american attitude

The rhetoric that demonizes anti-Latino and anti-Asian immigrants is disturbing not only for what it says, but more so for what it does not say. By portraying immigration to the United States as a matter of desperate individuals seeking opportunities, it completely disregards the aggressive roles that the U.S. government and U.S. corporations have played— through colonialism, imperialist wars and occupations, capital investment and material extraction in Third World countries and through active recruitment of racialized and gendered immigrant labor— in generating out-migration from key sending countries. As Joe Feagin reminds us, “recent immigrants have mostly come from countries that have been substantially influenced by imperialistic efforts by U.S. corporations and by the U.S. government around the globe.” This portrayal of immigration stigmatizes the immigrants as desperate, undeserving, and even threatening, and delinks contemporary immigration from past U.S. corporate, military, or governmental actions abroad.

As I watched this spectacle of border making, I was reminded of my own bordercrossing experience. In 1975, when tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees, including my own family, arrived in the United States, the majority of Americans did not welcome us. A Harris poll taken in May 1975 indicated that more than 50 percent of the American public felt that Southeast Asian refugees should be excluded; only 26 percent favored their entry. Many seemed to share Congressman Burt Talcott’s conclusion that, “Damn it, we have too many Orientals.” Five years later, public opinion toward the refugees had not changed. A 1980 poll of American attitudes in nine cities revealed that nearly half of those surveyed believed that the Southeast Asian refugees should have settled in other Asian countries. This poll also found that more than 77 percent of the respondents would disapprove of the marriage of a Southeast Asian refugee into their family and 65 percent would not be willing to have a refugee as a guest in their home. Anti-Southeast Asian sentiment also took violent turns. Refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in many parts of the United States have been attacked and even killed; and their properties have been vandalized, firebombed, or burned. The antirefugee rhetoric was similar to that directed against Latino immigrants: Southeast Asians were morally, culturally, and economically deficient— an invading multitude, unwanted and undeserving.

- Yen Le Espiritu, “Homes, Borders, and Possibilities,” in Asian American Studies Now (2010) 

4

48% of Republicans say there is a lot of discrimination against Christians 

  • A new survey from independent research organization Public Religion Research Institute has shed some light on Americans’ attitudes toward LGBTQ people, especially whether transgender people should be able to access the restroom that matches their transgender identity.
  • According to the survey, the 53% of Americans oppose laws that ban transgender people from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity. However, broken down by political party, Democrats oppose such bills 65-30 while Republicans favor them 59-36. 
  • Though Republicans favor limiting transgender access to gender-appropriate restrooms, they do favor LGBTQ non-discrimination ordinances, which are heavily favored across the board. 
  • According to the survey, 60% of Republicans and 70% of all Americans favor laws protecting LGBTQ people. 
  • 48% of people who identify as Republicans believe that Christians face a lot of discrimination. More Republicans reported widespread discrimination against Christians than against black Americans, lesbians, gays, immigrants and Muslims. Forty-eight percent of Republicans believed transgender people face a lot of discrimination. Read more (3/10/17 5:12 PM)
Steve and the Sokovia Accords

I keep seeing a lot of posts about how Steve was in the wrong in CACW because while Tony had a plan, Steve didn’t offer any alternative to it, he was just like NOPE. The thing is though, something that immediately struck me when I watched the movie was the timing of everything. Ross and Tony bring Steve and the others the Accords THREE DAYS before they are to be signed. Those Accords were not drafted, approved and supported by 117 countries in a week. This was 100% intentional. This is also very, very common in American politics. When politicians want to pass a bill they don’t want people to look at closely, they schedule votes at weird times or when a large # of people are away from the Hill (Capital Hill). So you get these 11th hour bills that are hundreds of pages long that no one has had a chance to read, ask questions about, or negotiate on about changes. These bills are stuffed with completely unrelated stuff that gets passed as well because the whole thing has to be signed off on/approved. It’s called “pork barreling.” Those are the questions Steve tries to bring up to the group. When he’s like ‘what happens when…?’ And Tony brushes aside his concerns like ‘oh, I’m sure we’ll get to make changes later when everything dies down.’ But Steve is like what are we agreeing to NOW though? And practically as soon as they are given the “generous” 3 day warning, Peggy dies. Steve flies off to London and everything goes to hell. What time is there to propose or discuss an alternative plan??

