We've Met this Bully Before

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-15-2003
We've Met this Bully Before
11
Sat, 06-26-2004 - 6:33am
NiaOnline Presents...



On the Verge:

We've Met This Bully Before



It's impossible not to be disgusted and outraged by the images of Iraqi prisoners forced to simulate sex acts, led around on a leash, handcuffed with underpants over their faces, and otherwise tortured by grinning U.S. military personnel. But frankly, it's also impossible to be surprised.

If I was surprised at anything, it was the insistence by politicians and pundits that they were, to borrow a Bush-administration phrase, shocked and awed that Americans could act in such a manner. Clearly history, congressional inquiries, and reports from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch on abusive conditions endured by U.S. prisoners at home and abroad have had zero impact. For too many of the powerful in this country, the treatment of black and brown people isn't an issue until, as in the photographs from Abu Ghraib, technology makes the truth unavoidable.

I'm not a politician or a pundit; I'm Black in America. I've seen the tapes of the 1991 beating of Rodney King by members of the LAPD. I haven't forgotten the 1997 torture of Abner Louima by members of the NYPD, who forced a broken broomstick up his rectum. I've known enough people who were or are in prison to be clear that the humiliation and abuse of suspects and prisoners is as American as apple pie.

Such treatment, especially of people of color, has been going on in U.S. jails and prisons for as long as those institutions have existed--and before that, during slavery. Sexual abuse and humiliation, rape, beatings, the use of snarling dogs? Sounds familiar, whether you're talking about the maintenance of slavery in the 18th century or the arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of Black people in the 21st. (It should also come as no surprise that at least one of those charged in Iraq is a former prison guard.)

So, too, the leering, almost joyful faces of the army personnel as they pose, sometimes thumbs up, with those they torture should sicken and enrage, but not surprise, us. Take a look at the animated expressions of spectators at the lynching of Black Americans, or the snarling crowds participating in the humiliation of civil rights workers during the 1950s and '60s, or the smug police officers acquitted of brutal acts in recent years.





There are reports that military personnel refer to those brown people detained in Iraq and Afghanistan as "sand niggers." Surely, as African-Americans, we should be in the vanguard of those outraged by what is occurring both overseas and at home. We should then turn our outrage into action and get even by voting (a right for which many of our people were also tortured and killed) President George Bush out of office in November.

Of course, according to the current spin, higher-ups had nothing to do with what occurred. The Bush administration would have us believe that its disregard of the Geneva conventions in treating those it chooses to define as "stateless" hasn't created an atmosphere in which torture can flourish. We are similarly expected to accept that the commander in chief's contempt for virtually every other country as well as the United Nations has not fostered a sense of arrogance, abuse, and impunity that we see reflected on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm not buying it. Just as when that curtain was pulled back on the Wizard of Oz to unmask a scared, imperious bully, I can see that behind the rhetoric of lofty goals and the razzmatazz of military might is a pathologically secretive, mean predator with a frightening thirst for oil and world domination.

What's especially infuriating is when Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and others in this awful administration insist that somehow, when it comes to Americans, actions don't speak louder than words--that what we see isn't really who we are but, rather, a rare glimpse at aberrant individuals. These politicians express dismay at the photographs coming out of Iraq as if they were merely a small inconvenience in pursuit of the greater good. But there is no greater good in the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Forget the double-talk. And actions, as most of us have known since we were children, speak louder than words.

Were you surprised to hear about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel? Do you think the behavior depicted in the photographs represents the actions of a few "bad apples," the policy of our current administration, or our national character? Share your perspective in the comments section below.



--Jill Nelson is the author of Straight, No Chaser: How I Became a Grown-Up Black Woman (Penguin USA; $12.95). Her first novel, Sexual Healing (Agate; $23.95), is on sale now. Nelson's NiaOnline column, On the Verge, appears semimonthly

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-11-2004
Sat, 06-26-2004 - 9:40pm
Ouch. There's a lot of truth in that article. Thank you.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-15-2003
Sun, 06-27-2004 - 8:41am


Ordinary Iraqis killed: 11,500 and not counting:

America and Britain have not only declined to count the number of

civilians killed, but have obstructed any attempts to discover the

total. The Iraqi Health Ministry tried to collect data on deaths

several months ago, but was ordered to stop.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=523991

======================

Charley Reese: Better To Be Children:

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20040517/index.php

We would do better if, instead of being sheep and complacently

accepting the words of politicians as edicts from God, we were like

children who always ask that innocent question, "Why?"

