And you're brushing off all the conflict that Native Americans brought to bear against white settlers (do read some accounts of Apache or Comanche raids some time), and the concessions given to Native Americans after they were conquered (namely their own sovereign nations and plenty of carveouts to hunting and other laws so they can continue to practice their culture unhindered).
They "weren't even given citizenship" because they were considered citizens of their own sovereign nations, not because the US gov't were acting maliciously. For this reason they also weren't required to register for Selective Service to be drafted into WWI (despite this, many non-citizens waived their exemption and registered anyway - maybe they didn't hate the country as much as some might suppose).
I don't know what you expect the US gov't to do when attempts at peaceful coexistence between white settlers and the natives tribes failed. Run away as far as the Apache would chase them (to the Atlantic)? No, they went to war as needed, and even allied with other tribes in doing so.
> And you're brushing off all the conflict that Native Americans brought to bear against white settlers
Given that you're the first person to bring this up, accusing your parent for "brushing this off" is not coming across as an attempt to have a good faith conversation.
> and the concessions given to Native Americans after they were conquered (namely their own sovereign nations and plenty of carveouts to hunting and other laws so they can continue to practice their culture unhindered).
The US often didn't honor the terms of these concessions.
The parent painted a picture of a one-sided, contemplative genocide when it was far from it. Neither was it a conflict uniquely faced by the United States - read up on the history of Mexico and the Apache for instance. If you want a short biopic version just read about Geronimo's life and what he thought about Mexicans.
> The US often didn't honor the terms of these concessions.
I agree, not in all cases. But before we could talk reasonably about this we needed to swing the conversation back from the idea that the US gov't was operating a land-stealing, genociding steamroller (and for apparently no reason at all, no less).
> The parent painted a picture of a one-sided, contemplative genocide when it was far from it.
No he didn't. To put it bluntly, you're reading things that aren't there. We're all welcome to our interpretations of comments, but untentatively asserting your interpretation is a component of "not having a good faith conversation".
> Neither was it a conflict uniquely faced by the United States - read up on the history of Mexico and the Apache for instance.
And why the need to point this out, when the comment you responded to never suggested otherwise? There is, in fact, implicit acceptance of other genocides in the comment.
> But before we could talk reasonably about this we needed to swing the conversation back from the idea that the US gov't was operating a land-stealing, genociding steamroller (and for apparently no reason at all, no less).
Who exactly are you talking about here? The comment in question never implied "apparently no reason at all".
You're arguing against a nonexistent entity. And the point of my responding to you is to get you back to the reality of the thread, not an imaginary conversation that others here cannot see.
Of course he/she did. The entire premise is based on the notion that the nations before the US were somehow just and the US was not, despite the fact that they were all built on just as much violence and conquering.
"It's so obvious I cannot point where the person said it".
> The entire premise is based on the notion that the nations before the US were somehow just and the US was not
The commenter in question both implicitly and explicitly has said that is not the premise.
I can only repeat what I said to the other person:
> You're arguing against a nonexistent entity. And the point of my responding to you is to get you back to the reality of the thread, not an imaginary conversation that others here cannot see.
> the entire premise is based on the notion that the nations before the US were somehow just and the US was not
No, it’s not. It’s based on the premise that massacres and the legislative dispossession of native lands is wrong. I don’t see why this is a controversial stance
> despite the fact that they were all built in just as much violence and conquering
This is a false equivalency. There was never a single group which built a transcontinental empire, killing, displacing, and ultimately forcing assimilation upon all other groups using organized state violence, all in a few hundred years. The tribal violence in some regions on North America just isn’t the same thing and doesn’t justify the genocide. Even if it was the same thing, it still doesn’t justify genocide. Justifying genocide with genocide doesn’t really make much sense to me
Random comment - I assume your username is an attempt at wit, but even I did a double take
Suffice to say it was complicated. I was reading about the tribes that aligned with the Confederacy and the fate of black slaves owned by tribes post-Civil War.
They "weren't even given citizenship" because they were considered citizens of their own sovereign nations, not because the US gov't were acting maliciously. For this reason they also weren't required to register for Selective Service to be drafted into WWI (despite this, many non-citizens waived their exemption and registered anyway - maybe they didn't hate the country as much as some might suppose).
I don't know what you expect the US gov't to do when attempts at peaceful coexistence between white settlers and the natives tribes failed. Run away as far as the Apache would chase them (to the Atlantic)? No, they went to war as needed, and even allied with other tribes in doing so.