Who's the Illegal Immigrant, Pilgrim? (by Randy Woodley)
There seems to be much concern lately over the people being referred to as "illegal immigrants." Let's define our terms: "Immigrant" - somebody who has come to a country and settled there. "Illegal" - forbidden by law. Concern about illegal immigrants has a familiar ring to us Native Americans. We have been empathizing with those concerns for over half a millennium.
Let's see ...Were the first immigrants to America illegal? By every definition - yes! But perhaps if they had a good reason it makes their trespass less offensive. What of their motives? The stated intent of some of the earliest European settlers in America was first to establish military superiority over the inhabitants and then "civilize" them by assimilating them into their form of government and converting them to a foreign religion. Such was the case in the earliest American colonies: From the First Charter of Virginia, April 10, 1606..."[we] may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government."
And talk about attitude ... they even came expecting us to learn their language. For example, I always thought, if you come to Cherokee country, you should speak Cherokee.
Even though the European immigrants said they were fleeing totalitarianism and searching for economic freedom, they did not all come peaceably or with good intent. Attempted genocide, physical force, coercion, and the imposition of colonial structures in order to establish dominance over Native North Americans became their mode of operation. Even many early American Christians' values were evident to the indigene by the settlers' disregard for human life. This supposed Christian witness was evident in their reactions when they arrived on the eastern part of this continent and found that epidemics had wiped out several nations. Such was the case with William Bradford's infamous statement, "The good hand of God ... favored our beginnings ... sweeping away great multitudes of the natives ... that he might make room for us" (Mann, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, page 56).
The devout Pilgrims did not weep for the lost Wampanoag, Patuxet, and Massachuset civilizations. Instead, one of their leaders, John Winthrop, made a "legal" declaration annulling any native claims to the land. "The Indians," he said, "had not 'subdued' the land, and therefore had only a 'natural' right to it, but not a 'civil right.' A 'natural right' did not have legal standing" (Zinn, A People's History of the United States, page 14).
Early American immigrants, now well established, may have conveniently forgotten that their ancestors did not come as law-abiding citizens, but were intent on making their own laws and disregarding any laws already established by the original Americans. They often justified the taking of innocent lives and the removal of the original inhabitants by their religion. I could go on ... believe me ... I could go on. Suffice it to say, when I look at the track record of the current immigrants compared to the first immigrants, I find much hope for the future of our country.
I also wonder if perhaps the earliest immigrants fear the current ones so much because they somehow understand that, historically, retribution often occurs. There is an old Indian adage that says, "whatever you do, comes back to you." I hope not ...
Instead, I would like to remind us of another old idea: "They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, "All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!" (John 8:7 NLT)
Rev. Randy Woodley is a Keetoowah Cherokee Indian teacher, lecturer, poet, activist, pastor and the author of Living in Color: Embracing God's Passion for Ethnic Diversity (InterVarsity Press). http://www.eagleswingsministry.com/
Add to:
Category: Immigration, Native Americans
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Thank you. The failure of political leaders on both sides of the aisle, for decade after decade, at all government levels, to display any passion for advancing justice and reconciliation with native peoples continues to severely challenge my trust they have thought/lived/observed/prayed on even the most basic level about the fundamental realities of this nation.
I suspect at least some of the native peoples could help move us all to not see ourselves as owners of the land; but rather stewards able to welcome the stranger. Of course native nations did alot of migrating as well, as did Adam &
Eve, Noah, Abraham, Joseph and Jesus.
The legislating and administration of a just immigration/border system must be one of the most fundamental tasks of a Federal government. I am most disturbed at the thinking and values that let the Congress/President off the hook for comprehensive reform.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 26, 2007 11:33 AM
Woodley's anger is entirely understandable: his ancestors controlled a continent until the European settlers came. Their treatment of the natives was inhumane in a lot of cases.
But Woodley misses a lot of issues.
1. Was there anything resembling a "law" that Europeans could be accused of violating? Even allowing for the fact that native tribes did not have written laws, was there even an oral tradition that would have barred setttlement?
2.Native tribes tended to be migratory, it's not entirely clear which tribe would have had sovereignty to bar settlement, especially in the early stages. If anything the migratory nature of Native American settlement itself established an open field for new settlers.
Posted by: Wolverine | November 26, 2007 11:49 AM
This is an interesting view on Illegal Immigration, however misguided it may be.
How could the first settlers be considered illegal. Did the American Indians havea Constitution or even a legal system?
Sure, I've read the history books and I am appalled at the actions of my own ancestors. The 'Trail of Tears' brings tears to my own eyes. But no matter how misguided the original setlers were, it doesn't compare to todays Illegal Immigration problem.
It's not like the Mexican people have 'discovered' the US and are looking to settle here. If they want to settle in the US, we have a system for that. It might not be the best system, but it's our law.
No, the issue is one of security, legality and the need for reform. I don't disagree, that the US immigration policy isn't banged up. It needs some real work. But until it gets fixed, the law must be enforced... not because we're capitalist jerks, but because we live in a different age than the pilgrims and the Native Americans.
Posted by: jefe | November 26, 2007 11:51 AM
Thank you for this excellent post! I love watching the ex post facto justifications for the unconscionable actions put forth by the neo-conservatives. Sorry, but they don't stand up to the facts - one of which is that those who would treat immigrants badly are badly lacking in Christian charity.
Posted by: JamesMartin | November 26, 2007 11:56 AM
(continuing earlier post -- sorry 'bout the technical screwup)
3. Assuming there was some tradition or law that would have barred settlement, the fact was that the Native Americans were, as a practical matter, unable to enforce it. Which is why they lost control of the continent and were forced to eitherassimilate into the new American society or accept relegation to one of several "reservations". Woodley, quite naturally, regrets this state of affairs.
4. Which leads to the obvious question: are we obligated to repeat their failure without regard to the possible consequences for our society?
I'm sure this was not Woodley's intention, but it has to be said that if anything, the experience of the Native Americans gives creedence to the notion that unlimited immigration can be destructive.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 26, 2007 11:56 AM
Randy, with all respect: if you play out your argument to its logical conclusion, then the US should have no immigration laws at all. Your argument seems to be that if the first immigrants were not restricted by law, then immigrants now should not be restricted by law. I don't think that's a tenable position. The relevant point is this: a nation in the 21st century (a nation that, thank God, still welcomes immigrants) must control immigration so that it occurs in an orderly way. Right now, a huge amount of immigration occurs illegally, largely the result of corrupt regimes dumping their problems on the American taxpayer. The sheer size of that illegal immigrant population, and the fact that it is illegal, is causing social problems in this country. Ask anyone who works in a public school, hospital, social service agency in a state impacted by illegal immigrants. I do not fear immigrants. I just want immigration to occur legally and in an orderly way, and to effectively acculturate the immigrants. And I don't want hardworking working class and middle class Americans to foot the bill when the wealthy elites in Mexico and other nations oppress their own countrymen and force them to leave. And please note, I am a Democrat and a person very concerned about social justice. Thanks for listening.
Posted by: Bill | November 26, 2007 12:03 PM
Native tribes tended to be migratory, it's not entirely clear which tribe would have had sovereignty to bar settlement...
I think the concept of national "sovereignty" would have been totally foreign to the Native American cultures.
Commonly, our first error in discussing the Native American is framing the debate according to our own Western cultural norms.
Did the settlers break any written laws? No, because they encountered an oral culture. Both the question and the answer display a Western mindset. Perhaps a better question would be to ask whether any universal moral laws were broken.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 26, 2007 12:07 PM
Sorry, another error.
This sentence should have had the italicized word inserted:
"Commonly, our first error in discussing the Native American experience...
D
Posted by: Don | November 26, 2007 12:09 PM
So jefe, you would have agreed with John Winthrop?
"The devout Pilgrims did not weep for the lost Wampanoag, Patuxet, and Massachuset civilizations. Instead, one of their leaders, John Winthrop, made a "legal" declaration annulling any native claims to the land. "The Indians," he said, "had not 'subdued' the land, and therefore had only a 'natural' right to it, but not a 'civil right.' A 'natural right' did not have legal standing" (Zinn, A People's History of the United States, page 14).
Oh well, what's past is past, right? Or is it?
