 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Archaeological and linguistic evidence indicates that the Cherokee migrated in prehistoric times from present-day Texas or northern Mexico to the Great Lakes area. Wars with the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) tribes and with the Delaware (Lenni Lenape), both of whom controlled extensive lands in the region, pushed the Cherokee southeast to the mountains and valleys of the southern part of the Appalachian chain. They settled in modern western Virginia, western West Virginia, western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, southeastern Kentucky, northwestern South Carolina, northern Georgia, and northern Alabama. The Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto encountered them in the Appalachians in 1540. By 1715 smallpox had reduced the Cherokee population to about 11,000.
During the British and French struggle for control of colonial North America, the Cherokee provided warriors in support of the British, but revolted against them in 1760 in the Cherokee War under Cherokee war chief Oconostota. During the American Revolution (1775-1783) tribal members aided Great Britain with sporadic attacks on outlying settlements. In 1785 a number of bands negotiated a peace treaty with the United States, but Cherokee resistance continued for a decade thereafter. In 1791 a new treaty reconfirmed the earlier one; part of Cherokee territory was ceded to the United States, and the permanent rights of the tribe to the remaining territory were established. Between 1790 and 1819, several thousand of the tribe migrated west of the Mississippi.
In 1820 the Cherokee established a republican governmental system modeled on that of the United States, with an elected principal chief, a senate, and a house of representatives. In 1827 they drafted a constitution and incorporated as the Cherokee Nation.
Meanwhile, valuable gold deposits were discovered in tribal lands, which by previous cessions had been reduced to about 2,830,000 hectares (about 7 million acres) in northwestern Georgia, eastern Tennessee, and southwestern North Carolina. In 1819 Georgia appealed to the U.S. government to remove the Cherokee from Georgia lands. When the appeal failed, attempts were made to purchase the territory. In retaliation the Cherokee Nation enacted a law forbidding any such sale on punishment of death. In 1828 the Georgia legislature outlawed the Cherokee government and confiscated tribal lands. Cherokee appeals for federal protection were rejected by President Andrew Jackson. In 1832 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Georgia legislation was unconstitutional; federal authorities, following Jackson’s policy of Native American removal, ignored the decision.
About 500 leading Cherokee agreed in 1835 to cede the tribal territory in exchange for $5,700,000 and land in the Indian Territory (now Oklahoma). Their action was repudiated by more than nine-tenths of the tribe, and several members of the group were later assassinated. In 1838 federal troops began forcibly evicting the Cherokee. Approximately 1,000 Cherokee escaped to the North Carolina mountains, purchased land, and incorporated in that state; they were the ancestors of the present-day Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina.
Meanwhile, most of the tribe were driven west about 1,285 km (about 800 mi) in a forced march, known as the Trail of Tears. About 4,000 perished through hunger, disease, exposure, and attacks by bandits during the journey or in stockades awaiting removal. Others died after their arrival in the Indian Territory from disease or food shortages. In the Indian Territory the Cherokee reorganized their government under their chief, John Ross, and became known as the Western Band, or the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The Cherokee, along with other Southeast tribes relocated to the Indian Territory—the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole—became known to non-Indians as one of the Five Civilized Tribes because of their having adopted many Euro-American customs
© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Jackson supported Georgia in its effort to deprive the Cherokee nation of its land. Jackson claimed that he had “no power to oppose the exercise of sovereignty of any state over all who may be within its limits.” The Cherokee appealed to the Supreme Court, and in Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled against Georgia. Marshall stated that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over Native American lands. To this Jackson is said to have replied, “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.” Of course the court had no enforcement power of its own, so the decision was ignored. Within a few years most of the Cherokee were removed in a 1285-km (800-mi) forced march, during which thousands of them died.
In 1834 the Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) was created as a permanent homeland for the Native Americans who lived east of the Mississippi River. By the end of Jackson’s second administration the army had forcefully moved most of these eastern tribes to their new “home.” The Black Hawk War of 1832 and the Seminole War that was renewed in 1835 represented the last efforts of the eastern Native Americans to retain their ancestral lands.
© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The Cherokees are a perfect example, of one tribe that attempted to overcome that "cultural incompatability" to which the US response was the takling of their lands and a forced march west-that is ethnic cleansing. The Iriquois confenderacy met a similar end, thoguht there I guess you would say it was OK as retribution for support of the British in the war of independence.
This is the Nedaverse at its height- "cultural incompatability" is not an excuse for ethnic cleasing and attempts at cultural genocide. After all, a decision of which cultures are "uncompatbile" can be made by anyone- heck, hitler certainly did see German culture as incompatible with inferior Slav culture. I guess it would have been OK if the Slavs had been limited to their own "reservations"
|
GePap, I said, did I not, that Andrew Jackson and his policies were an exception? He took action against the Indian tribes that had "civilized" and could maintain themselves peacefully side by side with Europeans. There is no doubt in my mind that Jackson, the founder of the Democrat party, was a racist through and through.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Og
The opposition was not impressive indeed but the sheer scale and speed of the invasion is unprecedented. The fact that they actually managed to move across the hostile terain in a well organized and synchronized manner is the real achievment. The Germans forces in Russia for example got stranded in the mud while in Manchuria the red army was advancing through simmilary hostile terain in the middle of storm.
