Forum Post: OWS is nothing new -Native americans were the original 99%
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 13, 2011, 7:53 a.m. EST by thezencarpenter
(131)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
200+ years ago a different bunch of white people, The original 1%, took this land away from a similar group of peace loving/truth seeking people who were unaware of what was coming, and they reacted in a similar way. they "protested" using bows and arrows, they tried to smoke the peace pipe with the white man and negotiate treaties, etc., and we all know how that worked out. The 1% was just as clever and ruthless then as they are now. The same greed is what motivates them. The 1% solved this inequity by giving them reservations and casinos. It will be interesting to see what the one percent's latest offer will be! "nothing new under the sun"
Those people may have even have just as confused as we are today why the "white devil" wanted more than he could use. Just remember, all empires fail. the Romans, the Miens, etc. all have left the evidence of their failure. The Roman coliseum of the future will the Banks of wall street.
I think it's important once in a while to forgive and forget. This happened 200 years ago. It was the war of people we never met. Time to turn the page.
Comparing this to Occupy just confuses matters. The only similarity is that there is a struggle for power. That's it. The historical context is entirely different. They were fighting back to keep their land. It was a colonial invasion. A war, not a protest.
I'm having a hard time trying to forgive the greedy banker that is trying to take away the home that I worked hard for because they drove the economy into the ditch because they had nothing to lose! not much different to how a native American feels. the only real difference was then it was defended with bows and arrows, now it is being challenged with words and thoughts.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-war-with-america-was-won-before-the-first-shot/
I'm not sure how this relates to the topic, but it seems like you have some good points.
I think we can both agree the bows and arrows of the American Indians were a more powerful force than the words and thoughts on this forum ;-) Hopefully, the thinkers behind OWS make themselves heard on the front lines, if all we got is what we see here on these forums, I think it's time too look for another strategy.
i may have to give you that one. However, all social actions have had weak members. Everyone contributes in their own way.
Blacks try to do that every day with affirmative action.
That is probably the best deal they could make with the 1%.
150 years ago, China went to war with England
to stop private english companies from selling opium to the Chinese people
.
Afghanistan profits from opium sales today
Damn, we should start arresting some Chinese. US invaded the wrong country!
I remember some chinease physicist was unlawfully jailed by the US
under the fear of weapon secrets leaking to China back in 2000
Unlawfully jailed in US? Us can jail pretty much anybody they want, anytime they way, anyhow they want. There are people in Guantanamo that have yet to be charged with anything.
"A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then he must be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always called "habeas corpus".[2] For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad ('protection of freedom')."
I'd like to add that court should be a public affair and open to the public
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
I hope sooner rather than later OW graduates from protest to contesting for power.
I dont think you understand history. It wasn't just 200 years ago, the last war with the Natives was barely over 100 years ago and they continue to lose their land to corporations and ranchers today
Native Americans are STILL in the 99%, and have it worse than anyone else. Very few make any profit on casinos as steveo idiotically stated. Most have the lowest life expectancy in the country due to the fact corporations have no respect for their rights so they pollute their water supplies, giving them high cancer rates. None of you can have a serious change in this country without working with indigenous peoples. If OWS seriously wants change they need to work with native peoples, otherwise they are part of the same colonizer mentality of the 1 percent.
very good point.
It's more important for OWS to understand who exactly are the 1% that trickle down unethical policies.
Who are they?
Identify the sociopaths that wish to lead the 99% into massive wars and conflicts for their own personal gains.
They are called REPUBLICANS!
Yah-ta-hey thezencarpenter. Speaking of Founding Fathers the U.S. owes as much to July 4, 1744 as we do to July 4, 1776. This was the date of the Iroquois Convention of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora nations; attended by Franklin and Adams as guests.
Franklin reported back that as each warrior stood up to speak, the rest of the Convention maintained a profound silence.
Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hancock, Paine, et al, then argued why could not the Colonialists establish an independent nation deriving legitimacy likewise from the Consent of the Governed?
So I'm just sayin...Consent of the Governed is what's lacking now all the clustering-nations are headed for a GLOBAL CURRENCY CRISIS. Meanwhile the Iroquois "Keeper of the Wampum" still has their priceless Wampum Belts last seen by General Washington and the Constitutional Convention, granting them Individual Sovereignty "as long as the sun shall shine and the waters run."
Personally, I'm 1/16 Native American, and the other 15/16 was born here too...so I already have Individual Sovereignty...and its time for the next warrior to speak:
I'm not sure I understand your point, but, I'm interested. My view they (native americans) already had "sovereignty" before we were so gracious to grant it.
Yes exactly, that's my point, the Native American nations already respected Individual Sovereignty. A.K.A Noble Savages historically ignored when it's often said America was the first democracy since the Greek city-states.
Well that also ignores the Pirates of the Caribbean plundering the Spanish Main, who democratically elected a Captain.