Maybe the undocumented could make a similar claim. "They had laws but they were all "banged up" and did not work. Besides they did not enforce them for over forty years. Obviously they did not care, so we have a right to be here."
Simple anger and frustration didn't work too well for the Native American's, why do we think it will work for us now?
Anger and frustration at the immigrant alone is not the correct response. Enacting even more severe laws while leaving the immigration system in havoc is not the right response. Forcing Congress to reform those "banged up" laws, and then making sure they are enforced, is.
Perhaps I might think anti immigration people were being honest and could even agree with them in this issue if I ever heard of them pushing their Congressmen and Senators for anything like that. Instead all I hear is fear and hate.
It is not enough to enforce stupid "banged up" laws. It is not justice when we simply enforce "banged up laws". The law needs to be corrected.
Posted by: wayne | November 26, 2007 12:50 PM
Posted by: Wolverine | November 26, 2007 11:49 AM
Good post - one other question is who did Woodley's people displace? I do not believe that they were the first ones here either. Where did they go to battle and with whom to protect their way of live or to have dominion over?
Also - today is Monday and prayers were offered for all our military personnel wherever they are in the world. That peace would come to the Middle East. Let us also pray for the meeting of leaders from the Mideast in Anapolis that they can come to terms on a number of issues.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 26, 2007 1:36 PM
The Pilgrims would have been illegal immigrants if those whose lands they settled had laws against it. Nowadays, this land belongs to the U.S. government, which has obtained control of the land through conquest and purchase. If the author objects to that control, he can declare war and see where that gets him.
Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | November 26, 2007 2:05 PM
The basis for John Locke, and others, who have said that constitutional law was needed to provide for a democracy that didn't self destruct and destroy the participants was that it did not NEED to be written down. Britain does not have a written constitution.
Also government is not a legitimate government without the consent of the governed. Again, another basic precept of democracy. The simple fact the many different tribes fought back shows they did not agree with the American power. I speak as a Lakota, not as a tribe that encountered the first Pilgrims. But even the French that came later and settled with us learned to adapt to our culture and not force theirs. Why couldn't the Pilgrims and others do the same?
As for today immigrants, we do need to fix the laws. We need to fix the laws so that people who work hard are rewarded--whatever their legal standing. These people are wanting to be governed. They usually want citizenship. Let them have it! Or else, everyone else should hop on some boats and go back to Europe. Because in the end, Mexican immigrants, are indigenous people who have the right to travel over an imaginary line that their ancesters never worried about. Only the colonial powers that be have concocted this "illegal" structure.
Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa Livermont | November 26, 2007 2:05 PM
"If the author objects to that control, he can declare war and see where that gets him."
It is comments like this that prove the need for constitutional democracy. Tribes today maintain our independence within the greater framework of American federalism. Nobody wants a freaking war. Instead, as American citizens, it is well within our right to point out errors and flaws and seek ways to right current and past wrongs.
That is the beauty of democracy--whether it is ancient Athens or the Iroqouis confederacy. Government by the governed.
E pluribus unum. "Out of many--one."
Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa Livermont | November 26, 2007 2:11 PM
Multiple many millions in America have no civil or political rights, whether legal immigrant or undocumented.
The administration has ruled that they do not fit within the definition of "person" as stated in the Constitution and therefore the Bill of Rights does not apply.
Legality is completely in the eye of the beholder, especially that of the one who holds power.
Morality, of course, lies somewhere else, but a completely "legalistic" people always find that besides the point. It "depends what "is", is" regardless of political party.
The person who said "start a war and see what it gets you" is referring to his obvious belief that "his side" will be able to make a "might makes right" argument and even, perhaps, via genocide, dispose of the problem of repentance and testitution forever.
Christianity is simply one more power religion, using its figureheads as totems for justification of whatever its adherents wanted to do already.
Posted by: Red Devil's Advocate | November 26, 2007 2:44 PM
Also - today is Monday and prayers were offered for all our military personnel wherever they are in the world. Moderatelad
Let's not forget the innocent Iraqi victims of this war of aggression either. The men, women and innocent children killed by US bombs falling from the air, poisoned by depleted uranium shells or killed by hired mercenaries from the US.
Posted by: JamesMartin | November 26, 2007 2:51 PM
Amen, Bro Randy;
I'm a Europo-American, but it's not mt fault!
It's good to see some of the courts recognizing the prior right of the first nations' people…
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | November 26, 2007 3:00 PM
I asked for this before and no one took up the question. Perhaps you didn't think I was serious but I assure you I am.
Does anyone know of a time in history where immigration was bad for this country. I am sure many could find instances where there were arguments pro and con but with hindsight does any historian view past migrations of people to our country as having been bad?
Posted by: wayne | November 26, 2007 3:22 PM
Wayne, valid question. I think that the current situation involving huge amounts of illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America is bad for this country (as well as for the countries of origin). As noted in my earlier post, that's essentially because the ruling elites in those countries of origin refuse to share power and refuse to clean up their corrupt governments, thus giving desperate people the incentive to immigrate into the US illegally. Bad for the US because working and middle class Americans are largely picking up the tab for the sins of the elites in Mexico and Central America. That's unjust. Bad for Mexico and Central America because those regions continue to export their problems and aren't forced to solve them. I have no problem with legal immigrants from Mexico or Central America. I speak Spanish and my wife and kids have built houses for the poor in Tijuana and Tecate. But I have some sympathy with the late environmentalist Ed Abbey, who (with his typical hyperbole)once said that his solution to illegal immigration was to hand each entering illegal a gun and send them back to their home country.
Posted by: Bill | November 26, 2007 3:35 PM
All immigration is "bad" from the perspective of people who want things to remain just as they are at any particular time. It could be bad from their perspective, too, if they are displaced from employment or have to acommodate to new ways of doing things.
Immigration is "good" from the perspective of those who want to make use of cheaper labor, want additional voters, want to re-unite their families or make a better life for themselves. It's also "good" for politicians who wish to exploit it as an issue for those who are unsettled by the prsence of new settlers. It's good, too, for people who will have an opportunity to share Christ in missions, without having to leave the country to serve. It's good for those who are employed in the legal, prison and border enforcement agencies for whom immigration-related activities provide much-needed employment as manufacturing disappears.
Posted by: Borderline Schizophrenia | November 26, 2007 3:42 PM
I am a high school social studies teacher and currently work in a small private Christian school. I shared the original article with a few of my students, simply to raise an interesting question and the response I received broke my heart and enraged me at the same time: they [Native Americans] get more scholarship opportunities than we [Caucasians] do and they get to have huge casinos - what's the problem? This is apparently enough restitution in their tiny minds to ease any bad feelings. I know my job as a teacher is to help open students up to new and different perspectives, which is why I enjoyed reading the article, but there are days I just want to walk out. Any ideas as to how I can start to break the shell of ignorance on an issue such as this?
Posted by: Jeremy Nelson | November 26, 2007 4:05 PM
Bill
Couldn't much of what you said about Latin American countries also have been said about the English during the Irish immigrations and the potato famine?
Overall, were we as a country hurt by Irish immigration?
Italian?
Norwegian?
Russian?
German?
Chinese?
Don't things usually have to be pretty bad in your home country before people decide to leave in mass numbers?
To my knowledge (which is not great on this, and that is why I asked the question) none of these migrations were done by people who applied for visas. They just came and some stayed. From the recent Manhattan Institute forum those who stayed were often only about 50% of those who came. Could it be that if we allowed for these new immigrants to come and go, half of them would also go back?
It is my understanding that though numbers are greater, this current migration is actually a much smaller one based on the percentage of our overall population.
Why is this one so hard? Or is it harder than those? Are we just doomed to argue about this and every future migratory movement?
