smac97 Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 Here: Quote Why Native Americans struggle to make their stories and traditions fit with the Book of Mormon They’re raising their voices about problems that extend beyond scriptural verses about Lamanites, curses and dark skin to cultural issues. By Peggy Fletcher Stack | July 2, 2021, 6:00 a.m. The Declaration of Independence, the eloquent and iconic document which has been celebrated by Americans on July Fourth for 245 years, famously declares that “all men are created equal.” Everyone except for Native Americans, whom the Founding Fathers condemn in the declaration as “merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” This does not seem like a fair characterization. Presentism abounds, for one. Lack of context also. The above risible reference to Native Americans is at the tail end of a litany of accusations against King George regarding his treatment of the colonies: Quote But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only. He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People. He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries. He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance. He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People. He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions. I don't think anyone has said that Jefferson was saying King George was not "created equal." And the bolded comment above is hardly a fair characterization of Jefferson's overall assessment of the Native Americans of the time. See, e.g., here: Quote In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), Thomas Jefferson defended Native American culture and marvelled at how the tribes of Virginia "never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government" due to their "moral sense of right and wrong". He wrote to the Marquis de Chastellux later that year, "I believe the Indian then to be in body and mind equal to the whiteman". Jefferson's desire, as interpreted by Francis Paul Prucha, was for Native Americans to intermix with European Americans and become one people. To achieve that end as president, Jefferson offered U.S. citizenship to some Indian nations and proposed offering them credit to facilitate trade. See also here: Quote When Jefferson spoke in terms of the "civilization" of the Native Americans, he was borrowing from Enlightenment philosophy. The 'Enlightenment' is the term used by both historians and contemporaries to describe the sweeping intellectual changes of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The great scientific revolution of the seventeenth century led to the belief that the same principles of scientific inquiry could be used to understand human behavior, both in the individual and in entire populations. A theory that grew from this was that of "environmentalism," which held that a human's environment - climate and geography, especially - shaped human appearance, culture, and political organization. European naturalists used the theory of "environmentalism" to argue that plants, animals, and the native peoples of America were inferior to that of Europe due to climate and geography. Jefferson refuted these notions in his only book, Notes on the State of Virginia, and defended American Indian culture. He appended to the Notes, the speech of the Mingo chief Logan, who mourned the loss of his family in an attack by a white settler. Jefferson held up "Logan's Lament" as an example of great and powerful oratory, the equal of any European orator, classical or modern. "I believe the Indian then to be in body and mind equal to the whiteman," Jefferson wrote to the Marquis de Chastellux. Only their environment needed to be changed to make them fully American in Jefferson's mind. Even though many American Indians lived in villages and many engaged in agriculture, hunting was often still necessary for subsistence. It was this semi-nomadic way of life that led Jefferson and others to consider Indians as "savages." Jefferson believed that if American Indians were made to adopt European-style agriculture and live in European-style towns and villages, then they would quickly "progress" from "savagery" to "civilization" and eventually be equal, in his mind, to white men. As President, Jefferson would try to make these changes a reality. Jefferson was still a product of his day, and obviously had his blind spots (as we do today). And yet his aspirations for the Native Americans, even if misguided by today's sentiments, were pretty noble: Quote In 1744 Virginia signed a treaty with the Iroquois that granted land on the west side of the Appalachians to Virginia. The Iroquois claimed to have conquered all of the nations of the Ohio Valley, so the Virginians could, in turn, claim land rights to all the Ohio Valley and the area around the Great Lakes. The Indians of the Ohio Valley, particularly the Shawnee and the Miami, did not acknowledge such claims and violently resisted the attempts of Virginians to settle in what is today West Virginia, Kentucky, and western Pennsylvania. In order to reduce the ensuing violence along the frontier, King George III issued a proclamation in 1763 that prohibited any British settlements west of the Appalachians. But as agents employed by the British ministry continued trading with the Ohio Valley Indians, colonists tended to view their conflicts with the Shawnee