The timing was 100% intentional to make sure the Avengers would be subject to the Accords as written–no matter what was lurking on the bottom of page 440 in fine print. Steve is 100% right to be suspicious. This is one of the dirty tricks of American politics that Steve would be totally aware of. And sure, maybe there’s a chance that everything was above board, reasonable, and so on, but you would NEVER sign a thing like that w/o actually checking/reading it. that would be foolish. I mean, did we forget that Project Insight was authorized and approved by The World Council? I guarantee you that Steve hasn’t. I absolutely believe that Steve would have been willing to talk everything out, negotiate, listen to everyone’s pov, and really consider everything carefully…but there’s no time given to do that. It’s all last minute, non-negotiable, and shady. Steve is a master tactician, natural leader, and a reasonable, thoughtful person who is a Big Picture thinker. It’s weird that people just assume he rejects the Accords because he’s being childish or something. That’s not Steve Rogers at all. 

I feel a little apprehensive to post this but damn, I’m tired of Poland during WWII being mentioned only in the context of “Hitler invaded it first” (which is not technically accurate anyway).

SO:

  • during WWII, around 6 000 000 Polish people were killed, over 3 000 000 of it were Jewish. The vast majority were civilians. To give you the perspective on those numbers, 35 000 000 people lived in Poland before the war. That means that over 22% of all Polish people were killed in WWII.
  • The first actual report of the scope of Holocaust was conducted by the Polish Underground State. Jan Karski gathered a detailed account of the mass murders that were being committed and presented it to the Allies on the West as early as 1942, asking for help. USA and UK did nothing.
  • (by the way, while giving Jan Karski posthumously the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Barack Obama used the very loaded phrase “Polish concentration camps” - which were, you know Nazi Germany concentration camps where Polish citizens were killed. Not to rag on Obama personally but this goes to show what’s the general American attitude towards this)
  • Speaking of the Polish Underground State - did you know that it was the biggest resistance movement under the Nazi Germany? And it was an actual underground state, with underground cabinet, diplomatic channels, education, judiciary system, the press, etc. There was a branch called “Żegota” that provided help for Jewish people in gettos and accomodated their hiding on the “Aryan side”. (You should consider that in Poland only the punishment for helping Jewish people was death).
  • Don’t forget too that Hitler first offered Poland a deal and the Polish response was “We in Poland don’t know the notion of peace at any cost. There is only one thing in the lives of people, nations and states which is priceless: that thing is honor”.
  • (that probably wasn’t very smart but you have to admit it’s pretty badass)
  • Subsequently, both Nazi Germany and USSR invaded Poland while France and Britain (who formally “declared war” on Germany) did nothing.
  • Also don’t forget that Polish Underground State was forced to work with Stalin even though USSR invaded Poland and committed terrible war crimes. For our troubles, we got sold to the Soviets after WWII. By the way, NKWD (secret police) was actively arresting Polish freedom fighters and Jewish people even BEFORE the war was done (sometimes those “freed” from the concertration camps were transferred directly to the Soviet prisons). USA knew about this.

There’s more but I wrote this off the top of my head and I’m tired.

American followers, be aware of this.

with whiteness, europe becomes this imaginary white state that must be protected from imaginary crusading monoliths of destruction, which are actually migrant workers, hungry people, refugees from war, and so on. and the united states becomes the white banker and warlord to european civilization with an american attitude. it’s all fucked and should be destroyed with extreme prejudice.

*50/100 days of productivity*

 7.3.16//  Goodbye Huck Finn, Welcome Modernism
- currently working on F.S. Fitzgerald “the great Gatsby” -
 Next stop in the “waste land”, afternoon tea with Sir T.S.Eliot ( desperately faking British origins)

Confronting Anti-Black Racism in The Arab World (Important Read)


In response to an essay I wrote recently regarding the “essential blackness” of the Palestinian struggle, I received this reaction, among others: “What about Arab anti-black racism? Or the Arab slave trade?”