Posted by: wayne | November 26, 2007 4:12 PM
Who broke what laws? Did the Native Americans have laws? Many of these questions which are being raised fail to get to the heart of the matter. They basically want to point the finger at someone else, the 'illegal immigrant', the pilgrim, the 'savage' Native American. To solve the current immigration crisis in this country, we need to be honest and ask ourselves what are we doing wrong and how can we change it. No doubt there's plenty of blame to spread around. No doubt corruption on the other side of the border has a role to play in all of this. No doubt people on both sides of the border are getting rich because of the current immigration system. No doubt we can't just have an open border. And yes, our social services and education are going to take a hit (although not as much as some profess). Let's not also forget that we live in an interdependent world, a global economy. Perhaps we need to ask some really difficult questions of ourselves which get to the heart of the current immigration crisis. Who has been benefiting from this global economy? Why do so many immigrants leave their families and risk their lives to walk 3-4 days in the desert to get into the U.S.? They aren't coming here on vacation, and they aren't here to get a free handout. It's time the rank and file in this country stopped listening to sound bites on this topic and started to educate themselves about the current realities of immigration and the world we live in. It is very easy for many of us in this country to live at our current standard of living and not realize how it is affecting others around the world. We fight for and live the 'American Dream.' Broadcast that dream around the world through the media and then make it extremely difficult for others not born in this country to have a chance to work for what we currently have. I have a decent job which supports myself. I can visit my family and friends very easily. I'm not saying we(legal americans)are to blame for everything wrong in the world. What I am saying is that we have a responsibility to love our neighbors. Christ commands us to love our neighbor, and our neighbor is anyone in need, regardless of citizenship. We need to secure our borders AND we need comprehensive immigration reform which addresses the root causes of a system that is in shambles. We need a fair farm bill which supports the needs of the small farmer in this country and doesn't destroy the small foreign farmers who can not compete. The world was given to EVERYONE by God. Just as God commanded the Isrealites to not take more than they needed (a commandment given to the Isrealites in the desert before the 10 commandments), we too must take and use only what we need. Of course, it's always easier to attack and blame someone else than it is to take an honest look at oneself and change.
Posted by: Sean | November 26, 2007 4:34 PM
Jeremy Nelson,
Well first of all tell them that very few American Indians get full ride scholarships and that very few tribes have large casinos. Set them straight on those facts.
Then you might share an article I wrote about actually being an American Indian student in high school and some of the crap I dealt with from other students who didn't know any better.
Praise God that America has teachers like you who care. I'm a political science major in college now, but my government classes in high school were pitiful. If you're looking for resources, I've also put together a list on my blog of American Indian authors (among others) who I feel have contributed greatly to my own knowledge. Another good listing of current news that affects American Indians is Indianz.com.
Thank you for all you do! I'm praising God for teachers like you!
Tasi
thelordslark.blogspot.com
http://media.www.sdsucollegian.com/media/storage/paper484/news/2002/09/24/OpinionEditorial/American.Schools.Have.Failed.At.Teaching.Kids.About.Native.American.Cultures.And-614225.shtml
Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa Livermont | November 26, 2007 4:46 PM
"Of course, the answer you want is yes and no, or more precisely, no and yes (As in: NO, the Europeans were wrong to migrate to America, but YES, we are obligated to accept mass illegal immigration from Mexico now.)"
I believe its worth repeating that these are not two separate issues. The people migrating now are descended from the people that were here before the Pilgrims were and who traveled back and forth way back then. They are not crossing an entire ocean to get here. Usually just a river or bay in some cases. :)
Seriously though. Stop comparing apples with oranges.
Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa Livermont | November 26, 2007 4:50 PM
To Jeremy Nelson and all,
A good way to get to the heart of the matter of immigration is to make it personal. Put a face to the issue of immigration. Watch any of the following movies put out by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Dying to Live: A Migrant's Journey, Strangers No Longer, and The Invisible Chapel. Catholic Relief Services also puts out a free DVD called, The Line in the Sand. Visit the following websites: www.justiceforimmigrants.org, www.crs.org, www.educationforjustice.org (some free pdfs of interactive role-plays you can use with the kids). Another great idea is to have your students experience a 'border crossing' themselves. Visit an organization which serves 'illegal' immigrants. Have them talk with your students and possibly have 'illegal' immigrants talk with them too. One place to check would be an ESL program which does not require 'proper documentation.' Hope this helps.
Posted by: Sean | November 26, 2007 5:01 PM
Wow. I post a coupla comments critical of illegal immigration, and I get called a "racist", a "neo-con," a "hypocrite" and a "reactionary." Sure seems funny to me, since I'm a long-time Democrat, union member and environmentalist who has been a fan of Sojourners and Jim Wallis for many years. I would have expected a more principled type of discourse on this blog. Sheesh.
Posted by: Bill | November 26, 2007 5:01 PM
Quote: I live in limbo, today they call it the border.
just a little comment, we all should not get all worked up and mixed up with our angst.
Quote2: Treat others the way you want to be treated.
a reminder to all, that it is better to treat each other with respect, so we can get there together not beaten up and lost.
^_^
Posted by: kiko | November 26, 2007 5:28 PM
I wanted to post a long post about this topic, but I lost my will, especially after reading other's comments that are much better said than mine.
the short version:
I hope we can all get along and that the US and Mexico can one day reconcile and make things better for both kingdoms ^_^
Things are never simple, huh?
It pains me to see so many people angry with each other just because of differences.
To me mexican people need to better themselves(being mex i dislike the fact that they can't rise up). But in the same breath the American people should not be indifferent to the world. Just because we are the most powerful in the world does not make us God.
*this prob dont make any sense*
I really don't know what to say to all this, I'm so lost. I just hope that we can all get along.
Posted by: kiko | November 26, 2007 5:38 PM
When there were 2,000,000 I called them "undocumented" but at 20,000,000 I now use
"illegal."
In the past six years the population on my, once
peaceful, street has quintupled. Cars and trucks have quadrupled. I was standing outside one
evening this summer when a woman drove by and
stopped to ask "What has happened to this neighborhood? It used to be such a lovely place." Drug dealers now sell openly three
houses down. Drug dealers have bought several
of the homes on the block. There are no affordable apartments anywhere to be found for
ordinary working folks. God only knows what has
become of our own poor. Some of them, of course,
are among the 35,000 homeless in Orange County, Ca.
Although "Mexico should take care of its own"
one never hears it expressed by politicians or
clergy. When illegals get the right to driver's
licenses, all of the fairly good paying truck driving jobs will be held by them - just as all
of the good paying construction jobs were taken over by them.
Watch out indians, you have absolutely no idea
what is coming your Oklahoma way.
Posted by: Lynn | November 26, 2007 5:52 PM
"Just because we are the most powerful in the world does not make us God."
AMEN.
But it does give us this great responsibility for the resources we have. I am convinced that pointing a finger at "illegal" immigrants is not the responsible thing to do.
As for Bill...did anybody cite your name with these words. Nope. And complaining that you are getting picked on when you weren't is indicative of the many people who complain about "illegals" taking jobs and whatever, but who then are glad to pay below-par wages to them. I'm glad you're an environmentalist and whatever else, but unless the shoe fits, so to speak, don't worry about it.
Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa Livermont | November 26, 2007 5:53 PM
My advice to Jeremy Nelson: I agree with the advice to put a human face to the many issues that have evolved since the European immigrants took over occupied land and kicked out the original inhabitants.
Invite Native Americans to come speak to your class about the history of reservations: why they came to exist, who decided what, and how much, land Natives would receive, the quality of the land, whether the land enabled the Native Americans to feed themselves and their families according to their traditions or whether they were forced to become farmers (or other European occupations). Ask them to describe the kind of education that many Native American children have received over the years.
You can assign your students the task of researching the answer to the question: Who/what body has the right to decide who is an Indian?
These kinds of assignments will teach your students a great deal of American history, early presidents (esp. Ulysses Grant), early patterns of settlement of this country, and how these impacted later settlements, the rule of law as it applied to Native Americans, and so on. My hope is that by the time your students have learned about these things, any comments they might make on blogs such as this one will be much more informed than many of the posts I've read here.
Posted by: bren | November 26, 2007 6:50 PM
Thanks to those of you that responded to my disheartened post earlier today. I think I will definitely go the route of bringing in a Native American or two to discuss issues revolving around the treatment of Native Americans and their place in our current culture. I realize this topic is a bit off the well-worn path of the immigration debate, so I am appreciative to those that were able to indulge me for a few moments.
One thing I would like to leave you all with. I teach a government class and we are starting up a mock election project. I gave them a little sermon today that I think is relavent for a blog such as this. "Make sure we are elevating and not grinding." If you have an axe to grind I, and I think most people on the blog, would appreciate not hearing about it. If your comments are intended to elevate the discourse, well, that is the intention of a blog such as this. With some of the sensitive issues that are discussed on this blog it is not surprising that there are strong opinions, but complaining without providing solutions and attacking the character of a person who posts their thoughts does nothing to positively contribute to the discussion. So, are you elevating or grinding?
