Trending Topics:

Shared values: Likud member says Prawer Plan akin to what ‘Americans did to the Indians’

Israel/Palestine
on 52 Comments
Knesset Member Miri Regev (Photo: Tomer Appelbaum/Haaretz)

Knesset Member Miri Regev (Photo: Tomer Appelbaum/Haaretz)

The U.S. and Israeli governments love to hype how both countries share the same “values.” AIPAC has a whole webpage dedicated to the “progressive values [Israel] shares with America.”

I guess they won’t be mentioning these shared values:

“You want to transfer an entire population,” MK Hanna Swaid (Hadash) said.

Committee chairwoman MK Miri Regev (Likud) responded, “Yes, as the Americans did to the Indians.”

The remarks were made during a Knesset Interior Committee hearing on Monday as debate over the Prawer Plan, which calls for demolishing Bedouin villages and transferring their inhabitants to urban townships, continued.

(H/T Yousef Munayyer.)

Alex Kane
About Alex Kane

Alex Kane is a freelance journalist who focuses on Israel/Palestine and civil liberties. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

52 Responses

  1. Mike_Konrad
    Mike_Konrad
    December 11, 2013, 12:37 pm

    It is more complicated than that.

    Anyway, what Americans did to the Indians was minor compared to what Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay did to Indians.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      December 11, 2013, 3:35 pm

      Genocide was the same everywhere, Mike.

      I think the Indians will be vindicated in the end. Capitalism isn’t going to make it.
      Nature is going to win.

    • Pamela Olson
      Pamela Olson
      December 11, 2013, 4:17 pm

      Says the king of “shift and divert.” Anything but address the actual facts of the case that’s presently at hand.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      December 11, 2013, 4:32 pm

      No, evil is sometimes no more “complicated” than that. “It’s complicated” in this context means, “it’s evil but I don’t want to be judged on that evil.”

      “what Americans did to the Indians was minor compared to what Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay did to Indians.”

      And what the Russian czars did to the Jews in the pogroms was minor compared to what the Nazis did, so you would be okay if, say, the US said they were going to do with some minority in the US what the Czars did to the Jews??

    • Edward Q
      Edward Q
      December 12, 2013, 8:53 am

      Yeah, Israel has devised many convoluted laws to dispossess Palestinians. In that respect it is more complicated. Apparently, unlike Jews, Palestinians are not supposed to enjoy basic human rights because things are worse in “Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay”.

    • Erasmus
      Erasmus
      December 12, 2013, 10:40 am

      Re : Mike_K… It is more complicated than that.

      Yes indeed, next to settlements and occupation and apartheid and racism and discrimination, also the issue of a second Naqba for the Bedouins is

      verrrrry, verrrry COMPLEX!

      As nearly everything about Israel is verrrrry, verrrry COMPLEX! indeed.

  2. Krauss
    Krauss
    December 11, 2013, 1:24 pm

    But there is a difference:

    She talks about America in the 1800s.
    We’re talking about Israel, today.

    If she wants to compare herself to America in the 1800s, why not institute slavery, too? She can defend herself by saying that America used to do that, too.

    I didn’t think Israel’s defence could get worse than “Yes but what about Saudi Arabia” as if that’s the country we should compare it to. But apparently it can get worse, it now wants to be compared to America centuries ago – because it knows what it is doing today is near-impossible to defend in 21th century America and across the Western world.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      December 11, 2013, 9:25 pm

      @Krauss —

      Of course she wants to be compared to the America when the Indian wars were going on. The same way if she were using a French analogy she would want to talk about the establishment of the Frankish kings and how they pushed out the Visigoths in the 5th century. If she were comparing herself to the Palestinians she’s be talking about the massive population transfers that happened in the 7th and 8th century to allow them take the country.

      Israel wants to be, and should be compared to countries that are in the process of forming a nation state. Western Europe was going through that process in the 4th-6th centuries not recently. Africa does present countries that are going through similar processes. Do you think those comparisons are fair?

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        December 12, 2013, 4:03 am

        JeffB,

        Stop filibustering.