Over and over we hear the statement "The United States cannot afford

to fail in Iraq." Even John Kerry says that.

Well, why? What bad things will happen to the American people if we

told the Iraqis: "We knocked off your dictator. Here's a check for

what's left of the $18 billion to cover the damage we did. Goodbye

and good luck"?

And in the interest of the debate we never had when President George

Bush took us to war under false pretenses (we must disarm Saddam,

remember?), what will happen if we stay? It costs us nearly $5

billion a month, you know. And, more importantly, American lives, day

in and day out, are lost. Perhaps both Kerry and Bush should answer

the younger Kerry's famous question: "How do you order a man to be

the last man to die for a mistake?"

Going to war was a mistake. The answer to that other political

question, "Aren't we better off with Saddam in prison?" is no. The

Iraqi people are — or at least will be if they can ever get us off

their backs. But the American people are worse off. We've lost blood

and treasure and credibility. There is more terrorism, not less,

directed at us and our allies. The Middle East is in turmoil. North

Korea and probably Iran are pursuing nuclear weapons. The budget is

out of whack, and our civil liberties are threatened.

All this was to disarm a man who had already disarmed and was no

threat to us. Incidentally, I haven't heard anyone apologize to the

Iraqis for calling them liars every time they said — truthfully, it

turns out — that they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.

It's true that if we withdraw there might be a civil war. On the

other hand, there might not be. Either way, it's no skin off our

nose. It seems clear to me that it would better for us if the Iraqis

were shooting each other rather than all of them shooting at us,

which is likely to be the outcome of further wearing out our already-

threadbare welcome.

But to suppose that the Iraqis cannot govern themselves unless we set

up their government for them is, of course, racist and patronizing.

Besides, wanting to establish democracy in Iraq is another lie. What

we want is a puppet government that will give us permanent military

bases, not mess with the contracts the occupational government has

already handed out, make peace with Israel and reopen the oil

pipeline to Haifa, Israel.

The Iraqi people are not stupid. Their civilization is lot older than

ours. They know exactly what the game is. That they will go along

with this scheme is another grossly mistaken assumption by the

ideologues in the White House and at the Pentagon.

It's also claimed that if we leave prematurely, Iraq will become a

haven for terrorists. That's not likely. The Sunnis and the Kurds

have no great love for al-Qaida, and al-Qaida hates the Shiites. Once

we exit, I predict that life spans will grow exceedingly short for

any leftover terrorists.

But, the politicians say, we have to establish security. Well, my

grandmother's doily — we've been there a year and have failed

miserably to establish security. What makes the gods on the Potomac

believe that we will suddenly be successful in the future? The fact

is, the Iraqis, if left to themselves, can probably establish

security much more quickly than we ever could. They have had zilch

experience with democracy but lots and lots of experience with

security.

The American people ought to wake up and realize that maintaining a

world empire with the dopes and nerds we have elected is impossible

and can lead only to national ruin. Running our own country is job

enough.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-15-2003
Sun, 06-27-2004 - 9:31am
Women In Uniform

By Gilad Atzmon

May 30th 2004

http://www.gilad.co.uk


Now the Iraqis are truly liberated..... Some of them have been lucky

enough to practice the most advanced forms of western bondage

practice. Those Iraqis could never even dream of the possibility

before the blessed American came and opened their minds. This is what

liberation is all about. Toppling Sadam was just an excuse. From its

very beginning, it was all about introducing the Arab people to the

advance and beauty of American female domination and general S&M.

As matter of fact I am pretty confused and not just because of these

images.