Posted by: Jeremy Nelson | November 26, 2007 7:13 PM
for Jeremy Nelson,
You might try looking at books by Sherman Alexie, a Native American author from the NW. He has a new book for teens (fiction, I believe), about the Native American experience.
Posted by: Cat | November 26, 2007 8:24 PM
for Jeremy Nelson,
The title of the book is The Absolutely True Story of a Part-Time Indian, by Sherman Alexie, published by Little, Brown. The story is about a teenager who leaves the reservation to attend a mostly white high school, with both positive and negative consequences. It is fiction, but I believe based on Alexie's experiences.
We all have a back story--sometimes we forget that about others when we concentrate so hard on how we are being disadvantaged. It may be frustrating to see this in teens, but much worse in those of us who are older and should know better.
Posted by: Cat | November 26, 2007 8:42 PM
wayne said:
So jefe, you would have agreed with John Winthrop?
My observation was not on the pilgrim's attitude toward the natives.
...It is not justice when we simply enforce "banged up laws". The law needs to be corrected.
I agree that the laws must be changed. I stated that in my original post
Our ancestors acted horribly, true. But if American Christians like yourself are so concerned for the plight of immigrants, wouldn't Christ's commission be more about going TO them to help their situation in their country, instead of waiting for them to get so desperate that they come here?
Wouldn't that be true justice?
Posted by: jefe | November 26, 2007 9:02 PM
"This is apparently enough restitution in their tiny minds to ease any bad feelings. I know my job as a teacher is to help open students up to new and different perspectives, which is why I enjoyed reading the article, but there are days I just want to walk out. Any ideas as to how I can start to break the shell of ignorance on an issue such as this?"
How about simply teaching them history and letting them work it out on their own? Your job is to educate your students, not lead them to this or that political belief. If they believe that scholarships and casinos are ample restitution (and what purpose do they serve, if not restitution?) then they are entitled to that belief, whether it is right or wrong. Not everyone brings the same set of presumptions to the table that you do.
I don't mean that as an attack, and I think bringing in a Indian scholar would be a fine idea. However, a crusade to "break the shell of ignorance" would be both presumptuous and ineffective, in my view. Give them the facts, hold them accountable to learning those facts, and they will weigh their own pre-conceived (or otherwise inculcated) notions against those facts.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 9:12 PM
To Cat:
Thanks for the tip on the book. I will look into it when I get a chance. I think the best time for me to implement a look at the treatment of Native Americans will be in the spring semester. I will be teaching an intro course on sociology and within the term we will do a unit on race and the effects it has had on American society. Thanks again.
Posted by: Jeremy Nelson | November 26, 2007 9:13 PM
"if American Christians like yourself are so concerned for the plight of immigrants, wouldn't Christ's commission be more about going TO them to help their situation in their country, instead of waiting for them to get so desperate that they come here?"
Jefe, I did not have to wait for them to come. they have been coming for the last century.
The only difference now is the number and the jobs that they are obtaining.
When the Samaritan found the man on the road who was in need did he organize a mission to help all the needy people from the beaten man's home town?
I wish things weren't the way they are.
I wish we had paid attention, enforced our laws and changed them to fit the situation better.
I wish a lot of things.
Here is what we can do.
We have the power to help.
We have the duty to treat our fellow man as ourselves.
We have the obligation to force our legislators to change the current immigration system and stop playing politics.
I wish we would do what we can and should do, and forget all this arguing, blaming, fearing, and hating.
Posted by: wayne | November 26, 2007 9:57 PM
Jeremy, Of course, I leave it you to determine the best time to discuss the situation of native Americans in America. However, if I were the teacher I would look at it through two lenses--history and sociology. History, after all, is written by the victor. In the case of the first "immigrants", they saw Natives as being empty of value, with no culture or traditions. The Natives, of course, saw the "immigrants" as rude, crude invaders, who didn't know how to live in the wild until the natives taught them skills.
So, hearing from a young Native American about his/her experience and comparing it to what the youth have been taught is history is one valuable lesson. Looking at it again through the lens of racism in the Sociology course, is another valuable lesson. Since this is clearly new to your students, it doesn't hurt to learn more than one perspective. It's especially valuable to meet someone who is very similar to them in age and interests, but with a much longer history in that which we now call America.
Posted by: bren | November 26, 2007 10:58 PM
wayne said:
I wish a lot of things.
Here is what we can do.
We have the power to help.
We have the duty to treat our fellow man as ourselves.
I agree wholeheartedly. And while the story of the good samaritan has nothing to do with the subject of immigration, I kind-of get your point.
Still, while I agree that we have the power to help, I don't think this is just a government problem. Jesus NEVER called on the government to help in these situations. Jesus NEVER called on the government to do ANYTHING while he was here. He transcended all that.
You're right. We have the duty to treat our fellow man as ourselves. But that paraphrase of the golden rule is not an edict from Christ to the government. It's a command from Christ to the church.
The Katrina disaster is a great example of this. the church was WAY more effective than the FEMA. And I believe we were supposed to have been, as was evidenced by unity in purpose.
Somehow (and I'm not sure exactly how), I think Jesus would have us follow His example in immigration reform as well... not by focusing on policy, but by focusing on people.
I ask myself, "How many immigrants do I personally know?" Only a few that I meet through my work. Can I help them? Probably.
And maybe you're in the same situation. And maybe another reader is as well.
Wouldn't it be a beautiful thing if Christians would quit attempting to influence the government, and just start influencing by example those around us? We could change injustice, abortion, immigration... not through attempts to fix the system. But by transcending the system in a way that would only force the government to follow...
Posted by: jefe | November 26, 2007 11:42 PM
Randy,
I've read your book and it was excellent. I really appreciated the love of all people, not just one race or another, that showed clearly in your writing. So, thank you for expressing your views on the undocumented immigrant situation. Considering many of the Latino migrants have some Native American blood, from further south, there is an interesting connection.
Personally, I would like to see the dysfunctional immigration laws changed, allowing people to acquire work visas and also allowing us to know who is here. With documentation, workers will not be as likely to be "blackmailed" into working for less wages and in poor conditions. As a result, the wages and conditions will improve for everyone.
Plus, to make legal immigration so difficult may actually encourage people to give up on the process. At this time, it takes approximately 15-20 years to receive a visa to live here if you are from Mexico. Changing that situation would definitely encourage people to use legal channels.
As far as bad governments that have caused their poor to migrate, having people protest or rebel is a nice idea, but when the short term goal is to keep their families from starving, I can understand when they throw caution to the wind and look for work where it is available. History shows that our government has had times in the past when we invited migrants to come here to work, and interestingly, the pattern has often been for people to come here to work, and then return to their home country. Due to our recent draconian measures, people who are here are staying put, instead of returning home, and more families are making the extremely dangerous journey to unite with their family member.
There are no simple answers, but to have our politicians use this issue to posture and make political hay, instead of seriously attempting to make workable immigration laws, makes me feel very frustrated with them all.
Posted by: Janible | November 27, 2007 12:28 AM
What happens when you forget your national ID card, it gets stolen or lost, or the bureaucracy crashes Katrina-like and you never get one at all?
You could appeal and get results in a few thousand years of backlogs from whatever hell-hole they put you in along with all the others who won't have any rights at all and no one believes either, if you can afford the lawyer.
Posted by: The Twoi Minutes' Hate | November 27, 2007 4:06 AM
Jefe
It would be nice if we could do as you suggest but we cannot. Let me try to explain.
A woman is being raped, right now, somewhere in my city. She won't tell anybody about it though. She will not call the police and she may not seek medical care. As I write this, a child is being molested in my city. Their mother knows about it but she also will not report it to the authorities. Both of these women have been in this country since they were children themselves. One is a healthy hard working woman who pays her taxes with an IRS TIN number, the other one is slightly retarded and finds work wherever she can. Neither of them knows much about Mexico and have not been there since early childhood. End result, both a rapist and a pedophile are therefore loose in our streets.
