Morality Vs. Expansion

[joewiggs]

The Indian wars between the Native Americans and Whites began at the very birth of this Nation, "Lo" so many decades ago. As a result, the annals of our "joint" history is fraught with a myriad of bloody pages of blood, guts, gore, and horrific inhumanity toward each other. Who was wrong and who was right?

The morale question to be perused is quite simple, did the Native American have a lawful and morale right to the property in its possession and, therefore, the "right" to resist the unsolicited arrival of the Europeans who arrived without expressed permission?

Also, does the theory of "Manifest Destiny" establish a lawful ground for the removal (at any cost) of the original occupants of this country by force if necessary?

What say the members of this forum?

[tbw]

That's a tough one Joe. And I think it begins with those treaties and a better understanding of what they were, what they were designed to do, and why they didn't work; and more importantly who broke what treaty first. With the kind of evidence portrayed in the RCOI, and we've discussed just a small fraction of those objections, but enough to tell that all wasn't as trustworthy or as certain as it needed to be. We can appreciate the Indians dubious nature when it came to who broke the treaties first; the miners, settlers, cavalry or them. No doubt the cavalry had a tough time keeping the peace with such distrust and disrespect on both sides. And perhaps what it came down to was who thought who more superior to whom. For the American government it had to be about greed, and if you look around today you'll still see the government implementing those same greed stricken programs in spite of an economy about to go into hyperinflation where the price of wheat will rise so high that no one will be able to afford a loaf of bread. Think gas prices will drop anytime soon? Get used to it because the same government greed that permeated the atrocities of the Indians wars will make them look pale in comparison to what's coming for us. The Indians survived, but that's all they did, and it forever left a bitter imprint in their culture that has never been healed. Those who survived knew what had happened, they knew the truth. Perhaps we today can learn from their example, maybe, but I seriously doubt it. Reservations aren't just for Indians you know. And such a prognostication was once foretold.

Custer's defeat was to be used to help defeat the Indians once and for all. Yes, he was to be forever enshrined as the hero, forever standing atop last stand hill, that beacon ever shinning an attractive glow that the native Americans had committed their last acts of aggression against a people now united in cause. Elisabeth Custer had requested F. Whittaker to do what he did; to put the pressure on both Reno and Benteen. But, in that request it was made sure that Custer's reputation was to remain as pure as the shining white garb they adorned him with. The court of Inquiry was not to take issue with anything Custer could have been, should have been accountable for. And in the process of this elimination, they willingly freed Reno and Benteen of all charges. Because to have gotten at the truth they would have had to have brought up all of Custer's faults as well, the most damning; his possible disobedience to Terry's orders.

Some may try to compare this to today's terrorist activities, but its not the same thing at all. What was - was, and what is - is, and there isn't a shred of comparison between the two that could help us to understand one over the other. Unless one thinks the USA is trying to become the rulers of the whole world because of superior technology, weaponry and ideology, which simply can't occur and wont, because China owns us and China will tell us what to do and where to go; and they aren't as uncivilized as our own government thought the Indians were back then, and they have nukes and the missiles to deliver them, the Indians didn't. what it comes down to is counter deterrence or else. What comparison did the Native Americans have of this kind? And, a dirty bomb is still a dirty bomb and it takes only one arrow to set it off not a whole tribe of Indians with bows and arrows trying to take down a cavalry troop at the LBH.

Were the Indians taken seriously? Were they considered inferior? Was manifest destiny a part of the problem? And which of these would or could have caused genocide? And if it had came to that, whose fault would that have been?

[joewiggs]

As per usual, your responses are well balanced, thought provoking, and insightful as the forum has come to always expect from you.

The question is, indeed, difficult. However, when we delete the premises of "might makes right", the alleged supremacy of nationalism, and the assumption that American had an inviolable right to subdue the country it accidentally found to its own needs and desires, the treatment of the original residents was not very nice and, continues to be less than stalwart.

There are many who would counter that assertion with the acknowledgment of the criticalness of the Industrial Revolution that gave birth to the wondrous style of life mankind enjoys to this day. A revolution that would have been greatly impeded if not completely thwarted by the habit of the native American who insisted on roaming freely while following the Buffalo. They would be absolutely correct!