I have seen worse. I do find it pathetic that no one has yet come up

publicly, to confront us all with the obvious fact that, at the

centre of images of torture of Iraqi detainees, we find young females

in uniform. The image of a giggling female soldier pointing at the

pines of naked hooded prisoners is, no doubt, a novelty. In our

western wars, women in uniform always had kept the most precious

position. They were providing the fighting men with care, love, mercy

and calmness. In their white nursing uniforms they were often

described as an instance of sanity and humanity in the midst of a

masculine flesh-mincing machine. Not anymore, under the command of Mr

Donald Rumsfeld, Private Lindy England and her comrade, Specialist

Sabrina Harman are serving as angels of death. Women in the American

army have a new role, they are providing the enemies of America with

sexual humiliation. They are providing all of us with the ultimate

pornographic image of war.

Let's face it, Private England didn't invent the notion of sexual

abuse. Abuse has been here since time began. More than one victorious

army celebrated its triumphant moment raping the defeated nation.

Usually it was women who were the first to pay the price. We all know

about Nazi platoons who brutally raped Soviet women all the way to

Stalingrad. Soviet soldiers were not different when arriving on

German soil. American GIs did it in Nam, Serbs did it in Kosovo.

Apparently war is a horny event. The confrontation with death and

blood leads the active participants towards a vivid and extreme

realisation of the notion of life. More than a few London grannies

would enthusiastically share their hot juicy blitz tales. Apparently,

the engagement with young fireman in action, as well as young off

duty American pilots, turned WW2 Britain into an explosive libidinal

setting. War, as it appears, has some positive erotic connotations.

But yet, `strategic sexual humiliation' is very new to us all.

Moreover, it seems to be a `well orchestrated' new American

doctrine. The Americans have always proved to be innovative in

introducing evil strategies and destructive weapons. If they do

something they do it big. But yet, it is hard to realise how they got

so far this time. Thinking about the subject in military terms leaves

me pretty puzzled. The story of 20th century wars does not provide us

with any sort of historical background relating to tactical sexual

humiliation. I cannot recollect images of naked Soviet soldiers

sexually abused, neither by sporadic female SS officers nor by male

Panzer platoons. We can neither remember any form of such abuse

conducted by any Allied soldiers. True, Jews where stripped of their

clothes before they where pushed into gas chambers but again those

scenes had nothing sexual, erotic or pornographic in them, just a

devastating practice.

No doubt, these new American images are a complete revelation; and

yet no one points out that we might be confronting an unprecedented,

new image. No one points out that it is a female soldier at its very

centre. No one dare say that the notion of femininity might have gone

through a serious metamorphosis. We might confront here a newly

devastating feminine role and yet hardly anyone stops to reflect

about it loudly. This is probably the beauty of political

correctness. Willingly, we are becoming slightly blind; imposing on

ourselves a form of foolishness. It is a cheerfulness that is

coupled with stupidity. This very idiocy is the ultimate condition

of the post colonial western democracy. We would politely blame Blair

and Bush for dragging us into wars; we will democratically protest in

the centres of our big cities; we would raise questions about WMD;

but we will turn a blind eye to the evident fact that the women

around us, the core of our innermost libidinal desires, might change

their spots. Somehow, they appear to be far more cruel than we have

ever pretended to acknowledge.

***

It took more than a while for Women's Groups to generate enough

pressure to persuade orthodox Generals to allow their young sisters

to become combatant soldiers. Those resistant orthodox Generals were

always repeating the same laconic silly argument. A female soldier,

they used to say, would confront some severe risks of sexual abuse

when falling into enemy hands. In fact, they where completely wrong,

it is very much the other way around. It is the male POWs who find

themselves bare, naked, confronting relentless humiliation in the

hands of those young enthusiastic armed ladies who entertain the joy

of power beyond any recognised measure.

Using those orthodox General's arguments, it would make sense to

argue that men should be left out of the battlefield just to save

them from the chance that they would fall in the hands of devoted

female combatants. As it appears, both Private England and Specialist

Harman enjoy the colour of war to the very limit. It might be that

those Women's Groups were right all the way through. Women are far

more qualified for the battlefield. Men tend to complain all the

time, some of them prove to be cowards when asked to kill. It is more

than likely that we should leave wars for women, for sure the food in

the front lines will improve a lot.

***

But the issue is slightly more complicated. Since, one should agree,

that the sudden appearance of sexual humiliation in military life is

a real novelty, we should ask ourselves what really went wrong?