There are many reasons these two women will not report these situations but the main one is they are afraid of the police and are sure they will be turned over to ICE and deported if they sought help. Here the police have been known to contact ICE if for any reason they find someone who does not have documentation. The chief of Police says this will not happen but then we turn on our TV news and see examples to prove him wrong. So the women are right to fear the authorities. Neither of them have any real option of going back to Mexico, just the legal imperative that they do so.
Both of these examples are in part hypothetical but I assure you I know real women whose stories are identical to these two examples. In the real women's lives they both have children who are citizens of the US. In one of these real world instances the woman will probably be deported, but her children will stay here. That woman is the one whose children were raped. The reason this happened is that her husband was deported and, being homeless and unable to go back to Mexico, she was forced to find shelter in the home of a man who then raped her kids. CPS stepped in and is going to sever her relationship with her children. Once that is done she will be deported and her children will stay as wards of the state. There is good news here for the children perhaps. Time will tell. But none of this had to happen the way it did except that our laws are so screwed up.
Now, since I have met them and been brought to their circumstance, much like the Good Samaritan, what can I do? Well, there is a lot I can do. I can try to adopt the children or become their foster parents. I could get one of these women medical care. I could help them find work. I could help them find safe shelter.
I could get involved in forcing Government to do its job. Not the job of caring for poor people. The job of creating just laws. The job of securing the border. The job of taking care of its citizen's safety, who in this case are the children and anyone else who becomes the victim of the perpetrators of these crimes.
If I help these two women I will be called unamerican by some and, if I lived in Oklahoma, I may even be charged with aiding and abetting. If I try to change the laws I will be accused of becoming too political and turning away from the true spiritual meaning of the Gospel. I will be accused of being a heretic and a liberal. None of these accusations will be true, and by the way, none of them are hypothetical.
Posted by: wayne | November 27, 2007 8:26 AM
rick. as i see it living in the past is a major stumbling block for native americans, some mexicans and blacks. indian reservations are a living example of oppression. the children are isolated, forced to listen to teachers and leaders, blaming white people for their problems. there is no raacism in these remarks. if you want to bring up history then i want to bring up current status which will be history tomorrow. you, rick share responsibility for what is going on now. please start listening to native american radio and find out yourself what is being said/taught. same goes for the patronizing of illegal mexicans. most live a tough life here, no american dream. why? because they have no status. you are responsible for that also. blacks listen to the likes of sharpton and jackson and learn that they are not responsible for their condition. you share in that also. i am trying to look at the real world. not your idealistic world. i want to do something to uplift all people. i am not a word smith searching the past for someone to blame for the ills of this country.
Posted by: | November 27, 2007 9:40 AM
the anonymous ramarks are mine.
Posted by: jerry | November 27, 2007 10:29 AM
rick. as i see it living in the past is a major stumbling block for native americans, some mexicans and blacks. indian reservations are a living example of oppression. the children are isolated, forced to listen to teachers and leaders, blaming white people for their problems.
I don't buy that in the least, and in fact you continue to foster a latent racism with that genre of remarks. First of all, if you don't have the resources to fix things or if they're somehow taken away, in this case by political decisions, there indeed is someone/something to blame. And besides, do you tell a rape victim just to "get over it"? Of course not, because that one act will haunt her for the rest of her life. Consider centuries of oppression, some of it official, and their effects and you expect people to stop "living in the past"? Pul-leeze! It's the political right that tries to sweep history under the rug that keeps folks like Jackson and Sharpton in business!
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 27, 2007 10:37 AM
Jefe says a lot of good things. The focus is on Jesus.
"Still, while I agree that we have the power to help, I don't think this is just a government problem. Jesus NEVER called on the government to help in these situations. Jesus NEVER called on the government to do ANYTHING while he was here. He transcended all that."
Amen. He transcended all that.
He did not directly call on the government to help in these situations, but every action he took on earth was a challenge to authorities. He challenged the "system" (and was executed by the System that rightly understood what a threat he was).
How can we follow in Jesus' steps -- challenging the System to provide justice instead of retreating to private charity. Whether it means changing government or not, I do not think it is a fair evaluation of Jesus' ministry to conclude that we should accept oppression and patch it over with helping a few individuals.
Posted by: steve | November 27, 2007 3:15 PM
"Pul-leeze! It's the political right that tries to sweep history under the rug that keeps folks like Jackson and Sharpton in business!"
Sometimes brother Rick (can I call you Brother Rick?) goes for it and I have to say Amen.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 27, 2007 4:00 PM
Conservatives tend to forget something. Up until President screw up took office FEMA actually did it's job. How many accidents and catastrophes have affected our shores and FEMA did great. Once Bush took office he installed cronies, created policy that created a hostile work environment and was inept. If we get talented folks in their again FEMA will be fine.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 27, 2007 4:03 PM
This analogy doesn't resonate with me and I'd doubt it resonates with the average American. I'll bet that I'm pretty representative of the average American living today. My ancestry is a mix of all different cultures and backgrounds including American Indian, and my non-Indian ancestors first came to America in the 20th Century and had nothing to do with pushing American Indians onto reservations.
Randy writes that "Early American immigrants, now well established, may have conveniently forgotten that their ancestors did not come as law-abiding citizens..." Um, I'm not an "early American immigrant," I was lucky enough to be born here and my ancestors did come as law-abiding citizens. Randy's shallow analysis basically leaves out a whole swath of America like me that has objections to the current immigration policy that basically leaves our borders uncontrolled yet has no relation at all to the first European settlers and the policies that pushed American Indians onto reservations.
I think the average American like me doesn't have a problem with foreigners or welcoming them here, but resents the fact that so many illegal immigrants act as if amnesty is deserved instead of acting repentant for flaunting the law. It actually sounds a lot like Randy's resentment.
Posted by: Eric | November 27, 2007 4:48 PM
We don't need to figure out whether the Native Americans actually had laws that protected their borders. The European Americans made their own laws in the way of the treaties that "guaranteed" certain tracts of land to the native tribes. That is, until the Europeans decided they wanted those lands too and entered them illegally and over and over again forced the natives farther west and onto smaller and less-desirable and less-fertile ground. Not only could the white Americans not follow the Native American laws, they couldn't even follow their own laws! They're illegal immigrants times two!
Posted by: Ryan Neaveill | November 27, 2007 4:50 PM
My ancestry is a mix of all different cultures and backgrounds including American Indian, and my non-Indian ancestors first came to America in the 20th Century and had nothing to do with pushing American Indians onto reservations.
However, especially depending on where you live, you eventually benefitted from that. Therefore, you do share some responsibility.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 27, 2007 6:11 PM
why do you and payshun bring up the race card? can't problems be discussed without regard to race? it is solutionless wordsmiths like you and payshun that like to think that things will be okay if what? conservatives are not? democrats are in? talking in circles will help? bringing up 400 year old stuff? calling someone a racist?immigration is not about race. poorly run indian reservations is not about race. illness, illiteracy, crime are not about race. tell me rick and payshun how does fixing blame heal or solve anything? answer me that. and how can the government today change history. and stop using the race card when you have no answers.
Posted by: jerry | November 27, 2007 6:17 PM
Jerry,
Look I have not brought up race at all on this thread. But I can answer your questions.
"why do you and payshun bring up the race card?"
Well to be fair Jerry I did not bring up race in this thread. Two I have only posted three times, this being the third.
"it is solutionless wordsmiths like you and payshun that like to think that things will be okay if what? conservatives are not?"
Please restate your question in a more concise manner. Thanks.
"talking in circles will help?"
W/ what? This discussion. I am not talking in circles. I have only posted three times in this thread. If you have more to say about anything Rick has written then you could point out how others may or not be talking in circles.
"calling someone a racist?immigration is not about race."
Well I disagree w/ that one and my students would too. They feel like they are judged for their skin color so for them and other people race is an issue. Sorry. Oh and I called no one a racist in this thread.
"illness, illiteracy, crime are not about race. tell me rick and payshun how does fixing blame heal or solve anything?"
You really don't understand this. But it's not about fixing blame. It's about acknowledging what happened. If we as a culture are going to heal then we have to be brutally honest about our past. Our past can only hurt us if we ignore it. If we talk about it then we can heal. My question is who do you think I am blaming?
"and how can the government today change history."
