Immigration and Native Americans

[Patrick Charlebois]

     I'm certain all of you have heard lots of talk about the European migrant crisis lately from both sides. One of the (sort of) arguments I've heard from people who are in favour of allow thousands of refugees into a country, particularly North America, is that we (not actually "we", people who lived 500 years ago) came here and if we don't want to leave, then it is obvious that we just making different rules for ourselves than we are for others. There are a few flaws with this argument; (1) we are not our ancestors, and (2) the Native Americans were slaughtered in massive numbers because of foreign immigration.

 

     (1) It is accepted that if our parents do something immoral, we are not to blame for that immoral act. We may have had something to do with the act or gave them our support but bar that (which would make us responsible) there is zero responsibility we can take for their actions. The above is even more visibly true for people who lived hundreds of years ago even if we share their DNA. 

 

     (2) I'm sure that you all know how horrible the Europeans were during their massive migration to a different continent. Their was a massive difference in cultures between the Natives and Europeans which lead to very immediate conflict. This conflict contributed to the greatest genocide in human history. I have heard sources saying that 90% of the indigenous population were killed. Though much of this was because of disease, which was aided along by the acts of biological warfare the Europeans committed, there were still thousands killed directly because of massive immigration. 

 

      I think this is something to consider when you see this argument in the future.

 

 

[Daniel1911]

Partick, I think you accurately point out that current day Americans, including but not limited to African Americans, Asians, Hispanics and other "races," (all of whom had ancestors involved in actions taken against Native Americans in that era) cannot be expected to allow a suicidal invasion to occur now because it happened to the prior residents of this geographic area (the current US).   It is worth adding that we do in fact allow 10s of thousands of immigrants into the US per year.  

 

The particular issue with the Syrians is of course a matter of trust - these folks come from a region with well-known animosity toward our country and not without substantial justification.  Thus the question is do we allow people in who may want to destroy us.  I think many prudent minds are having second thoughts about this while the collectivists, including our collectivist-in-chief, are not (or perhaps not having any thoughts beyond the collective).

 

If the Native Americans could live that era over again, if they had any idea what would happen to them, would they do even more to keep the "immigrants" out.  Hell yes, they would. I think there are some strong parallels between their position then and ours now.

[Mister Mister]

the funny thing about that argument, is it seems to imply that the Natives should have kept the immigrant/refugee white people out.

[dsayers]

the funny thing about that argument, is it seems to imply that the Natives should have kept the immigrant/refugee white people out.

Do you not agree with that conclusion? The moment the white immigrants displayed hostility, they were no longer immigrants, but rather invaders. At that point, the Natives should've repelled them if possible.

[Des]

Do you not agree with that conclusion? The moment the white immigrants displayed hostility, they were no longer immigrants, but rather invaders. At that point, the Natives should've repelled them if possible.

I like the "should have", as an exploration of principles for action which is both practical and makes moral sense.

Some of the "should have"s below may have been "did have"s to some extent.

The natives should have had philosophers who told them what is moral, and futurists to predict likely results from the choices within moral behaviour.

Before strangers even show up, natives should have had peaceful parenting, voluntary association within and among clans and nations, should have had good information about which individuals prefer to do evil, and territorially separated the evildoers, chasing them out of their civilized territories.

Natives should have had treaties allocating territory clearly between clans (and within clans, if desired).

When newcomers show up, natives inform them of the territorial boundaries (per treaties), and to the extent that newcomers wish to be on this clan's or that clan's side of a boundary and claim some territory, the natives should have clearly negotiated that and made treaties, with newcomer territory clearly bounded as per treaty.

The natives should have demonstrated to newcomers how territorial disputes are avoided, and if the newcomers were really obtuse about it, they should have chased them into ships to sail away again.

[Snafui]

When preparing a quick lesson for my daughter on why it is called Thanksgiving* I re-read Bradford's history on the Pilgrims and I realized a detail had been missing: They couldn't tell one group of Indians from another.

 

Since the Indians were new to the Pilgrims, they saw the Indians as the "they all look alike" concept--which is normal. Most people have difficulty figuring out the heritage of any given person even when they are common to them let alone when new. So when they came into contact with violent, aggressive Indians and then peaceful, helpful Indians they were quite confused. They didn't understand that there were different tribes.

 

Cherry-picking the history is why you get the two different views of our "ancestors." (Not that I care that much but I find it humorous to point out to people that most of my ancestors came to the U.S. after the Civil War--why should I get the tab? And the one line of heritage that didn't? Cherokee....)

 

*Just in case someone is curious: It was because man's arrogance led to a failed socialist experiment where most died but "God in His wisdom deemed that man should work..." even in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15).

[Mister Mister]

Do you not agree with that conclusion? The moment the white immigrants displayed hostility, they were no longer immigrants, but rather invaders. At that point, the Natives should've repelled them if possible.

  Yes maybe, in general I think it's difficult to apply morality the further back in history you go, but what I'm saying is, the funny thing is, that this is used by people who want to welcome the Syrian refugees.

[ddombrowsky]

I think invoking the long-running (and on going, I might add) destruction of native populations in North America is a very good comparison to the current invasion crisis we see in the U.S.  Any mass migration of peoples with no intention of assimilation is indistinguishable from invasion.  Similar results will also occur.