I can think of two possible answers:

1. That American society is going through a severe process of

moral and intellectual regression. Sexual humiliation of Iraqi

detainees is just a single symptom.

2. The introduction and presence of the female combatant in the

firing zone turned the battlefield into a theatre of erotic

domination.


The former is pretty obvious; America is going through a rapid

process of moral and intellectual deterioration. The fact that

America is the last country on earth to back Israel is enough to

prove that something has gone dramatically wrong on the other side

of the Atlantic. But again, leaving the Zionists aside, it is clear

that the war in Iraq is involved with more than one immoral aspect.

Actually, it is pretty impossible to find anything moral about it.

For more than a while we are facing an endless stream of

pornographic images. To start with real-time images of mass

destruction and murder of innocent civilians - and to end with

explicit images of brutal sexual abuse. The Internet is flowing with

images of Iraqi women being raped by American GIs. Many of those

images have now been found to be forged. They were commercially made

just to satisfy the thirsty American market demands. The brutal rape

of a defeated nation is transformed in Bush's America into

hard-on-cash. This is no doubt a new form of a collective

masturbation.

But we do not have to go that far. The genuine photos of abused Iraqi

POWs that where shown repeatedly all over the American media say it

all. While most American commentators appear to express deep disgust,

we have a good reason to suspect their honesty. Dr. Susan Block, the

American sex therapist says in an article about the subject that many

of her clients "will say something to disgust them at first, only to

confess a few sessions later that it really turns them on" (Bush's

POW Porn, Dr. Susan Block , Counterpunch 14.5.04). While Block was

referring in her article solely to Bush, I would suggest we attribute

her diagnosis to the entire, allegedly devastated American media, and

the political world. America is full of contrasts: on the one hand,

an extremely conservative society and deeply sexually oppressed, but

on the other hand, it has the biggest porn industry and by far the

wildest one. In that very sense America, a place conceived on

opposites, these images serves as a snap shot of some very

devastating reality. I would say, a glimpse into the

Lacanian `Real'. A gaze at the reality of brutally deteriorating

society. An explosive image of volatile sexual domination. This

reality is so terrifying and hard to acknowledge, that most of us,

both men and women, cannot even articulate it verbally.

The later option is leading towards even further complications. The

fact that females, when protected with power, expose a completely new

form of sexual domination and abusive practice is rather alerting.

First, we have to ask ourselves whether we were mislead all those

years, assuming that our beloved women are caring and loving. If this

is the case, if women are in fact wild, brutal creatures, we must

believe that the female peaceful image we were so used to was just a

camouflage, or might even be a conspiracy. If women are brutal and

monstrous we must assume that the very attractive image of them, soft

and caring, is a direct outcome of the male patriarchal society. Now

that women are liberated we can see what they really are. While a

confrontation with the odd militant separatist feminist might

support such a wild assumption, being surrounded with men-loving

women makes it hard to take such an option seriously. As a matter

of fact, here I want to declare: women are generally great, we love

them all, in every shape and colour. Also, it appears, I am failing

to produce an argument. True, but then, after seeing Private England

in action I prefer to be on the safe side. The last thing I need is

to have the feminist women coming up against me and cutting off my

testicles in the middle of the night.

Another way around the loophole raised by Private England et al. is

to assume that there is something pretty particular about those

strange women who join the armed forces in the first place. I think

that many would agree that there is something unique about those

women who want to be 'man'. I myself find it bizarre, mainly

because `man' is a pretty vague concept. Most men do not have a clue

what being man means, they simply can't be bothered. All we know

about ourselves is that we like cars and computers. By the time

we know how to entertain women our biology turns against us. From

that stage, more or less, we are just running down the slope. We

usually enjoy the down-hill journey, mainly because our female

counterparts become sexually frustrated. Women are very amusing when

defeated by their desires. By the time our women buy their first pair

of stockings we are too tired to keep our eyes open after ten o'clock

news. It is great fun being in the centre of the desire of the other

without being able to do anything about it. Giving our pathetic

condition, thinking of all those young women who want to be us, is

really ridiculous. I assume that those poor militants, tom boys

probably, hold a rigorous, deloused, picture of what man is all

about. Mistakenly they endorse an awkward vision of man as a brutal

and violent creature while in fact, we are deeply romantic.