Unfortunately it can't. But it can bring justice today. It can give the Black Hawk Mountains back the Sioux. It can... That would begin to heal our land.
"and stop using the race card when you have no answers."
I have plenty of answers and I won't stop using race, ethnicity, gender or other issues until they are celebrated instead of ignored or hated on.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 27, 2007 6:49 PM
"illness, illiteracy, crime are not about race. tell me rick and payshun how does fixing blame heal or solve anything?"
Umm and as I was about to go get some more work done I thought a little bit more about this. Your ability to minimize genocide is amazing. That's the word. GENOCIDE, it's an ugly word but it happened. Our government systematically wiped out many groups of people over land and racism. We introduced alcohol and nihilism into the cultures when our ancestors kept moving all these nations to different reservations.
Then illness, illiteracy and crime took root in destructive ways. So for you to say that race has nothing to do w/ any of that means you really don't know your history. By the way that's four times I commented in this thread. My first two comments had nothing to do w/ race. The third and fourth I mentioned race because you asked. Just so we are clear here.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 27, 2007 7:00 PM
Rick - How did I benefit for Indians being forced onto reservations? Let's assume that Indians were never forced onto reservations and settlers and Indians lived together peacefully on this continent. Any land that changed hands was paid for at the prices of the day. My ancestors then arrived in the 20th Century. How would my situation be any different today than it would have been under this scenario?
Posted by: Eric | November 28, 2007 6:53 AM
why do you and payshun bring up the race card?
Jerry -- Because you won't and it has to be addressed.
My ancestors then arrived in the 20th Century. How would my situation be any different today than it would have been under this scenario?
There would have been a lot of rich Natives and you'd see them on a consistent basis.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 28, 2007 11:02 AM
It is incredible to see several commentators taking exception to Randy's essay, using dodges like lack of written laws, etc., to dismiss what is clearly a powerful point. We European types committed systematic genocide to force those already living on this continent off the land that had been their home for centuries. How could we respond, as Christians, with anything but contrition? How can anyone justify what happened based on the native population lacking written deeds to the land? Do we really OWN this land now, because we siezed it and drew up "legal" documents to legitimize the theft? Some of you dismiss Randy's concerns as irrelevant to our current situation. On the contrary. We should have much to ponder about our history as we attempt to fashion a truly Christian response to those who come to our shores or cross our borders.
Posted by: Conrad Steinhoff | November 28, 2007 1:32 PM
Rick - Yes, and how would that change anything about my situation today? The fact is, it wouldn't. I haven't benefited at all from American Indians being forced onto reservations and I don't share in responsbility for what was done in the past.
Posted by: Eric | November 28, 2007 1:37 PM
----INTERMISSION----
*plays some nice music for you all ^_^
I want to thank you all for posting.
it means a lot to me the fact that you all have words to say.
It is hard for me to find people who can discuss like this and still be here taking their time to write down what they think.
Quote: There is always time for a warm greeting, no matter how hard we may have it. ^_^
Posted by: kiko | November 28, 2007 2:49 PM
On the subject of responsibility for what was done in the past:
The past is prologue, as our government attempts to impose our culture on others. In the recent past, this took the form of supporting brutal dictators who opposed communism while enriching themselves through sweetheart deals with American businessmen. Now, it is in the form of an arbitrary "War on Terror" that has terrible consequences yet to be realized.
As Christians, we cannot rely on government to solve all of our problems. As Americans, we must remember that we are supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
If everyone refused to take responsibilty for righting the wrongs of the past, we would still be a country where only white male landowners could vote and their black slaves would still be equivalent to three fifths of a whole person.
There are no easy solutions, but saying "It's not my job" is not an option. If Jesus had said that to His Father, we would all be lost forever.
Posted by: JCinSunnyLA | November 28, 2007 3:09 PM
haven't benefited at all from American Indians being forced onto reservations and I don't share in responsbility for what was done in the past.
You don't really know that for sure -- after all, it's likely you live now in a place where Native Americans once did. So, until you know for sure that it's not the case, assume that you have.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 28, 2007 3:54 PM
"The fact is, it wouldn't. I haven't benefited at all from American Indians being forced onto reservations and I don't share in responsbility for what was done in the past."
Even though the land you live, work, play, and worship on at one time belonged to Native Americans?
Since I'm a history teacher I'm biased toward "dredging up" the past. I always teach my students (overwhelmingly white and middle class) that we in the present shouldn't feel guilty about our ancestors. But a mature understanding of American history includes the recognition that the vast majority of the United States was taken forcibly, either with violence or the threat of it, from native peoples.
And it's fascinating that it's always whites, usually male, who don't understand why people of color reference the past and why they are often preoccupied with race.
Posted by: carl copas | November 28, 2007 4:35 PM
Rick - Please explain to me how I've benefited. Even if the little bit of land my home rests on was once the exact site of an Indian home, how have I, some 200 years later, benefited from that Indian being forced to leave? Please, stop and think about the absurdity of your statement.
Carl - Yes, even if the land that I now live, work, play and worship on once did belong to an American Indian I have not benefited from his or her being forced to leave. No one is denying that land was taken, mostly forcibly, from American Indians. What I'm denying is that I somehow have benefited from that action. Please, specifically, tell me how I have directly benefited. I love history and know it very well, but because you're a teacher of history you must know something I don't, so please, do tell.
Posted by: Eric | November 28, 2007 5:02 PM
Please explain to me how I've benefited. Even if the little bit of land my home rests on was once the exact site of an Indian home, how have I, some 200 years later, benefited from that Indian being forced to leave?
You basically just answered your own question. How was that land acquired in the first place? And before that, ad infinitum?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 28, 2007 7:59 PM
Rick - Maybe I'm just dense, why don't you spell it out for me. You seem to be dancing around it. How did I benefit from a hypothetical American Indian being removed from my current day property? You can't, can you? Why? Because it would sound so ridiculous if you did.
Posted by: Eric | November 28, 2007 9:07 PM
Eric
you are here and here exists because of the past. i think that seems so obvious that no one wants to take the time to tell you. why would you even ask this question? what relevance does it have?
this nation exists in large part because of the evils done to the native people. it would at the very least have had to have been a vastly different country if the tribal people had been allowed to keep their land and their culture.
England would not have been the global power it became and we would quite probably not have had to fight at least three wars. So you could say we not only benefited, we also paid for these sins. That seems just to me. It does not negate the fact that the native people paid the most and still do.
Posted by: | November 28, 2007 10:53 PM
It seems to me that Eric cannot understand the classic paradox of changing the past. The slightest variation in history can have a major impact down the line. If that hypothetical Native American had been allowed to live in peace on his ancestral land, your family would now live someplace else (if they would even exist). One small step in the wrong direction could spell disaster. A relevant example is New Orleans or Malibu. Buy the wrong house in the wrong town and you could be the victim of flood or fire. There is a reason that people don't take a giant step off of cliffs. Conversely, we could say that there is a reason some people do.
Eric, don't insult our intelligence by saying that allowing Native Americans to determine their own destiny would have absolutely no effect on the lives of those who now live where they once did.
Posted by: JCinSunnyLA | November 29, 2007 7:54 AM
Perhaps Eric has confused the word responsibility with culpability.
We would do well to remember the sins of our father's.
All of history comes to us with a guarantee. We will pay for it and so will our sons and daughters.
It is the practical reason we should love our neighbor as ourselves. It is in our best interest to do so, just as it was in our best interest that Adam and Eve obey. Able surely paid for the past and he was held responsible, as are we all.
We aided the Taliban in the past. Now that looks like a mistake. We thought we needed to restrain the USSR and the Taliban seemed to fit that bill for us. Well the Soviet Union fell without a shot. Maybe the cost of their war in Afghanistan helped to push it over but more probably all it did was show us how very weak the Soviets already were. In the end we were attacked by some of the very people we gave weapons to. It is an irony that I sometimes long for the "good old days" when all we had to do was face that old enemy.
Eric you and I didn't actually do much of anything back then. We paid our taxes and voted, (hopefully both are true) but that was all. I never harbored any ill will toward Afghanistan, still you and I are responsible.
And if you really do know history you would know that most all Europeans benefited from the subjugation of the Native Americans. If you included the rest of the colonized world you would be able to include all of Europe and the United States as beneficiaries. How do you suppose we came to be the most powerful of nations if not through the theft of land and resources?
