Should Mt. Rushmore be Demolished or Altered because it is on Native American land? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should Mt. Rushmore be Demolished or Altered because it is on Native American land?

Yes
1
5%
No
16
84%
Alter it in some way (explain)
2
11%
#15105195
Pants-of-dog wrote:Besides, this thread is about the Lakota, not the Cherokee.

They may not have engaged in plantation style slavery but if you judge Lakota behaviour by today's standards then they were monsters. This is why you and your ilk are White hating racists, because you judge White people by a completely different standard to so called non White people. The Lakota did not value Amerindian life. They only learnt that from White people. It was only through White people that Amerindians gained racial consciousness as it was only through White people that Blacks gained racial consciousness and it was only though White people that Hindus gained Indian National consciousness.
#15105199
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

It is a fact that slavery of black people by white owners has had a lasting impact that lasts to this day and needs to be addressed, while slavery by some people who were not even Lakota does not.

Besides, this thread is about the Lakota, not the Cherokee.


Welcome to PoD's warped worldview, where slavery is only consequential when performed by non-indigenous people. I guess the people who were enslaved, and sometimes beaten and killed by their masters there, don't matter to him. And it's not like the postwar dynamics were radically different from those in the broader South either.

Donna tried to claim getting rid of Mt Rushmore would represent solidarity between Native and African Americans. I would say that it would be a lot more meaningful to that effect to acknowledge the facts above. After all, it's expected of the rest of the country to do so too.

@Donna that seems like an artificial distinction. Even during these protests, historical places were defaced, including a small part of the Lincoln Memorial.
#15105202
@wat0n

Again, you are welcome to think whatever vile things you want about me.

Unless you can show that Cherokee slavery of blacks still has an impact on today's race relations, like white slavery of blacks does, then the comparison is not very good.

And this thread is about the Lakota, not the Cherokee.
#15105204
@Pants-of-dog Thanks for the correction.

Rich wrote:They may not have engaged in plantation style slavery but if you judge Lakota behaviour by today's standards then they were monsters. This is why you and your ilk are White hating racists, because you judge White people by a completely different standard to so called non White people.


White people need to be brought to heel in order to avert a catastrophic collapse of human civilization.
#15105206
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Again, you are welcome to think whatever vile things you want about me.

Unless you can show that Cherokee slavery of blacks still has an impact on today's race relations, like white slavery of blacks does, then the comparison is not very good.

And this thread is about the Lakota, not the Cherokee.


It actually does, which is why some people from Oklahoma bother to remember the issue even today. Furthermore, it's not like slavery is the only thing that complicates present day race relations. It arguably wouldn't, had the Reconstruction been successful in fighting discrimination and had Jim Crow never been established. And yes, it seems Native Americans weren't different from the broader Southern society in that regard, which I don't find all that surprising since racism was widespread at the time and in their particular case they also had their own standing conflicts with the Federal Government, which poisoned any efforts on the latter's part in this regard from the outset - on top of the fact that the Federal Government would generally avoid interference in this sort of internal Tribal affairs. I wonder if Blacks who lived in the Territory also emigrated to the North like so many did during the Great Migration.
#15105209
wat0n wrote:@Donna that seems like an artificial distinction. Even during these protests, historical places were defaced, including a small part of the Lincoln Memorial.


It's not an artificial distinction. The house was built by Chief Vann as, well, his house. It wasn't built after his death to commemorate his life or endorse his symbolic significance. It's a historical site where the public can see where this man ate food, slept, evacuated his bowels, etc.

I'm not sure what it means that historical sites have been targeted for vandalism, but I doubt that there will be a serious national conversation on tearing buildings down.
#15105210
Pants-of-dog wrote:But the point about having DNA not being the same as cultural identity is true and important.

Ah by that standard we're all thoroughly deracinated. By that standard Europe is long since dead. By that standard there are no real white people anymore. The Britain that endured its finest hour is long gone, the (class based) Apartheid Britain of 1900 even further over the horizon. The Western Democracies, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union all agreed that homosexuals (or at least people who committed homosexual acts) belonged in prison. Gay marriage would have been incomprehensible to them.
#15105211
Donna wrote:It's not an artificial distinction. The house was built by Chief Vann as, well, his house. It wasn't built after his death to commemorate his life or endorse his symbolic significance. It's a historical site where the public can see where this man ate food, slept, evacuated his bowels, etc.

I'm not sure what it means that historical sites have been targeted for vandalism, but I doubt that there will be a serious national conversation on tearing buildings down.


The conservation of the site, however, is an activity that is currently carried out by the Federal and perhaps local government. It's not different from others in that regard.
#15105212
Pants-of-dog wrote:This study has it estimated at 90%.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9118307261

"North America: The first documented contact between indigenous groups and Europeans took place at the North American east coast in the 1530s when explorers reported dense Iroquois settlements. These settlements disappeared by the end of the 1600s (Sauer, 1980), 20 years before the first recorded smallpox epidemic that would kill 90% of the native population of New England (Davies, II, 2012). In the Jemez province, southwestern United States, an archaeological study found that a depopulation of 87% occurred within 100 years after contact (1541–1640 CE, Liebmann et al., 2016). By 1800 CE an estimated one million indigenous people were left in North America (Denevan, 1992a). Dobyns (1966) suggests the low point of 490,000 was reached in the 1930s, although it can be assumed that the initial waves of epidemics during the 1600s and 1700s were responsible for most of the depopulation."
#15105213
Rich wrote:And what about Britain, Belgium or France? Are the immigrants there not occupying Native Land by your logic? This is why I say anti WIG racism, that's anti White, anti Infidel, anti Gentile racism is so endemic, that people can no longer see it. When are the Mongolians going to knock down their monuments to Genghis? When are the Zulu going to knock down their monuments to Shaka? When are the Sunni Muslims going to stop making excuses for the wicked behaviour of the first four Caliphs? When are the Jews going to start condemning Joshua for stealing the land of the Canaanites in the first place?