and Miami Indians coupled with the King's proclamation as a plot to curtail their rights. These issues became imbedded in the Declaration of Independence when Jefferson wrote that the King had "endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions." Jefferson's description of American Indian warriors as "merciless savages" was not atypical of the manner in which many mid-eighteenth-century white Virginians viewed the Native Americans. Yet as Governor of Virginia during the Revolutionary War, Jefferson welcomed a delegation from the Kaskaskia Indians. This followed a campaign in the Ohio Valley of Virginia militia led by George Rogers Clark, older brother of William Clark. There, Clark made alliances with some of the Indian nations, including the Kaskaskia of the Illinois country, and then attacked the British and the Indians allied with them at villages in present-day Illinois and Indiana. This warfare put Virginia's government into direct contact with western Indian nations and precipitated the visit of the Kaskaskia delegation with Virginia's governor. In an exchange of speeches with the leader of the Kaskaskia, a chief of partial French ancestry named Jean Baptiste du Coigne, Jefferson expressed his ambitions for the future of the Anglo-American and Native American relationship. He looked forward to the day when the Indians would adopt white American ways and the two groups would live together in peace. Jefferson's speech prefigured the manner in which he, and most white Americans, would view American Indians in the decades to come. They worried about Indians becoming enemies in times of war, and they sought to keep them at peace through treaties and through a project of "civilization" that would try to make Indian culture resemble that of the Anglo-Americans. Jefferson certainly had his flaws (as do we all), but the Tribune article doesn't seem to be a fair treatment. Back to it: Quote No wonder many members of the nearly 600 federally recognized Native tribes don’t love this holiday. I'm curious how many is in "many." Quote “Like many things, July Fourth is complicated,” said P. Jane Hafen, a Taos Pueblo who lives in Las Vegas. “My uncle is a well-known war hero and survived the Bataan Death March. A number of our family served in the armed forces.” But Hafen, who embraces irony, also has a T-shirt that reads: “merciless Indian savages.” I can sort of understand these resentments (not being Native American, I won't pretend to a full appreciation of their experiences). I can't help but wonder if similar resentments were held by some (many?) of the early Saints, particularly in the years following the expulsions from Missouri and Nauvoo. Fletcher-Stack has the same thought: Quote Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also once had a love/hate relationship with a country that failed to support them. At the same time, Mormons shared the prevailing views of the Euro-American colonists regarding the United States’ first inhabitants — but with their own twist. The faith’s namesake scripture, the Book of Mormon, professes to be a record of two Israelite civilizations living in the New World. One derived from a single family who fled from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and eventually splintered into two groups, known as the Nephites and Lamanites. The book’s title page explicitly says that the scripture is “written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel.” In this volume of scripture, the latter are depicted as dark-skinned, “cursed” and rebellious rivals to the fair-skinned and mostly righteous Nephites. The Lamanites eventually wipe out their enemies. For most of the church’s 191-year history, members were taught that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of American Indians and that the Book of Mormon was a history of this continent’s civilization. ... In 2007, the church changed the Book of Mormon’s introduction to read that Lamanites are “among” the ancestors of Native Peoples. Still, many members continue to assume that Lamanites are synonymous with all Indigenous populations — which leaves many questions for American Indians who are Latter-day Saints. They need to know how the stories and traditions handed down to them fit with what they were taught at church. Now they are speaking out. Interesting stuff. Some key bits: Quote Native Peoples have been “the objects of study, not subjects who exert their own agency, construct their own identities, and internalize their own perspectives of their Mormon experiences,” Hafen and Brenden Rensink, associate director of Brigham Young University’s Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, wrote in their 2019 book, “Essays on American Indian and Mormon History.” Last month, several of the authors in the Hafen-Rensink volume joined their editors for a panel discussion, “New Directions and Questions for American Indian and Mormon Histories,” at a Mormon History Association conference in Park City. In a first for a largely Latter-day Saint academic conference, the history association officially acknowledged — as did every speaker on the panel — that it was meeting on the ancestral lands of the Ute Tribe. And several panelists identified themselves by their tribal association. I've long contemplated the concept of "ancestral lands." Mostly because I am a real estate attorney, such that real property rights and