Your seeming attempt to make this into an amoral scenario in reference to yourself is not logical.
I am beginning to ask myself what would have happened if, in all of these past episodes, we had just sent food or helped to build schools or hospitals.
Posted by: wayne | November 29, 2007 9:23 AM
Wayne is right on target with his assessment of the situation. Too many so-called Christian Conservatives are trying to play God in the lives of others by telling them to stop blaming other people, nations, and religions for their troubles while claiming to be victims themselves.
We instigated the overthrow of Iran's government in the 50's and put the Shah back on the Peacock Throne. We created Islamic terrorism in the 80's to deal with Godless Communism. We also aided Saddam until we no longer had any use for him.
Now it has come back to haunt us. We broke it and no-one can ever fix it until Jesus returns in all His Power and Glory to do it Himself.
Posted by: JCinSunnyLA | November 29, 2007 10:52 AM
Has anyone noticed that the "smarter" our weapons of war become, the more ignorant we are of the consequences in relying on them to bring "peace" to the world?
Posted by: JCinSunnyLA | November 29, 2007 10:59 AM
JC and Wayne - We're not responsible for the actions of people in the past. I certainly believe we may reap the consequences of actions of others in the past, but we aren't responsible for them in a moral sense. It might help in relations with other people who have been harmed in the past for us to try to remedy them, but we're not morally responsible for them. God is not going to judge me for actions of people that died 350 years ago.
And again, there is no way for anyone to say that I have benefited at all from Indians being forced to live somewhere else. No one's been able to explain it in any more detail than talking about vague "sins of the past" or some version of the butterfly effect.
JC, you're right that one little adjustment in history could have huge ramifications; that's exactly why it's so ridiculous to say that anyone knows that I've benefited from the dislocation of a particular Indian tribe 350 years ago.
It's as if you guys have been told your entire lives that "we've all benefited" and it conformed to your worldview so you never stopped to ask "why exactly?"
Posted by: Eric | November 29, 2007 11:46 AM
Eric, do you find the present state of relations between the native nations and the United States to be just and moral?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 29, 2007 12:05 PM
Okay, so you are confusing the term responsible with culpable. They are not necessarily synonyms.
letjustice may be able to get you on the right track with his question.
The evil treatment of our Native Americans is certainly not just a thing of the past. Would you be more comfortable with acknowledging that we are all responsible for the present? That does not mean you are guilty of doing anything, just responsible to do what you can to make sure that present actions are just and equitable up to and including paying for the past sins of our fathers. At the very least it would include an acknowledgment of those wrong acts and an attitude of understanding in regards to what those acts have meant to the present day Native peoples.
Most of us are satisfied with the defence that we didn't do anything. We never seem to think that we may be guilty of doing nothing.
No one can get off the hook of history. If we are to ever get it right we have to hold ourselves responsible for it and then do what we can to make it right.
Posted by: wayne | November 29, 2007 1:48 PM
To try to deny the past is to destroy ourselves
To never think of it as affecting others or ourselves is merely ignorance
To think that 200 years ago has no connection to me right now means that some reference to god is within me and therefore i share nothing at all with the past*i mean hypothetically im god*.
I would like to forget that I have indian blood and spanish blood, or would I?
This is all just a big huge play of culture and problems that coexist because we haven't the tendency to think that maybe just maybe things really are connected,
But if you think that that indian that got shot or killed from a disease back then has no relation to you in any shape or form than you are basically saying that that indian's life means nothing as it did not help shape your future.
So are you saying that you are not shaping the future as well? You are not helping in creating future peace or war? You are not helping in creating ill or good will to that next neighbor accross the street, across the continent or accross that computer, this butterfly effect you speak is not a little thing you can just dish out just because you feel there is no REAL or PHYSICAL thing that comes accross to your senses.
Knowing that this butterfly effect is there a cause and effect to dwell upon means that you understand upon several things of humanity and you are sensitive, im not saying you are not, just saying that it builds upon the human structure.
getting back to the subject- i mean sure that indian did not create your house, but that indian sure help clear the way for it to being built, i dont know if this answers your question eric, if not then im sorry if it helped distinguish then happy to of helped you.
Remember you don't have to take in what I or anyone else says, it is after all, up to you.
this message is not intended as a mean thing :)
Posted by: kiko | November 30, 2007 12:03 PM
Leaving emotions aside, a candid look at history is helpful.
From time immemorial people have fought wars over the possession and use of land as part of the natural order of things. Sometimes invaders win and sometimes they lose. Sometimes there are partial victories and defeats. The Vikings were partially successful in England, but lost in France. William the Conqueror and his Norman French won in England; Napoleon and later Hitler lost in Russia.
Well within the memory of many living today, Jewish activists effected a reconquest of Israel - from which they were expelled for centuries - and are in control, at least for the time being.
Western Europeans won significant victories in the Americas but were not completely successful as over 500 Indian tribes still have massive landholdings and, in some cases, enjoy immense wealth and political influence.
And yes, things do come and go. The Mongols under Genghis Kahn established a huge landed empire, but the plague which killed a large percentage of inhabitants set in motion a sequence of events that left the Mongols back where they are today.
Understandably, the losers are invariably bitter about their losses and vociferously complain; winners of land wars, like winners in everything else, don't need to say much, if anything at all.
Someday the Indians may unify, industrialize, rise up and drive the European invaders' descendants into the Atlantic Ocean. Look what the Goths did to Rome.
My fear is that with overpopulation a fresh water shortage will develop that will foment wars worse than anything seen so far.
Posted by: Jsens | November 30, 2007 5:03 PM
If the indians rise up and drive the 'descendants' into the atlantic then the cycle will just keep going. I wonder if that is something they want to do, after all, they will learn nothing of history and they will have become the same people who hunted them in the first place.
My belief is that all this could of been avoided in the first place if there was respect. but I suppose easier said than done.
But history does repeat itself right?
someone commented before about waiting for jesus to come and fix all these things we made a mess of. Im sorry but i dont share that view, why is it that we have to wait for 'jesus' to come and fix things, that just basically says that we really are powerless and have no way of fixing anything ourselves. It says to me that I can do whatever and all i have to do is wait for Jesus because he is the only one who can fix it.
In this regard, we screw ourselves many times over and we keep doing it, all because we can't play with each other in a peaceful way.
That just bites.
Posted by: kiko | November 30, 2007 8:10 PM
The first biblical emigration was precipitated by economic need and survival as the surface issues. It is true to say that emigration is always about survival and quality of life issues. It is a really complex matter which I cannot claim I understand fully. In our current immigration crisis (if it is that) I would not be surprised if most documented (read 'legal') immigrants are better educated. There can be no doubt that this is of benefit to the new homeland, generally. Silicon valley and the medical field in America are examples of this benefit. There is, however, another side to this coin and it is the "brain drain" on the nations from which the immigrants come. This is reason number one why this matter of illegal (and even legal) immigration is not only an American problem and needs bilateral attention.
Next, last time I read the Book, it said that to whom much is given, much is required. It doesn't require rocket science IQ to figure out that if a country, with 5% of the world's population, also has 34% of the world's wealth, that some of the 85%, who have to contend with 15% of the world's wealth, would naturally do anything in their power to find "the promised land", legally or otherwise. As a nation to whom much is given, America's options, with regard to "illegal" immigrants, cannot be restricted to kicking them out back home. There has to be more.
There is another consideration. Sierra Leone is a dirt-poor country, despite the millions that Western nations have "earned" mining diamonds there. Many Caribbean nations have never recovered from the plunder of their resources by Europe and the atrocities of slavery and imperialism. To be certain, there are other reasons for their impoverishment, but imperialism ranks high among them.
All this is to say that this matter of immigration, illegal or otherwise, requires more than a knee-jerk reaction and demands a better and more gracious response from people who subscribe to the book that warns Israel to be generous to "aliens", because they too were "aliens" in Egypt.
Posted by: Michael Friday | November 30, 2007 8:55 PM
Thank you form your thoughtful article Randy. I believe that if the U.S. would get it's own house in order and start taking care of it's own citizens, illegal immigration would cease to be an issue.
