Geronimo

[Skybird]

Curios.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8112051.stm

While I personally find the idea to put importance on relocating the dead a hundred years later a bit strange, I wonder however, why a secret society must steal body parts from a grave, and why the justice ministry must try to influence a judge in a running court procedure to not accept a complaint to this theft.

Maybe that some noble, honourable members of society are not being connected to this secret organisation, by preventing any disucssion about the organisation itself?

[Jimbuna]

This refers to long-standing allegations that members of the Skull and Bones Society, including Prescott Bush, the grandfather of George W Bush, broke into Geronimo's tomb and stole his skull and other bones to keep in their clubhouse in New Haven.

I'm just wondering if the above has any bearing on the issue

They use the skull of Geronimo in secret rituals. Very fitting considering they live on the lands stolen from the indigenous people.

[Sailor Steve]

As do most of us, no matter where we live. One question, though: how do steal something from someone who openly claims he doesn't own it?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

As do most of us, no matter where we live. One question, though: how do steal something from someone who openly claims he doesn't own it?

I was not aware that any "native" Americans claimed to not own anything, especially not the Apaches. They routinely took ownership of other people and their lands, and were regarded as being amongst the most savage and heartless of tribes, even amongst native americans. Certainly, there were more peaceful tribes, but they loathed tribes like the Apaches. They were stone-age people who lived a brutish exsistence full of inter-tribal warfare and that is all there is to the story. If they had develeloped metalworking and gunpowder and sailed to Europe in the 8th century, there is no reason to believe that we would have recieved any greater degree of mercy. That's just how things were back then. The myth of the noble savage is just that, a myth.

That is not to say that I approve of the way that the native Americans were treated. In truth, I find their treatment deploreable, even to this day, but they are note and were never the peaceful, earth-loving, harmonious people that popular culture tends to portray them as being.
It is one thing to use every part of the buffalo because you revere its' spirit and have a bond with nature, it is quite another to revere the buffalo and use every part of it because you are a starving and primitive person who doesn't know where his next meal is coming from.

At best, this lawsuit is a misguided attempt to restore a false cultural identity. At worst it is just another example of man's desire to force others to serve his interests.

edit- not a rebuttal of any kind, Steve, just an extension of the argument from my perspective.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I was not aware that any "native" Americans claimed to not own anything, especially not the Apaches. They routinely took ownership of other people and their lands, and were regarded as being amongst the most savage and heartless of tribes, even amongst native americans. Certainly, there were more peaceful tribes, but they loathed tribes like the Apaches. They were stone-age people who lived a brutish exsistence full of inter-tribal warfare and that is all there is to the story. If they had develeloped metalworking and gunpowder and sailed to Europe in the 8th century, there is no reason to believe that we would have recieved any greater degree of mercy. That's just how things were back then. The myth of the noble savage is just that, a myth.

That is not to say that I approve of the way that the native Americans were treated. In truth, I find their treatment deploreable, even to this day, but they are note and were never the peaceful, earth-loving, harmonious people that popular culture tends to portray them as being.
It is one thing to use every part of the buffalo because you revere its' spirit and have a bond with nature, it is quite another to revere the buffalo and use every part of it because you are a starving and primitive person who doesn't know where his next meal is coming from.

At best, this lawsuit is a misguided attempt to restore a false cultural identity. At worst it is just another example of man's desire to force others to serve his interests.

edit- not a rebuttal of any kind, Steve, just an extension of the argument from my perspective.

The issue of restoration of the indigenous lands in the area of present day US is very much alive. Many native tribes live in conditions resembling those of the third world. The most downtrodden of all US minorities, the 'Indian wars' have never really ended and the wholesale genocide of natives is still continuing to this day and will continue into the future.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

The issue of restoration of the indigenous lands in the area of present day US is very much alive. Many native tribes live in conditions resembling those of the third world. The most downtrodden of all US minorities, the 'Indian wars' have never really ended and the wholesale genocide of natives is still continuing to this day and will continue into the future.

I suppose a case could be made for the idea that the U.S. is assimilating or absorbing native American culture, that is what we do with every culture, but that's a far cry from genocide. It isn't as if we systematically execute native Americans, you know.

As for their third-world living conditions, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Many tribes do live in deploreable conditions, and that is because they have spent more than a century being "cared for" by the state. The government tried to place them in a nice little isolationist bubble and give them money, but the rest of the world advanced while they did not. In that way their plight is remarkably similar to that of most citizens of centralist nations. Ironically enough, some tribes have been granted special exemptions from state and federal laws/taxes because they applied for release from certain BIA criterion and regularly piss everyone else off with their prosperity.