Um...er, well...how does this relate to yer thread now ye ask? Arr...well ye see...errppp!...the point be the 99% which ye state the natives originally be...ERRPP!!....now with their casinos and all...be one and the same with the rest of FREAKING AMERICA...plunderin the high freakin seas and deserts like a bunch of DRUNKEN PIRATES...ERRAHRAPPP!!!!
That's a very amusing way to put it, I think I understand.
Great point!
Doesn't speak well of evolution. I wish Darwin hadn't found the truth? - of the species. Of course, you may disagree with Darwin, and you would then have a good argument.
The 99% is not fit to survive? What a cold world we live in...
some portion of the 99% will survive, as they always have, and they I hope will rebuild a better,new world.
Can you imagine living in a culture that didn't believe in land ownership? We couldn't be much further from that ideal now could we?
Explain?
I mean that the Native Americans didn't believe in land ownership. Now once again a different group of people try to stand up for freedom and are being silenced (at least that's the intent) and moved away.
Yes that is true, and to extend the metaphor, that is what the 1% is doing with treaties like NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements in third world nations. It seems exploitation by the 1% has no limits in order to create an empire. Just remember, history has proven, all empires fail. the only difference this time the whole world is on the line. (I know sound like chicken little "the sky is falling")
The 1%'s quest to globalize, brainwash and dominate the world may be the very thing that brings them down. The same avenues they open for marketing and profit are opening people to new ideas, creating new connections. While the oppressors are more ominous than ever, so is the hope of the people of a world united.
I agree, ultimately all things work for good in the end. We are all simply on a path. the footprints we leave for the future should be what motivates us. The technology that we are using to communicate and advance our ideas are our feet on the path. this technology can make the world smaller and more intimate, or separate and unequal, the choice is ours.
I hope you are right that we continue on the path towards something better.
that is the desire I see in this movement, others see something else. It all depends on your point of view.
What are you talking about? They believed in land ownership. They had tribes and defended their territories.
They didn't believe one individual had the right to hold one certain piece of land. I'm not saying this was a perfect system, but I think they had much more respect for everything natural (even when it came to violence) than our country has today. I don't claim to be an expert on Native American history. I base my knowledge on the history I hear and discuss with my Native American friends.
There are many problems with these types of comparisons which render them dubious. We might be able to learn a few things here and there, but we have to be careful to look at the historical context and particular problems each culture and society faces.
A few hundred years ago, the density of American Indians was so little that it wouldn't have made much sense for them to own individual plots of land. When I camp with my friends in Canada, I don't really care where they set their tent because there is always another spot available. The problem is different in modern US with 300 million people.
We also have to think of the permanence of the homes. If you're building a modern American home that can last decades, if not centuries, then the location really starts to matter. It is beside a lake with a beautiful view, or at the bottom of a hill? If your house is temporary, you don't care as much since you can always get up and leave.
An American Indian camp in the middle of the forest is different than a modern camp in the middle of Manhattan. There are safety concerns that affect the citizens living near by. For example, there could easily be an outbreak of some diseases, especially with winter approaching and the unhygienic living conditions.
Would the mayor of NY be attempting to break the protests if they were not also an occupation? If the protesters came a few hours everyday and protested. Who knows. The problems would be entirely different. I don't see it as the city trying to silence them. They had two months to protest, and they could most likely do it forever if they weren't occupying.
You make a point that highlights a major issue and brings the focus out of history and into the present. We are pressed for space. So, if we say the people have a right to peaceably assemble...but there is no room left to effectively do so, where do we go from there? It seems like no one has a good answer to that question and that's why we are seeing the complications and tensions with the Occupy camps right now.
Who said there wasn't a right to peaceably assemble? The problem is 24 hour camps, which is entirely different. Anybody can assemble pretty much anywhere at anytime, but creating an encampment in the middle of a dense city is entirely different. There are many safety concerns. Why should occupiers be allowed to do this if it breaches the rights of others? Manhattan citizens have the right to health regulations. Why should they have to take a risk of getting a disease propagated in an unclean environment because you want to create an encampment. The fact is, you don't need a camp to assemble. Assembling means coming together. If you live in a camp you can't come together, you already are together!
You make a point that there can be health concerns. There are concerns with any gathering of people that size. The problem with telling people to shut down and come back later is that they likely can't afford to stay somewhere else. The economic devastation of the USA is a big part of the reason they are there in the first place.
They were somewhere else before September 17th, so I don't see why they couldn't return where they were. If they can't afford to live anywhere but outside during winter, they could find a better spot than in the middle of Manhattan. Why not build a camp in the mountains like the American Indians? There would be animals to hunt, etc... They could live off the land.
What to protesters want to do? Camp or assemble, discuss, and protest? If you're camping outside during winter, it's hard for your brain to come up with good ideas.
