In the 1850s, the 1830s—in fact for decades before the Civil War—there were well-organized, powerful, and certainly very vocal individuals and groups calling for an end to slavery—at least in the North.
On the other hand, the Indians (Native Americans) were being treated very badly and even exterminated; and I have never heard that there was even one individual who raised his voice in protest against this.
The treatment of the Indians is a sad, disgusting, tragic, criminal, and extremely long story. The saga could just go on and on.
Just a very few examples: During the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the Cherokees and several other tribes living in the Southeast of the United States were forcibly removed. With no more than the possessions they could carry on their backs they were forced to walk all the way to Oklahoma, even through bad winter weather. Many, especially the oldest and the youngest, died of disease or starvation. (Once they got there, they were told, Oklahoma, or "Indian Territory," would be theirs forever; and that turned out to be just one of innumerable, countless promises to the Indians that turned out to be totally meaningless.)
Similarly, in 1864, the Navajo were also "removed," and made to walk several hundred miles, and for a while were impounded in basically a concentration camp where nearly half of them died. (There is a lasting legacy of this in that all Navajo now alive are descendents of some 2,000 who survived this so-called Long Walk and so are inbred and suffering from diseases that result from the build-up of recessive genes.)
When the Indians were not being made to go on long forced marches like these, they were otherwise being killed by being given smallpox-infected blankets; being shot; having their villages burned and their crops destroyed; or having the buffalo, their source of food and nearly everything else in the case of the Plains Indians, exterminated. Or once on reservations and removed from their hunting grounds and thus no longer able to provide for themselves, they were not receiving food destined for them because of corrupt Indian agents.
Indians who somehow survived all the genocide by shooting and starvation had to undergo having their culture destroyed. Indian children, once in the power of whites—missionaries or teachers in special Indian schools—were forbidden to speak their language. Along with their native religious beliefs, which of course were also suppressed by the missionaries, language is virtually synonymous with culture, so that to deprive a people of their language is to virtually destroy their culture.
Of course I am viewing all this from the perspective of a relatively enlightened person of the 21st century. But where was the person who was a bit ahead of his time, or was more humane, and who said, "These are people, they deserve to live, it's wrong to kill them, to try to wipe them out"?
Copyright © 2013.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Oh, No, Not Another Post about Guns!
I've blogged about guns a number of times, and I've resolved to not write anything further on the subject. I've said it and I don't want to keep saying it. I don't want to get repetitious and tedious, for anyone who is a regular reader of this blog.
However, the shootings keep up, and my thoughts and perspective might keep evolving. So—here I go again.
The problem of the school and mall shootings (and so forth) that we have in the US, very tragically and all too frequently, have two ingredients: the easy availability of guns in this country, plus mentally ill people who are out on the street rather than being confined or institutionalized. This is simple logic and I don't think it can be refuted or denied.
It's mainly the first of these that I've written about a number of times, and I still maintain that the power and influence of the NRA (National Rifle Association), together with loose or broad interpretations of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, seem to stand in the way of our politicians' doing very much about that component of the problem.
As to the second part of the problem, I recently came across some interesting information. President Ronald Reagan instituted policies—funding cuts--that largely emptied our mental hospitals and sent mentally disturbed people out onto the street rather than ensuring that they were either treated or kept confined where they could not cause serious mischief; and evidently we still have the results of those policies with us such that dangerous people are not being treated, and can get a gun with plenty of ammunition and shoot numerous people.
Copyright © 2013.
However, the shootings keep up, and my thoughts and perspective might keep evolving. So—here I go again.
The problem of the school and mall shootings (and so forth) that we have in the US, very tragically and all too frequently, have two ingredients: the easy availability of guns in this country, plus mentally ill people who are out on the street rather than being confined or institutionalized. This is simple logic and I don't think it can be refuted or denied.
It's mainly the first of these that I've written about a number of times, and I still maintain that the power and influence of the NRA (National Rifle Association), together with loose or broad interpretations of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, seem to stand in the way of our politicians' doing very much about that component of the problem.
As to the second part of the problem, I recently came across some interesting information. President Ronald Reagan instituted policies—funding cuts--that largely emptied our mental hospitals and sent mentally disturbed people out onto the street rather than ensuring that they were either treated or kept confined where they could not cause serious mischief; and evidently we still have the results of those policies with us such that dangerous people are not being treated, and can get a gun with plenty of ammunition and shoot numerous people.
Copyright © 2013.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
The Bible and Gay Marriage
Yesterday, a favorable vote in the House of the Illinois legislature meant that Illinois will become the fifteenth state (plus the District of Columbia) to permit same-sex (or "gay") marriage.
I am very happy about this, but it brings to mind the debate, which has occurred many times and took place here recently. That is, some religious folks and conservatives have argued against gay marriage and, at other times and places, other measures to ensure or enhance rights of gay people by pointing to their Bibles.
My personal argument against these people and their point of view on this subject is that we in the United States live in a secular society, not in a theocracy. If it were Muslims who wanted to blur the line between church and state by imposing Islamic sharia law (as have, for example, the Taliban in Afghanistan), there would be a loud outcry. But apparently it matters whose religion is the source of the views and proscriptions that some would like to incorporate into the civil law.
Another example of mine: Jewish people (in the US and of course elsewhere), if they are observant Jews, believe that one should not eat pork. Now suppose that I, as a Jew, argued in the legislature that since I believe that eating pork is a sin (and the Bible—Leviticus—says, I believe, that the eating of pork is an "abomination"), then no one in the US should be permitted by law to eat pork. I'd love to hear the screams and shrieks of those African-American ministers who fought against gay marriage in Illinois when their pork chops are taken away!
And, round about the year 1850, the Bible was pointed to as not only permitting, but positively endorsing, slavery.
A column today by Neil Steinberg in the Chicago Sun-Times had the same idea but he used different examples. He said that if you stone your daughter for speaking disrespectfully toward you, it won't serve you as a defense to point to your Bible. Nor can you perform a sacrifice in your driveway and point to your Bible as permitting it or requiring it. As Steinberg said, "That battle has been lost."
Just as 150 years after the slavery debate our views have changed, and no one would try to defend slavery, maybe in another 10 or 15 decades people will look back to these times and see that it was ridiculous to point to the Bible as justifying the inferior treatment of gay people.
Copyright © 2013.
I am very happy about this, but it brings to mind the debate, which has occurred many times and took place here recently. That is, some religious folks and conservatives have argued against gay marriage and, at other times and places, other measures to ensure or enhance rights of gay people by pointing to their Bibles.
My personal argument against these people and their point of view on this subject is that we in the United States live in a secular society, not in a theocracy. If it were Muslims who wanted to blur the line between church and state by imposing Islamic sharia law (as have, for example, the Taliban in Afghanistan), there would be a loud outcry. But apparently it matters whose religion is the source of the views and proscriptions that some would like to incorporate into the civil law.
Another example of mine: Jewish people (in the US and of course elsewhere), if they are observant Jews, believe that one should not eat pork. Now suppose that I, as a Jew, argued in the legislature that since I believe that eating pork is a sin (and the Bible—Leviticus—says, I believe, that the eating of pork is an "abomination"), then no one in the US should be permitted by law to eat pork. I'd love to hear the screams and shrieks of those African-American ministers who fought against gay marriage in Illinois when their pork chops are taken away!
And, round about the year 1850, the Bible was pointed to as not only permitting, but positively endorsing, slavery.
A column today by Neil Steinberg in the Chicago Sun-Times had the same idea but he used different examples. He said that if you stone your daughter for speaking disrespectfully toward you, it won't serve you as a defense to point to your Bible. Nor can you perform a sacrifice in your driveway and point to your Bible as permitting it or requiring it. As Steinberg said, "That battle has been lost."
Just as 150 years after the slavery debate our views have changed, and no one would try to defend slavery, maybe in another 10 or 15 decades people will look back to these times and see that it was ridiculous to point to the Bible as justifying the inferior treatment of gay people.
Copyright © 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