        The point Krauss is making is that Jewish colonialism is going on IN THE PRESENT.

        Why not bring back slavery? Then you Zionist fascists can call all of us antisemitic for singling Israel out since America practiced slavery in its history.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 13, 2013, 8:30 am

        @Cliff

        Why not bring back slavery? Then you Zionist fascists can call all of us antisemitic for singling Israel out since America practiced slavery in its history.

        Good example! There are solid reports of slavery in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan and Yemen. Why aren’t those countries regularly being discussed at the UN? Why is there so little focus on it, that you didn’t even know about it when you raised this example?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 14, 2013, 2:35 pm

        Good example! There are solid reports of slavery in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan and Yemen.

        Why don’t you try ready their ICERD and UPR reviews? There’s never been any shortage of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions critical of human rights abuses and armed conflicts in those countries either.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        December 14, 2013, 6:02 pm

        Thanks for proving my point, Hasbarat.

        Even with something as disgusting as SLAVERY, you Zionist thieves will make excuses for Israel (and of course lie about undue attention/singling out).

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        December 12, 2013, 3:56 pm

        If she were comparing herself to the Palestinians she’s be talking about the massive population transfers that happened in the 7th and 8th century to allow them take the country.

        Please provide a source for these “massive population transfers”.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 12, 2013, 4:13 pm

        @talkback

        Please provide a source for these “massive population transfers”.

        I don’t know any book on the topic that doesn’t cover 634-640 for example and the huge changes in policy. Or the exterminations that occured 640-740… I think the best standard text is:
        http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800882601

        But I’m not even sure anyone disagrees.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        December 13, 2013, 8:12 am

        So you just claim that there exists a book which allegedly proves a “massive population transfer”?

        I just read on Wikipedia that Parkes wrote about the 1st century after the Arab conquest (640-740) that ‘the only Arabs west of the Jordan were the garrisons.’
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Palestine

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 15, 2013, 9:54 pm

        @Talkback —

        Interesting quote from Wikipedia. I don’t remember that being in the book. I’ll check in a few days but that seems to me to be the opposite.

        I don’t see that as being plausible. I’m not sure what Christians they would mean 640-740 CE. Collyridians (the Christians described in the Koran) never existed in those numbers. Arians I don’t think exist after the muslim conquest. Donatists that late and that far north? Who are we talking about?

        The primary Jewish population was gone by 73 CE. There is a remigration of Jews prior to the Muslim conquest but mostly they die off. If they are there in 740CE where do they go over the next centuries?

        I’m suspecting the quote in wikipedia is Parkes quoting someone else to disagree or something. The Jews is plausible the Christians would have left more of a trace.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 13, 2013, 8:28 am

        But I’m not even sure anyone disagrees.

        Why don’t you name just one that does agree? David Nicolle, “Yarmuk AD 636: The Muslim Conquest of Syria”, Osprey, 1994 said, the first Muslim conquests were carried out by selected warriors not by massive tribal migrations. The author also noted that opposing Byzantine forces were much larger than the Muslim force and that Byzantine expeditionary forces in the 6th-7th centuries never exceeded 20,000 to 30,000. http://books.google.com/books?id=IR9rNAai2koC&lpg=PA32&dq=&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 13, 2013, 9:54 am

        @hostage

        Why don’t you name just one that does agree?

        I linked to a book that agreed. In literally the line directly above the one you quoted.

        Whose land? A history of the peoples of Palestine by James William Parkes

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        December 15, 2013, 8:46 am

        JeffB: I linked to a book that agreed.

        Well, that is not very difficult given the fact that Parkes is an ardent Zionist. Joan Peters would also “agree” with you regarding the 20th century.

        But again, Parkes wrote about the 1st century after the Arab conquest (640-740) that ‘the only Arabs west of the Jordan were the garrisons’. Why did you ignore this?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 14, 2013, 2:31 pm

        I linked to a book that agreed. In literally the line directly above the one you quoted.

        In other words you were quoting someone out of context. In any event, we know from population DNA studies that many Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Palestinians all share common ancestors who lived in the current era and that the Arab Conquest didn’t replace the indigenous population.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 14, 2013, 3:40 pm

        @Hostage

        In other words you were quoting someone out of context.

