Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Native Americans?


Is there a movement for native Americans sovereignty?


I wouldn't call it a "movement" but rather a limited legal framework based on agreements.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unit...


There should be. But presumably its harder since most of them were killed.

Not sure how the colonization of America justifies other colonization's.

Unless you think everyone is owed a 1 free genocide pass?


lawlessone says: "...since most of them were killed.

Not sure how the colonization of America justifies other colonization's.

Unless you think everyone is owed a 1 free genocide pass?"

Most of them died from disease. Far more of them died from disease than died from say, hand to hand combat or warfare on the plains.

The American Indians were toast as soon as the first coughing European stepped ashore. The native Americans had no immunity to the stew of diseases that had been brewing in Europe and Asia for centuries, so the Indians simply died. Once an Indian had a disease (s)he could spread it to other indians (s)he met. The flame front of infection raged ahead of the white man across the continent. The "mountain men" encountered regions where entire societies were struck down: bodies everywhere, tools, lodging, structures left intact but virtually no one was around (and many the infected likely fled to more remote lands, worsening the spread).

One estimate is that 61 million people lived in the Americas prior to European contact. Between 1492 and 1600 about 50 million native Americans died of disease.

"Killed?" Yes but rarely intentionally. "Genocide?" No.


You're skipping over the whole "manifest destiny" bit, where the remaining natives were systematically hunted down and destroyed. Trail of Tears ring any bells?

And note this was perpetrated by The United States, not the "American colonists". This was happening in the 1800s, a good 300 years after the initial disease front came through.

If the United States had respected the native populations the American West would look very different today. Compare with current Central and South America for example (which were certainly still victims of both disease and genocide, but it was less thorough due to differences in colonizers and geography).


What are you talking about? the original commenter rejected the idea of a Jewish state because ethno states are bad. I made a counter claim. I’d be happy to live next to a Palestinian country, if it will recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and be a peaceful neighbor. Unfortunately, they reject the idea of 2 states, or they want 2 states where 1 is Palestinian, and the other is paletwith a Jewish minority.


>I’d be happy to live next to a Palestinian country, if it will recognize Israel as a Jewish state,

Not sure i'd be happy to live next to a neighbor illegally occupying my former house.


Are you talking about native Americans? Germans that used to live in Poland? Jews that used to live in Syria? Israelis that lived in Sinai before it was returned to Egypt? Mexicans that lived Texas? Australian aboriginals? Inuits in Canada? How about the one million afghans Iran just expelled?

If you’re not happy, that’s on you. Time moves on, you need to accept the existence of the Israeli state.


> If you’re not happy, that’s on you. Time moves on, you need to accept the existence of the Israeli state.

Fair enough, but what happens when the US (inevitably) decide that they're not going to support Israel anymore. Bibi has basically turned support of Israel into a culture war argument, and without consistent US support, I'm not sure Israel will survive in it's current form.

Mind you, climate change could make the whole Middle East uninhabitable before then, so it's possible that the Israeli state will last until then.

And lets be clear, I don't think most people have an issue with the existence of an Israeli state, but what's been happening in Judea and Samaria for the past twenty or so years and Gaza currently is deeply, deeply wrong and reminds me of my favourite phrase, "the only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns from history". One would think that the Jewish people would have learned better lessons from their persecution, but apparently they learnt different lessons than I expected.


Well, Israel successfully won several wars without the US support in its early years. And right now the Israeli weapons manufacturers are booming, look at deals with the romania and Germany.

Its great that most people don’t have problem with our existence, but our neighbors do. That’s why we have wars.

And comparing it to the holocaust is quite different, in the entire Jewish history we never seeked to destroy anyone, we were always targeted because of antisemitism. The Palestinians? They are taught in schools that we are the devil.


> we never seeked to destroy anyone

Mmmm, maybe you should read the Bible? Lots of violence committed by the Israelis there.

> comparing it to the holocaust is quite different

Sorry, it's mostly the same (and incredibly similar to Irish history between Catholics and Protestants). Both sides dehumanise each other, and that leads to violence and suffering. How often does Israeli media cover the bombing of Gaza? Like, a lot of the footage didn't appear on most Western media until 12months + into the conflict.

One could also make the argument that what's happening in the West bank/Gaza is basically ghettoization, which was something that happened to the Jews a lot in Western Europe. It's profoundly depressing that all the Jewish people have learned is to inflict this kind of suffering on other people.

And the current plans to basically force all of the Gazans out is again, incredibly similar to historical pogroms and treatment meted out to the Jewish people.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: