Giago didn't say "all settlers were guilty of genocide." He didn't use the words "all" or "genocide" in the selection I quoted.
You don't think the Scots-Irish immigrants participated in attacks on Indians once they settled here and joined the Anglo-American mainstream? What's your justification for that belief?
Settlers were innocent?
The US government wasn't always the guilty party, you know. Often state or local governments, businesses, or individuals violated the federal "wish" to protect the Indians. The quote correspondent DMarks provided on this point is accurate:
Prove the alleged "bias"
Now that you've told us your position, Anonymous, do you have anything to say about what Giago actually wrote? Quote the line or lines you disagree with and say why you disagree with them.
I'd say Giago's "worst" claim is that "immigrants" (i.e., Euro-Americans in general) took the Indians' land "by hook, crook and force." Are you claiming this is generally false rather than generally true? If so, prove your case.
Consider the fact that Euro-American immigrants broke every one of the treaties signed with Indians. Again, the violators were often local officials or settlers who didn't want to be bound by federal dictates. For instance, Charles Ingalls in Little House on the Prairie.
Since you disagree with Giago, give us a few examples of Indian land that wasn't taken by "hook, crook, or force." Tell us how Scots-Irish people such as Andrew Jackson dealt with Indians fairly while other Anglo groups didn't. Good luck with your answer...you'll need it.
For more on the subject, see Genocide by Any Other Name....
Below: A typical Scots-Irish American?
5 comments:
"Why the settlers came here is irrelevant in this context."
Wrong, in order to fully grasp history we have to understand what motivated such things as the Scots-Irish diaspora. Plus I was pointing out that while the English had very little to gripe about the Scots-Irish really were fleeing opression (which is putting it mildly).
"You don't thinks the Scots-Irish immigrants participated in attacks on Indians once they settled here"
Some did, some didn't and of course there atrocities on both sides.
"and joined the Anglo-American mainstream? What's your justification for that claim?"
Actually not all Scots-Irish joined the wasps; quite a few kept their culture alive, to this day Scots-Irish culture is still very much alive.
"From the outset, it was the settler that did the most damage. ... The government, while it usually professed humane sentiments, and on a few occasions acting on them, was too weak and cowardly to withstand the clamour of such a vocal group."
Key word there is 'professed'; the idea that the government were a bunch of nice guys who were forced into committing genocide by a bunch of cabin owners is absurd obviously some settlers were a factor, but who do we have to thank for wounded knee? The trail of tears? Horrible reservation conditions? The government of course.
"As for Indians killing Anglos or other Indians, mentioning these incidents would require explaining why they happened. For instance, here's the background on the Jamestown massacre of 1622:
Chief Powhatan had soon realized that the Englishmen did not settle in Jamestown in order to buy and sell with the Indians. The English wanted more; they wanted control over the land. As Powhatan stated, “Your coming is not for trade, but to invade my people and possess my country.”
I fail to see how that excuses a horrible mass murder. As for the Indians that took part in the Pequot genocide their motivation was more as the less the same as their english allies.
"Now that you've told us your position, Anonymous, do you have anything to say about what Giago actually wrote? Quote the line or lines you disagree with and say why you disagree with them."
A good example of what I disagree with is right below.
"I'd say Giago's "worst" claim is that "immigrants" (i.e., Euro-Americans in general) took the Indians' land "by hook, crook and force." Are you claiming this is generally false rather than generally true? If so, prove your case."
This is where he displays a bit of ignorance, there's no question that Natives had their land stolen but several white ethnic groups (ie Italians) settled primarily in cities so obviously they had no part in the theft plus blaming an entire race is a bit much.
"Consider the fact that Euro-American immigrants broke every one of the treaties signed with Indians. Again, the violators were often local officials or settlers who didn't want to be bound by federal dictates. For instance, Charles Ingalls in Little House on the Prairie."
No argument there.
"Since you disagree with Giago, give us a few examples of Indian land that wasn't taken by "hook, crook, or force."
You seem to have misunderstood, I didn't post that Indian land was acquired fairly.