We probably need to remember that progress, while important, should not be confused with greed! The avarice of the civil leaders during this era who instigated, condoned, and promulgated legislation to rob and murder Indians merely for their earthly possessions has straddled us with an abominable legacy of shame.

[tbw]

One word when it came to greed Joe, just one - GOLD.

[stumblingbear]

It can not be said better! all the historical reasons and explanations that have been given through the years for the horrible treatment of American Indians can be summed up with the word GOLD! a WORD SYNONYMOUS WITH GREED!

[whitebull]

I imagine that greed caused a lot of problems in doing the Indians unfairly and like human beings instead of pirates. Treating others like you want to be treated yourself is part and parcel of the "Golden Rule" which I just happen to believe in.

Having said that, I need somebody to explain to me how you keep thousands of Indians armed with spears, arrows and guns from roaming the west and taking out anybody who just may have got in their way?

It's nice to sum up all the bad things that happen to most folks and then say it's all about greed but, that don't cut ice on how you are suppose to handle the situation in any other way than the way it wuz.

Kindly waiting to hear from ya!

[stumblingbear]

I'm not an authority on the subject but I will share my thoughts with you. Consider the Indians who submitted and placed themselves on Reservations, waiting for foodstuffs promised to them by the authorities to feed their families.

Watch while the promised goods did not arrive and children and women suffered hunger pangs that tortured them. Look at the men, once proud warriors, with tears in their eyes as they watched the suffering of their families.

See the men grab their weapons, rush into the night to find food for their loved ones only to be shot down as "hostiles."
Explain the blank look in their faces and the hole in their spirits.

[tbw]

May 22, 2011 18:32:40 GMT -5 stumblingbear said:

I'm not an authority on the subject but I will share my thoughts with you. Consider the Indians who submitted and placed themselves on Reservations, waiting for foodstuffs promised to them by the authorities to feed their families.

Watch while the promised goods did not arrive and children and women suffered hunger pangs that tortured them. Look at the men, once proud warriors, with tears in their eyes as they watched the suffering of their families.

See the men grab their weapons, rush into the night to find food for their loved ones only to be shot down as "hostiles."
Explain the blank look in their faces and the hole in their spirits.

SB

Not sure how one could argue against this one. I suppose there are those who would try. The only thing, and it doesn't make a lot of sense from our perspectives today, is gold and greed.

And as for authority on the subject. I don't think anyone could have said it better than you did.

[strange]

Conquering the Indians was inevitable and very necessary. If they had not fallen to the United States, they would have otherwise fallen to the British or the French or the Spanish or Mexico. And had they not fallen to any of those countries, the lands they would have occupied would have then been turned into a vast and unmanaged country where all of the above mentioned countries could have easily travelled through them to get to us. More or less we'd lose our "sea to shining sea", surrounded by oceans, type of advantage which has kept us safe from many threats.

Ocean borders have been notorious for keeping many countries protected and strengthened. The little country of Tyre is most notable, nobody could screw with it. Alexander literally had to build a bridge to conquer it.

As to whether none of us had ever arrived to America in the first place? Well then the Indians would have warred amongst themselves and stolen land from each other and they already did.

Whether or not they did anything wrong to us (which they did) is not entirely the issue. It made all around sense to expand to the pacific. Peter The Great had absolutely no moral high ground to war with Sweden, but he needed a port, he wanted a navy, and he got one and he was happy. That expansion all by itself made Russia a powerful country all the way into the cold war times. No russian leader has ever contributed as much.

Its a hard cookie to eat, but luckily we had moral grounds to subdue the Indians aswell and that means we don't have to ask ourselves the same questions that had to be asked for Peter the Great. But if we were to ask those questions, the only thing you need to realize is that the leader of a country has to do their best for the people of their country FIRST, you then should also honor your neighbors... but your own people still come first.

The Indians still got very good deals for their circumstance. Geronimo killed lots of our people and also did lots of damage to our wallet for having to chase him around but we forgave him and he eventually became an American hero even to us, and while he was still alive no less. He lived a perfectly fine life, albeit restricted to certain parts of the country... but boo hoo, he's lucky he wasn't wearing his head on a pike and he knew that even if he did complain about not being able to go back to his native lands. Living that well and calling yourself a POW is laughable. Vlad Dracula or John Mccain would have been very happy to trade their pow accomodations for THAT kind of living that Geronimo enjoyed having his own farm, his own family, attending carnivals, selling memoriabilia, and just living the life that any American citizen would have also enjoyed.