the rules/philosophies governing ownership and use tend to come up quite a bit in my daily practice. Most such manifestations are based on American civil law, but we don't have to go back too far to see some interesting things. For example, earlier this year I was involved in a real estate dispute involving tracts of land in Summit County - where Park City is located, and hence is the "ancestral lands of the Ute Tribe." My case involved land held by a family whose ownership can be traced back to the original land patent whereby the land was conveyed by the government (the territorial government, I believe, as administered by the United States government) into private hands. This land, when sold, will no longer belong to the family, and will instead likely be sold to a corporation for development as either agricultural or residential development. How is it that the U.S. government became situated to grant land patents, to assign ownership of land in Summit County to this family? Well, United States acquired the land from Mexico: Quote The territory was organized by an Organic Act of Congress in 1850, on the same day that the State of California was admitted to the Union and the New Mexico Territory was added for the southern portion of the former Mexican land. The creation of the territory was part of the Compromise of 1850 that sought to preserve the balance of power between slave and free states. With the exception of a small area around the headwaters of the Colorado River in present-day Colorado, the United States had acquired all the land of the territory from Mexico with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. So how does this square with the Trib article's reference to Summit County as "the ancestral lands of the Ute Tribe"? Did the pre-1850 Utes recognize Mexico's sovereignty over the land that is now Summit County, Utah? I don't know. See, e.g., here: Quote There were ancestral Utes in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah by 1300, living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The Ute occupied much of the present state of Colorado by the 1600s. They were followed by the Comanches from the south in the 1700s, and then the Arapaho and Cheyenne from the plains who then dominated the plains of Colorado. The Utes came to inhabit a large area including most of Utah,[10] western and central Colorado, and south into the San Juan River watershed of New Mexico. Some Ute bands stayed near their home domains, while others ranged further away seasonally. Hunting grounds extended further into Utah and Colorado, as well as into Wyoming, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. Winter camps were established along rivers near the present-day cities of Provo and Fort Duchesne in Utah and Pueblo, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs of Colorado. And then there's the whole inter-tribal issue of Utes raiding and selling Paiutes and Goshutes into Mexican slavery, in addition to the Mormon settlement of the land, which was also very disruptive. See, e.g., here: Quote The country that the god Shinob told the Shoshonean Paiutes about was large, encompassing extensive parts of southern Utah, northern Arizona, southern Nevada, and southeastern California. Throughout it, the Paiutes hunted, gathered, and farmed small plots. They organized themselves loosely into bands of several families, each of which controlled a definite territory. There was little or no tribal organization, although several bands or band members might temporarily join together for a certain project. The Paiutes were slow to acquire and effectively use horses. (When they did come into possession of one, they usually killed and ate it.) As a result they became victims of the Utes who raided them on horseback and captured their women and children as slaves, either for themselves or to be sold to the New Mexican Spanish settlements. In the interim between the Escalante expedition and the beginning of commercial traffic on the Spanish Trail, the Spanish began to take a more active role in the slave trade, penetrating deep into Ute country to buy Paiute slaves. The successful establishment of the Spanish Trail that ran directly through the heart of Paiute country made the slave trade an important part of Spanish-Indian relations. In 1843 Thomas J. Farnham wrote of the slaves: Quote These poor creatures are hunted in the spring of the year, when weak and helpless… and when taken, are fattened, carried to Santa Fe and sold as slaves. ... Although the Paiutes partially retreated from the areas the whites had invaded, the aggressiveness of American trappers and explorers who began to enter the area in the 1820s forced the relations between Paiutes and whites to a low point. This was the condition when the Mormons arrived in Utah. The Paiutes experienced the usual displacement from their best hunting and gathering lands. Grazing animals, timbering, and cultivation drastically cut their food supply. One of the first outer settlements established by the Mormons was located at Parowan, well within Paiute territory. By that time, the Paiutes had attained the reputation of being hostile, but the Mormons were able to establish peaceful and secure relations with them because they provided a buffer against Ute and Spanish raids, supplied trade that increased material wealth, and introduced productive fanning methods. The