Posted by: Julie Prescott | December 1, 2007 8:42 AM
As interesting as this article was- I do not find it to be a sound argument that will convince others. Generally, people don't go for the argument that "your ancestors did it so you're responsible." If people did believe that argument, we'd have done something for descendants of slave to make up for how the slaves were treated.
However, the argument that I think needs to be made about illegal immigration is one presented in a great book that I read- Enrique's Journey. And it's the most logical argument. So long as the economies of Mexico and Central America are such that its citizens do not have their most basic needs met, people will immigrate illegally. It doesn't matter what walls you build, how much you increase border patrol by, immigrants will *always* find a way in if the only other option is starving to death.
The only way that illegal immigration will ever end is if the U.S. invests in *the people* of Mexico and central America... loans for people to start small business, help to cultivate unused fields... whatever... so long as it's helping the individual and not the corporation (like NAFTA did, at the expense of the individual).
As far as the comment about that people should just immigrate legally... that's not an option. US only lets in people with professions that are lacking here. These are day laborers with maybe an 8th grade education that are immigrating.
Posted by: krissy | December 1, 2007 11:55 PM
Came onto Beliefnet this morning, my prayer candle lit, looking for a place to illustrate my frustation from the news this week of the woman in Saudi Arabia who was gang raped by 7 men, then condemned to 40, then 80 lashes for breaking "Islamic law." Ended up here. Fortunately in my "retirement years," I get to work with college students on improving their writing/ESL skills: 10 a.m. - a Hispanic single mother whose daughter knows her ABCs inside and out; 11 - a 57-year-old Lakota Native American long interested in filmmaking; 12 - a "lost girl of Sudan," one of three who were sponsored by a Jewish synagogue last year into this country, blind in one eye but who speaks five languages and wants to become a doctor; 1 p.m. - a Peruvian who came to this country with his family 8 years ago after their waiting 10 years to get official permission to immigrate to this country, who now works as a volunteer with children of "illegal" immigrants to improve their science skills. My acquaintances for a semester, wanting a better life and a chance to be useful in their generation, and a willingness to work hard for it, certainly preclude any danger of my ever losing my freedom or being cheated of my identity--lucky me! And so it goes that we are all entitled, with human genes in our bodies and brains on our shoulders, to be true to ourselves, our inheritors, and our progeny....
Posted by: soultrails | December 2, 2007 11:26 AM
I have often thought about how people will speak of,for example, 200 years ago, or whatever, like it was a long, long time ago, but in terms of generations, the history of what happened to Native Americans and Black Americans, did not happen all that long ago, and the effects upon real people, and real families are very much still with us, in the United States, today. I had a great grandfather who was born right after the Civil War ended. I am 52 and I remember this wonderful man, as he lived to be 106 years old. I am white, but the concept I am trying to convey, is that the family is the basis of society, and families pass down their history, pain, joys and memories. These things really happened in very recent history, in many people's minds. And in reality.
Posted by: Ginny | December 4, 2007 2:16 PM
Eric,
You benefit because you live in a society (a stable and outrageously prosperous nation compared to most of the world's countries)whose very prosperity is based upon STEALING the land and resources of other peoples, whose high standard of living has its roots deep in the blood and suffering of genocide, slavery, exploitation, chicanery, cheating, lying, abusing, oppression and war. You personally, and I and every middle class white American who has enough wherewithal to own a home and a computer and the time to sit and philosphize on-line with others like himself, has profited, simply because we have inherited all this richness and opportunity and comparative luxury from a society that did these things. We are rich compared to most others on the planet and we are rich because our parents, grandparents, and our countrymen's parents and grandparents, et. al. and on backwards in time did these things and accumulated this wealth as a nation. And if our present course is not turned, and we Americans do not accept that we do not own the world, nor do we have the right to consume it all up for ourselves in frenzies of unnecessary consumerism -- we are, yes, guilty of the same crimes against hunanity.
Posted by: glenda | December 5, 2007 3:34 PM
Amen, Glenda!
Posted by: Not Buying It | December 7, 2007 1:00 PM
If American indians had enforced immigrations laws, they wouldn't have lost the continent.
Fight illegal immigration. Contact your elected reps. and demand they co-sponsor the Save Act. The House bill is HR 4088. The Senate bill is S2368.
The House bill was introduced by a Dem. and has 122 co-sponsors from both parties.
Visit NumbersUSA for more details.- http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet
Only vote for candidates willing to support this bill. It forces all employers to verify social security numbers.
Let's take our country back !
Posted by: magyart | December 13, 2007 12:19 AM
I find the entry by magyart deeply disturbing. First of all, European colonists were willing to use violence/guns to subdue and conquer other people. Because native americans did not initially have guns, no policy would have stopped the domination drive of Europeans.
Perhaps we of European ancestry could be looking to how our VALUES are out of whack when we are willing to dominate/kill/ and exploit to get our way. Not only with native americans but hawaiians, alsaskans, africans who were kidnapped and killed and so forth.
In the process, we also happen to be destroying mother earth.
Another point: "Illegal" immigration could not have occured if it were not for the eager complicity of American businesses. Instead of pointing the finger at people who need jobs and came for jobs, we need to look at ourselves and ourwillingness to turn a blind eye to years of immigrants who we now, with the loss of US jobs, suddenly resent.
We have embraced leaders from Reagan to Nixon to Bush who have built up the CEOs, the Financial exploiters of our nation and who have grown wealthy making more money while sending jobs to India (so that CEOS and corporations make more money). Now that the middle class is in trouble, due to the people WE have elected, it is suddenly time to blame Mexicans who came for jobs that WE WERE VERY WILLING TO LET THEM HAVE.
This immigration problem was encouraged by our politicians and by we, ourselves, the people. Now, given the state of affairs, a humane redress of our situation must be made, immigration laws must be reformed, but turning other people into villians and enemies is anti the Christ spirit and unhealthy for our own nation.
Posted by: nancy rogene | January 3, 2008 4:15 AM
All you Americans just don't get it. You are all illegal immigrants and invaders who are squatting on indigenous land. OF COURSE the Natives had laws, the U.S. CONSTITUTION is based on the Iroquoi Great Law of Peace, plus there's something called "Natural Traditional Law" that existed prior to European Colonization. As to Mexicans; those who are ETHNICALLY Mexican are INDIGENOUS...For those of you who are ignorant, that means that Mexicans were here before Columbus and before any American ever stepped on Native land.
Mexicans are Indigenous to this continent you call "north-america", it's actually called ANAHUAC [anawak], AND since Mexicans have been here for over 5,000 years, their precedence establishes their legality as residents of the land you Americans stole from the Mexican people. Yeah, it was sold to Gral. Santa Anna, but NOT to the Mexican People who did not have a say in that sale, and since it was sold in an undemocratic way, it is an illegal purchase.
BTW, Not all Mexicans are ethnically Mexican, some are:
Kickapoo, Tohono O'Odham, Yaqui, Pima, Lipan Apache, Mayo, Raramuri, Tzetzal, Tzotzil, Purepecha, Tepehua, Kiliwa, Nahua, Huichol, Cora, Huasteco, Zapoteco, Mixteco, Totonaco, Otomi, Comanche, Hopi, Ute, Norther Paiute, Shoshoni, etc. etc.
Live with it, Mexicans and their Indigenous relative were here before you Americans began to squatt on our land.
You cannot deport us because this is our homeland. If you were deported though, you would have to cross the Atlantic Ocean.
Posted by: Anahuac Xalixco | February 15, 2008 8:47 PM
If you want to look at this issue from a Christian theological perspective (which Woodley attempts to do) than you must consider the only owner of the earth to be God. The question becomes how we best care for this planet and not who got there first. Practically that will not work because the impact of sin on Christians and non-Christians. What is a government to do? Difficult question.
I happen to know that Randy Woodley is mostly Native American by choice not by birth. He is way more immigrant than part of any native tribe in his blood. That does color how he sees things since his formative years were in the white world. Maybe someone who mostly choose the tribe he now calls his own can offer a unique perspective that can help bridge the gap between people groups.
We need honest voices that help us attempt to walk in another person's shoes. A voice seasoned with salt, attached to humility, filled with character, willing to be wrong, and will apply boldness with wisdom.
Posted by: wesley keith | August 19, 2008 7:27 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?