As we know, in most cases the impersonated version is far more

extreme than the real McCoy. Those kind of tragic amplified

misinterpretations can easily lead towards an radical strengthening

of evilness. It is typical for marginal political movements to fall

into this very trap. Zionism exceeded, far beyond most political

movements of its time, in its interpretation of the notion of

Nationalism. The result is devastating. A notorious bloodthirsty

nationalistic society entirely occupied with daily murder of

Palestinian civilians. Militant separatist feminists are no different

at all. Like the Zionist they went too far in their demand for rights

and equality. Unlike Zionist they are yet to assassinate their

opponents. When one is stressing the importance of equality, the

image of equality is often replaced with a claim for supremacy and

even an appetite for hegemony.

In general most marginal political movements fail on this very

particular issue. In the long run those opposing tendencies leads

towards a clear intensification of unbearably vulgar behaviour. I

assume that Private England fail right there. She tried to be a man,

but found herself exercising a brutal amplified version of her

original prototype. We must admit that we have never seen a

photographic image of a male soldier standing staring at a naked

hooded woman, ridiculing the shape of her clitoris. It might be the

right time for women to ask whether being man-like is a very clever

choice. But yet, we should give some justice to Private England and

Specialist Harman. We should mention that they were not acting

alone; as a matter of fact they were surrounded by perplexed men,

who very much like these two women tried to pretend to be men. Not

that hard to understand, since it is almost impossible for one to

impersonate oneself. In a social environment, where women are

supposed to be "as man", men tend to forget what "man" ought to be.



***

So now the Iraqis are truly liberated. They all know what America

stands for. But then who is going to liberate the American people?

Who is going to sustain those women who want to be men? Who is going

to save the man who wants to be a man? Private England is probably

sorted, we shouldn't worry about her, for the type of services she

gave in Iraq for free she can make a fortune in down town Manhattan.

In the end of the day America is all about money.


God save America. Because if it is down to the Americans they don't

have much time left.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2004
Mon, 06-28-2004 - 12:36am
I agree with you about the Bush administration, I believe in many ways, including the war against terrorism, they are making a mess of things. I want them out of office too, and I'm voting for Kerry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I must say though that Jill Nelson is known as a bit of an American basher and a liberal-radical from way back. Americans hardly have a monopoly on bad behaviour during wartime.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

We certainly have our flaws as a country but in many ways, many Americans are also generous, decent and civilized people. To stereotype and generalize Americans, or American soliders as thugs and bullies as a matter of course is a bit much.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And I personally don't believe the majority of American soliders are sadistic. That is not excusing any bad behaviour by some of our soliders, but I've known too many decent American military veterans to assume that they are mostly bad people. I don't believe that, nor do I believe everything our government has done overseas is bad. I believe some of our overseas activity was probably justified and necessary.

Many honorable American soliders died fighting brutal Nazi and Communist totalitarianism. Americans also have created the Peace Corp, contributed food giveaways to poor countries, provided disaster relief to poor countries, and there are numerous American based charities that contribute worldwide. America has plenty wrong with it but much right with it as well.

I felt I needed to state this, to put some balance and proportion to this thread.

America, and Americans need to correct our flaws when possible but don't stereotype or generalize us as a bad society. I just don't buy that.

Edited 6/28/2004 12:47 am ET ET by bayareajay

Edited 6/28/2004 12:50 am ET ET by bayareajay

Edited 6/28/2004 12:51 am ET ET by bayareajay


Edited 6/28/2004 12:54 am ET ET by bayareajay

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-15-2003
Mon, 06-28-2004 - 3:08am
Native Americans to demand compensation

By Marty Logan

The Final Call

May 24, 2004


UNITED NATIONS (IPS/GIN) - The policy was to "kill the Indian and

keep the man."

The aim of a boarding school system established by U.S. officials in

the 19th century was to assimilate Native American children into the

dominant White society, speakers told a panel discussion at the UN

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on May 12.