[tbw]

May 24, 2011 5:13:26 GMT -5 strange said:

Conquering the Indians was inevitable and very necessary. If they had not fallen to the United States, they would have otherwise fallen to the British or the French or the Spanish or Mexico. And had they not fallen to any of those countries, the lands they would have occupied would have then been turned into a vast and unmanaged country where all of the above mentioned countries could have easily travelled through them to get to us. More or less we'd lose our "sea to shining sea", surrounded by oceans, type of advantage which has kept us safe from many threats.

Ocean borders have been notorious for keeping many countries protected and strengthened. The little country of Tyre is most notable, nobody could screw with it. Alexander literally had to build a bridge to conquer it.

As to whether none of us had ever arrived to America in the first place? Well then the Indians would have warred amongst themselves and stolen land from each other and they already did.

Whether or not they did anything wrong to us (which they did) is not entirely the issue. It made all around sense to expand to the pacific. Peter The Great had absolutely no moral high ground to war with Sweden, but he needed a port, he wanted a navy, and he got one and he was happy. That expansion all by itself made Russia a powerful country all the way into the cold war times. No russian leader has ever contributed as much.

Its a hard cookie to eat, but luckily we had moral grounds to subdue the Indians aswell and that means we don't have to ask ourselves the same questions that had to be asked for Peter the Great. But if we were to ask those questions, the only thing you need to realize is that the leader of a country has to do their best for the people of their country FIRST, you then should also honor your neighbors... but your own people still come first.

The Indians still got very good deals for their circumstance. Geronimo killed lots of our people and also did lots of damage to our wallet for having to chase him around but we forgave him and he eventually became an American hero even to us, and while he was still alive no less. He lived a perfectly fine life, albeit restricted to certain parts of the country... but boo hoo, he's lucky he wasn't wearing his head on a pike and he knew that even if he did complain about not being able to go back to his native lands. Living that well and calling yourself a POW is laughable. Vlad Dracula or John Mccain would have been very happy to trade their pow accomodations for THAT kind of living that Geronimo enjoyed having his own farm, his own family, attending carnivals, selling memoriabilia, and just living the life that any American citizen would have also enjoyed.

Thought provoking sir strange. That the US should conquer more land through what some term manifest destiny, and in the process give those who believe it was pure evil enough valium to swallow it all. ;D

It was a forgone conclusion, you put enough men in the field, no matter the quality of the troops or their weaponry and like the USSR in WW!! your bound to win something. What was also inevitable was that somewhere along the way, whether it would have been at the LBH or elsewhere, the Indians would stand and fight when they had the numbers game won and they knew it. The LBH fight was the time and the place where it taught not just our leaders, but the army brass that you don't place a highly motivated General in the field with what amounted to a citizen militia composed of troops that had little training or the will to fight for something even they weren't sure they believed in. What wasn't taken into consideration was the immigrant ratio to native born citizens that composed the 7th's ranks. As those who joined the National Guard before WW!!, before Korea, before Vietnam would tell you, when they were the first to arrive in action overseas, that wasn't what they signed up to see. At the time the National Guard's were the most experienced pool of soldiers this nation could rely on, and thus the first along with the small standing army we did have into battle. We're a bit jaded now because of our all volunteer army and tend to forget a past that wasn't unlike 1876 not so long ago. But still, it's an unfair comparison, the National Guard's were better trained and equipped than the immigrant army sent to do the job at the LBH. The just comparison being, what those who signed up expected, and in the end, what they really didn't want to do. I'm reminded of those old TV ad's during the Vietnam war no less, "See the world.... blah, blah blah..." Yes, the army would indeed show them the world, but they would be looking at it down their rifle slights and not sight seeing at the Champs-Élysées.

[joewiggs]

Also Sir Strange, as Stumblingbear alluded to, there is a right way and wrong way to accomplish any task. To place a "people" in a non-win situation wherein they are damned if they do and damned if they don't may be immoral.

This does not include, for example, the hardcore warriors who would not have assimilated no matter what. It sure is good to hear from you again!

