
Interactive time-lapse map of the transfer of Native land between 1776 and 1887 - DoreenMichele
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/06/17/interactive_map_loss_of_indian_land.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top
======
thisjustinm
Highly recommend the book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee which covers the last
half of the 19th century time period and recounts the absolutely heartbreaking
history of Native Americans going from having a reasonable amount of land,
much of it useful, to having almost nothing after betrayal after betrayal by
the US government. It’s unfortunate that this kind of treatment of indigenous
peoples is so common around the world throughout history.

------
cs702
Most parts of the world have gone through similarly horrific waves of border
expansion and contraction at the cost of human lives and cultures, going back
to the beginning of civilization.

Take the borders of Europe, for example:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI)

I doubt the expansion of, say, the Roman Empire in what we now call Europe and
Africa was any less violent than the expansion of the English-speaking world
in what we now call North America.

Humankind's track record on this earth is full of atrocities.

~~~
protomyth
One big difference is Africa and Europe didn't have the one sided die-off from
disease that North America did. Africa had sections that were quite dangerous
for Europeans, and when Europeans had their plagues it was pretty universal.

If Africa had disease outbreaks like North America, then it would have
probably gone the same way as North America, even more so really given the
shorter distances.

~~~
betterunix2
While there was certainly a mass death from European diseases, it happened
long before 1776. The unfortunate and shameful truth is that the United States
violated agreements with the Native Americans and repeatedly failed to respect
the various tribes' right to rule their territories (not to mention the war
crimes and genocidal killing).

~~~
protomyth
I am well aware of the treaty violations and other ongoing issues between the
tribes and the US government since I have been on a reservation for large
stretches over many years.

What I was saying that Europe didn’t have a mass death of one group but not
another. In North America it was the natives who died off, but not the
Europeans. Africa had no equivalent of what happened in North America so no
colony was capable of having a sea to shining sea manifest destiny.

------
elil17
It seems ridiculous for Slate to call it the “transfer” of land - the map
calls itself a map of the “Invasion of America,” a far more accurate title

~~~
Zarkonnen
Yeah, "transfer" is so... bloodless as to be a lie.

------
ficklepickle
Kind of sad to see all the rationalizations and what-aboutism going on here.

It is horrifying on a scale that most of us, fortunately, probably can't even
appreciate.

How we continue to treat each other and our environment does not bode
particularly well for humanity.

------
Camillo
The map's attribution link is to a site with the poignant (if anachronistic)
title "Invasion of America".

If history is written by the victors, surely Americans are now the vanquished.

------
aatharuv
Theft would be more accurate.

~~~
deogeo
Conquest would be most accurate.

------
thatoneuser
It's sad af, but it's human nature. Same shit why we can't trust our
grandparents to handle their own money when they get older. Some slimey fuck
out there is willing to put them in a poor grave to make a buck.

At this point I just hope the natives eventually make it into the modern world
better. Pretty much all there is to do :/

~~~
ordu
_> It's sad af, but it's human nature._

Not it is not a nature, it is nurture.

One shouldn't use appellation to a nature in such a matters. Compare: rape is
bad, but the sad thing it is in a male nature, isn't it? No, rape is bad and
intolerable. It doesn't matter what male nature is, because male is perfectly
capable to curb his impulses. If some is not, they should use some kind of
medication.

It doesn't matter what the nature of human is, he is capable to be nice to
natives, but he just do not want to, because profits are more desired.

~~~
Itsdijital
Ehhh, unfortunately I don't think it is that clear cut. Otherwise you're left
arguing that gays either made a choice to be gay or were raised to be gay.

~~~
ordu
Gays also have a choice. The difference is there is no reason for a society to
force them to choose the one specific option. The choice belongs to gays, not
to a society.

When society thought that gays is bad for a society, it was definitely an
equivalent example then. Now society is wiser and do not think that gays are
bad for a society. So the analogy breaks now.

~~~
Itsdijital
Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think you
will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be attracted
to men.

Assuming you're a straight male, are you able to look at a beautiful woman and
not feel any feelings of attraction?

My point is that there are behaviors that definitely transcend "nurture". It's
ridiculous to claim there aren't.

~~~
ordu
_> Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think
you will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be
attracted to men._

It is not about to be attracted or not to be attracted. It is a choice between
different kinds of behavior, not between different states of mind. It is bad
to rob a bank. But it is neither bad nor good to be attracted by the money of
the bank.

There is neither bad nor good to be sexually attracted by a woman, but it is
bad to rape her in any case. I feel attraction to a women regularly, but I'm
not raping them.

You know, there is an examples of sexual preferences that are forbidden.
Pedophilia for example. But if pedophile keeps his preferences to himself,
than it is ok, nothing wrong with it. We forbid pedophiles to follow their
sexual desires, but we allow heterosexuals and homosexuals to follow theirs
(while they respect legal constraints on an age of a partner). What the
difference? Why we allow some people to follow their sexual preferences and
forbid others to do so?

Lets clarify: it is bad to forbid human from following his sexual desires. Not
just because he would be unhappy, it is bad for his psychological well-being,
it might have harmful long term effects for his mind. As Freud taught there is
8 (or 9?) kinds of psychological defense and only one of them isn't necessary
harmful to a person -- sublimation. Which one of those will choose the mind of
pedophile?

But in some cases we forbid nevertheless despite of damages, why we think that
it is ok?

It is all about harm to individuals and to a society inflicted by following a
desires. Gays are harmless, they are not saints of course, but they are not
worse than a heterosexual. There is no reason to harm gays by a ban to a
homosexual relationships. Such a ban would inflict damage for some without
benefiting others. But pedophile could do a lot of harm to children, so we
accept harming pedophiles to protect our children. We accept harming robbers
of banks to protect banks. We accept harming rapers to protect women. We do
not accept harming heterosexuals, because they do nothing specifically bad. We
do not accept harming gays, because they do nothing specifically bad.

