h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I found this interesting to read, and I thought the quality of the writing was good. A few sentences read a little bit clumsily and could do with a editing slightly. The best way to spot them is to read what you've written aloud, or even better; get somebody else to read it aloud and note where they stumble. I noticed a couple of typos and words that were in the wrong tence too, but over all there were only a few errors.

As for the subject, I have mixed views. The native American people have had a very raw deal over the past couple of centuries. Treaties have been broken and their rights have been trampled, this is obvious to anybody who knows anything about the history of the Americas. Entire tribes were massacred, and the American army together with the settlers, openly perpetrated acts of genocide; hunting indians like animals and offering bounties on their heads. Men, women, children and the elderly were murdered without mercy, and the ones that survived faced death by starvation and disease on reservations, among other fates.

With all this said and accepted as true, how far back in history do we go when considering compensation for the crimes of our ancestors? Should the Spanish be paying descendants of the Aztec Indians for the crimes of Cortez and his men? Should the British be paying descendants of the Boers or Zulus for their campaigns in South Africa? Where does it stop?

What's most annoying about the situation you describe is that if you put all the money together that's been spent on legal fees, court time and enforcement by federal agents, etc., it's likely to far exceed the cost of a reasonable settlement fee that might have been reached fifty years ago.

thank you for your input, I know it needs a lot of work. To be totally honest, what happened is, I came here to post it and do a few touch ups on it. When I logged in I saw a message from a Lakota I met online a while ago who had been helping to fill in the gaps for me. Well she I guess had come to the end of her rope, with white people in general, and I had all I could take of being told how vile I am, and well we just clashed. Then I just sort of lost heart in the whole thing for a bit. But regardless of whether I can talk to them about it, it's still an issue for me.

I don't know how far you go back, who you choose to conpensate, and so many other eluding facts that would make life so much easier. I just feel like if you have these facts in front of you than you have to address them. Then you handle whatever other facts present themselves as you are able to do. I'm only able to do this at the moment, being the lousiest of diplomats in the world. I try very hard to see their point of view and do something, anything, to help make up for my part in it, even though I wasn't born yet. And I lose my patience and I undo anything I might have done good. I guess that's life.

Anyway I think most people know the facts. The difference is how they handle prolonged exposure to those facts. White people, who even I can't help but label as the offending party, become desensitized, number and number to any atrocity they hear repeated. Indians get madder and madder, as they have right to I suppose, but also less able to respresent themselves in a manner white people are apt to respond to. I just think we have to stop focusing on all the facts and things that were done and move on to what can we do now. If we just state the facts, with no emotion one way or the other, they speak for themselves. Then instead of trying to decide how things got this way, whose fault it is, or even how far back does our accountability go, we only have to decide what to do about these facts we have here in front of us right now.

At any rate I will polish this up as soon as I get a chance. I hope you will come back around and offer some more specific advice, once I get the typos and tenses straigthened out.

Dear paulie,
you aren't writing to me much, but there are just a few ideas i would want to convey to you.
I would like to remind you, that this idea of GUILT is a very European one, and that very many people on earth would not feel, and indeed never felt, GUILT in the same way as you and me do about things that happened in the past. All other people are quite complacent about the place they inhabit now, and the way it came about. Just think about this a bit.
Many people, i suspect, are also very much aware, that Europeans feel this way, and can be got at this way.
And yet, having said all that, i think you have brought it to a point when you said "instead of trying to decide how things got this way, whose fault it is, or even how far back does our accountability go, we only have to decide what to do about these facts we have here in front of us right now"
If i was an American, i would, just like you, try to get these treaties honoured. Not because i think the Indians have any moral ascendency over me, no. Simply because i think ome must honour one's word. That is all.

