NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/discrimi/5698

Text File | 1993-01-27 | 3.8 KB | 65 lines

Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!agoyo1
From: [e-mail] (Acee Agoyo)
Subject: Re: History (was Re: alt.discrimination = alt.caucasian whining)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (yugnikufesin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: yog-soggoth.mit.edu
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:30:16 GMT
Lines: 52

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Seth Breidbart) writes:
|> My point isn't that the Europeans didn't "steal" the land; rather,
|> that the people they "stole" it from were equally thieves and had no
|> better claim to it than the descendants and successors of those
|> Europeans do now.
Besides the fact that many tribes (especially in the Southwest--Hopi, Zuni,
Pueblo) weren't engaged in land takeovers, your statement lacks
understanding of the religious and historical factors affecting land use and
land claims.  You are right in saying that there were land takeovers, such
as the Navajo claim to much of the land previously occupied by the Hopi in
northern Arizona.  However, you are wrong in saying that all land was stolen
from other tribes.  Many of the tribes were the first to occupy certain
geograhpical areas and archealogical evidence proves the veracity of such a
statement.  And you also neglected the fact that many tribes were relocated
by the US government, which makes their current location very foreign to them.
Such an example includes the Cherokee, who were moved from the Southern US
to the Midwest, mostly Oklahoma, which got its name because of the forced
movements of Native American tribes; okla homa means "red land."

|> I see.  You wish to group all the Native Americans as one single
|> group.  They tended to group themselves by tribes.  If all land had to
|> be returned to its original inhabitants (aside from the fact that
|> almost no country on Earth would continue to exist; for instance,
|> there were Whites in Japan before the Orientals moved in) then the
|> tribes that the Europeans kicked out wouldn't own that land anyway.
I see.  You wish to make statements which can only come out of ignorance.
Please tell me how it is possible for me, as a Native American, from San
Juan/Cochiti/Santo Domingo, New Mexico, can see all "Native Americans" as
one group.  You seem to know much more about myself than I do.  Unless
you can tell me how I am able to see Cochiti and Santo Domingo--Keres-
speaking pueblos and San Juan--Tewa-speaking as one whole group, your
ignorance and lack of understanding remains.  Either you can read my mind
or you are wrong.  Please tell me!  (or you probably already know)

And it is possible to return land to its original inhabitants.  Such an
example is the Navajo-Hopi case.  The Navajo did not enter the southwest
until much later than the Hopi (as well as other pueblo people) and
took land and were given land by the US government which belonged to
the Hopi tribe.  No one has said, the US government was going to return
land to its original inhabitants either--the gov't has broken just about
every treaty it has made with Indian tribes.  The day the US gov't honors
all its treaties is the day I can read minds.  The concept of reconciliation
and truthfulness seems an odd concept the US govt.

Like I stated earlier in my first reply:  please read some history before
you make statements about a subject of which you seem to have no direct
knowledge.  Of course, you could be an expert archaeologist/anthropologist
or a US-Indian treaty relations expert.  But until you provide
exact facts, your statements will be based on ignorance.

Acee Agoyo
[e-mail]