That meant forbidding their languages, clothing, hair styles—their

culture, in fact—using as much violence as was needed, they said.

And now they are demanding restitution on their own terms.

"Under international human rights law, the U.S. is still accountable

for any continuing effects," which include the loss of indigenous

languages and the violence that today permeates many Indian

communities, said Andrea Smith from the University of Michigan at Ann

Arbor.

She and other women have started the Boarding School Healing Project

(BSHP), which has four main goals: heal the schools' victims; educate

people about the attempted genocide of the Native American; document

how that process worked, and build a movement that will demand

compensation from the U.S. government.

The residential school system began with president Ulysses Grant's

1869 "Peace Policy" and continued well into the 20th century, taking

100,000 Native American children from their homes to live and study

in Christian boarding schools.

Students, as young as two years of age, were placed in the schools

until the age of 18, many returning home speaking a different

language (English) than when they left. Many were also physically and

sexually abused.

"Some of my peers committed suicide, some drank themselves to death,

some died violent deaths. They don't know how many were abused, but

one thing we know: the oppressed became the oppressors when they

returned home," said one former student quoted in a short film about

a similar school system established in Canada on the U.S. model.

Among its impacts, the boarding school system in both countries

implanted forms of violence in native communities that still exact a

high cost today, said speakers at the UN.

"Sometimes I have to say I'm sorry to my children, because I have

behaved in the way the missionaries, the education of the residential

schools, made us," said Eulynda Benalli of the Crownpoint Institute

of Technology on the Navajo Nation in the U.S. state of New Mexico.

Among their impacts, the boarding schools replaced traditional

practices performed by women with patriarchal systems, which led to

the "devaluing of native women in our communities," said Ms. Smith.

The chairman of the Permanent Forum told the opening session of the

annual meeting that Indigenous men worldwide must do more to stem

domestic violence and ensure gender equality in their communities.

"Indigenous cultures rely on gender complementarity, a symbiosis that

values both women's and men's business, that affirms both with

respect and balance," added Ole Henrik Magga.

The Permanent Forum, the only full-time UN body devoted to indigenous

issues, meets until May 21, and focuses this year on Indigenous women.

During the two-week session, its 16 members will hear dozens of

submissions on human rights, environment, education, culture,

economic and social development and health, from some 1,500 delegates.

An advisory body only, the forum's recommendations will go to the UN

Economic and Social Council, which will decide which will be

forwarded to September's General Assembly of all UN member states.

While the Boarding School Healing Project is just starting, a group

of indigenous people on Canada's west coast have nearly finished an

eight-year process to help heal their communities.

The native people of Haida Gwaii, officially known as the Queen

Charlotte Islands, have repatriated the remains of more than 400 of

their ancestors who were stolen from their graves for study in the

19th and 20th centuries and then stored in museums throughout North

America and beyond.

The Haida, who number about 4,000 people on their islands off the

coast of British Columbia, taught students to make blankets

and "bentwood" boxes from the cedar trees of their temperate

rainforests for each set of remains, which were then buried in a

special ceremony, the most recent on May 8.

After contact with White settlers, many Haida were sent to

residential schools, while their land, sometimes called the "Canadian

Galapagos" for its unique flora and fauna, was logged and mined

without their permission.

"Germ warfare" nearly wiped out a population that may have reached

30,000 at one point in the past, says Andy Wilson of the Haida

Repatriation Committee. The 1915 census counted just 588 Haida.

Repatriation "was a way to say, `were not taking this any more and

anything that you took from us, we're here to take back.'" Someone

said at the May 8 burial ceremony, talking about the repatriation

committee, that all the respect and honor they showed the ancestors

helped start the healing.

Ms. Smith said the BSHP would discuss how to take the United States

to account for the continuing damage to Indigenous communities caused

by the boarding schools. The options include approaching the school

system as a violation of international human rights or as a legal

wrong, to be put right in a U.S. court.

Unlike in Canada, though, the group will not recommend that

individuals receive compensation from the government. "We want to

approach this from a sovereignty framework, because what has happened

has happened to us as a whole people," Ms. Smith said.


http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1431.shtml

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2004
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 12:56am
And nowadays many of the Indians are getting very rich with casinos and entertainment complexes on their reservations. Everyone in America is scrambling to try and find some Native Indian blood somewhere in their background.

