April 21, 2009

The "other side" of genocide?

Ralph R. Reiland, an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University, has written a column that deserves a moron alert. Let's focus on a couple of key passages:

One-sided ObamaAdding to his discussion of group victimhood in America, Obama said that "our country still struggles with the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans." Again, where's the other side?Huh? What other side? Is there another side to genocide I don't know about?

Does he mean that other countries still struggle with the legacy of their past treatments of their indigenous populations? That some know-nothings like him don't struggle with the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans? Or what, exactly?

Reiland continues:Why didn't he explain that it was the Europeans who invaded the Indians and the Americans who gave them free bingo licenses and tax-free Marlboros?Wow. So much stupidity, so little time.

Europeans invaded the continent first, but they initially colonized only Latin America and the Eastern Seaboard. It was Americans who invaded Indians lands throughout the rest of the present-day USA. I mean true-blue, God-fearing Americans like you and your ancestors, Reiland.

The "free bingo licenses and tax-free Marlboros" are a consequence of tribal sovereignty. This isn't something Americans "gave" to Indians. Tribes were sovereign before America was settled. The US Constitution recognized this sovereignty, but it did not create or grant it.The Table Mountain Rancheria casino in California, for instance, is reportedly bringing in more than $350,000 per year for each tribe member of the Monos and Chukchansis.So the hell what? That's two tribes out of 560-plus. It's like saying the "other side" of our proud military is that McCain talked to his torturers.

More to the point, it doesn't negate the Euro-American conquest of the hemisphere's inhabitants. A guy's family is raped and killed...and his distant descendants make a lot of money. Does one "side" balance the other?

To make this glaringly obvious, would you sacrifice your friends and relatives for $350,000 a year? Hmm...didn't think so. Unless you're willing to give up everything you know, don't bother telling us that a few tribes' riches negates five centuries of genocidal actions.

For more on the subject, see "Balanced' View of Wounded Knee and Genocide by Any Other Name.... For more stupidity like this, see the Stereotype of the Month contest.

Below:  "Buy yourself some new loved ones with your casino money. Your old ones are dead."

2 comments:

Simone said...

In my opinion the article you refer to was a waste of words. I made the choose to read it and found myself thinking afterwards "there's 7 minutes I'll never get back"..

John Umland said...

I think this is the best response to stupid envy of Indian wealth, "would you sacrifice your friends and relatives for $350,000 a year?"
Thanks
God is good
jpu