        What are you talking about? Someone asked for a reference. I gave a reference as hyperlink. You then said I hadn’t given a reference and i pointed out that I had and what I’d given the reference to. I’m not quoting them out of context, that is the standard reference for the population groups. I’m quoting the most mainstream book that exists on the topic.

        As for the DNA. All humans share common ancestors, so what? In particular to whatever extent that Ashkenazi Jewish DNA still reflects the arabian peninsula we are going to be related to any population living there in the 21st century. You could run the same test with Syrians and you would also see common ancestors.

        Besides the fact that Ashkenazi Jewish populations have bred with Sephardic Jews over the last 13 centuries as well. We know from history what happened in the 7th century. People could write in the 7th century they told us what happened. It is recorded.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 14, 2013, 5:05 pm

        As for the DNA. All humans share common ancestors, so what?

        But they don’t share common ancestors who lived in the current era. If you have to ask “so what?” you need to study the subject and explain how so many European Jews can share common ancestors with today’s Palestinians, if the Arab conquest actually replaced the indigenous populations? I wish you a lot of luck with that endeavor.

        You could run the same test with Syrians and you would also see common ancestors.

        That’s because the Arabian Conquest never replaced the indigenous Jewish community in Syria either. FYI, Palestine was part of natural Syria until the advent of the Balfour Declaration and there were social and economic ties between the peoples who lived there.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 15, 2013, 9:56 pm

        @Hostage

        I checked into DNA. There isn’t much similarity with Jewish DNA. It appears there are a few traces on Y-chromosones common to Jews and that’s about it. The genetics community is split on methodology and meaning. But mostly it is pretty meager regardless for any biological definition of Jewish that applies broadly.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 14, 2013, 5:26 pm

        P.S. While you are at it, you’ll also need to explain why the Askenazim and Sephardim don’t share the same recent ancestors with the Saudi Arabians.

      • just
        just
        December 14, 2013, 5:36 pm

        Whoops.

        JB– mind you don’t get your knickers in a twist……or break your brain.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        December 14, 2013, 2:06 am

        Frankish kings replaced the RULERS not the general population and the same goes for Palestine and the Arab Invasion. Yes there were massacres but nowhere near enough to warrant the replacement of the core population, as is revealed by the molecular-archaeology and supported by the physical archaeology that shows no massive change in material culture in the area.

        Your “argument” is ridiculous and an attempt to justify your own pre-existing bigotry. Or do you also maintain that the local population after the Egyptian invasion were Egyptian imports, the local population after the Persian invasion Persians, the local population after the the Hellenic invasion Hellenes, the local population after the Roman invasion Roman?

        Didn’t think so.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 14, 2013, 9:46 am

        @Ecru

        Let me get this clear. Are you really arguing that when the Franks replaced the Visigoths that there was some other population that wasn’t either? Why don’t any of the writers who we have mention this other population? Why are the Franks and the Visigoths not clearing this population to make room for their own people?

        I still owed you a response on ancient Bulgaria but you are talking dark ages Europe. If you are making the claim that populations didn’t migrate then I’d rather argue where we have 100x the evidence.

        So let’s start. Under your theory who is being moved, percentages… and who is staying?

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        December 16, 2013, 8:14 am

        @ JeffB

        (@MW sorry for being dragged off topic but I will get back to it by the end of this post. Promise.)

        Let’s start with your last question shall we.

        Under your theory who is being moved, percentages… and who is staying?

        Well first off it’s not my theory it’s the consensus of historical studies. Secondly you’re still saying people are being moved when what I (and most historians/archaeologists) are saying is that very few people are moved about, it’s a “regime change” when the Franks replace the Visigoths as rulers of the area.

        …you are talking dark ages Europe. …. I’d rather argue where we have 100x the evidence.

        So you’re admitting that you just basically made up that rubbish about Bulgaria and the Bandkeramik. Yeah I’d pretty much figured that out already. But OK let’s talk about the “Dark Ages” which is, just so you know, an out of date term no longer used in the discourse. Late Antiquity, Migration Period, or Early Medieval in the case of the Frankish Kingdoms are now the accepted (and more accurate) terminology. Surely somebody who reads so much would know this?

