Should Mt. Rushmore be Demolished or Altered because it is on Native American land? - Page 2 - 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%
#15105158
annatar1914 wrote:But my main point is that for the greater part of human history, expulsion, conquest, and slavery have been near universal scourges,

What on earth makes you assume that they were scourges? Extreme violent competition, between hominoids, including conquest of resources, expulsions and rape, surely helped fast track our evolution. And slavery although it may have appeared too late to significantly effect our genetic evolution, surely may have helped our scientific / technological / social evolution. This development just may not have been possible without slavery or something close to it.

It seems that civilisational / economic development through certain stages just may not have been possible without the domestication of animals. It may also have required slavery of our fellow human beings. It may have only be though slavery or something pretty close to it, that a section of the population could develop the level of prosperity to allow for the necessary specialisation of labour and study.

Anyway what is certain is that great age of White supremacy from 1488 (the blessed number) to 1973 utterly transformed the world for the betterment of virtually all human beings. Yes even the Amerindians if you analyse it, I think you will find that gene for gene, allele for allele, chromosome for chromosome, there are more Amerindians (equivalent) living longer lives at a higher standard of living than in 1492. We dragged humanity out of the darkness.

The funny thing is that when analysed properly the same is also true for the Neanderthals. There are more (genetic equivalents of ) Neanderthals alive today than at any time on Earth. I can only but see the European conquest of the Americas and Australasia as an expression of God's love for the Neanderthals.
#15105160
Donna wrote:Are there monuments of Native American slave owners?


Yes. The Chief Vann House would be an example. It honors James and his son Joseph Vann, Cherokee chiefs who owned slaves and whose slaves led the largest escape attempt by Native American-owned Black slaves. The monument itself is in Georgia, and they had to vacate it as a result of the Indian Removal Act.
#15105161


It is a major tourist attraction that draws more than 2 million people to the national park. The local Lakota Sioux people benefited greatly from the monument as many of them work in the industry. Benjamin Black Elk posed for photographs with thousands of tourists daily in his native attire from the 1950s to 1960s. He was one of the most photographed people in the world over that twenty-year period.

Image
#15105170
Unthinking Majority wrote:There's 98% less natives now than 1492 in America?


I am not sure about that. Natives intermarried with settlers. I know people who claim to be part Cherokee or other native. Has there been a study of how many intermarried? I think not.

Maybe whoever made that claim are talking about pure Native Americans? But everyone is mixed, myself included though I am not of Native descent as far as I know. I have yet to get my blood analyzed.
#15105171
wat0n wrote:Yes. The Chief Vann House would be an example. It honors James and his son Joseph Vann, Cherokee chiefs who owned slaves and whose slaves led the largest escape attempt by Native American-owned Black slaves. The monument itself is in Georgia, and they had to vacate it as a result of the Indian Removal Act.


In what way does it honor them? It's a historical site, not a monument.
#15105182
Donna wrote:In what way does it honor them? It's a historical site, not a monument.


Why do we care about this site if not because of who owned it? It's no different from Mount Vernon in this regard.

@Pants-of-dog they willingly took part of that system, so don't try to get them off the hook. If it's fine to topple monuments honoring Lincoln, it's more than fine to topple monuments honoring the Vanns.
#15105186
@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.
#15105187
Donna wrote:https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=aprci


That says by the late 1800's. There's about 7 million indigenous now in the US and estimates 2 million to 18 million pre-contact, says wikipedia.
#15105192
Unthinking Majority wrote:That says by the late 1800's. There's about 7 million indigenous now in the US and estimates 2 million to 18 million pre-contact, says wikipedia.


3. Ethnic Cleansing

The precise number of Indian victims of the genocide committed by Euro-American colonizers over
the past half-millennium evades quantification. Estimates of the pre-Columbian indigenous population in
what later became the U.S. range from 5-94 million, yet by 1880 disease, slaughter, slavery, and
aggressive wars had reduced their number to as few as 300,000—and declining. Although luminaries
such as President Thomas Jefferson denounced the genocide as it unfolded, the prevailing racial
ideology reassured the public that the disappearance of an inferior people before the U.S. continental
advance was a “historical and scientific inevitability. Initially, a legislative approach effected physical
removal of Indian people from ancestral lands; however, when this proved inefficient, measures more
clearly within the inherent powers of the executive and therefore less susceptible to judicial review were
devised: Indian genocide became official policy of the U.S. and its political subdivisions.
In the aftermath of the Civil War the might of the U.S. Army was directed toward Indian
eradication. Contractors induced deliberate starvation by destroying the buffalo, yet Indian tenacity
necessitated more direct applications of force. One by one, tribes were hunted, pursued, cornered, and
murdered. A series of “massacres” were written in Indian blood on the pages of American history: Blue
River (1854), Bear River (1863), Sand Creek (1864), Washita River (1868), Sappa Creek (1875), Camp
Robinson (1878), Wounded Knee (1890), and over forty others. Gruesome, exterminations of
defenseless women and children were perfectly legal exercises of State and federal authority as the law
then stood. By the conclusion of the “Indian Wars” in 1886, the pre-Columbian Indian population had
been reduced as much 98%, and an Indian-free U.S. was not beyond possibility.
#15105194
Donna wrote:And 98% less of them.

No if you look at Mexico, Honduras, Peru I think you'll find that a significant percentage of the populations DNA is Amerindian in origin.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
The Two Forms of Socialism

Not at all, it can be created (socialism)by demo[…]

Thank Goodness for Sane People

What do you do when your psychological warfare doe[…]

Election 2020

You are clearly not a conservative. Conservative[…]

Walt Disney: Cultural Pharaoh

In the Egyptian Re trinity, Tem provides a period […]