Mormons came from a religious culture that emphasized a special role for Indians (the Lamanites of The Book of Mormon), and the Paiutes were an easily controlled group upon which these beliefs could be practiced. One of the earliest, largest, and most successful Indian missionary efforts was called the Southern Indian Mission established at Fort Harmony, south of Cedar City in 1854. Missionary work, principally by Jacob Hamblin and Howard Egan, kept confrontations from becoming serious. John Wesley Powell records in his journal: Quote This man, Hamblin, speaks their language well, and has a great influence over all the Indians in the region round about. He is a silent, reserved man, and when he speaks, it is in a slow, quiet way, that inspires awe… . When he finishes a measured sentence, the chief repeats it and they all give a solemn grunt…. Then their chief replies [to Powell]: “Your talk is good, and we believe what you say. We believe in Jacob…… When you are hungry, you may have our game. You may gather our sweet fruits….We will show you the springs, and you may drink; the water is good…. We are very poor. Look at our women and children; they are naked. We have no horses; we climb the rocks, and our feet are sore. We live among the rocks, and they yield little food and many thorns. When the cold moons come, our children are hungry. We have not much to give; you must not think us mean…. We love our country; we know not other lands. We hear other lands are better; we do not know. The pines sing, and we are glad. Our children play in the warm sand; we hear them sing, and are glad. The seeds ripen, and we have to eat, and we are glad. We do not want their good lands; we want our rocks, and the great mountains where our fathers lived…28 In addition to converting the Indians to Mormonism, the Mormons also sought to end the New Mexican slave trade. This came about in 1852 through an act of the Utah territorial legislature that substituted indentured servitude for slavery, a system that was in practice limited to Mormons. The slave trade decimated the Paiute population; the Mormon version of servitude continued the process. Although generally treated well, the Paiutes who lived in Mormon houses were torn between two cultures. They rarely married, but those who married whites had children who most often considered themselves whites. Hence, the Paiute population declined further. The diseases which the whites brought with them continued the process of shrinking the Paiute population, and by the 1890s it was difficult to find any survivors at all of a majority of the original Paiute bands. Also here: Quote Ute Chief Walkara,better known as Chief Walker, may have been the Old West’s greatest horse rustler. During one raiding campaign against the California horse ranches in 1840 he and his specially trained light cavalry of Ute warriors stole hundreds of horses (perhaps as many as 3,000), reportedly without losing a man. The Utes then drove the animals back to their homeland in what is now Utah, trading most of the stock to mountain men Thomas “Pegleg” Smith and James Beckwourth for whiskey, weapons and other goods. Walker’s skill at horse raiding in Mexican controlled territory earned him two nicknames: “Hawk of the Mountains” and “Napoléon of the Desert.” But it wasn’t only horses that interested Chief Walker. He and his warriors were also accomplished slave traders. Their captives were generally men, women and children of the neighboring Paiutes and Goshutes, often referred to disparagingly by early white explorers as “digger Indians,” as they dug for roots, seeds and nuts to survive in their harsh environs. ... Pilfering horses from settlements on both ends (New Mexico and California) of the Old Spanish Trail was profitable work. But so was capturing other Indians—occasionally Western Shoshones in northwest Utah Territory but usually their distant cousins the Goshutes, from the Great Basin desert west and south of the Great Salt Lake, and the Paiutes, from around present-day St. George. U.S. Army Captain J.H. Simpson noted in 1859, “The fear of capture causes these people [Goshute] to live generally some distance from water, which they bring to their kaut [camp] in a sort of jug made of willow tightly plaited together and smeared with fir gum.” Captured women and girls from these tribes usually ended up as domestic servants in the households of wealthy Mexican families. The captured men and boys were put to work on farms and ranches or in the mines. Walker and his warriors preferred to whisk off children, who were more tractable and easily trainable as menials by their Hispanic owners. In Santa Fe, Mexican slave traders could sell a teenage girl for $200 and a teenage boy for $150. Walker kept some slaves for menial labor around his camp. Terrified of the Ute raiders and often hungry, Goshutes and Paiutes would sell their own children for old horses, which they would eat. Also here: Quote The Spanish settlement of the American Southwest brought disruption and violence to the Southern Paiutes. Most importantly, the Spanish introduced the violent slave trade to Great Basin Indians. Because the Paiutes did not adopt the horse as a means of transportation, their communities were frequently raided for slaves by neighboring equestrian tribes, New Mexicans, and, eventually, Americans. Slave trafficking of Paiutes increased after the opening of