It's time to reintroduce Red Indians into US National Parks

As my opponent has not offered any definitions to clarify the terms of this debate, I will do so now. Red Indian: According to thefreedictionary. com[1], a Red Indian is "a member of the race of people living in America when Europeans arrived. " Note that this definition includes North and Latin American Indians, and is synonymous with the term Native American. US National Parks: Parks run by the U. S. Federal Government. Now I will build my own case and address my opponent's points. Contention 1: Historically speaking, Native Americans have been hostile towards "um, pale faces" The history of the relationship between Native Americans and European settlers is one of hostility and bloodshed. In the colonial days of North America, The Pequot War, King Phillip's War, The Pueblo Revolt, and The French and Indian Wars were all conflicts between Native Americans and white settlers that cost hundreds of lives on both sides[2]. These conflicts continued, as Native Americans were forced off of their land. In the mid- to late 1800's the U. S. government waged a series of campaigns against Indians in the Midwest[3]. What can we draw from all of this? If Native Americans were introduced into popular tourist attractions for white vacationers, we run the risk of violent conflict between the 2 groups. This problem could only be exacerbated if, as my opponent says, "they would attract tourists to the National Parks. " Attracting tourists just sets up more opportunities for clash and conflict. This is not a risk we should run, and thus we ought to negate the resolution. Contention 2: The resolution is irrational "Red Indians" are not just North American Indians. Red Indians include Latin American Indians as well. If we affirmed this resolution, the U. S. would be required to not only rehabilitate all U. S. Indians into national parks but also every native American in Canada, Mexico, Bolivia, and every other country in the Americas[4]. The importation of these hundreds of tribes would not only be economically unfeasible but would be illegal as well and could only result in significant clashes between the U. S. and other American governments. Because affirming this resolution could only result in increased violent conflicts between Native Americans and Caucasians and it would be economically unfeasible and probably illegal to implement, you must negate. Moving to my opponent's points. First, he claims that Indians are "native to the American countryside. " But what he neglects to mention is that Indians live in all parts of the American countryside, in a wide variety of biomes and environs from desert to temperate forest. Displacing native Americans from their natural homes to national parks would inevitably result in a number of native Americans being placed in an unnatural environment. This is not fair to them. As to my opponent's second contention, it has effectively been shown to support the con argument of increased violence between Native Americans and Caucasians. As such, his second argument is actually in favor of the con. Finally, my opponent claims that they could trade "animal skins, tobacco, and jars of cranberry sauce" for any goods they need. However, there are some major flaws to this argument. 1) By hunting park species native Americans would be breaking the law and be subject to the consequent penalties. 2) Tobacco cannot be grown in many areas of the U. S. 3) In order to produce jars of cranberry sauce, Indians would require the knowledge and capability to make glass jars and metal caps, as well as optimal growing environments for cranberries, which cannot be grown in many areas of the U. S. Thus, my opponents case falls because all of his contentions either truly support the con or would treat Native Americans unfairly. In light of all this, I urge a negative vote. 1: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2: . http://nativeamericanrhymes.com... 3: . http://www.nebraskastudies.org... 4: . http://www.native-languages.org...