"Tell us how Scots-Irish people such as Andrew Jackson dealt with Indians fairly while other Anglo groups didn't."
John Ross chief of the Cherokee springs to mind plus quite a few (a bit of an understatement tbh) Scots-Irish intermarried with Natives.
"As for Indians killing Anglos or other Indians, mentioning these incidents would require explaining why they happened. For instance, here's the background on the Jamestown massacre of 1622:
Chief Powhatan had soon realized that the Englishmen did not settle in Jamestown in order to buy and sell with the Indians. The English wanted more; they wanted control over the land. As Powhatan stated, “Your coming is not for trade, but to invade my people and possess my country.”
Are you justifying a mass murder then? Mass murder is just that no matter who commits it (Anglo or Indian) and whether or not there as a legimate reason or not. To me there is no justification of mass murder by either side.
I think the writer takes exception to all settlers and all whites being lumped in the same bag. There are many whites who have had no ancestory here during these times (their ancestores did not immigrate to this county until much later) and as mentioned there were some ethnic whites (ie as mentioned the Italians) who obviously did not have much to do with stealing lands. Yet summarily all white are lumped together as "evil" and oppressors.
I recognize the atrocities the Native American have suffered and like many others am interested in learning more because our history books in schools do no truthfully depict these events. I think many people have an open mind and as much as we may not like to hear the truth of our nations history and genocide... hOwever, when ALL whites are attacked as committing genocide, being racist, or guilty because of distant ancestors who may or may not be related to us personally that is unfair/unjust as well.
Re "in order to fully grasp history we have to understand what motivated such things as the Scots-Irish diaspora": You mean what motivated the Scots-Irish to come to America and start conquering and killing the indigenous inhabitants? Okay, why exactly did they participate in the genocide of others if they were victims of genocide themselves?
Re "Some did, some didn't": Yes...but unfortunately, you mischaracterized Giago's position as "all settlers were guilty of genocide." That isn't what he said and no one believes that to be the case.
As for the "atrocities on both sides," the settlers were mainly fighting to take the Indians' land and the Indians were fighting to prevent it. The Indians' actions were morally defensible while the settlers' actions weren't.
Re "Actually not all Scots-Irish joined the wasps; quite a few kept their culture alive": The vast majority of the Scots-Irish people have joined the American mainstream. As were Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Theodore Roosevelt, they're part of the white establishment: the powers-that-be.
Re "the idea that the government were a bunch of nice guys who were forced into committing genocide by a bunch of cabin owners is absurd": I've written all about the US government's role in Genocide by Any Other Name... and its subsidiary pages. I doubt Giago was trying to distinguish between the immigrant settlers and the immigrant politicians they elected to implement their wishes. One way or another, immigrants were responsible for the genocide against Indians.
Re "I fail to see how that excuses a horrible mass murder": Horrible things always happen in times of war. But much of the blame goes to the people who started a war and unjustly attacked others, not the people who defended themselves.
Re "several white ethnic groups (ie Italians) settled primarily in cities so obviously they had no part in the theft plus blaming an entire race is a bit much": Again, Giago didn't blame "all" settlers or immigrants. If you misunderstood his position, I helpfully restated it for you. Euro-Americans in general took the Indians' land "by hook, crook and force."
Again, is this statement generally true or generally false? Pick one of the two answers, please. That way, we can confirm whether you understand the concept of a generalization or not. ;-)
P.S. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're Scots-Irish yourself, Stephen. Am I right?
"You mean what motivated the Scots-Irish to come to America and start conquering and killing the indigenous inhabitants?"
I'm talking about why they came to America in the first place; quite a few didn't even want to settle in Indian, but the English settlers didn't allow them to live in their areas. My overall point is that unlike the English settlers the Scots-Irish had a legit reason to migrate.
"Okay, why exactly did they participate in the genocide of others if they were victims of genocide themselves?"
For starters the idea that they all started butchering Natives is absurd. Second of all the ones that did kill Indians did for greed and out of paranoia, kind of like the Jews that commited atrocities against Palestinians.
