[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many gross injustices can never be redressed, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

But is there something in between perfect redress and doing very little at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes there may be.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I also should mention that I have a strong quibble with the use of the terms "we" and "our" as they are used throughout this thread. I'm not included in the "we" or the "our"...

[/ QUOTE ]

But can't "we" mean something akin to "our people," or those people of the past with whom we might be associated in terms of general ancestry or continent of origin, etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps; but not insofar as accountability or responsibility, which seems to be the implied theme given the context. Also, if "we" is to be used in the large group sense, I do still have strong reservations about using it for any group not existing in the present. My ancestors aren't "we" or "us"; my ancestors are "they" or "them". The difference between the living and the dead is greater than any differences between racial, cultural or demographic groups. I don't believe I can say "when we arrived in America the 1600's" because I simply did not arrive at that time. I didn't come into this world until much more recently.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my view, there are no redressments possible that make any real sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clear solutions are obscure at best. At one time, redress would have been relatively easy. All non-native-Americans could simply have either left this continent, leaving it to those who were here first, or perhaps worked out a mutually satisfactory agreement. Now, people would think such a thing was unthinkable, but would it be just?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I'm not sure the concept of justice can even be appropriately applied to such things. The Pilgrims left England to avoid religious persecution. First they went to Holland, but after settling in that liberal place, found themselves again threatened (by the possibility of encroachment and control by aggressive foreign powers). Holland was no longer considered the secure safe haven. So they went across the sea. Was it a just thing, that they sought freedom from religious persecution by colonizing the New World? What followed after was inevitable due to the continued influx of Englishmen and Europeans. Resources, including land, became increasingly contested, and the stronger and more numerous side won. The Indians were mistreated and their tale is truly tragic. Have you read Black Elk Speaks? I would highly recommend it.

As for justice, does it apply or have any basis in reality where existential struggles are concerned? The settlers faced many hardships and as the white man's populaton grew, life was hard for everyone. The frontier was hard for the Indians but it was also hard for the white man. I cannot help but think of the saga of the Indians as deeply tragic. But would it have been "just" for all the white men to return from whence they came? As before, I don't know if justice really has anything much to do with it. The settlers and frontiersmen came to make a new life for themselves and the Indians were in the way. This is also the story of the whole world, in a sense. When groups collide, the stronger group generally wins and the weaker group loses and suffers. Everyone and every group has its own life to lead, so to speak. There isn't a lot of historical tolerance for anyone who gets in the way, on any continent. Yes it's tragic but I don't think the settlers or pioneers could have afforded to just pack up and go back home acros the sea. It cost many everything they had just to make the initial journey, at great risk and often loss of good health as well.

Some of the later tragedies of the Indians might have been avoided - I say might because I don't know for sure. I think the white man could possibly have left the Indians much larger reservations at least (on the scale of states perhaps). I would feel better about it had it been left that way.

Yet money waits for no one and if there is money to be made there are those who must make it. Did the gold-miners and the ranchers and the farmers displace the Indians in some locales merely out of whim or greed or did many of them actually have no other route to a possibly more prosperous life?

Justice is a strange concept in some ways. It lives more in our heads than in reality. We would often like to see it but when push comes to shove, if we are on the side that really needs something, then we generally prefer that need to justice. How much of America's land did the white man need? I don't know the answer to that question.