The Japanese commanders BTW thought that the 750k strong force that thay had was enough to stop any Russian attack and even to drive tha red army back with succesfull counteratacks. |
By the time the armistace was signed Soviet forces had only managed to occupy Manchuria and had reached a point only a little south of Manchuria. That's nowhere near as much territory as western Russia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
American Napolean? |
He was the hero of the Creek War, New Orleans, and the Seminole Wars. He was a general who could have set himself up as dictator, and turned America into a basketcase like the rest of the Americas except Canada.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 05-04-2005 at 21:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Ned - most of the Native Americans in the USA east of the Mississippi were not hunter-gatherers. They were small village hunter-farmers, not too different from the colonists. The major difference was domesticated animals. The Native Americans relied primarily on hunting for meat, and then farmed maize, beans, and squash for carbohydrates. That meant that they tended to support a lower population density than the Europeans.
The primary difference between them and the so-called colonists was that they did not have the same system of land ownership. Land tended to be collective, not unlike many small village communities throughout the world. The idea of individual ownership was alien to them, and that prevented the disparity in income that permitted nobility and empires in so many other parts of the world.
Their system and the system brought by the colonists, primarily based on British Common Law, along with right of conquest that let the invaders unilaterally take their land (and reset the title ownership to date zero ignoring all normal Common Law rules - I believe it's called stacking the deck), put them at a disadvantage. What was incompatible was when someone settled on land that they had hunted for centuries, and told them suddenly that they no longer had any rights to the land. If they tried to argue, they could be arrested and imprisoned - a virtual death sentence given European diseases - or killed by the virtuous landowner. Note that this "Doctrine of Conquest" is still our national policy.
quote:
Of great interest and always primary in Indian law cases that reach the Supreme Court, the first note in the opinion refers to the Doctrine of Discovery as the basis of Indian law. This fundamental ''doctrine'' of conquest in American law simply decreed at the beginning of European conquest that in the Americas title to land ''discovered,'' regardless of those Indian nations in actual possession of it for hundreds if not thousands of years, would be vested in the first European nation that claimed it. |
To cavalierly assign them as being "incompatible" shows hubris that I find dangerous. They were here first, so why should they have to become compatible with the invaders. Especially when the invaders are so obviously, by their own laws, inequitably inhabiting the Native American lands. They had to create that special exception - the "Doctrine of Conquest" to justify the seizure of land that would have otherwise been considered owned by the Native Americans under British Common Law. Even when given so-called reservations, many of the so-called voluntary sales of land were highly coercive, written in a language the Native Americans did not understand, or deliberately misleading - usually all three.
Then - and this occurred from the beginning of European invasion - the Native Americans discovered that the agreements were broken unilaterally by the invaders, and that the Native Americans had no recourse. That was the true evil of what Jackson did - he destroyed any hope Native Americans had that they could coexist with the European invaders.
Understand me - Native Americans were not this innocent, pristine people sometimes portrayed by others. The reasons for ritual disfigurement of enemy bodies were particularly ugly. But it took the noble Europeans, you know, those people who had the right to determine compatibility, to raise scalping to a widespread practice.
The reason for the European incompatibility are simple - intolerance and greed. The leadership of a colony, or later on those connected with the federal government, made obscene profits off the de facto seizures - oh, excuse me forced sales - of Native Land. The sale IS forced when they have been forced off profitable land and they don't receive the food they have been promised for vacating the land. They desperately need the money - and the land they were given is marginal - you go out and look at it in Oklahoma and tell me how you can farm it reliably with no knowledge of the area and without irrigation, which of course they had no access to.
If you don't believe me - about the obscene profits made by those connected to Washington politicians - read about Bleeding Kansas. In fact the settlers essentially staged a rebellion at one of the land "auctions" to prevent speculators from forcing the prices up, cheating in this case the Native Americans of the money rightfully theirs. Also read about the largest mass hanging in US history, when on of the Sioux/Lakota speaking people's, up in Michigan, finally revolted when they thought they were going to be cheated again, and how the federal government and the Bureau of Indian Affairs institutionalized cheating of the Native Americans.
Incompatible - my a**. Shameful, and bluntly the German people have done a hell of a lot better job, IMHO, of dealing with their role, via inaction, via justified terror and not being willing to stand up and be counted, and sometimes via active support, of the Nazis. The fact that you, or any American, has the unmitigated gall to label the Native Americans as incompatible hunter-gatherers show how sadly lacking our the history we teach our children is, and how some people, instead of embracing the fact our country has done very good things, and some very terrible things, insist for whatever misguided emotional imperative they feel, that we white-wash the collective actions that, if we were writing about them in other countries, constitute a mix of ethnic cleansing and genocide, mixed with terror and appalling intolerance. Google the Sand River and Bear River massacres, and tell me just how the Native Americans could have been "compatible". The only way many European Americans wanted them compatible - "
The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Undermenschen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
only ned would turn a thread about nazis into a thread about how evil democrats are. youre such a *****made republican ned, just come clean.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2005 23:03
|