The Arab slave trade is a fact of history and anti-black racism is a fact of current reality, a shameful thing that must be confronted in Arab societies. Though I claim no expertise on the subject, I think that applying notions of racism as it exists in the US will preclude a real understanding of the subject in the Arab world.

I spent much of much of my youth in the Arab world and I do not recall having a race consciousness until I came to the United States at the age of 13. My knowledge of Arab anti-black racism comes predominantly from Arab Americans. Like other immigrant communities, they adopt the prevailing racist sentiments of the power structure in the US, which decidedly holds African-Americans in contempt.

This attitude is also becoming more prevalent in Arab countries for various reasons, but mostly because Arab governments, particularly those that import foreign labour from Africa and Southeast Asia, have failed to implement or enforce anti-discrimination and anti-exploitation laws.

In many Arab nations, including Kuwait where I was born, workers are lured into menial jobs where their passports are confiscated upon arrival and they are forced into humiliating and often inhuman working conditions. They have little to no protection under the law and are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, including extraordinarily long working hours, withholding of salaries, sexual, mental, and physical abuse, and denial of travel.

The recent case of Alem Dechesa brought to light the horrors faced by migrant workers in Lebanon. Dechesa, a domestic worker from Ethiopia, committed suicide after suffering terrible mental and physical abuse at the hands of her Lebanese employers, whose savage beating of her in front of the Ethiopian Consulate went viral last year.

Defining beauty

An extension to Arab anti-black racism is an aspiration to all that our former - and current - colonisers possess. Individuals aspire to what is powerful and rich, and the images of that power and wealth have light skin, straight hair, small noses, ruddy cheeks and tall, skinny bodies. That image rejects melanin-rich skin, coiled hair, broad or pointy noses, short stature, broad hips and big legs. So we, too, reject these features, despising them in others and in ourselves as symbols of inferiority, laziness, and poverty. That’s why the anglicising industries of skin bleaching and hair straightening are so profitable.

And yet, when Palestine went to the UN for recognition of statehood, the vast majority of nations who voted yes were southern nations. The same is true when Palestine asked for admission to UNESCO. In fact, when the US cut off funding to UNESCO in response to its members’ democratic vote to admit Palestine, it was the African nation of Gabon that immediately stepped up with a $2m donation to UNESCO to help offset the loss of income.

It was not Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or Qatar, or Lebanon, or Sweden, or France. It was Gabon. How many Palestinians know that, much less expressed gratitude for it?

So concerned are Palestinians with what the European Union and the United States think of us. So engrossed are we in grovelling for their favour and handouts as they support a system of Jewish supremacy pushing our ancient society into extinction. We dance like clowns any time a European leader spares us a thought. Have we no sense of history? No sense of pride? No comprehension of who is truly standing with us and who is sabotaging us?

In a world order that peddles notions of entire continents or regions as irreducible monoliths, the conversation among Arabs becomes a dichotomous “Arab” versus “African”, ignoring millennia of shared histories ranging from extensive trade and commerce, to the horrors of the Arab slave trade, to the solidarity of African-Arab anti-colonial unity, to the current state of ignorance that does not know history and cannot connect the dots when it comes to national liberation struggles.

Arab slave trade

When I was researching the subject of the Arab slave trade, I came upon a veritable treasure of a website established by The African Holocaust Society, or Mafaa [Swahili for “holocaust”], a non-profit organisation of scholars, artists, filmmakers, academics, and activists dedicated to reclaiming the narratives of African histories, cultures, and identities. Included in this great body of scholarly works is a comprehensive section on the Arab slave trade, as well as the Jewish slave trade, African-Arab relations over the centuries, and more, by Owen Alik Shahadah, an activist, scholar and filmmaker.

Reading this part of our shared history, we can see how a large proportion of Arabs, including those among us who harbour anti-black racism, are the sons and daughters of African women, who were kidnapped from Eastern African nations as sex slaves.