the Old Spanish Trail, a trade route that connected New Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. The demand was highest for children, especially girls. Though the mid-1800s the Southern Paiutes had encountered Euro-American traders, travelers, and trappers, but they had not had to deal with white settlement on their lands. In 1851, however, members of the LDS Church began colonization efforts in the area of southern Utah, and by the end of 1858, Mormons had established eleven settlements in Southern Paiute territory. Initially, the Paiutes welcomed the Mormon presence, as it offered them some protection against raiding Utes, Navajos, and Mexicans. Unfortunately, Mormon settlement also brought sweeping epidemics. In the decade following settlement, some Paiute groups lost more than ninety percent of their population to disease. Eventually, the large number of Mormon settlers also led to competition over Paiute lands and resources. As you can see, this is all a very messy business. Back to the Trib article: Quote While leaders in the Utah-based faith have acknowledged historic prejudice toward Black members (including a priesthood and temple ban, which ended in 1978) they have yet to address the faith’s treatment of Indigenous peoples. “Race means more than Black and white,” she said. “There is marvelous scholarship going on in LDS history regarding [Blacks], as it should be. But there is a vacant hole and a need for reconsideration of Indigenous histories.” I think this is a very good point. I would like to see more scholarship and more attention paid to the history of the Native Americans. Quote Non-Indigenous people can ask some basic questions, Hafen said, “to help decolonize [the story] and assist in understanding Native Peoples.” Such questions might include: On whose ancestral lands do you live? Who are the local Indigenous people? What is their history? Who is telling the story, and why are they telling it? What are individual relations with Mormonism? "On whose ancestral lands do you live" seems like a difficult question to answer. Regarding Summit County, is the answer "Mexico?" Consider the Summit County property I reference above. It was owned by the same family for 150+ years. Does that duration make the property their "ancestral" lands? If not, why not? What about lands that one Native American tribe took, through force, from another Native American tribe? See, e.g., here: Quote You Know Who Else Colonized Land From ‘Indigenous Peoples’? Native Americans The 'settler' argument exacerbates racial tensions by projecting a historical narrative that white persons are always aggressors, never victims. By Casey Chalk | March 5, 2020 Hundreds of years before Christopher Columbus and his three ships arrived in the New World, a Native American civilization conquered neighboring tribes and expanded its political and cultural influence across what is now the central and southern United States. Historians believe its great metropolis and ceremonial complex at Cahokia in present-day Illinois was, in the 12th century, comparable in size to contemporaneous London. The Mississippians, as they are called, were not the only indigenous American people to conquer others’ land — the Aztecs, Incans, Mayans, and Mohawks did much the same, all before Europeans arrived. Washington Post-contributing David Moscrop, however, thinks only white North Americans of European descent should be labeled “settlers.” In a Feb. 27 op-ed, Moscrop argues: Quote To be a settler is to exist in relation to indigenous peoples whose land was stolen and on which settlers now live, work, love and laze about. It’s not just your ancestors. It’s you, here, today. It’s your benefiting from and recreating a system of colonialization through extraction, marginalization, abuse and violence. Moscrop is speaking specifically of an ongoing debate in Canada about the rights of indigenous communities, although his argument implicitly extends to and has been made often about the United States. He cites writer Chelsea Vowel, who explains that “settler colonialism … essentially refers to the deliberate physical occupation of land as a method of asserting ownership over land and resources.” And who are those perpetrating “settler colonialism”? The “non-indigenous peoples living in Canada who form the European-descended sociopolitical majority.” In effect, if you are a person of European descent living in North America, your very existence perpetuates an oppressive system of colonial aggression against indigenous peoples. Indigenous Peoples Were ‘Settlers’ Too Moscrop and Vowel’s “settler” argument has many problems. The first, as I said above, is that the very indigenous peoples who were colonized or displaced by European settlers were themselves responsible for fighting other people groups and settling their land. Indeed, it would be difficult to find examples of any people group on the face of the Earth who have not been responsible for fighting, defeating, and colonizing others. Perhaps some Pacific Islanders who sailed to and settled on uninhabited islands are innocent, although even they often diverged into opposing, warring tribes. The history of humanity has been defined by the movements and wars of various peoples, sometimes light-skinned playing the role of aggressors against dark-skinned, sometimes the reverse, and sometimes dark against dark and light against