        No matter, when we look at the Franks it’s telling that the conquest by the Franks at the Battle of Vouille is described as a “passing of control” by Roger Collins NOT as a replacement of population. Likewise the “Encyclopaedia of Medieval France” states that the Frankish conquest of Clovis I installed the Franks as rulers of the region, not as the population. It goes on to state that…oh sod it, let’s quote this bit.

        The failure of the Franks to settle in substantial numbers in Aquitane…..

        Told ya. Not my theory – the consensus opinion of just about every modern historian who specialises in the period is the Franks did not replace the population only the rulers.

        If you like we can also look at the Frankish cemetery at Frenouville in Normandy. Everything about it is Frankish. Except that is for the people buried there. They’re that same core population that lived in the area even before the Franks arrived, it’s just the style of burial that changed not the population the burials served.

        Are you really arguing that when the Franks replaced the Visigoths that there was some other population that wasn’t either?

        You know every time you try and make a point all you do is reveal you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

        First – considering my contention (the one the history backs me up on) is that no large scale population change took place in the Frankish conquest of Visigothic Aquitane your question shows a severe lack of reading ability and second you actually think identity was fixed in the Early Medieval, that people who were born Visigoth had to die Visigoths? It didn’t work that way. As T. Charles-Edwards put it “ethnic identity was especially fluid during the Migration Period” (Cambridge Ancient History). For pity’s sake do you even know who the Visigoths were? They weren’t one people any more than the Ostrogoths or even the Franks were – they were made up of many different people from different “ethnic” backgrounds – their very name only appears from the 6th Century onwards. And Late Antiquity writers are on record complaining of how Roman Citizens were joining with the “Barbarians” – becoming Barabarians themselves – because of the tyranny of late Roman land holders and tax laws. Your conception of the Early Medieval is simplistic in the extreme and frankly anachronistic.

        So what had all this to do with Palestine (see MW I got back on subject eventually)? Well it’s a general rule of history that conquest rarely involved population replacement and this is the case in Palestine with the Arab Expansion. But here’s your earlier statement,

        …the massive population transfers that happened in the 7th and 8th century to allow them take the country.

        And OK you give a hyperlink to a 40 year old book to back it up (an actual quote would have been nice) but here’s the thing. As Hostage pointed out current historians dispute your contention, as does the well established genetic evidence. Had Palestinians been the result of recent immigration then that would show up as a closer affinity to Arabs but instead Palestinians cluster WITHIN local Jewish populations clearly proving a common ancestor with, as I recall, a genetic distance of roughly 2000 years. Further there are no mass graves or records from the period in question. And the Byzantine LIKED recording the ignominies of the period. Architecture maintained heavy Roman influence through till the Ottoman period – again pointing to continuation of population from the Pre-Islamic period. But let’s quote another book shall we?

        “Taxation of Conquered Populations”

        That’s a sub-heading within the main heading of Islamic Expansion in the “Encyclopaedia of Society and Culture in the Medieval World”. Not many words but it tells you a lot – why bother figuring out taxes of conquered populations if they were being replaced?

        Sorry – but the ENTIRETY of the (respectable) historical consensus as regards Palestine is that the Palestinians are the descendants of the local population in Antiquity. The majority date back to the Neolithic. And might I ask that if the population at large was replaced – how did the Jews manage to escape the process that worked on Christians and Pagans?

        And it is here your bias is made so obvious because you make no argument of population replacement for the earlier conquests of Palestine – only of the Arabs. One must ask why this is so. Perhaps because if you held to your “migration” argument for the other invasions your “special pleading” that Jews were somehow miraculously not replaced at these times would be even more obvious than it is already.

        If as you claim you read many books may I again repeat my earlier advice – read some published a bit more recently – it’ll be less embarrassing for you.