Unlike the European slave trade, the Arab slave trade was not an important feature of Arab economies and it predominantly targeted women, who became members of harems and whose children were full heirs to their father’s names, legacies and fortunes, without regard to their physical features. The enslaved were not bought and sold as chattel the way we understand the slave trade here, but were captured in warfare, or kidnapped outright and hauled across the Sahara.

Race was not a defining line and enslaved peoples were not locked into a single fate, but had opportunity for upward mobility though various means, including bearing children or conversion to Islam. No-one knows the true numbers of how many African women were enslaved by Arabs, but one need only look at ourselves to see the shadows of these African mothers who gave birth to us and lost their African identities.

But while African scholars at the Mafaa Society make important distinctions between the Arab and European slave trades, enslavement of human beings is a horror of incomprehensible proportions by any standard, and that’s what it was in the Arab world as it was - or is - anywhere. There are some who argue that the Arab slave traders were themselves indistinguishable from those whom they enslaved because the word “Arab” had cultural relevance, not racial.

One-way street

This argument goes hand-in-hand with the discredited excuse that Africans themselves were involved in the slave trade, with warring tribes capturing and selling each other. But no matter how you look at it, the slave trade was a one-way street, with Africans always the enslaved victims. I know of no African tribe that kidnapped Europeans and put them in bondage for generations; nor do I know of an African tribe that captured Arab women for centuries and made them sex slaves.

I think humanity has truly never known a holocaust of greater magnitude, savagery, or longevity than that perpetrated against the peoples of Africa. This Mafaa has never been fully acknowledged and certainly never atoned for - not that the wounds or enduring legacies of turning human beings into chattel for centuries can ever be fully comprehended or atoned for. But one must try, because just as we inherit privilege from our ancestors, so do we inherit their sins and the responsibility for those sins.

Gaddafi’s role

The late Colonel Muammar Gaddafi understood this and he used his power and wealth to try to redeem our shared history. He was the first Arab leader to apologise on behalf of Arab peoples to our African brothers and sisters for the Arab slave trade and the Arab role in the European slave trade.

He funnelled money into the African Union and used Libya’s wealth to empower the African continent and promote pan-Africanism. He was a force of reconciliation, socialism, and empowerment for both African and Arab peoples. Gaddafi’s actions threatened to renew African-Arab reconciliation and alliances similar to that which occurred at the height of the Non-Aligned Movement during the presidencies of Jamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana.  

Thus, NATO’s urgency to prevent “massacres” and “slaughter” in Libya was manufactured and sold wholesale. The fear of African-Arab solidarity can be seen in the way the US-backed Libyan insurgency spread rumours that “black African” mercenaries were committing atrocities against Libyans. Gaddafi became an even bigger threat when an agreement was reached with the great anti-imperialist force in South America, Hugo Chavez, to mediate a solution to the uprising in Libya.

Now both of these champions of their people are gone, and the so-called Libyan revolutionaries are executing “black Africans” throughout the country. Gone, too, is NATO’s worry about slaughter in Libya, and another high-functioning Arab nation lies in ruin, waste and civil strife - primed for rampant corporate looting.

I wrote previously that the Palestinian struggle against the erasure of our existence, history and identity was spiritually and politically black in nature. So, too, are other struggles, like that of migrant workers throughout many Arab nations. These are our comrades. They are the wretched, exploited, robbed, and/or, at last, liberated.

I refer to Black as a political term, not necessarily a racial or ethnic descriptor. In the words of Owen Alik Shehadah: “Black People is a construction which articulates a recent social-political reality of people of colour (pigmented people). Black is not a racial family, an ethnic group or a super-ethnic group. Political Blackness is thus not an identity but moreover a social-political consequence of a world which after colonialism and slavery existed in those colour terms. The word "Black” has no historical or cultural association, it was a name born when Africans were broken down into transferable labour units and transported as chattel to the Americas.“

But that word has been reclaimed, redefined, and injected with all the power, love, defiance, and beauty that is Africa. For the rest of us, and without appropriating the word, "black” is a phenomenon of resistance, steadfastness - what we Palestinians call sumud - and the beauty of culture that is reborn out of bondage and oppression.