light. This observation is not intended to downplay or excuse European aggression against indigenous peoples. Rather, we should acknowledge that history has always been defined by people groups moving to escape drought, starvation, poverty, or persecution, and people groups opportunistically taking others’ land or possessions. This is a sad human reality, and one we should seek to mitigate. But acting as if one demographic — namely white, European-descended people — are uniquely guilty of this, while non-white people are not, is both ignorant and prejudicial. Europeans Weren’t Just Looking to ‘Colonize’ Another problem with the settler thesis is that it neglects to account for the varied reasons Europeans came to the New World. Sure, some Europeans came to America looking to get rich or make a name for themselves regardless of the consequences for native peoples or other marginalized groups. But plenty did not. Indeed, many Europeans who came were escaping violence, oppression, and poverty. My Irish ancestors who immigrated to the United States in the 1850s were dying, as some hundreds of thousands did, because of the potato blight and subsequent famine. This crisis was aggravated by Protestant England’s lack of sympathy for poor, “superstitious” Irish Catholics. My ancestors settled in Kansas and lived in sod houses. One of my grandmother’s uncles married a member of a local Indian tribe. Many white Americans have similar family histories, defined by suffering, poverty, and oppression in their lands while they grasped for something better. French Calvinists fled Catholic persecution under Louis XIV. Germans — both Protestants and Catholics — fled political oppression and religious persecution. Italian Catholics fled dire economic straits. Ashkenazi Jews fled czarist religious discrimination across Eastern Europe. Categorizing such people through the superficial lens of “oppressive colonizers” is both ridiculous and insulting. The Settler Argument Collapses on Itself The settler argument also exacerbates racial tensions. It does this first by projecting a historical narrative that white people are always aggressors, never victims. It also pits Americans of white, European descent against everyone else in society. White Americans, regardless of their family histories, are somehow singularly responsible for historical evils perpetrated against indigenous people. Presumably, Moscrop and Vowel are aware that white, European-descended Americans are not the only people now living on land once occupied by indigenous people. Latinos and Asians also inhabit the same lands once traversed by Cherokee, Lakota, and Inuits. Would they not also be guilty of the same settler sins? If a white American is responsible for sins committed against Native Americans simply because he has benefited from historical events entirely outside his control, why not also the son or daughter of recent South Asian or Vietnamese immigrants? Moreover, what of the millions of Latin-Americans trying to escape poverty and violence in Central America by fleeing to the United States and Canada? Should they not also be labeled settlers because they are moving into lands that, according to Moscrop and Vowel’s definition, aren’t technically theirs? These points merit some real attention and discussion. Again, all this is very messy. Anyway, the entire Trib article is worth a read. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac 1
Popular Post Metis_LDS Posted July 2, 2021 Popular Post Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) As a half native I always comforted myself in that Canada was somewhat better in their dealings with the North America Natives. That was a false idea as we know that there are so far nearly a 1000 native children in unmarked graves in residential schools across Canada. Looking white has helped me to see that there is a great hate towards my native brethren. As non native people would talk not knowing I was half native about what a pain those Indians are etc.... So I have to ask my self the question is this hate for natives part of a curse. I have been on reservations in Canada and I am well aware of the problems my brethren have. They have suffered so much, lost so much. Many of the tribes survive to this day. Many tribes are gone forever from the earth. There are many ashes to sit in and plead to the Lord that the hate will stop. Edited July 2, 2021 by Metis_LDS spelling 9
Duncan Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 32 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said: As a half native I always comforted myself in that Canada was somewhat better in their dealings with the North America Natives. That was a false idea as we know that there are so far nearly a 1000 native children in unmarked graves in residential schools across Canada. Looking white has helped me to see that there is a great hate towards my native brethren. As non native people would talk not knowing I was half native about what a pain those Indians are etc.... So I have to ask my self the question is this hate for natives part of a curse. I have been on reservations in Canada and I am well aware of the problems my brethren have. They have suffered so much, lost so much. Many of the tribes survive to this day. Many tribes are gone forever from the earth. There are many ashes to sit in and plead to the Lord that the hate will stop. as a fellow Canadian you have our support! In August we are having a Native Canadian member of the Church talk about her being Native, she's been a member 40 years? There used be a "Lamanite Branch" here but it got absorbed into the other wards for some reason 2
