← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 10532 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2003-10-16
2003-10-16 14:11 | User Profile
Murder rate on Indian reservations 5 times national average
Those Peaceful Indians!
[QUOTE]Murder rate on reservations 5 times national average
[url]http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/breaking/10_7_03indianmurderrate.html[/url]
The Associated Press
PHOENIX - An analysis of violent crimes on Indian reservations reveals that the murder rate is five times higher than that of the United States. Using tribal enrollment figures, the Indian Country Crime Report showed a murder rate of 29 per 100,000 people, compared with a national rate of 5.6 per 100,000.
"The cases we've been getting more recently can just be brutally violent," said Diane Humetewa, tribal liaison and victim-witness supervisor for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix.
The report also suggests that tribes around the Phoenix metropolitan area face more violence than other American Indians in the state and nation.
With six killings among 6,405 tribal members, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Community homicide rate is 17 times the national average, according to the report.
The Gila River Indian Community, with 11,257 enrollees, counted 11 murders.
By comparison, major metropolitan cities averaged slightly more than seven killings per 100,000 last year.
The Navajo Nation, America's most-populated reservation, reported 63 murders among 275,000 enrolled members for a rate of 23 per 100,000. The Hopi Tribe, with 10,474 enrolled, had no homicides.
Humetewa and others attribute the high crime rate to factors such as unemployment, broken families and the emergence of gangs.
Mac Rominger, an FBI agent for six years in Navajo and Hopi country, said poverty, boredom and alcoholism are compounded by isolation.
"It's all the underlying socio-economic problems, but they're magnified even more," Rominger added. "Ninety-five percent of the violent crime out there is directed toward family and friends."
The statistics were drawn from 1,072 violent-crime cases prosecuted in U.S. District Court. The numbers do not include felonies committed by non-Indians on reservations, or misdemeanor offenses dealt with by tribal courts.
Article Website: [url]http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/breaking/10_7_03indianmurderrate.html[/url]
News Article Entered On: 10/14/2003
url: [url]http://www.tribalresourcecenter.org/news/newsdetails.asp?90[/url]
[/QUOTE]
2003-10-16 21:58 | User Profile
Murder goes hand-in-hand with alcoholism, drug addiction, and poverty, and the first two are connected to the third.
2003-10-16 23:37 | User Profile
This comes as no suprise to anyone from Oklahoma.
2003-10-17 02:42 | User Profile
Anyway, their traditional way of life has been watered down so much they're pretty much just, uh, red trash, I guess.
Now, I'm not gonna go off about the noble savage living in harmony with the environment, but if the governments in the US and Canada had cut down a bit on the destroying of their culture and the slaughter (The US did a hell of a lot more than of the latter than us Canucks, we just shoved them on to shitty land), things would be different.
2003-10-17 16:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sinclair]Anyway, their traditional way of life has been watered down so much they're pretty much just, uh, red trash, I guess.
Now, I'm not gonna go off about the noble savage living in harmony with the environment, but if the governments in the US and Canada had cut down a bit on the destroying of their culture and the slaughter (The US did a hell of a lot more than of the latter than us Canucks, we just shoved them on to shitty land), things would be different.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's whitey's fault. As always.
2003-10-17 20:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Or you could say, fairly, that the Federal Government did it. The South's hands are clean on this one. [/QUOTE] Say what? If you mean "Confederate government" when you say "the South," I suppose that's true, since during the 4 years it existed, they CSA had its hands full doing other things. But if you're talking about the South in general, its history in regard to the Indians - from Jamestown on - isn't any better than that of the rest of the country. The expulsion of Indians from the Southeast - a.k.a. the Trail of Tears - was begun in the administration of a southern President (Jackson), in full accord with the wishes of the white population and of the state governments, and against the dictates of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, throughout the 19th Century, the most vocal advocates of Indian rights, and protestors against (real, imagined, or inflated) crimes against Indians, could be found in New England. And by and large, more crimes were committed by the private citizens and local militias who lived in proximity to Indians than by Federal troops. The Coloradans who killed men, women and children at Sand Creek were organized at the state level; and the very extensive, complete, and brutal destruction of the Indians in the California backcountry during the Gold Rush was accomplished almost entirely by private citizens and locally organized posses. As for the notion that had whitey "cut down a bit" on the destruction of Indian culture, the Indian homicide rate would be lower, let me point out that the death rates from intertribal warfare were generally very high. Some of the more warlike tribes had casualty rates equivalent to the British rate during the Battle of the Somme - that is, it would be as if the Brits fought that battle not for 6 months, but chronically, year after year, generation after generation. The destruction of Indian tribal culture was a lot less complete in Anglo-America than it was in Mexico; but I doubt you'll find that the Indios of Mexico have a crime rate appreciably higher than that of their Mestizo countrymen. So it seems to me that whatever the cause of the U.S. Indians' high homicide rate, "destruction of their culture" is not it.
2003-10-17 23:06 | User Profile
Lewis Wetzel,
Great Post! Well I have not read about any of them scalping earch other lately! But you never when they might start.
2003-10-18 02:45 | User Profile
Intertribal warfare isn't murder.
Besides, yeah, I agree with wintermute. If pushing the Indians out was somehow fair, then why isn't the pushing out of whites fair too?
2003-10-18 07:53 | User Profile
Our friend Mike from the Phora, Amigo de Durriti, lives on an Indian reservation. He witnessed a murder not too long ago actually.
2003-10-18 15:11 | User Profile
Anyway, the Natives aren't benefitting from more immigration. If whites are slowly drowned out, the new arrivals won't feel any guilt, so why would they provide anything for reservations, reparations, whatever?
I mean, they could be useful allies.
2003-10-19 01:28 | User Profile
I shed no tears over the brutal treatment the Indians suffered at White pioneer hands. Delighting in torture and all kinds of cruelty, they did their damndest to exterminate Whitey whenever they had the upper hand, just as they did with other tribes. It was a savage struggle for racial survival, and in such circumstances, apologies are unnecessary. This should be remembered for future reference.
By the way: I wonder what happened to the White tribes of Kennewick Man and Spirit Cave Woman.
As for New Englanders loudly condemning the hard treatment of the Noble Red Man: but of course. Those holier-than-thou vermin were the self-appointed moral arbiters of the day. They'd driven the nation to suicide for the benefit of Uncle Tom, so why wouldn't they bleat on behalf of the Indian?
Who needs nation-destroying jews when you've got Massholes?
2003-10-19 01:41 | User Profile
Sinclair,
A good point. They are not aren't benefitting... [QUOTE]Anyway, the Natives aren't benefitting from more immigration. If whites are slowly drowned out, the new arrivals won't feel any guilt, so why would they provide anything for reservations, reparations, whatever? I mean, they could be useful allies.[/QUOTE]
But I fear the Indians are fools, many of them think the "Wetbacks" are their "Indians bothers" or something and they are welcoming them! They might remember there are no indian reservations in Mexico!
2003-10-19 02:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sinclair]Intertribal warfare isn't murder. [/QUOTE]
Gawd! The benefits of multiculturalism!
How many murders offreservations would you be willing to ascribe to "intertribal warfare"? Because if you include urban drive-by shootings and kindred situations, the US murder rates become about the same as Switzerland.
Putting mayhem in seperate categories don't stop it from being mayhem. It just puts the day off when we all must deal with it.
2003-10-19 05:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]Yes, it's whitey's fault.
Or you could say, fairly, that the Federal Government did it. The South's hands are clean on this one.
The truth is just as Sinclair said it - these people were destroyed by us, for the most part without good reason.
It's pretty hard to accept the standpoint of many people on this board that anything we do to others is fair game, while anything the Jews do to us is unfair. Makes y'all sound like a bunch of losers who never even heard the word justice.
For my part, I think we owe the Indians. Exactly what we owe them, or what form it should take, I can't say. But a small amount of remorse might be the right place to start.
You don't have to hate yourself to feel remorse, by the way. All you have to do is recognize that someone else's misfortune is in fact, a bad thing.
The suffering of the Indian nation is a bad thing.
Wintermute[/QUOTE]
Thank you for this decent and humane post. Would that this board had more of the same. Too many posters here, especially recently, have become exactly what they hate in others. Sad, really.
2003-10-19 10:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Phillip Augustus]Thank you for this decent and humane post. Would that this board had more of the same. Too many posters here, especially recently, have become exactly what they hate in others. Sad, really.[/QUOTE]
I understand your and wintermute's point, PA and tend to somewhat support the Indians present day moves and claims against our FedGov by establishing tobacco shops, casinos, etc., in that they masterfully undermine the FedGov's totalitarian rule. In that they have my support. But N.B. makes good points that we should not lose sight of as well, and perhaps it is because of our liberal indoctrination that we wring our hands in self-hate over our ancestor's actions in the battles with the Indians during America's founding. After all, it's easy to armchair quarterback two hundred years after the facts. None of us around today have had our children stolen and their intestines wrapped around a pole left to die in the hot sun. If we did face that kind of daily reality, then I dare say our perspectives would be different.
2003-10-19 18:36 | User Profile
No wonder they don't teach Twain in school no more. :holiday:
I have read this before and having also read Parkman, who is much more sober than Twain and not nearly as in love with comic exaggeration, I would say that Twain has it about right.
There really was no way that the incompatibility of the White man and the Red man could have been bridged much more humanely toward the Indians than the way it was, except for us not to come here and farm. And considering the cruelty of Indian culture throughout the Americas, it really was not worth preserving or regreting.
2003-10-19 21:01 | User Profile
Well then, go pray to your tree god and leave the defense and preservation of the White race to people who really give a damn, and have no hidden agendas.[/QUOTE]
Come on Kurt, wintermute is great read, and he certainly gives a damn.
2003-10-19 22:00 | User Profile
The funniest PC myth of them all is that of the Indian environmentalist communing with nature. Anyone who has ever been to a trashy Indian reservation can see for himself the absurdity of this one. When the Indians actually arrived in the New World, it was filled with all sorts of big game species. The lazy Indians annihilated most of them, laid them to waste actually, in one of the biggest mass extinction events in the history of North America. They only domesticated a small, small, amount of food crops in the New World as well. Actually, if it had not been for the lazy Indians, when Europeans arrived in the New World, they would have found forests stretching from the Mississippi to the Rockies. The Great Plains were created if I recall by the lazy Indians starting fires throughout pre-history to drive out wildlife so they would be easier to kill. Its been some time since I read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond but that is basically the gist of what I recall about the Indians.
2003-10-20 05:47 | User Profile
Fade, that's very remarkable. I, like most others, was taught that Injuns were very respectful of nature, and never did anything to harm it. :ohmy:
2003-10-20 19:05 | User Profile
If pushing the Indians out was somehow fair, then why isn't the pushing out of whites fair too?
Never said it wasn't fair. It's eminently fair. Other racial groups have their own interests and fight for them. I'm going to resist them, that's all. I just get a little miffed when these other groups claim the moral high ground and a lock on any and all suffering in the history of humanity, insisting we fight with one hand cuffed to a wall stanchion, then whining mightily if and when we still manage to get a shot in now and then.
Anyone who has ever been to a trashy Indian reservation can see for himself the absurdity of this one.
Been there, done that and actually lived on one for a while. What would happen where I was was that every 5-10 years or so (this was in pre-casino-money days) the tribal elders would spend some cash building ugly, but functional, new housing for the tribe. Within 6-12 months, said dwellings would be as trashed as the old ones.
I dunno, I see it as kind of a wash. We hooked them on booze, they hooked us on slot machines, blackjack and cheap smokes.
Fade, that's very remarkable. I, like most others, was taught that Injuns were very respectful of nature
Actually, the roots of Indian environmentalism may have been born of necessity. I was reading a journal article a few years back (damn, I wish I could remember which one) showing a great environmental calamity about the time the Anasazi (cliff dwellers in Colorado) vanished. They used preserved and carbon-dated pack-rat nests in caves to show that all the vegitation of significant size in the area was wiped out around this time. Seems the Indians simply exploited the natural resources, such as trees and soil fertility (no concept of crop rotation or other production techniques) until they were gone and either moved on (nomads, remember?) or died.
After all, it's easy to armchair quarterback two hundred years after the facts.
Yep.
Delighting in torture and all kinds of cruelty, they did their damndest to exterminate Whitey whenever they had the upper hand
Kind of sounds like Wichita writ large, don't it?
It was a savage struggle for racial survival, and in such circumstances, apologies are unnecessary. This should be remembered for future reference.
Yep again. Remember Wichita!
2003-10-20 19:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sinclair]If pushing the Indians out was somehow fair, then why isn't the pushing out of whites fair too?[/QUOTE]
You're thinking like a White man. "Fair" has nothing to do with any of this. It's simply a question of who will survive when two groups compete for dominance. When it was Whites versus the Indians, the Whites won, which is why we're able to be here debating the subject today. Does anyone imagine for one minute that any Indian tribe wrestled with moral agonies about being "fair" to the White invaders before swooping down to slaughter them [I]en masse[/I] or make them the centerpiece of an enjoyable evening of torture? Neither side was interested in "fairness," only in who would still be alive when the battles were over. The Indians lost, but to this day we respect them for fighting back and putting up a strong resistance. "Fair" or "unfair" weren't part of the equation, only who would win.
Today, it is Whites who are on the defensive against a shrewd, wealthy enemy who has control of psychological tools never before known in any civilization. Whether we win or lose the struggle has [I]nothing[/I] to do with "fair," only with survival.
Stop thinking in terms of "fair" and reorient your thinking to Survival and Extinction. Other racial groups don't worry about being "fair," only about who can gain the greatest advantage for their respective races. It's only Whites who wring their hands in guilty agony about being "fair" as they are slowly squeezed out of existence. An obsessive fretting about being "fair" to those who despise us is the White race's greatest weakness.
2003-10-20 23:33 | User Profile
Sinclair: [QUOTE]Now, I'm not gonna go off about the noble savage living in harmony with the environment, but if the governments in the US and Canada had cut down a bit on the destroying of their culture and the slaughter (The US did a hell of a lot more than of the latter than us Canucks, we just shoved them on to shitty land), things would be different.[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ.
First, nothing wrong with harbouring noble savage sentiments, provided that they are amenable to observed reality. I indulged in mine with unabashed passion as a youth, and like many Euros had Karel May to thank for planting them. My opinion changed when, after disembarkation, I had a chance to meet a few. Later, when in the course of revising my world outlook and making a handful of connections, it occurred to me that the author was likely influenced by another contemporary scribbler, the more famous “Karel” of the period.
No question that the Indians were on the receiving end of a raw deal and that what was done them was “not fair,” anymore than what is presently being done to white nations is not fair. But, as arkaday and others have pointed out, morality ought not factor into struggle for survival between species. When it does, other things being equal, the side fancying itself the superior moralist loses.
What would be the consequence had US and Canada “cut down a bit” in eradicating their culture? Implicit in this desire is the assumption that two civilizations, situated on opposite spectrums by every conceivable measure including cultural-social and economic indicators (not to mention rate of modernization), are able to coexist in close proximity. I think this impossible, or at least not sustainable for any meaningful period. What I described would constitute, with one titular modification (or absence of borders), a TRUE multicultural society--an oxymoron and an inherent absurdity.
We agree that Canada behaved less badly than the US, but how would giving the Indians more and better land have made a difference. After all, are we not the most tolerant (naive), diverse (unstable), multicultural (incompatible), progressive (degenerate), and peace-loving (spineless) nation on Earth? You know we are, fellow Canuckistanian, and we have the immigration quotas, unwritten PC speech codes, race based laws & restitution programs, gun registry, and thought crime legislation to prove it. We have given them much more than Grade-A land. Payments under the Indian Act amount to over $40,000 annually per person living on reservation. All “aboriginals” irrespective of residence enjoy substantial reduction in (if not free) tuition for post secondary education. They benefit from lax hunting and fishing rights, particularly whenever these can be tied to traditional cultural ceremonies. We have affirmative action policies up to our gills, and in all instances natives are first on the list following the word desirable. But alas, the reality that is the subject matter of this thread persists.
Let’s not even talk about Ottawa’s contribution to the political entity known as Nunavut. The only discussion this subject deserves concerns the hypothetical limit on what percentage of Nunavut’s revenues can come from outside sources before the farce is openly acknowledged for what it is. Remember we’re at 92% and rising.
It may be said that these are only recent gifts, tokens thrown at the Indian so the white man can alleviate his guilt, and had similar efforts been made 100 or 200 hundred years earlier things would be different. Would they really? Now it’s true that an entire generation of Indians would not have known the degrading experience of attending residential schools where they were trained to forget their culture, language, etc., and where, in some instances, they sustained physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the clergy. But would the absence of these and other tragedies significantly impact their collective cultural health today? In other words, would the band chiefs responsible for doling out federal money act on behalf of all their tribal members in lieu of favouring only family and close supporters? Would they attend places of higher learning in greater numbers and make more of an impact toward our body of knowledge? Would they fish for ceremonial foods and refrain from illegally selling their catch for profit on the open market? Again, would they be healthier as a people living in an alien society, incompatible at every step with what is known of their social evolution prior to white conquest?
I suspect that what is objected to amounts to regret over present economic disparity, as distinct from regret over cultural eradication, since as everyone knows hunting and gathering with minor agricultural activity is passé. This sentiment is misplaced and may even prove irrelevant with the passage of time. Our so-called democratic Judeo-Christian civilization is ultimately destructive to all groups but one. Arguably, whites suffer more than others. Indians may have higher incidence of alcoholism, poverty, drug abuse, violence, diabetes and what have you but at least their numbers are increasing. Our benevolence has made this possible. The overall white birthrate is significantly below replacement levels and all social indicators point to further reductions. What is wealth when faced with such prognosis? Economic disparity among races is always present whenever they mix. The precise level of disparity is a function of distance between the society they wallow in and the type of society, if any, a given race/group is capable of producing (or imitating) if left to its own devices. Which is precisely why Blacks, Mestizos, Indians, Whites/Asians, and Jews line up the way they do.
Remorse is cheap. A better question is what would a hypothetical white nationalist regime do by way of deeds? There are only two alternatives. One is maintenance of status quo or some variation thereof with whites and natives sharing the same territory with recognition of permanent racial economic disparity… until one group is absorbed. There may be no race-based laws (greater disparity) or some such laws (lesser disparity), antithetical as they are our common way of thinking. Option two entails dividing the continent into two separate zones and declaring the Indian part off-limit to whites and their corporations. All natural resources would stay with the locals. Preferably, a wall would be put up so as to prevent trade (exploitation) and contact would be limited as best as feasible so two completely different societies can develop, with all the attending inequalities that may be expected.
The second option is the most equitable and probably the more appealing to those with remorse, but it is hard to conceive how such an arrangement could endure. A social evolution along the lines of “strange new world” is not out of the question. The real struggle would be for the technologically advanced nation to resist the temptation to roll-up all the land and “cultivate” the barbarians.
All this is a convoluted way of saying that there are no good solutions.
2003-10-21 01:23 | User Profile
"ll this is a convoluted way of saying that there are no good solutions."
Custer was right. End of story.