Right to look the other way

Finally, solidarity from Africans is not equivalent to that which comes from our European comrades, whose governments are responsible for the ongoing erasure of Palestine. African peoples have every reason to look the other way. Ethiopians have every reason to say: “You deserve what you get for the centuries of enslavement and neo-enslavement industry by your Arab neighbours.” African Americans have every reason to say: “Why should I show solidarity with Arabs who come here to treat us like white people do, and sometimes worse?”

Malcolm X once said: “If I was that [anti-American], I’d have a right to be that - after what America has done to us. This government should feel lucky that our people aren’t anti-American.”

We can substitute the word “Arab” for “American” in that sentence and it would be a valid statement. And yet, Africa is right there with us. African American intellectuals are the greatest champions of our struggle in the United States. The impact of solidarity from four particular individuals - Desmond Tutu, Alice Walker, Angela Davis and Cynthia McKinney - can never be overestimated.

Last month, the former South African ambassador to Israel refused a “certificate” from Israel confirming the planting of trees in his name. In his letter, he called Israel a racist, apartheid state and said the gift was an “offence to my dignity and integrity”. He added: “I was not a party to, and never will be, to the planting of ‘18 trees’, in my 'honour’, on expropriated and stolen land.”

I would like my countrymen to think long and hard about this until they truly comprehend the humbling beauty of this solidarity from people who have every reason to be anti-Arab. I wish my countrymen could look through my eyes. They would see that black is profoundly beautiful. They would see that Africa runs through our veins, too. Our enslaved African foremothers deserve to be honoured and loved by their Arab children. And it is for us to redeem their pain with the recognition and atonement long owed.

Arriving at this understanding is a good starting place for reciprocal solidarity with nations and peoples who are standing with us, in heart and in action.

…….

Susan Abulhawa is a Palestinian writer and the author of the international bestselling novel, Mornings in Jenin (Bloomsbury 2010). She is also the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine, an NGO for children.

Follow her on Twitter: @sjabulhawa

Source: Al Jazeera 

______________________________________________________________

The Arabic Slave Trade is something that is rarely spoken about and often goes unheard of. When we speak of the enslavement of Africans, many of us like to connect it with Europeans, which is fine, but we should never forget they were not the only ones. For over 900 years, Africans were enslaved by Arabic slave traders. They would take Africans from all over the continent including West, East, and North Africa forcing them to march thousands of miles to Slave Markets. The Men, Women, and Children were bound together by the waist and neck so that if one died the rest could drag him or her along. These walks became known as the “Death Marches” and an estimated 20 million Africans died on these walks alone. The Arabs believed it was God’s wish to see Africans enslaved and believed they were uncivilized animals. Sound Familiar? Slaves were beaten and abused regularly. Many African Women, young Girls, and Boys would be used as Sex slaves for their owners. Islamic Slave holders would stick their swords and other weapons into the Vagina’s of Black Women and cut off the penis of African Men. This was done because they believed Africans had an uncontrollable sex drive. Many Africans would be forced to convert to Islam believing if they shared the same religion, it would stop the abuse. Muslim slave traders would also promise them Freedom after conversion. This did not stop the abuse nor did it gain them their freedom. In Fact, one can argue it made them even more enslaved. When Europeans entered the slave industry, Muslim Slave traders would use the religion to exploit Islamic Africans to bring them other Africans. These Africans would then be sold to Europeans. Slavery in the holy city of Mecca would not be outlawed until 1966 and in all other Arabic countries until 1990. The Islamic Slave Trade began almost 500 years before the Europeans would come to Africa. It would be a catalyst for the dismantling of the continent and the massive expansion of the Religion. Had it not been for Islam, European Chattel Slavery may never have occurred. History is quite a teacher and once again as the late Dr. John Henrik Clarke once said, “Africa has no friends. If you want a friend, look in the mirror.”

Written by @KingKwajo - Via: SanCopha League

Q: What do you find appalling ?