Rich, I was taking the absurdity of the question to its logical conclusion.

I think Mount Rushmore is pretty cool. I wouldn’t want to see it destroyed, but this isn’t my fight.

Where are all the indigenous elders with their advice? The only portrayal of an indigenous person I’ve seen on this site was in a clip telling white people in CHAZ to give 10 dollars to black people, and I doubt that is representative of the actual discourse.

If natives occupied a very small % of the land in America pre-contact, how is it all "their land". Do you get to claim an entire continent as yours if you occupy and use only a very small % of it?

The New World didn't have horses pre-contact, horses came from Europe, so natives traveled by small boat/canoe along waterways or by foot. Pretty sure they never stepped foot on most of American land. But a lot of it they did use was stolen.


This just sounds like another version of terra nullius to me or something I can’t figure out. Are you saying the Native people already stole the land from others before them?

I think my comments were misinterpreted to be taken literally. For me righting the wrongs of the past means not repeating them. Mount Rushmore is there. It makes no sense (that I can determine) to destroy it.

But we can’t keep desecrating the land. Let me give you an example. On May 24th a mining company that should have known better blew up a 46 000 year old site in Australia that they had no business even looking at. That is unconscionable corporate behaviour to me. Shocking that it still happens.
#15105214
wat0n wrote:The conservation of the site, however, is an activity that is currently carried out by the Federal and perhaps local government. It's not different from others in that regard.

A house that is a historical site is different than a statue.
#15105219
wat0n wrote:I don't think so in this case. For instance, Robert E Lee's house is owned by an NGO. This one, is actually partially owned by the State of Georgia - giving it a significant degree of Government sanction.


"sanction" of what? :eh:

It's pretty normal in for historical sites (along with roads, parks, etc.) to be maintained by some form of government organization, not a private entity. You're a reaching big time here.
#15105220
Donna wrote:"sanction" of what? :eh:

It's pretty normal in for historical sites (along with roads, parks, etc.) to be maintained by some form of government organization, not a private entity. You're a reaching big time here.


Not necessarily. Mount Vernon is actually private property.

But more importantly: Why would the house be of any importance if it's not about the importance of the people who owned it? Just how many Native Americans are remembered in the same way?
#15105222
Pants-of-dog wrote:Unless you can show that Cherokee slavery of blacks still has an impact on today's race relations, like white slavery of blacks does, then the comparison is not very good.

Africans took and owned slaves, sold them to European slave traders. Indigenous in the Americas owned slaves long before Europeans arrived. Africans and indigenous make/made war on each other all the time. Europeans do the same thing. It has nothing to do with skin colour or culture, it's because they're all human beings.

In an anarchic system there is competition for resources. European colonialism was largely the result of a security dilemma among European countries constantly at war with each other competing against each other for resources, land, wealth etc. The same reason indigenous tribe A would attack tribe B. Because ie: if the Spanish conquered the New World and became rich and powerful and Portugal and France didn't expand via colonialism, the latter 2 were putting their countries at existential risk of being attacked & conquered by a more powerful Spain. And if France and Spain expanded via colonialism & Britain didn't, Britain put itself at risk etc. Security dilemma.

That doesn't mean Americans/Europeans didn't do some horrible things to natives and Africans, but it's not like their shit don't stink.
#15105228
Unthinking Majority wrote:Africans took and owned slaves, sold them to European slave traders. Indigenous in the Americas owned slaves long before Europeans arrived. Africans and indigenous make/made war on each other all the time. Europeans do the same thing. It has nothing to do with skin colour or culture, it's because they're all human beings.


1, Not all indigenous people are the same. Saying they owned slaves is a huge and incorrect generalisation.

2. Africans and indigenous people never made war on each other.

3. Europeans did not do the same thing as everyone else, since Africans and indigenous peole of the Americas never focribly colonised other continents and decimated their populations.

This seems like a whataboutism used to justify colonialism and slavery.

In an anarchic system there is competition for resources. European colonialism was largely the result of a security dilemma among European countries constantly at war with each other competing against each other for resources, land, wealth etc. The same reason indigenous tribe A would attack tribe B. Because ie: if the Spanish conquered the New World and became rich and powerful and Portugal and France didn't expand via colonialism, the latter 2 were putting their countries at existential risk of being attacked & conquered by a more powerful Spain. And if France and Spain expanded via colonialism & Britain didn't, Britain put itself at risk etc. Security dilemma.

That doesn't mean Americans/Europeans didn't do some horrible things to natives and Africans, but it's not like their shit don't stink.


Yes, it is a justification for slavery, colonialism and genocide.

So you are agreeing that the USA is built on racism, slavery, colonialism, and genocide. You are then going on to say this is perfectly fine because you can imagine a world where other people may also have done it.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

I simply repeated your own words back to you. If […]

To find genuinely critical analysis of COVID-19 o[…]

any word yet on a trump plan to provide affordabl[…]

So, are you saying you are a dispensationalist - […]