Dear DC,
I am so sorry I haven't written to you much lately. I hope you know it's just because I get so distracted by things sometimes. I agree with you, as I mostly do on this subject. I guess it's really Americans that are gonna have to start feeling guilty about this particular set of facts anyway. And even then who knows how long it would take to even begin to make things right. As if things could ever really be right. I suppose what I keep doing must just look like a pitiful attempt to ease my own sense of guilt to Rita. If I ever stop groveling, even for one second, she gets all mad and doesn't talk to me anymore. What is so sad about that is I think it's probably what happens all across the board. How can there ever be any negotiation if nobody is willing to concede on any point? How could anybody ever enter into sincere negotiations with somebody they have absolutely no respect for? How can you earn the respect of people who have hated you for so long? It is a dilema for me, and one that I don't want to push out of my mind, but too, like you say, I don't consider anybody my moral superior. I don't think it would serve any purpose for the Indians for me to think less of myself, and I can't do that anyway. Without pride and confindence in myself and what I believe, I would have absolutely no reason to care about what happens to the Indians. I just wish I could make them see that you can't beat your allies into submission and then expect to have any sort of strong ally at the end of it all.

Well I have the rest of my life to consider all of these things. And I have my children and grandchildren who might help me to make some sort of difference no matter how small. At least I still have hope, and I feel very sorry for those who seem to have none.

*bookmark*

~jwf~

I think one must distinguish between guilt and responsibility.
Guilt no. Responsibility yes.
Paulie, I can see how you consider the Indian question your responsibility. I consider my responsibility the consequences of the time when Germany was running amuck.

In doing so I don't seem to have the sort of problem that you clearly have when trying to do whatever is possible to do. Yes paulie, I think this wanting to bludgeon others into submission by hook and by crook is a singularly unlovely trait. And you're right, it happens almost everywhere in the specific sites and publications, I know, because I looked. I can see the mechanism behind it perfectly well, even sympathise, but that doesn't help, because ultimately it makes communication impossible.
The consequence is not only that the Indians can't get very many people to listen to them for any length of time, but in another consequence it may happen that not even you, paulie, can bring anyone to do anything about it.
Just think, to do something about it, means investing time and effort, the stuff life is made out of!!! Well, whom am I lecturing here anyway. You do know. So, how many will invest that much for a people who apparently think they got a right to hate you and treat you badly for your race?

I do think it's necessary to get some perspective by trying to look at all of history, and all humans. To feel the Guilty Race can be a specific type of arrogance, as it means thinking that everything hinges on our culture, and that we are a unique phenomenon in all history and among all people?
Well, it doesn't, and we aren't.

I hadn't quite looked at it that way I guess. I suppose my own need to take on the responsiblilty is a bit vain in itself. I have the hardest time even explaining it to my own husband. He just looks at me really grim as says "well yes, it's a shame isn't it?" and goes back to his ball game or whatever more pressing thing is going on. Not that he isn't a very loving man, just very narrow sighted I think. So is most of the rest of the human breed I guess, and that's just sad to me. If a person can't see that it is just wrong what was done to the Indians, it's no wonder they can't see other things. Like the millions of animals we kill for no good reason other than our own greed. Like how we pay so much money to these guys who knock each other around on a muddy field and yet we all know how many unfortunate and hungry people there are in this world. But by now I have thought of probably a hundred things wrong with the world, and I realize how silly I look wanting to make them all right somehow. I guess you only have so much righteousness you can spread around, and it mostly gets the same response, "it's a shame isn't it".

Honestly sometimes it makes me wish there were some alternative to living on Earth. Or at the very least living in America. But what purpose would it serve to abandon America? Certainly most people are not going to do that, and they aren't apparantly worried about the state of this nation. I suppose it's really my duty to stay here and keep babbling about stuff nobody cares much about hearing. Maybe I'll make some connection like Lil made with me somehow. I guess that was just fortunate circumstance. Not that I haven't always tried to be aware of issues around me, but I never knew how ignorant I was about our history with Indians till I met Lil. Then we had it out good too, and she said all the nasty stuff too, but there was so much more to it. There is so much more to every issue and when people just refuse to look any further than what is laying on top of the heap it just drives me nuts. I should be used to that by now I guess

To that i always say that the battle lines don't run between the races, not East and West, not even rich or poor, but between those who have compassion, and those who don't. Between honest people and crooks. In fact this battle line goes slap bang right angle to all conventional battle lines.