A: “The American attitude towards women. The whole way they talk about sex. You know: “Lets get some pussy”. Jesus! Pussy is a great word, whenever you mean your cat, but for a woman… no! Not to speak about a woman’s genitals! They can be so stupid. Americans are not real. They fake as if they’re emancipated. An American man can sit and listen to a woman as if she is Einstein… but as soon as she turns around he whispers: “Look at her arse!” The philosophy of American men is: ‘We are prepared to do anything to get a women into our bed, even pretending to treat her as an equal.”

- Michael Hutchence (Playboy, 1993)

Anyway if ya’ll get up in arms about any representation in Japanese media but ignore the same margnialized groups’ struggles in Japan and/or are conveniently absent from supporting Japanese diaspora, you don’t get to call yourself anything but a fetishist.

If, while supposedly fighting homophobia and biphobia in Japanese culture as a westerner, you don’t acknowledge that homophobia and biphobia is engineered by westerners and stay in your goddamn lane, you also get to be a third-wave cultural imperialist (first wave being meiji christian moralists and second wave being anti-traditional american occupation forces).

The attitude that fictional Japanese folks’ rights matter more than rights of actual Japanese folks (both in Japan and abroad) as human beings is disgusting and ya’ll who pull this shit are all terrible allies. Don’t think we don’t see this shit either. Go kick rocks.

anonymous asked:

can you do a post on how each of the founding fathers felt about native americans?

I couldn’t find enough information to make a formal presentation- which I initially tried at first (which it took me to long to answer this- I apologize!) But I typed it up instead. 

Benjamin Franklin, felt sympathy for the Native Americans. He had acquired this first by publishing treaty accounts, then by taking part in treaty councils. On December 14, 1763, fifty-seven vigilantes from Paxton and Donegal, two frontier towns, rode into Conestoga Manor, an Indian settlement, and killed six of twenty Indians living there. Two weeks later, more than 200 “Paxton Men” (as they were now called) invaded Lancaster, where the remaining fourteen Conestoga Indians had been placed in a workhouse for their own protection. Smashing in the workhouse door as the outnumbered local militia looked on, the Paxton Men killed the rest of the Conestoga band, leaving the bodies in a heap within sight of the places where the Anglo-Iroquois alliance had been cemented less than two decades before. Franklin responded to the massacres with the an enraged piece of writing-  A Narrative of the Late Massacres in Lancaster County of a Number of Indians, Friends of this Province, by Persons Unknown. It displayed a degree of entirely humorless anger that Franklin rarely used in his writings. 

“But the Wickedness cannot be Covered, the Guilt will lie on the Whole Land, till Justice is done on the Murderers. THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT WILL CRY TO HEAVEN FOR VENGEANCE!”

Franklin went on to defend the Native Americans who were massacred. Franklin continued to develop his philosophy with abundant references to the Indian societies he had observed so closely during his days as envoy to the Six Nations. Franklin’s writings on Native Americans were remarkably free of ethnocentricism, although he often used words such as “savages,” . Franklin’s cultural relativism was perhaps one of the purest expressions of Enlightenment assumptions that stressed racial equality and the universality of moral sense among peoples. His writing seemed like he admired the simple life that the Native Americans lived.

George Washington’s presidency established much of the basis for the federal Native American policies we have today. Like others who were not Native Americans of this era, he viewed them as a vanishing people, or at least a people who at some time in the near future would cease to exist in the United States. Native Americans were to either die out, migrate, or become totally assimilated. Near the beginning of his first term as President, George Washington declared that a just Indian policy was one of his highest priorities, explaining that,

 "The Government of the United States are determined that their Administration of Indian Affairs shall be directed entirely by the great principles of Justice and humanity.“

Congress proceeded to approve a treaty with seven northern tribes (the Shawnee, Miami, Ottawa, Chippewa, Iroquois, Sauk, and Fox). This agreement, however, lacked meaningful protection of tribal land. Members of the northern tribes believed it was necessary to use force to prevent further incursions. Washington’s sent American military response. In 1790 and 1791, Washington dispatched armies to confront native forces, and in both instances the Americans were defeated. Washington sought to provide safe havens for native tribes while also assimilating them into American society. 