  3. seafoid
    seafoid
    December 11, 2013, 1:30 pm

    “Likud member says Prawer Plan akin to what ‘Americans did to the Indians’”

    I am pretty sure that a senior Nazi (and it may even have been Hitler) delivered the same justification for what the Germans did in Poland in the 1940s.
    Lebensraum is the same in every language.

    • Edward Q
      Edward Q
      December 12, 2013, 8:49 am

      I think the inspiration for the “final solution” was the Armenian genocide in Turkey.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 12, 2013, 9:59 am

        It, and the world’s tepid reaction to it, was one of the primary bases on which Hitler decided to move forward with it.

  4. eljay
    eljay
    December 11, 2013, 1:37 pm

    >> Committee chairwoman MK Miri Regev (Likud) responded, “Yes, as the Americans did to the Indians.”

    Ms. Regev appears not to understand – or, worse, she understands and simply does not care – that this is not something to be proudly emulated.

    What a hateful and immoral person is this Miri Regev.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      December 11, 2013, 1:44 pm

      “Ms. Regev appears not to understand – or, worse, she understands and simply does not care – that this is not something to be proudly emulated.”

      Yup. Some have genocide envy.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      December 11, 2013, 3:58 pm

      The sonofabitch is the standard model in Zionism, Decency and Empathy are chargeable extras.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        December 14, 2013, 2:09 am

        Actually seafoid I think decency, empathy and compassion are incompatible with the Zionist O/S. So even it they did pay for them, instead of just pirating them from someone else, the apps would never work on their systems.

  5. doug
    doug
    December 11, 2013, 1:55 pm

    It’s a bit like Japan in the 30’s with its colonialist enterprise they called the “Co Prosperity Sphere.” In a sense it was like the European/America colonialism that reached it’s zenith in the prior century but times change and the acceptable becomes unacceptable.

  6. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    December 11, 2013, 2:21 pm

    The illness — of Zionism, of Racism generally, of male-dominant Sexism, of Neocon-ism, of much intolerance in the USA and elsewhere and especially the I’ve-got-mine-and-it’s-up-to-you-to-get-yours mentality of so many (wealthy) Republicans in the USA — is a sense of ENTITLEMENT, usually UNEARNED ENTITLEMENT.

    Zionists (our focus here) feel ENTITLED to all of Palestine, the land without the people. They tell themselves stories about the Bible and God promising this land to them. They tell themselves stories about the holocaust entitling them to these lands-without-people.

    They feel entitled to life-without-a-conscience, entitled to life-without-guilt for their crimes against another people (and against individuals of that people). Past crimes adn present and future crimes. No more need to be troubled by that nasty diaspora guilt. We have the power!!! We are entitled!!!

    A FALSE SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT leads to crime.

    Zionism. And the American treatment of the Native Americans, too, of course.

    • pabelmont
      pabelmont
      December 11, 2013, 2:25 pm

      Maybe the Zionist cool-aid, “We’ve overcome the nasty DIASPORA curse of conscience and guilt” is what the Jewish Establishment big-wigs drank — and what is turning off the younger generation from Jewish self-identification is the COLLISION between Jewish ethics (which manages, somehow, still to be taught) and Zionist post-ethicalism (or anti-ethicalism).

  7. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    December 11, 2013, 5:54 pm

    RE: “Shared values: Likud member says Prawer Plan akin to what ‘Americans did to the Indians’”

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [The Trail of Tears] :