>> ...between those who have compassion, and those who don't. Between honest people and crooks. In fact this battle line goes slap bang right angle to all... <<

Aha!
Brilliant insight.
Perhaps, that's why ALL of the disenchanted, the disenfranchised, the exploited, the victimised, the poor and the hungry can't seem to win. By a policy of Divide and Conquer, the 'establishment' first pigeon holes all opposition causes into so-called 'special interest groups', paints them as single-minded zealots and then engages them in legal obstruction, empty promises and petty police interference. The 'general public' sighs 'oh that's a shame' but doesn't want to get involved with some demarcated 'special interest group' and all their squabbles and run-ins with the Law. The establishment won't allow them to unite to a 'common cause' or even be aware that there is one.

And the so-called 'special interest groups' are so engaged (and enraged) in fighting for their own specific cause they don't see the larger picture. The old 'left wing', the compassionate, the socialists and humanitarians, those who would re-distribute wealth more 'democratically' and dismantle old systems of prejudice and unfairness, can't seem to unite the 'down-trodden' even though we outnumber the 'rich and powerful' on the order of 1000 to 1.

Something like 90% of the wealth and resources of the planet are owned and controlled (and abused) by a mere 4% of the population.
It would only take something like a twenty percent shift in 'public opinion' and 'voting results' to overthrow that establishment. To gain that 20% from the middle of public opinion, the 'left' would need to co-ordinate literally thousands of special interest groups who currently share no common interest. And (god forbid) they lack the leader who could unite them.


~jwf~

Where does it stop? I sometimes ask that too, senwad, because you don't have to go back very far, as this article under discussion makes pretty clear, to find instances of oppression, but you've got to go a long ways to discover instances of compensation, amends or whatever.

So, yeah, let's ask where it all ends because I don't see any end in sight for the oppression, do you? Maybe once we answer that we can answer your original question about where the compensation ends, that is if it ever gets started.

or maybe, just a wild idea here, we can help fill in the facts and present something to a much wider audience that not only makes sense but doesn't make anybody want to clam up and not talk about it anymore. Would that just not be ever so much more productive. Excuse my sarcasm please, but I am trying to make a point by comparison here. Does it move you to have thought provoking and educating interaction when I immediatley attack you? No attack intended honestlty, I just don't want to see this degenerate into some of our past encounters. I would so much rather make this article as factual as possible, as you are very qualified to do here, so please, just help me out with this and I'll try very hard to excercise more control than has been my habit.

"To gain that 20% from the middle of public opinion, the 'left' would need to co-ordinate literally thousands of special interest groups who currently share no common interest."

I thought you were gonna come up with some sort of plan there for a minute. The problem I think is we do share a common interest, a huge one, so big most people can't see it. It's like trying to look at the planet Earth while you're standing on it. Well it is that in fact. I don't think we gotta have a leader really, we can all be leaders. Leaders are mostly just the people who do a thing first.

By the way, could someone explain to me why they always want to call do gooders leftist. Shouldn't they be the ones on the "right"?

I think when all's said and done, there shouldn't be any reparation paid for crimes committed over a hundred years ago.
My reasoning is this: If the compensation was being sought from the person or persons who actually committed the crimes, there would be no recourse in law, because these people would obviously be dead and their estates and assets long since disposed of. It would be obviously unfair to make the descendants of the deceased pay for the deeds of their fathers or grandfathers, or even their great-grandfathers.

The only reason this litigation is still going on is because the defendant is a government, and as such is theoretically 'immortal' for want of a better word. But the cost of any payment will be paid from the public purse, therefore the modern day tax payers. So the public would indeed be paying indirectly for the crimes of their ancestors, ultimately.