Washington believed that if they failed to at least make an effort to secure Native American land, their chances of convincing Native Americans to transform their hunting culture to one of farming and herding would be undermined. As the two reluctantly came to recognize, however, it was the settlers pouring into the western frontier that controlled the national agenda regarding Native Americans and their land. 

During John Adams’s presidency, in his first annual message to Congress, Adams referred to relationships with the Indians as, “this unpleasant state of things on our western frontier.” Foreign agents, he said, were trying to “alienate the affections of the Indian nations and to excite them to actual hostilities against the United States.”

The same year, the newly formed Tennessee legislature informed Adams that the Cherokee Indians were occupying their territories as “tenants at will,” or at the forbearance of whites. In response, Adams sent a letter to “his beloved chiefs, warriors and children of the Cherokee Nation,” explaining that squatters had gone beyond the boundary established in a 1791 treaty and had protested when the federal government tried to remove them.

In the letter, Adams asked the Cherokee to acknowledge the “sincere friendship of the United States,” but said his “stronger obligations” were to “hear the complaints, and relieve, as far as in my power, the distresses of my white children, citizens of the United States.” The result was the 1798 Treaty of Tellico, in which the Cherokee ceded more of their homelands in eastern Tennessee.

The treaty was the last of four enacted during Adams’ four years in office, from 1797 to 1801. He also oversaw treaties with the Mohawk, Seneca and Oneida, who relinquished all their lands in the state of New York. His first encounter with Native Americans occurred when he was a boy and leaders of the Punkapaug and Neponset tribes called on his father. In a letter penned to a friend, Adams called Natives “blood hounds” who, let loose, could scalp men and butcher women and children. Much like the other founding fathers, Adams held conflicted beliefs about Natives and their role in the nation’s future.

In his inauguration speech, Adams pledged himself to a spirit of “equity and humanity” toward the Indians. He promised to “meliorate their condition by inclining them to be more friendly to us, and our citizens to be more friendly to them.” But Adams also ignored existing treaties and established the Indiana Territory in 1800.

Thomas Jefferson viewed American Indians or Native Americans as subjects of intellectual curiosity or saw them in political terms as enemies in war or partners in peace. Jefferson’s long public career during a time period allowed him to shape the relations between the United States and the various Native American nations.

“I beleive the Indian then to be in body and mind equal to the whiteman,“ 

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. 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.

Thomas Jefferson believed Native American peoples to be a noble race. Nevertheless, Jefferson developed plans for Indian removal to lands West of the Mississippi. Before and during his presidency, Jefferson discussed the need for respect, brotherhood, and trade with the Native Americans. Yet beginning in 1803, Jefferson’s private letters show increasing support for a policy of removal.

Jefferson was fascinated with the Indian culture and language. His home at Monticello was filled with Indian artifacts obtained from the Lewis and Clark expedition. He had compiled a dictionary and assorted grammars of the Indian language. Jefferson refuted these notions in his book, Notes on the State of Virginia, where he defended American Indian and their culture.  Andrew Jackson is often credited with initiating Indian Removal. But Jackson was merely legalizing and implementing a plan laid out by Jefferson in a series of letters that began in 1803, although Jefferson did not implement the plan during his own presidency. Jefferson advocated for the militarization of the Western border, along the Mississippi River. He felt that the best way to accomplish this was to flood the area with a large population of white settlements.

In his first Inaugural Address upon assuming office, James Madison stated that the federal government’s duty was to convert the American Indians by the, “participation of the improvements of which the human mind and manners are susceptible in a civilized state.” Like most American leaders at the time, Madison had a paternalistic and discriminatory attitude toward American Natives. He encouraged American Native men to give up hunting and become farmers and supported the conversion of American Natives to a European way of life. 

Yet for a president who “pushed hard” for expansion, Madison rarely spoke about Indians. Privately, however, Madison was skeptical of the beliefs behind federal Indian policy, which at that time focused on civilization, or transitioning Indians from their “savage” state to agricultural societies. Madison believed that Indians would resist civilization.