They may have been in their homes before September 17th (before they were taken away). But you are right, living off the land would be a great idea if most of the rights that would be necessary to do that successfully hadn't been taken away as well (or restricted with permits and license fees). It is hard to come up with good ideas camping in the cold (I come from the Midwest and know about Winter camping), but if that's your only option you have to do what you can. It'd be awful hard to help bring about changes to our systems from a remote spot in the mountains.
They could ask the government for reserves like the American Indians.
That is not true. they were nomadic people that lived off the land and were responsible for it's care.
Actually I think they did have territories that they ranged in. And they did fight quite a bit to make sure that their tribe got the best hunting and gathering spots but yea it was a little foreign the idea of actually owning it.
Not all were Nomads. There were various tribes and some had wars between each other. I come from east Canada, and the Micmac had the land which is now the Ouest part of New-Brunswick. You seem to regard them as perfect people for some reason. Nobodies perfect.
An interesting question: If there were all nice and dandy why did they have bows and arrows? Only for hunting? Hmm...
I am not attempting to advance or create any stereotypes. My premise stands, empires are always created by a small percentage of self-motivated individuals at the expense of the existing, self-sustaining culture that preceded them.
History repeats for sure! Good post!
There is one huge fallacy in your argument and that is this: resource redistribution. The Native lived in a world of abundance that we are no longer capable of even imagining. The English had nothing.
Secondly, the Native is not native to this land. Linguistics do not lie; there have been at least three separate migrations, and some far earlier than the 11 thousand years that is typically projected. Where were these people from? Well, very likely Western Europe.
I'm not sure I see your point, in the eyes of the native Americans, regardless of wether they were the original occupants of the land, the English would be seen as a threat to their freedom. I say again, just like the 99% feel today.
Not a threat to their freedom, a threat to their very survival in the struggle for resources. I have seen references here to the "hunter/ gatherer" but on the east coast, with the exception of the Abenaki, this is a fallacy. They were an agriculturally based people that followed seasonal resources within a defined territory. But the single greatest threat to their survival was the loss of their corn; in the winter it is impossible to either hunt or gather. The colonial was a threat to their corn and it incited to violence.
Entirely different than the 99% of today. We are no threat whatsoever to those that own the political economy.
Not really if you equate their need for corn to our need for a living wage for survival and well being.
I don't equate it that way because we have safety nets and options. In the northeast the ten day winter fast was practice; it helped to genetically acclimate them. Even so, from the 14th century on they were cannibals. Winter starvation was a very real possibility that was incorporated into believe and practice. Very few starve in our America.
I still don't really get your point. Can you justify the benefit of the one at the expense of the many? It really isn't solely about whether people in the U.S. or anywhere else are starving, it's about this small percentage and their supporters hoarding resources at the peril of everyone else.
Maybe but I still don't think Native Americans to 99%ers is a good analogy.
Fair enough.
Oh shit. I KNEW somebody would start down this road. They got their fucking casinos...taking our money forever. We're even.
Yeah, seems fair.
And the Slaves were as well, and it took the Civil War to free them and the loss of countless lives and then MLK led a peaceful thoughtful and brave movement that began the civil rights movement. He was martyred for the cause. It was not the 1% that took land from native americans. It was the multitude of european immigrants coming to the new USA and expanding westward thru the land grab legislation and the desire to increase the size of the union. It was an invasion by the populus looking for opportunity and to own land. Very poor families risked everything and displaced the native americans. Was it fair? No.
The intention was the same, a small percentage taking from a large percentage (then, through force of arms, now through economic force). You are making my point for me, Land grab legislation (land sessions) were the one percents loan documents of that time. Those early settlers were what I have referred to the 1% wannabes of their era. they envied the "land lords" position in society, and maybe in spite of what their conscious was telling them, they aligned themselves with the 1% agenda. Was it fair? of course not, and neither is what is happening. The difference is that we can stop them (the 1%) before they ruin the good that was created as a result of creating this country.
Well the Indians stated clearly in their despair that the white man was so numerous the were in effect a flood filling up the land so it was a majority taking from a minority. The europeans sought land primarily for small family based farms not to be land barons. They were self sufficient economic units living on their new land. Your analogy falls short as you reflect on the overwhelming migration of the 99% at that time headed west for farm land and economic independence.
That is a good point (The Europeans sought land primarily for small family based farms not to be land barons.), had that remained the agenda. If you take into account the vast population of Native Americans on the north American continent, of course they were the majority and the 99% of that time. It only became their (the settlers and authors of land grab legislation) land through force and subversion, just like today.
It is estimated that native americans in north america including canada numbered 10 to 18 million pre columbus. The settlers from europe far out numbered them considering the wave after wave after wave of migration resulting in statehoods and the trans continental railroad.
Moronic liberals have this bizarre thought that Native Americas should have been left alone on the North American continent. As if the first explorer would land and say.."sorry guys, stay on the boat...somebody is already living here. Let's move on"
This really isn't a liberal/conservative issue, it's about what kind of country/world do we want to create. do we want it to be generous and creative or selfish and destructive, the choice is yours.