how did america become such a rich and powerful country ? ( Archived) (129)

See:



It's too long to post...So I will post some exerpts...

Native Americans and the United States Government.

The history of the interaction between American Indians and the American Government has been characterised by a number of conflicting policies. On the American Government side there have been policies of separation by which the American Indians were to be removed from the lands that the expansionist whites coveted. At the same time there was a recognition of the Indians' sovereign rights to their new territories. This policy was historically followed by one of coercive assimilation in which Indian ways were to be replaced by the culture of white Anglo-Saxon Protestantism. An insight into this policy can be gleaned from the educational philosophy institutionalised in the boarding schools for Indians established in the 19th century. The techniques of coercive assimilation were stated in 1908 by Richard II. Pratt who founded the Carlisle Indian boarding school in Pennsylvania:

'The multiplicity of tribes represented enabled a mixing of tribes in dormitory rooms. The rooms held three to four each and it was arranged that no two of the same tribe were placed in the same room. This not only helped in the acquirement of English but broke up tribal and race clannishness, a most important victory in getting the Indian toward real citizenship.'

In the 1930's there was a New Deal reversal of coercive assimilation initiated by among others John Collier who was appointed Commissioner for Indian Affairs in 1932. This policy sought to protect and nourish selected aspects of Indian ways and can be summarised as one of tribal restoration. The main drift of this policy in the Indian Reorganisation Act of 1934 can be seen in a memorandum of Collier's in which he stated:

I see the broad function of Indian policy.., to be the development of Indian democracy.. .through the continued survival, through all historical change and disaster, of the Indian tribal group, both as a reality and a legal entity.'

The next broad phase of federal policy was one of termination by which all the special arrangements made by the government for the American Indian in the field of education, welfare etc., that in the eyes of the supporters of termination had created a system of virtual dependency implemented by a top heavy system of administrative bureaucracy, were to be ended. The idea that the Indian was a special case was considered to be 'un-American' in theory and practice, particularly in the 1950's. The supporters of termination argued that if the Indians were treated like any other ethnic group and not shielded and removed from the ideology of competitive individualism, they would soon be 'Americanised', to their ultimate benefit.


(Cont'd)...

Native American Leadership and Activism since World War 2.

A major issue confronting Native Americans in the immediate post-war era was the continuing debate between the advocates of assimilation and those who favoured some form of traditional tribal self-determination as a basis for participation, rather than assimilation into the American mainstream. This liberal cultural-pluralism policy had been advocated by Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930's. However in the more conservative climate of the 1940's and 50's, the reformist, interventionist policies of the Roosevelt era came under attack and many groups began to question the philosophy behind the Indian Reorganisation Act of 1934 and argued that tribal assets should not necessarily be owned collectively. The whole structure of federal interference in the operation of capitalist market forces as they affected Native Americans began to come under attack from the increasingly vocal advocates of termination. For example the American Indian Federation, representing highly assimilated Indians from Oklahoma, had opposed John Collier's New Deal policies , and by 1944-5 was calling for termination. The A.I.F. strategy was vigorously opposed by the National Congress of American Indians, a lobby group that had been organised in 1944 to represent Native-Americans of all tribes. This organisation demanded that the philosophy of tribal self-determination should be maintained.

(Con'd)...

Another important issue in this immediate post-war era was the long running one of compensation. Many Indian groups had long-standing claims against the American government for lands and assets that had been unfairly seized. Liberals wanted this historic issue of injustice settled to assuage their guilt and wipe out resentments. The advocates of termination also supported compensation legislation as a first step towards the destruction of federal authority over Indian affairs. This coalition of interests lobbied until Congress passed the Indian Claims Commission Act in 1946. The plan soon ran into trouble. The three-person board could only give money for land; it could not take away lands that were now owned by the descendants of the original, often illegal white settlers. An example of the cultural misunderstanding that has bedevilled Indian-White relations is the case of the Taos Indians in the South West, taken up by the I.C.C. in the 1950's.

In 1906 an area sacred to the Taos Indians had been incorporated into the Kit Carson National Forest in north-western New Mexico. In 1965 the I.C.C. came to a decision that awarded the Indians $10 million and nearly three thousand acres of land near the lake, as compensation for the earlier unjust transfer. What seemed to most white Americans as a generous offer, was unacceptable to the Taos people, one of whose leaders, Paul Bernal, said: 'My people will not sell our Blue Lake that is our church. We cannot sell what is sacred. It is not ours to sell.'

Under the influence of the general rise of militancy associated with the Civil Rights Movements of the late 1950's and the 1960's, more direct action protest began to characterise the new generation of activist Native Americans who were often urban-based and college-educated. The complicated, slow process of seeking compensation through the courts or working through the B.I.A. began to be seen by this new generation as appeasement 'uncle Tomahawk' strategies that did not expose the abuses that many American Indians suffered on the streets. It was out of this form of routine harassment of Indians by authorities such as the police that the American Indian Movement, known as AIM, was born in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1968. Under the leadership of Chippewa Indian organiser Denis Brutus, AIM members began to patrol Minneapolis and St. Paul streets after dark in order to intervene on behalf of the many Indians who were being harassed by the police without justification. As a result of this activity, the number of weekend arrests dropped from a regular number of around 200 to just a few. AIM also addressed the blatant discrimination against Indians in the workplace and pressured Honeywell Corporation, a major Minneapolis employer, to their number of Indian workers by 450. In the area of federal funding, AIM was instrumental in gaining a $4.3 million grant from the Housing and Urban Development Department to build 241 homes for Indians. AIM was also successful in making the educational curriculum more sensitive to the values and cultural achievements of Native American peoples, and conducted a seven year campaign to establish a centre for Indian Culture which eventually led to the city of Minneapolis raising $1.9 million for a public institute that acted as a focus for the study and enhancement of Native American culture. AIM's cultural policy saw value in the past achievements of traditional Indian culture but was wary of the tendency of some Indians and many of their Anglo supporters, to concentrate on a romantic study of aboriginal survivals. AIM wanted American Indians to make a living, dynamic contribution to a pluralistic modem American society.


(Cont'd)...

'the assumption that the white man, through some innate cultural or racial superiority, has the ability to master the essential beliefs, values, and emotions of persons from Native American communities.'

Despite this fear that the often genuine interest, respect, and scholarship of non-Indians represents another form of desecration and theft of traditional Native American culture, an increase in the number and quality of writings by Native Americans in English coincided with an increased general awareness of the cultures of ethnic groups outside the traditional Wasp mainstream such as Afro-American and Hispanic. However respect for someone's culture does not necessarily lead to that person gaining greater political and economic power.

The emotional and thematic range of this new Native American writing includes clashes between individualistic white, and Native American tribal ideologies, internal conflicts within the Native American community itself, and the invariably tragic situation of the urban Indian. There is also a distinctive theme which compares the spiritual conservationist values of the Native American peoples to the polluting materialism of white technology and capitalism. A flourishing genre is the exploration of traditional and contemporary Native American culture and history by Indian women, which ranges from the calm celebration of Native American culture amidst major external historical change in 'Belle Highwalking: The Narrative of a Northern Cheyenne Woman' (1979), to the anger at the oppression of Native Americans which characterises 'Bobbi Lee: Indian Rebel' (1975). Born in 1892, Belle Highwalking wanted her life story to be recorded for her grandchildren. She was not involved in politics nor did she have any special insights into tribal ceremonies or religion. The book was not intended to be a best seller and was published as an educational tool by the Montana Council for Indian Education. Bobbi Lee's story takes the reader from a childhood in Canada to work in the Californian vineyards and political activism as a supporter of Red Power during the fishing rights disputes in the Pacific Northwest in the late 1960's. Although Bobbi Lee, a quarter-blood Metis, contrasts the passivity of her ancestors who accepted an inferior status within a dominant culture, with her own assertiveness and refusal to submit, she does much to clear away the stereotypes of the submissive Indian woman as in the following passage describing a political demonstration in which the powerful role in tribal decision-making that Native American women have always exerted, is clearly signalled:

'Most of the militants there at a demonstration in Olympia, Washington, were women and three of them did most of the speaking They were traditionalists so there was nothing unusual about women acting as spokesmen for the group. In fact, they told me they were having trouble getting the men involved. The only man who spoke was Hank Adams, who's been to university and wasn't traditional.'

This brief survey of the contemporary situation of Native Americans and their culture, has had to illustrate main issues and themes with selective evidence. The usual way for a non-Indian 'expert' to conclude a sympathetic book or article about Native Americans, is to quote some venerable 19c. visionary Native American spokesperson, expressing compassion for mother earth and then contrasting it with the whiteman's violent aggression towards the land. Instead I want to end by quoting a late night quip by a Native American Tribal Council chief friend of mine that has nothing to do with 'white' or 'red' philosophy, but just appeals to my philosophical sense of the world and clearly is an expression of his:

'When my ship comes in, I'll probably be at the airport.'

Aslo see this video..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq0Joi1ELps.

I will post it in the video section...

I posted a few videos in the video section on Native American Oppression, poverty and Urban Indians...A good watch...

How many times have I said "consider the source"? LOL\
Explains why if hugz posted it, it is probably about as accurate as refer madness. Oh yeah, all to familiar with how you can run a search and find any kind of lunacy you want, even if you have to post what you know is a lie, always some crack pot out there with an opinion that agrees with yours LOL
Nope, considering the source, not even worth hitting the link LOL

I do look at the source..That's why your opinion is of no consequence to me...If you are saying you are Native too...then I pity you for not knowing the true plight of your own people...and assuming that all are just as well off as you see yourself!!!!!!!

Whatever...There are a hell of alot more people that live what I am saying each day whom I am sure would agree...BUT you living there in your nice urban house would of course have no clue!!!!!!!

The next time you want to call me a liar I suggest you think looooooooonnnnnngggggggg and hard first!!!!!!!