--------------------------------------------------------

That's why the Indians will never recieve reparations. In fact in many states the governments are trying to get Indians to pay higher taxes on their casino and entertainment complex earnings.

-----------------------------------------------------------

You should see some of the Native Indians in my hometown of Minneapolis. The casino Indians drive porsches and live in mansions.

And most of these wealthy casino Indians do next to nothing to help the Indians who are still poor.

------------------------------------------------------------------

If the wealthy Indians don't care about their own people, it is very difficult to get anyone else to care about them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I might also add that most Americans had nothing to do with the killing of Indians, nor did our ancestors. Most of our ancestors were poor peasant and working class immigrants who moved to American cities and towns to find work.

------------------------------------------------

The "make Americans feel guilt about the Indians", that old routine, won't work nowadays.

Nice try though.

Edited 6/29/2004 12:59 am ET ET by bayareajay

Edited 6/29/2004 1:00 am ET ET by bayareajay

Edited 6/29/2004 1:02 am ET ET by bayareajay

Edited 6/29/2004 1:06 am ET ET by bayareajay

Edited 6/29/2004 1:09 am ET ET by bayareajay


Edited 6/29/2004 1:11 am ET ET by bayareajay

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 3:41pm
-- And nowadays many of the Indians are getting very rich with casinos and entertainment complexes on their reservations. Everyone in America is scrambling to try and find some Native Indian blood somewhere in their background.

Only a portion of the Indian tribes are actually making money from casino's. I would not say most.

-- That's why the Indians will never recieve reparations. In fact in many states the governments are trying to get Indians to pay higher taxes on their casino and entertainment complex earnings.

I don't know if they have to pay any taxes as they are on Indian Reservation land. If someone has the legal answer, that would be a big help, but if I am not mistaken, in CT, the money that the state gets from Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods are not from taxes but from money that the tribes have agreed to pay the state for allowing the casino's to be built. Again I am not certain, but I thought that is what I read.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2004
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 10:44pm
Technically you are right, they aren't taxes per se on Indian casino money, the Indians and the state governments have made agreements that amount to taxation. As a result of these agreements, the state governments have agreed not to build casinos of their own near the Indian casinos. It's a carrot/stick approach, you give us some of the gambling loot and we won't "one up" you and build a larger state-run casino twenty miles from your reservation .

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say the majority of Indians are rich off of casinos, but a substantial number are. Also there is a small but growing Indian middle class. Native Americans are in much better shape now, on average, than they were. I doubt they will get reparations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt Blacks will get reparations either. In the case of Blacks, there are simple too many of them in America, they are 12% of the population. The rest of the population I'm sure are not willing to pay higher taxes to hand Blacks reparation money, especially since most of our ancestors were working class immigrants, not slave owners.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Japanese-Americans got some relatively small reparations for the W.W.II internment camps and loss of their property during that peroid, but the Japanese are a very small group in America, just a fraction of one percent. It didn't cost much to give them their small reparations.
Avatar for papparic
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 06-30-2004 - 12:45pm
HAving myself lived, worked and taught on three different native reserves I must say you don't know what you're talking about.

I have never noticed any similar kind of reasoning "If the wealthy Indians don't care about their own people, it is very difficult to get anyone else to care about them." to non-native peoples. In fact, there is a definite tendency amongst the non-native community that people want to hold onto their money, to avoid paying taxes or at least pay a lot less taxes, especially if they are wealthy. Do you ever hear "the rich white people should share their wealth"?

Do some actual research into the subject and you'll find that native peoples, all across North America, have the highest unemployment, poorest education, poorest health care, highest birth mortality rates, poorest dental care...they rank at the bottom on every health issue. The problem is systemic.

Walk into any native cemetery and count the number of child graves.

Your finger of shame is pointing in the wrong direction.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 06-30-2004 - 2:11pm
Well in a way, one can argue that American Indians are getting some form of reparations for not having to pay any taxes on casino income.

Thanks for clearing up the taxation issue. I thought that I remembered it correctly.

Pages