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
                        دولة الإسلامية باقية





                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: American Holocaust of Native American Indians

                          http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8090157...american-theft

                          The 19th century was an unmitigated disaster for North America's native peoples. The United States' westward expansion came at the expense of their land, freedom, and often their lives — a mass displacement that, as this animated map shows, happened over an astonishingly brief period of time.
                          The map, made by Tumblr user sunisup, combines a series of maps from Louisiana State University geographer Sam B. Hilliard, based on primary US government sources. What they show in time-lapse is the rapid collapse in native land holdings — marked in green — between 1784 and 1895:


                          From 1784 to the War of 1812, tribal displacement was limited compared to what would come. "Eastern tribes were well organized," Hilliard writes, "and the demand for land by whites was moderate."
                          After the war, things changed. The United States moved west, rapidly, forcing out native communities, often violently. "Instead of ceding parts of their claim," Hilliard writes, "Indians found themselves confined to small reserves while the remainder of their land was open to white settlement." It was "common practice" for Americans to ask native peoples where their lands were, and then demand part or all of it after they had firmly established the size of the holding.
                          Between 1810 and 1895, America gobbled up the continent through deceptive negotiating tactics and brute military force. "By the time the US passed the Dawes Act in 1887, effectively abolishing tribal self-governance and forcing assimilation, there was very little left," Max Fisher and Dylan Matthews write. Native Americans were shunted to minuscule reservations, many of which remain impoverished today.
                          .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
                          نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
                          دولة الإسلامية باقية





                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: American Holocaust of Native American Indians

                            :salams:

                            They should teach this in every American school and worldwide.

                            Then we'll be talking about who the real immigrants and foreign invaders are.

                            Great thread, haven't read it all though.
                            'Whatever it be wherein ye differ, the decision thereof is with Allah: such is Allah my Lord: In Him I trust, and to Him I turn.' The Holy Qu'ran Al Shura (Consultation)

                            So, which of the favours of your lord will you deny? ~ Surah Ar Rahman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: American Holocaust of Native American Indians

                              Originally posted by Ya'sin View Post
                              :salams:

                              They should teach this in every American school and worldwide.

                              Then we'll be talking about who the real immigrants and foreign invaders are.

                              Great thread, haven't read it all though.
                              http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8090157...american-theft
                              .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
                              نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
                              دولة الإسلامية باقية





                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X