If you took the argument all the way back to day one, and gave back all of North America to the Indians, there would be a couple hundred million people suddenly looking for a new home, wouldn't there?

As for when will oppression end; I don't think it ever will. It's human nature. You've only got to look back over the last decade to see acts of genocide and racial intolerance in Yugoslavia and Burundi, to name just two. They were repeating crimes that the Nazis were committing in the 1930s and 1940s; we all thought that could never happen again.

Why is it you interpret every single criticism as a personal attack? I heard you had a problem with me about what I called Shane. Well, for your information, Shane was a darn good one and proud of it. Maybe you need to be proud of something too even if other people aren't?

Nobody's attacking anybody here. If we were there'd be blood on the moon wouldn't there considering the injuries involved?

I'll be happy to help you, paulie, and anybody else who gives a s**t but you're going to need to remember who you're talking to. For me this just isn't just factual or academic. This is my life you're talking about, okay? This is my pia sokopia you're talking about, my newe too.

I appreciate your self-control. I hope you can appreciate mine under the circumstances.

That said, everything should be recorded and remembered, in the hope of stopping it happening again, and in recognising the suffering of the people involved.

Why is it unfair, senwad? The descendents enjoy the benefits of the stolen land don't they? They are prosperous because they inherited somebody else's legacy did they not? If they enjoy these things they should pay for them. Why should they get a free ride? Why is paying your bills, even late, such a problem?

And, no, it's not human nature to commit such crimes. It's a cultural thing that people belonging to such cultures need to address sooner or later. When the crimes were originally commited, the government said it was "bad whites" that did it. That ought to tell you something. It tells me all whites aren't alike. It tells me it's not therefore human nature.

Finally, nobody's asking for the exile of the entire anglo population of America. We're asking for the land that's held in trust that should have never been put in the public domain in the first place. Nobody's titled, patented or occupied that land so nobody's going to be dispossessed if it's returned. In any case, the Dann sisters shouldn't have to pay grazing fees for it.

Instead of waiting for leaders, maybe people need to start thinking for themselves for a change.

I don't think we'll ever have a shortage of chiefs. It's the people who actually work for a living that seem to be in short supply, which is probably why people with tribal lands get dispossessed. They're too independent, not subject to the "job market" and the "requirements" imposed by the rich and powerful.

The policy is not only to divide and conquer, but to coopt dissatisfaction. That's where all this sort of dovetails with the global issues. If everybody's a nomad, and nobody's a native, then native rights mean nothing and people are perennially in search of something to replace them.

I'm reading about John Adams, who apparently thought of himself as a Roman. I kind of find that strange in an American revolutionary, don't you?

Look, I know this is a subject close to your heart Analiese, but if a white settler’s great, great, great-grandson wanted to sue you because your great, great, great grandfather shot his great, great, great grandfather and took his (by now very valuable, but long lost) rifle. You wouldn’t think that was fair, right? Especially if you had to sell everything you own to pay the claim.

So the same theory applies in the wider argument, as far as I can make out. What happened was very wrong, and I think that everything that has happened in living memory should be set straight, but beyond that I’d say it’s too late to settle it fairly.

I agree in the case you cite, but we're talking about treaties, not criminal justice. You don't repeal the Constitution because portions of over 200 years old.

Likewise, you don't forget about treaties because nobody has honored them for a hundred years. They are the supreme law of the land just like the Constitution is. If that's not the case, then the entire American commonwealth is a legal sham, an illegitimate regime and nothing more.

One more thing.

This is more than theoretical since there are instances where my ancestors were shot and killed for sport by white immigrants. Nobody's suing for those injuries, just the land promised under treaty.

It's important we don't get these issues confused, senwad. If we wanted to collect for all the personal injuries, there probably wouldn't be enough land or resources in the world to pay the debt, even at the 1872 price of a human life. The injuries done by the Walkers or whoever against the whites wouldn't balance it or even come close. Mormons and other white settlers have probably killed more whites than Newe have.