Don't confuse genocide with state-sponsored failure, and don't confuse Americans with their government. Many of us distrust, fear or even hate the state, and we have relatively little say in how it is run today. Ours is supposed to be a nation of individuals and a land of freedom and opportunity, and under those criterion the natives should never have been afforded any kind of special treatment, only acceptance, and they would have prospered as the rest have.
Part of the reason we so despise the state is because of the inadvertent harm it does when it tries to protect minorities, to say nothing of the chance that it might overtly act to promote one group over another.

In any case, you are correct in your assertion that Native American culture is under a siege which it cannot endure much longer. As long as the state insists on "protecting" it, it will grow weaker and more isolated until it vanishes completely.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I suppose a case could be made for the idea that the U.S. is assimilating or absorbing native American culture, that is what we do with every culture, but that's a far cry from genocide. It isn't as if we systematically execute native Americans, you know.

Not in the present, but in the past there has been the effort of mass executions indeed.

However, the definition of genocide according to the UN Anti Genocide Convention goes beyond mass executioning a people, and also mentions the systematic effort to destroy a culture, or to make it's survivability and it's handing over to the next generation impossible.

[CaptainHaplo]

The issue is that there has not been efforts to destroy American Indian culture. On the contrary, the government has put restrictions on all kinds of things that would "harm" AI cultural identity.

The RESULTS are a breakdown in the culture - I agree. But it cannot be genocide when the efforts have been aimed with good faith to preserve the culture.

Like most "liberal" thoughts - its the intentions that matter, not the true outcome, as some of my friends have argued. The reality is that government trying to be the nanny has caused the stagnation of some AI cultures, yet others flourish because they chose to NOT survive off the government nipple. The fact that they are able to make that choice, and thus prosper, along with their culture, is a testament to a lack of "systematic effort" to eradicate them or the AI culture itself.

If you doubt it, do some checking on the Carolina Cherokee tribes as they exist today. When a society can give 80k to every 18 year old (usually for college) - out of the prosperity of the TRIBE - without it coming from the US government - they can't be considered to be ruled, repressed and ultimately "culturally destroyed".

[Skybird]

Ah yes, I think we can meet on that. My reply to Lance was a principal one about the definition of genocide anyway. However, in the past, the time of the wild west, there have been policies and actions that would qualify for a description of genocide, and there have been massacres committed during punishing army actions as well.

I do know about Indian culture today only what occasionally is in the media over here, and that gives the impression that the situation is not uniform with all tribes and communities there are today, some have integrated themselves and chuckle about white tourists thinking of them a "Black Biber" and "Great Elk", others managed to revive their cultural heritage while still living in the white man'S world (increasingly becoming a less white man's world anyway) and they manage to bring both together, and finally there are those who are bad off for whatever a reason and saw their tribal culture falling apart. So I assume it depends very much on where you look and what tribal community you are dealing with. and finally, to some degree, it also depends on the individual person.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I suppose a case could be made for the idea that the U.S. is assimilating or absorbing native American culture, that is what we do with every culture, but that's a far cry from genocide. It isn't as if we systematically execute native Americans, you know.

That is what has happened. Comparing the numbers and inhabited areas there has been a marked diminishing. Geographically areas controlled by the indigineous people have pretty much vanished.

As for their third-world living conditions, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Many tribes do live in deploreable conditions, and that is because they have spent more than a century being "cared for" by the state. The government tried to place them in a nice little isolationist bubble

Oh yea by stealing their lands. Some bubble.

and give them money, but the rest of the world advanced while they did not.

Things would change if they got their lands back.

In that way their plight is remarkably similar to that of most citizens of centralist nations. Ironically enough, some tribes have been granted special exemptions from state and federal laws/taxes because they applied for release from certain BIA criterion and regularly piss everyone else off with their prosperity.

Not everyone has accepted blood money from the US government. It's also important to notice that not all who claim indigineous heritance really have some or any, some are claiming it purely to influence the politics of the tribes from the outside. Has happened and is not at all difficult to do.

Don't confuse genocide with state-sponsored failure, and don't confuse Americans with their government. Many of us distrust, fear ...

Well I don't really care what the Americans think of their state. I kinda do care about where the Americans are. You know, physically. Where they reside on this planet. And what they do where they are. That's what I care about and that's what the American's should care about too.

You were kinda repeating yourself there so I edited the end.