CV75 Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 6 hours ago, smac97 said: Thoughts? "July Fourth" is the trigger phrase du jour. 1
Popular Post Bob Crockett Posted July 2, 2021 Popular Post Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) Apropo of nothing: 1. In a published piece I wrote about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I came across some correspondence from the federal government justifying the removal of Brigham Young as territorial govenor. One of the grounds was that the Church was too deferential to the Native Americans, as to their land, possessions and culture. Indian Agents appointed for the Territory condemned the Church's treatment of the Indians, but not in the way you might expect. No doubt the Church had its conflicts with the natives, but the federal government's and Army's treatment was not enlightened. 2. The Church's entry into the Mexican-controlled valley in 1847 led to some confusion over the Mormons' right to stake out land. After the Mexican War treaty, the U.S. Goverment took the position that all land claims prior to 1847 were invalid. Federal surveyors came out and there was a lot of Mormon hostility. The Stansbury survey documents this, as does Bagley's Blood of the Prophets. Federal surveyors gave no respect for Native claims because, well, their particular philosophy of land ownership was communal. 3. Shortly before the 1847 migration, U.S. war hero President Andrew Jackson disenfranchised the Cherokee nation of their ancestral land claims and forced them from Tennessee (or someplace near that) to reservations in Oklahoma, leading to the Trail of Tears. A despicable act. There have never been reparations for that. The Cherokee were highly sophisticated and had land claims. The federal government had almost zero tolerance for original Native land claims. Edited July 2, 2021 by Bob Crockett 7
CV75 Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 1 hour ago, Metis_LDS said: As a half native I always comforted myself in that Canada was somewhat better in their dealings with the North America Natives. That was a false idea as we know that there are so far nearly a 1000 native children in unmarked graves in residential schools across Canada. Looking white has helped me to see that there is a great hate towards my native brethren. As non native people would talk not knowing I was half native about what a pain those Indians are etc.... So I have to ask my self the question is this hate for natives part of a curse. I have been on reservations in Canada and I am well aware of the problems my brethren have. They have suffered so much, lost so much. Many of the tribes survive to this day. Many tribes are gone forever from the earth. There are many ashes to sit in and plead to the Lord that the hate will stop. I think the promises to the Gentiles, despite their bad behavior, is as merciful and loving as the promise to the remnant of the seed of Joseph (despite their bad behavior). It shows how the light can shine in the darkest of places and bring these two warring together (the principle of the Gathering of Israel). Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is the destruction of native peoples condoned, but it is part of prophecies describing the depravity that results when the light of the Gospel is snuffed out in apostasy, and this is so for for both the remnant and the gentiles. It was in these darkest of conditions that the light of the Restoration began to shine forth, and that in my book is a true miracle. 1
Amulek Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 9 hours ago, smac97 said: Quote No wonder many members of the nearly 600 federally recognized Native tribes don’t love this holiday. I'm curious how many is in "many." Probably about as many who don't love Canada Day (which I honestly didn't know was even a thing until I came across @Calm's thread over in the Social Hall yesterday). Oh, and let's not forget the best thing about our indigenous brothers and sisters w/respect to July 4: fireworks! Seriously, all of the best fireworks are on the res. No federal restrictions + small scale explosives = a good time by all. 1
esodije Posted July 4, 2021 Posted July 4, 2021 I remember reading a translation of one of Osama bin Laden’s videotaped diatribes. He was bemoaning the “reconquista” of Andalusia by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. I thought, “Five hundred years! Give it a rest!” Apparently, however, no land claim ever grows stale that’s asserted by the “right” people. 2
Metis_LDS Posted July 6, 2021 Posted July 6, 2021 (edited) This is from http://www.todayinmormonhistory.com/ Jul 6, 1876 Concerning the Custer Massacre a few days before, the Deseret News editorializes that it is doubtful if possession of the Black Hills country by whites can be justified. If it cannot, "the Indians [rather than Custer's men] must consequently have the sympathy of every just man in the area of the civilized world." Such pro-Indian sentiments contribute to the hostility of the U.S. army and the federal government toward Mormons. Edited July 6, 2021 by Metis_LDS Added date 1
Recommended Posts