The Hamilton-Oneida Academy in Clinton, New York was created with the idea of educating Indian and white children side by side to build cultural understanding. The charter for the academy was granted in 1793. Hamilton was incorporated as a trustee and a namesake of the school soon after. Hamilton had an equally enlightened opinion of Indians even after some of them, in the pay of the British, threatened to attack the home of his father-in-law, Philip Schuyler, in Albany in 1781 while Hamilton’s pregnant wife was living there. The Native Americans and their fellow British raiders were scared off when one of the Schuyler women bluffed that a group of rebel soldiers was on its way (by the way- it was Margarita “Peggy”). 

In spite of their presence in the raiding party, Philip Schuyler negotiated with neighboring tribes to keep them neutral during the war. After the war, when speculators wanted to push Indians out of western New York, Hamilton warned that only friendly relations with the natives would guarantee peace. He also became a trustee of what was later named Hamilton College, a school that accepted Indian students as well as whites.

James Monroe during his presidency recommended that Indians who wanted to own land as individuals should be allowed to do so and should be given a fee simple title to their land. This would, of course, break up the communal land holdings of the tribes and allow lands to be acquired and developed by non-Indians.

In 1824, President James Monroe presented Congress with a plan for “civilizing” Indians by sending them voluntarily west of the Mississippi River.

anotherhistorystudent ha risposto al tuo post “georgeorwell: anulloamato: seekerofpatterns: corpidicarta: …”

I understand Europeans bloggers want to have their post to discuss what I think is a very important issue, and while I do not agree with this American attitude of “but what about me?” displayed by some users, I still find that some European bloggers are too quick to be dismissive of the issue raised.

the thing is that… ugh… how do I explain it, I think that this conversation has been had badly until now because while on one side we might be too much like UGH RACE IS A BAD TERM, on the other if you don’t like it or you don’t want to use it you get as a reaction eight times on ten ‘if you don’t want to talk about it then you’re racist TM or ignoring the problem’, when to most of us… like, I can’t use it because if I do I feel like I’m talking like a fascist, so we don’t use it out of cultural background, not because we deny that racism exists. like the thing is that in the US not talking about **race** makes you racist (or at least blind to racism-related issues), here using it when you talk about racism is the best way to make sure any non-racist friends you don’t know stop talking to you. And whenever someone tries to explain it and says that they’re still talking about the issue just in different terms you 90% of the times you get ‘yes but in the US/in the English language it’s fine so it should be fine for you too’ and…. no? It’s not? Admittedly this whole drama has been brought up again by people sending me asks using it in a way that’s really… nazi-like sounding and I’m just like please don’t use it when talking to me anymore, but the thing is also that if I’m answering questions about discrimination in Europe I can’t literally use it because current discourse on that kind is based on the fact that the word just isn’t used anymore and it’s basically banned, so… I can’t talk to anyone about **race relations** in Europe because we don’t have race relations anymore, we have… discrimination-related relations and discrimination is based on other things. So like… if someone asks me if the Italian xenophobic party sees slavic people as ‘not white’ - as in, another race - when not even them use that distinction at least for ethnically white people (but like, just FASCISTS actually use race rhetoric, even the xenophobic party doesn’t do the DIFFERENT RACES discrimination) how I’m supposed to answer if they’ve given me a context/frame that just doesn’t work?

And like the problem is that when 80% of the discourse is made by americans and 20% by europeans it will always end up with europeans getting mad and possibly overreacting because we feel like we get silenced/ignored every time we’re discussing the issues also in between us and… it’s tiring. But of course most of us understand that in America there’s a whole other way of looking at it.

9

Thank you, Mr. Stewart for being the man that’s brought me joy, tears, and happiness through your films. You’ve inspired me in more ways than one. Thank you for never ceasing to make me laugh in hard times with your all-American charm, attitude, and persona. I’ll never forget how you’ve impacted my life for the better.

Bless you, Jimmy Stewart - you were one of a kind. ❤︎

Happy Birthday James Maitland Stewart
(May 20, 1908 - July 2, 1997)

“I think one day you’ll find that you’re the hero you’ve been looking for.”
-James Stewart