[tbw]

May 24, 2011 15:09:38 GMT -5 joewiggs said:

Also Sir Strange, as Stumblingbear alluded to, there is a right way and wrong way to accomplish any task. To place a "people" in a non-win situation wherein they are damned if they do and damned if they don't may be immoral.

This does not include, for example, the hardcore warriors who would not have assimilated no matter what. It sure is good to hear from you again!

Well that sure cut to the morality of it.

And, I agree, it is good to hear from strange. I always like his take on things. Keep it coming sir strange.

[strange]

If the allied Indians had been treated better then that would have been all the incentive necessary at discouraging the Indians from a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Unfortunately the allied Indians didn't technically reap any great reward from their service to us.

Modern warfare and ruling classes are regularly neglecting to realize that people need to "get theirs" at the end of the day. For some reason, all the big profits are always going to suppliers of weaponry and goods and the actual allies or combatants don't get entitled to as much as they use to.

Give them their rewards, hand them powers over lands and countries. That was the traditional way of doing things, it was profit for everyone and there were no moneys or lands being dished under the rug or back to the enemies. We can't keep fighting these "liberate the other country" wars. You either have to seize it and give it to someone loyal or give it to yourself, or you have to just absolutely leave those countries alone. 9 times out of 10 you'll just end up back at the beginning which is what has happened over and over again throughout the last 50 or 60 years.

Soldiers of fortune and missions of conquest were basically likened to tyranny by the philosophers sprouting up or gaining serious influence around the time of the turn of the last century. Their rebellion against the old ways gave birth to a string of dictators who arrived to replace czars or kings. Russia has been deteriorating ever since the absence of a czar, I don't even think democracy does them any good. The most powerful leader they ever had during the communist reign was Stalin.... and that is because he was allied with the U.S. and he also patterned himself more after ONE OF THE CZARS, that being Ivan The Terrible. Stalin was smart enough to steal vital technologies from his allies and this made his country a force to be reckoned with for many years, and aside from that contribution, they still had all of the land advantages that were left over fro Peter The Great. Communism didn't do anything for them, every vital thing they had was either won by a czar or it was stolen from a former ally country and possibly modified.

And drat.... I anaged to mention Russia again!!! Someone needs to play that Elvis Presley song, because they are Always on my Mind.

[tbw]

May 25, 2011 7:05:51 GMT -5 strange said:

If the allied Indians had been treated better then that would have been all the incentive necessary at discouraging the Indians from a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Unfortunately the allied Indians didn't technically reap any great reward from their service to us.

Modern warfare and ruling classes are regularly neglecting to realize that people need to "get theirs" at the end of the day. For some reason, all the big profits are always going to suppliers of weaponry and goods and the actual allies or combatants don't get entitled to as much as they use to.

Give them their rewards, hand them powers over lands and countries. That was the traditional way of doing things, it was profit for everyone and there were no moneys or lands being dished under the rug or back to the enemies. We can't keep fighting these "liberate the other country" wars. You either have to seize it and give it to someone loyal or give it to yourself, or you have to just absolutely leave those countries alone. 9 times out of 10 you'll just end up back at the beginning which is what has happened over and over again throughout the last 50 or 60 years.

Soldiers of fortune and missions of conquest were basically likened to tyranny by the philosophers sprouting up or gaining serious influence around the time of the turn of the last century. Their rebellion against the old ways gave birth to a string of dictators who arrived to replace czars or kings. Russia has been deteriorating ever since the absence of a czar, I don't even think democracy does them any good. The most powerful leader they ever had during the communist reign was Stalin.... and that is because he was allied with the U.S. and he also patterned himself more after ONE OF THE CZARS, that being Ivan The Terrible. Stalin was smart enough to steal vital technologies from his allies and this made his country a force to be reckoned with for many years, and aside from that contribution, they still had all of the land advantages that were left over fro Peter The Great. Communism didn't do anything for them, every vital thing they had was either won by a czar or it was stolen from a former ally country and possibly modified.

And drat.... I anaged to mention Russia again!!! Someone needs to play that Elvis Presley song, because they are Always on my Mind.

Say what you want, but I think you hit the nail on the proverbial head with this one. Not to many comparisons to today's standards apply, but this one, is the best yet. ;D

[joewiggs]

No kidding! Great job!!!