Re: Resistance and Conquest in the Americas(was Amerind etc.)

eohian (
Tue, 20 Aug 1996 17:22:33 GMT

On Fri, 02 Aug 1996 13:25:28 -0700, Shannon Adams
<> in a different reality:

>I think everyone is ( or definately should be) aware by now that this is
>an extremely tender topic. Words imply conclusion as to who's the *bad
>guy* and who's the *good guy*. I'm pretty sure that is the root of this
>discussion (it began about the term *Amerind*).
i think it would do all us "eurobeings" well to call the people who
inhabited this area before we got here by whatever name they wish,
thus solving the "name" problem. simple solution.

>As far as I can tell this is the way it stands. Modern Native Americans
>feel they are being treated as a conquered people (and let's face it they
>are still treated that way). Many Native Americans RESIST this limiting
>definition of themselves (the *conquered people*) and find pride and
>value in seeing themselves as the only legitimate heirs (for lack of a
>better word) to nativeness (dumb word, sorry) and all that represents.

they were the first ones on this side of the world, they came from
asia so should they be considered immigrants from asia? again the
question of when does one become a native? my family are all irish but
the original inhabitants of that land are all gone, are we now the
natives of that island?

>Many European Americans on the other hand do not feel they should be held
>accountable for the atrocities committed by people they didn't know
>(every if they are descended from them). Further they see their own
>people (working class immigrants from Europe) as an oppressed people
>(the oppression being the motivation for immigration in many
>examples). Thus these people RESIST being identified with the conquerors
>and try to enlist their own claims to nativeness.

the great majority of immigrants to this country have either been
persecuted or are from the underclasses, it is strange to be called an
oppressor while you yourself are escaping oppression though i think
this has long been the case. the celts driven out of the european
mainland by tribes who are themselves being pushed off the steppes.

>(If this isn't an accurate dipiction PLEASE let me know)
>I guess an important question is who has the RIGHT to be here? Is it
>the Native American populations? Is it the European Americans? I
>personally haven't the faintest idea. Because I am of European descent,
>I don't really want to be told I'm not welcome. But at the same time I
>can clearly see why Native Americans view Euro-Americans (as a group) as
>intruders and worse. I'll admit to that I feel some responsibility for
>the atrocities committed but I'm not sure how to repay them without
>committing more.
>We can squabble all we like about who did what to whom first. It won't
>solve anything. What we really need to discuss are WORKABLE solutions
>for restitution and empowerment AND forgiveness.
>Brigham Young University

can the injustices caused people(s) so long ago and with repercussions
carrying on into the present be addressed without hurting innocent
people? probably not, just as affirmative action has proven to injure
innocent people, a permanent redress of "the first people here's"
grievences will hurt people who had nothing to do with the original

Eire one nation forever