Wow. Did you know her well?

In all of this I was rather unfair (or at least less than forthcoming) about the Indian nations. True they believed they were stewards of the land and believed everyone had the right to roam where-ever they wanted, but they did in fact enforce bounderies (although under most cases other tribes could pass through unless there was a history of warfare, stealing, etc). However, they never thought they owned the land but rather other nations should stay out of the land of their ancestors (or where-ever they wanted to be for better hunting, fishing, etc). When they enforced those boundaries it was not in a peaceful manner either. The methods used by the Ojibwa to drive out the Iroquois (who were great at marauding the Ojibwa and other nations) were especially violent.


>My grandmother's tribe (or part of it) was brought down to Tennessee/Arkansas because of TB, or so the story goes, so my Mom was from the T-ditches of NE Arkansas.
>
>>Are you from the north? I guess I should ask is your mom from the north? :o)
>>
>>>Right there with you, only it's Lakota for me. My mother's mother was half. The rest of me is Irish/Scots/English/German
>>>
>>>>I see. No, I never meant to imply that I thought it was right or moral or even acceptable. Only that it was customary at that time. I do have a different perspective and one that is not shared by my relatives. I've mentioned this in the past, but I have relatives who live on the reservation. If everyone who took land by force had to return to their native soil, I'd be in a tough place. I am part Ojibwa and could justify living on the reservation and staying here, although I spent time there as a child and that is the LAST place I would live. However, my other ancestors are from Norway, England, and Germany. Where should I go exactly? Or better yet, go ahead and pay the Native Americans back for the injustices done to them and I just may reap the benefits :o)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It isn't. I'm not arguing your statement about the winners get the spoils, that's patently obvious. What I'm picking at (and yes, I'll admit I'm picking the nit) is, what appears to be, your acceptance that this is right. That it happened and has been condoned by history (that the winners wrote) is fact, and I'm not arguing that it didn't happen, but the mere fact that it did happen does not make it right, no matter how loudly the winners proclaim it to be so. It was not right when it happened here, it was not right when it happened anywhere else that Europeans set foot in this world 'civilizing the locals'.