From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:32:34 GMT

borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    I would certainly agree with you if you want to make the point that 
>>Europeans have been brutal and  efficient conquerors, but I'm not prepared 
>>on that basis to return everything we have to the previous occupants who 
>>were brutal and efficient conquerors in their own time. Once you open that 
>>can of worms you're not going to reach an end until you run out of recorded 
>>history from which conquerors and their victims can be identified.

>It's clearly not feasible, or even desirable, at this point, to give 
>everything we have back and then leave and try to find someplace else to 
>live.  But we can at least acknowledge the truth, and stop glorifying the 
>conquerors of the past.

    Ok, I may agree with you on that point but I would first like to pose 
a question. Do you think that Columbus was an explorer or a conqueror? I 
would personally say that Columbus was an explorer, but I've seen several 
TV shows in the past year which have been on the verge of depicting him as 
a conqueror (and a damned evil one at that).

>And since the conquered peoples are still here and unassimilated, it would 
>not be a case of "running out of recorded history", if we did give them 
>back some land.  I guess the Indian reservations are just that; I don't 
>know if it's sufficient or not.

    To be perfectly honest I would have to say that Indian reservations 
are a living testiment to an atrocious record of duplicity and greed in 
our past dealings with the Indians. Certainly some treaties were broken 
due to bad faith on the part of the Indians, but that's far from true 
in cases like the "purchase" of the Black Hills which led directly to the 
Sioux uprising in 1876.

>Land aside, the least we can do is show them respect. Glorifying and 
>celebrating the conquest and destruction of the native cultures does not 
>constitute showing respect.

    No, I suppose it doesn't. Treatment of American Indians is one of 
many issues on which Rush and I have widely differing opinions. I'm sure 
that Rush's irreverent treatment of "Native American" updates is intended 
as a backlash against those who are in their turn attempting to glorify 
the cultures which have been conquered, but I'm afraid that, as usual, 
although his message is aimed at a small group of extremists, the people 
who ultimately end up as targets include a lot of folks who are just trying 
to make sure that the Indians get a fair shake.

    As far as what can be done to redress past offenses, I really can't 
offer much hope. Native Americans have certainly resisted assimilation 
into our culture, but I believe that they are ultimately fighting a losing 
battle, similar in many respects to the battle which must have first arisen 
in Mesopotamia when the development of irrigation caused friction between 
civilized farmers and uncivilized tribes of hunter gatherers. In the Indus 
valley the battle went in favor of the tribes; very little survives from 
that civilization following its destruction by the Aryans. But in general 
the battle has gone in favor of the civilized at the expense of the lives 
and lifestyle of the tribes.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton