Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

Forgotten History of Americans Parks

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • hikerboy wrote:

      the article fails to include the displacement of thousands of non-native americans in the parks'creation, ala the smokies.
      But what's often left unmentioned is that for the parks to become the protected lands of public imagination, their prior inhabitants -- such as indigenous peoples and the rural poor -- had to be evicted.
      Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
      Dr. Seuss Cof123

    • Rasty wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      the article fails to include the displacement of thousands of non-native americans in the parks'creation, ala the smokies.
      But what's often left unmentioned is that for the parks to become the protected lands of public imagination, their prior inhabitants -- such as indigenous peoples and the rural poor -- had to be evicted.
      we were evicting them long before the parks were even thought about.
      its all good

    • This is all typical human behaviour repeated thousands of times in our history.
      We are a tribal animal. People not in "our" tribe are lesser in our eyes.
      Common "other" tribal groups are or have been non Romans, Jews, Christians, French, blacks, Spaniards, Muslims, gays, Mexicans, women, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Steelers fans, disabled, military people, nonmilitary people, Republicans, liberals, the list goes on ad nauseum.
      The problem is that when we deal with another "tribe", we reduce to some degree their right to equality to ourselves. To my mind to be truly civilized you must be able to truly treat "others" in a manner that you would find acceptable to be treated yourself. Otherwise you continue man's history of injustice to man.
      I have said it before, the moment you mouth off at Dodgers fans as a group, you are actually one step down the path that enabled Hitler to kill millions of Jews. It is the first step in dehumanising a group.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.

    • Rasty wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      the article fails to include the displacement of thousands of non-native americans in the parks'creation, ala the smokies.
      But what's often left unmentioned is that for the parks to become the protected lands of public imagination, their prior inhabitants -- such as indigenous peoples and the rural poor -- had to be evicted.
      whats ironic here is whats left unmentioned in the rest of the article is the rural poor
      its all good

    • I think we all agree that historically, native Americans and the rural poor got the shaft, but what do y'all think about what this group wants to do...what they're advocating?

      "Often the real drivers of environmental destruction go unaddressed, things like logging, mining and political corruption, while the lives of the most defenseless people and the least responsible people are ruined or made impossibly difficult," Hurran said. "We are calling for a new model of conservation, a new kind of conservation, that works not against but with tribal peoples who are the best conservationists and guardians of the natural world."

      Do y'all believe that tribal people are the best conservationists? Have y'all been on tribal lands?
      Lost in the right direction.

    • The Australian Aborigines have a slogan "White Australia has a black history".
      Very true on many levels. We literally slaughtered them no less than America did to your native people.
      But on another level they changed the land immeasurably. Through hunting and the use of fire as a hunting method, they made many species of plants and animals extinct. When white man came they were living in harmony with the land (but not each other - tribes again), but the land was substantially different from the one they walked into about 40,000 years earlier.
      Of course nowadays we can destroy an ecosystem much more quickly, but no less thoroughly.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.

    • Today's "Native Americans", for the most part, are so out to lunch it's not even funny. They go on and on about "our land" and how they were driven off of it and how we owe it to them to give it back, blah, blah, blah. Bullshit, no one owes you a damn thing. The very heritage they love to drone on and on about was built around exploiting the resources in an area to exhaustion then moving on to another area, If that new area was occupied by another tribe then guess what? There was battle and the victor got the resources....the men were killed and the women and children taken in as slaves. They didn't let anyone keep "their" land. Hypocrites.

      And before I start having to listen to "well I'm .08795 % Cherokee and....", just save it. I'm from Southern Appalachia where my family has been as far back as it can be traced and I got news for you; It's hard to be from Southern Appalachia and NOT have some form of "Native American" blood mixed in. I'm all about the history and heritage of the "Native Americans" prior to colonization. They did what they had to do and they did it well. Hell, there's a lot we would do well to go back and revisit and adopt again. Sadly, that's not likely to happen. But I can guarantee you the natives prior to colonization would be embarrassed by the majority of folks representing them today.
      If your Doctor is a tree, you're on acid.

    • hikerboy wrote:

      thats nonsense. tribes routinely ruined the land they lived on, then moved to another area after it became unlivable, with poor sanitation, slash and burn agriculture.
      In the time you're talking about, the European model was hardly any better! Poor sanitation wiped out many a European settlement, and the Europeans cleared and tried to farm a lot of forest land that truly wasn't arable.

      I'd argue that the Haudenosaunee had a more sustainable model than the early settlers - interplant corn, beans, squash so that you get nitrogen fixers right among the corn stalks, and move on before the fields are completely barren. It didn't take all that many years for an abandoned garden to recover, and the next generation could move back in.

      The practice of driving game to the hunters with fire actually had the same effect as modern 'controlled burning'.

      With all that said, the Native Americans were responsible for the extinction of a number of large mammals, and both styles of agriculture would be unacceptable by 21st-century standards.

      As far as the warfare goes, the Europeans again fared no better. There were stable pre-Columbian regimes that enjoyed internal peace for some centuries, with endless warfare on the margins. Not only in the Southwest, either; the Five Nations were stable for centuries - by waging endless war on all their neighbours, granted! It really is very like Europe and her history of endless warfare in the Balkans and the Low Countries.

      But in international relations, we do generally try to keep a lid on expansionism. Nobody kept a lid on Europe when she expanded into Africa and the New World. Whether the natives were using it responsibly or not, they had the land before the Europeans came, and in most cases it was taken from them by force and fraud. Is it hypocritical to protest that when your own people had a history of doing the same? If it is, then nobody, anywhere has a legitimate claim to land ownership.

      In truth, it's complicated. And that's how I see many things. There are too many ethnic conflicts for which I have ancestry on both sides: Frenchman and Fleming; Briton and Saxon; Englishman and Irishman and Scot; European and Native American; Lenape and Kanien:ke'haka. At some point, centuries-old grievances cannot be redressed and we need to move forward, which requires sacrifice on both sides of a conflict.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • JimBlue wrote:

      Well, I don't know of any nation with clean hands.

      But that doesn't excuse how native peoples and the poor are treated.
      That is 100% true but what this group wants to accomplish for conservation purposes is complicated and in no way as cut and dry as they make it sound.

      Did anyone read the FAQ?

      assets.survivalinternational.o…1321/conservation-q-a.pdf
      Lost in the right direction.

    • JimBlue wrote:

      But that doesn't excuse how native peoples and the poor are treated.
      Precisely. I know I've profited greatly from unearned privilege, and that's shameful. And I understand that the privilege is founded in bloody history. What could be productive is trying to level privilege and lift up the poor today, not to focus on grievances long past any hope of meaningful redress.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • hikerboy wrote:

      thats nonsense. tribes routinely ruined the land they lived on, then moved to another area after it became unlivable, with poor sanitation, slash and burn agriculture.
      Yes some tribes damaged land via the above methods, however due to sparse population densities the local environment was not irrevocably harmed. Game recovered from over hunting and biomes recovered when folks moved onto greener pastures.

      Lest we forget.....


      SSgt Ray Rangel - USAF
      SrA Elizabeth Loncki - USAF
      PFC Adam Harris - USA
      MSgt Eden Pearl - USMC

    • Dan76 wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      thats nonsense. tribes routinely ruined the land they lived on, then moved to another area after it became unlivable, with poor sanitation, slash and burn agriculture.
      Yes some tribes damaged land via the above methods, however due to sparse population densities the local environment was not irrevocably harmed. Game recovered from over hunting and biomes recovered when folks moved onto greener pastures.
      Most Plains people migrated in a great loop, following the buffalo herds. They did know that human waste polluted the drinking water.

      Slash and burn would be east coast US and in the jungles of central and south america. The top soil is very poor there. Slash and burn puts the nutrients in the trees into the soil so food can be grown.

      As for population... low population densities are not proven for all areas of the western hemisphere. Many native peoples died out before they met any settlers or explorers due to diseases being passed on via natives trading good with other natives. As many as 2 million died this way. Some estimates are higher.

      The desert Southwest US did have low populations, mostly due to lack of water.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      Precisely. I know I've profited greatly from unearned privilege, and that's shameful. And I understand that the privilege is founded in bloody history.
      I have to respectfully disagree with this notion. If you had personally stepped on the backs of others for your own advancement, than would be shameful, brother. But where and what you were born in to was no more under your control than those born in to far less fortunate circumstances. I find no shame in simply being born or in winning the genetic lottery.

      I took no steps to create or attain any privilege I am afforded along cultural or ethnic lines. And as long as I don't exploit others to maintain or gain, then I feel no shame at all. I refuse to be held accountable for the actions of those that came before me. I may abhor those actions, but I wasn't around to negate or to perpetuate them.

      We can do whatever we deem necessary to make a better version of history and leave a better place for those that follow us, but owning the actions of others (IMHO) will only serve to lessen our strengths and our efforts. Our we responsible for preventing history from repeating itself? Sure if we have a conscience and any dignity at all. But to harbor accountability for actions in a time when even our grandparents may not have existed yet - that's simply counterproductive.

      I apologize if I seem to have went John Galt there, not my intention. Further, I apologize if I read your message wrong. Finally, I will cede your level of intellect surpasses mine any day of the week (skip the modesty, I've read too many of your posts by now) however, I believe the word "shameful" to be a misplaced sentiment and a complete waste of energy. If we are to have any feeling about what occurred in the past, surely we could focus it better externally than within.

      Again, all said with due respect.
      *

      For once I'd just like to hear myself say, "Great job, self! Why don't you just take the day off."

    • g00gle wrote:

      AnotherKevin wrote:

      Precisely. I know I've profited greatly from unearned privilege, and that's shameful. And I understand that the privilege is founded in bloody history.
      I have to respectfully disagree with this notion. If you had personally stepped on the backs of others for your own advancement, than would be shameful, brother. But where and what you were born in to was no more under your control than those born in to far less fortunate circumstances. I find no shame in simply being born or in winning the genetic lottery.
      I took no steps to create or attain any privilege I am afforded along cultural or ethnic lines. And as long as I don't exploit others to maintain or gain, then I feel no shame at all. I refuse to be held accountable for the actions of those that came before me. I may abhor those actions, but I wasn't around to negate or to perpetuate them.
      Here's where I've failed to communicate, I think. I'm not talking about being born to people who were a bit more wealthy than the average and hence able to acquire a better education and so forth. I shan't apologize, for instance, for the fact that my parents chose to give me the best possible start in life that they could afford, at the expense of their own wants, and hence I started out with both more money and a better job than those who came from less provident families.

      But there's a lot of privilege that I simply enjoy, unearned, today - that I cannot refuse - because of the attitudes of those around me. I can get a traffic ticket without worrying that a cop will blow me away. I can walk in my own neighbourhood without being challenged about my business there. I can call the township about the broken water main, and they come out to fix it. I can be dirty, and stinky, and walking the shoulder of a public highway without a car, and be labeled a 'hiker' and not a 'vagrant'. "Identifying myself" to poll workers consists in saying, "Hi, Tom! Hi, Anne! Hi, Ken!" When my daughter was younger, if she had an accident, I could bring her to the ER without worrying about Child Protective Services. When my wife had a heart attack, I could visit her in the ICU simply by identifying myself as her husband.

      Even some of my equally wealthy and well-educated colleagues do not enjoy those things, simply because they have family names like Santamaria, or Ahmed, or Makindé, and the physical appearance that goes with those names. Because they worship at St. Mary's, or al-Khoei, or the Sikh Temple instead of the Community Bible Church or First United Methodist. Because they wear kippot or turbans or hijjab. Because they chose to share their households with unconventional sets of people. Even those whose parents were born right here in the same city, still aren't "one of us" and cannot expect the same sort of treatment.

      Accepting those privileges simply as a matter of right, even though I need do nothing to receive them, is indeed shameful. It is not a cause of guilt, because the blame for actions does not attach specifically to me. I am not the bigoted cop, the service dispatcher who sends some people's requests to the tail of the line, the shopkeeper who doesn't do business with "them," or the curtain-twitcher who calls the authorities when anyone who 'looks strange' invades the neighbourhood. Simply accepting that privilege without question would diminish me, and were it possible that others could enjoy the same advantages, it would cost me nothing.

      It's really the same sort of attitude that means that the guy who offers me a lift and won't accept gas money had better check his seat cushions after I get out, or that the hostelkeeper who accepts a 'suggested' donation may find that I've left double, because I'm "not hurtin'", find it still cheap at the price, and want to cover for the last guy that stiffed him. It's the same thing that motivates me to trash out the firepit, clean the waterbar, or move the blowdown. It just wouldn't be right not to, and I'd feel less a person for it. It's not accepting guilt that other people like me created the problem; it's just that if I don't work at cleaning up the mess, who will? If I don't work affirmatively at restoring our reputation in the face of other hikers with an entitled attitude, who will? If I don't try to extend human dignity to those who are denied it, who will?
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • @AnotherKevin I understand all that. I see no reason for anyone to be blamed for things that happened before they were born.

      I was born during Segregation. If the KKK in that town had known we were Native Americans, I very likely wouldn't be here to talk about this. And there were still living survivors not far away from that town who had lived through the last Comanche raids.

      Some years ago one of my relatives and I worked at the same office. Tech support for other employees. One called in from out west, my relative asked them if they were Native American. Turns out the caller was Apache, and my relative mentioned our Comanche ancestry. The caller was very upset, quoting as close as I remember second hand 'how dare this company hire an enemy of my people !', and the caller walked off the job and never came back. My relative did get in this, 'none of us were alive 500 years ago, so we had nothing to do with it'.

      So, I've had direct experience of the 'sins of the fathers are visited on the sons and daughters' nonsense.

      I grew up poor. I graduated from high school, spent 6 years of honorable service in the US Navy, and got a Bachelor of Science degree in computer programming. Spent years being paid minimum wage jobs reparing computers. Finally got a good paying job, my last one before retirement age, which got me a whole $75 more a month on my social security check. I hope to find out more about my ancestry... not much so far.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • JimBlue wrote:

      @AnotherKevin I understand all that. I see no reason for anyone to be blamed for things that happened before they were born.
      Right. I'm not talking about shouldering the blame for what my ancestors - or people who looked like them - did. I'm talking about trying to do what's fair, today, in a society that's still profoundly unfair. That's hard enough without taking on ancestral guilt.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • No, you are not to blame for where you were born. Nor does place of birth confer any particular virtue. But I think it's smart to be aware of the benefits conferred by being Caucasian, male, straight, Christian, tall, good looking, healthy, etc. And considerate of those who "fail" to fit one or more of these attributes.

      I'm not joking about the being-tall part either. The benefits are confirmed by studies. Hardly surprising, when you think about it.

      FWIW, what I recall from Jared Diamond, a majority of Native Americans were killed by diseases passed to them by Europeans, for which they had no immunity. The Europeans had acquired immunity from centuries worth of living in filthy cities. Many of the Europeans had died away in the plagues of the 14th century.

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      It's really the same sort of attitude that means that the guy who offers me a lift and won't accept gas money had better check his seat cushions after I get out, or that the hostelkeeper who accepts a 'suggested' donation may find that I've left double, because I'm "not hurtin'", find it still cheap at the price, and want to cover for the last guy that stiffed him. It's the same thing that motivates me to trash out the firepit, clean the waterbar, or move the blowdown. It just wouldn't be right not to, and I'd feel less a person for it. It's not accepting guilt that other people like me created the problem; it's just that if I don't work at cleaning up the mess, who will? If I don't work affirmatively at restoring our reputation in the face of other hikers with an entitled attitude, who will? If I don't try to extend human dignity to those who are denied it, who will?

      ^^^ T H I S ^^^
      *

      For once I'd just like to hear myself say, "Great job, self! Why don't you just take the day off."