"Re "Some did, some didn't": Yes...but unfortunately, you mischaracterized Giago's position as "all settlers were guilty of genocide." That isn't what he said and no one believes that to be the case."
Fair enough.
"As for the "atrocities on both sides," the settlers were mainly fighting to take the Indians' land and the Indians were fighting to prevent it. The Indians' actions were morally defensible while the settlers' actions weren't."
I'm afraid not; mass murders like Jamestown are completely indefensible.
"The vast majority of the Scots-Irish people have joined the American mainstream."
Some have, some haven't. Today a large group of poor people of Scots-Irish descent exist who are reviled by the American mainstream as 'rednecks' which is actually an anti-Celtic slur with sectarian overtones (the term redneck comes from how presbyterian ministers wore red collars). So the anti Scots-Irish sentiment of the 19th century has changed, but it still exists. And as I posted before the culture is still very much alive.
"As were Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Theodore Roosevelt, they're part of the white establishment: the powers-that-be."
Except Andy Jackson and Roosevelt didn't completely forget their heritage; Jackson for example remarked how proud he was of his 'Ulster blood'. Also just because a few politicos have Ulster ancestry doesn't mean Scots-Irish people as a whole are rolling in power and money.
"I've written all about the US government's role in Genocide by Any Other Name... and its subsidiary pages. I doubt Giago was trying to distinguish between the immigrant settlers and the immigrant politicians they elected to implement their wishes. One way or another, immigrants were responsible for the genocide against Indians."
Some settlers definitely had a part in it; however I don't believe that all immigrants were responsible for the genocide.
"Horrible things always happen in times of war."
Ah one of the classic arguments that's been used to defend such attrocities as dresden, Winnie Churchill (may he rot in hell) would be proud of you.
"But much of the blame goes to the people who started a war and unjustly attacked others, not the people who defended themselves."
No the blame goes to the people who failed to distinguish between civilian and combatants.
"That way, we can confirm whether you understand the concept of a generalization or not. ;-)"
Oh I understand generalizations perfectly; I just think they're bad arguments.
"P.S. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're Scots-Irish yourself, Stephen. Am I right?"
If you're suggesting that my heritage is clouding my judgement you're wrong. If that was the case wouldn't I be defending Andy Jackson and the trail of tears? But yes I'm Irish, Scots-Irish and Cornish though I don't see what my ethnicity has to do with this topic.
Re "My overall point is that unlike the English settlers the Scots-Irish had a legit reason to migrate": My point is that they didn't have any legitimate reason to come here and participate in the genocide of Indians. As many of them did.
Re "mass murders like Jamestown are completely indefensible": And yet I've managed to defend them. See Was Jamestown Massacre Justified? for details.
Re "Some have, some haven't": Most have, a few haven't.
Re "Except Andy Jackson and Roosevelt didn't completely forget their heritage": Your point doesn't contradict mine. You can remember your ethnic heritage while being part of the white establishment.
Re "I don't believe that all immigrants were responsible for the genocide": Neither do I. Unfortunately for you, neither Giago nor I said they were.
Re "Ah one of the classic arguments that's been used to defend such attrocities as dresden, Winnie Churchill (may he rot in hell) would be proud of you": Funny coming from the guy who wrote, "Of course there [were] atrocities on both sides." You make it sound as if the Indians were as guilty of being victimized as our ancestors were of victimizing them. "Stuff" like war and genocide just happens and no one's responsible for it, eh?
Re "No the blame goes to the people who failed to distinguish between civilian and combatants": Yes, I gather you don't think the Indians had a right to defend themselves. You sound like another apologist for Euro-American wars of aggression. You probably supported Bush's invasion of Iraq until you were "shocked" to learn of the dead civilians.
Re "Oh I understand generalizations perfectly": Judging by how you misread the statement "Americans are ignorant" (of foreign policy) as "All Americans are ignorant"...no, you don't.
Re "If you're suggesting that my heritage is clouding my judgement you're wrong": Don't think so. You're defensive about your Scots-Irish ancestors so you misread Giago's piece as an attack on all settlers. It wasn't a blanket statement about the settlers, it was a generalization about them.
Post a Comment