    [EXCERPTS]. . . In 1838, the Cherokee Nation was removed from their lands in the Southeastern United States to the Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) in the Western United States, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 4,000 Cherokees. In the Cherokee language, the event is called Nunna daul Isunyi—“the Trail Where They Cried”. The Cherokee Trail of Tears resulted from the enforcement of the Treaty of New Echota, an agreement signed under the provisions of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 which exchanged Native American land in the East for lands west of the Mississippi River, but which was never accepted by the elected tribal leadership or a majority of the Cherokee people.
    Tensions between Georgia and the Cherokee Nation were brought to a crisis by the discovery of gold near Dahlonega, Georgia, in 1829, resulting in the Georgia Gold Rush, the first gold rush in U.S. history. Hopeful gold speculators began trespassing on Cherokee lands, and pressure began to mount on the Georgia government to fulfill the promises of the Compact of 1802…
    . . . With the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the U.S. Congress had given [Andrew] Jackson authority to negotiate removal treaties, exchanging Indian land in the East for land west of the Mississippi River. Jackson used the dispute with Georgia to put pressure on the Cherokees to sign a removal treaty.[26]
    Nevertheless, the treaty, passed by Congress by a single vote, and signed into law by President Andrew Jackson, was imposed by his successor President Martin Van Buren who allowed Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama an armed force of 7,000 made up of militia, regular army, and volunteers under General Winfield Scott to round up about 13,000 Cherokees into concentration camps at the U.S. Indian Agency near Cleveland, Tennessee before being sent to the West. Most of the deaths occurred from disease, starvation and cold in these camps. Their homes were burned and their property destroyed and plundered. Farms belonging to the Cherokees for generations were won by white settlers in a lottery. After the initial roundup, the U.S. military still oversaw the emigration until they met the forced destination.[27] Private John G. Burnett later wrote “Future generations will read and condemn the act and I do hope posterity will remember that private soldiers like myself, and like the four Cherokees who were forced by General Scott to shoot an Indian Chief and his children, had to execute the orders of our superiors. We had no choice in the matter.” [“We were just following orders.” – J.L.D.] . . .
    . . . In the winter of 1838 the Cherokee began the thousand mile march with scant clothing and most on foot without shoes or moccasins . . .

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

    PHOTOS:
    Elizabeth “Betsy” Brown Stephens, a Cherokee Indian who walked the Trail of Tears. (1903) [jpeg image]
    Portrait of Marcia Pascal, a young Cherokee woman. (1880) [jpeg image]
    Principal Cherokee Chief John Ross. (late 1800s) [jpeg image]

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      December 11, 2013, 6:51 pm

      P.S. ALSO FROM WIKIPEDIA [The Trail of Tears]:

      [EXCERPTS] . . . When Georgia moved to extend state laws over the Cherokee lands in 1830, the matter went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Marshall court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was not a sovereign and independent nation, and therefore refused to hear the case. However, in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Court ruled that Georgia could not impose laws in Cherokee territory, since only the national government — not state governments — had authority in Indian affairs.

      “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! … Build a fire under them. When it gets hot enough, they’ll go.” — Andrew Jackson, 1832, “The Trail of Tears Across Missouri”.[9]

      Jackson had no desire to use the power of the national government to protect the Cherokees from Georgia . . .

      SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

      P.P.S. ONCE AGAIN, FROM WIKIPEDIA [Dahlonega, Georgia]:

      [EXCERPTS] Dahlonega is a city in and the county seat of Lumpkin County, Georgia, United States.[3] As of the 2010 census, the city had a population of 5,242.[4]
      Dahlonega is located at the north end of Georgia 400, which connects Atlanta to many affluent suburbs to the north. It is consistently named as a best place to retire by many different publications[citation needed] due to its low cost of living, vibrant activities, continuing education for seniors, festivals, and beautiful setting.
      In 1828 Dahlonega was the site of the first major gold rush in the United States. The Dahlonega Gold Museum Historic Site stands in the middle of the town square, housed in the old Lumpkin County Courthouse built in 1836. From its steps in 1849, Dahlonega Mint assayor Dr. M. F. Stephenson tried to persuade miners to stay in Dahlonega instead of joining the California Gold Rush, saying, “There’s millions in it,” famously misquoted as “There’s gold in them thar hills.”[citation needed] . . .
      History
      This area was occupied by indigenous peoples for thousands of years before European contact. When European American settlers arrived, it was the traditional territory of the historical Cherokee Nation.

      Gold rush
      In 1829, Dahlonega became the site of the first major gold rush in the USA and became a boom town in the Georgia Gold Rush.

      Native Americans
      Dahlonega was home to many Creeks and Cherokees. There are a few Creek and Cherokee descendents in Dahlonega today
      , though they are not in communities but scattered throughout Dahlonega. Most of the descendents are Creek-Cherokee mixed. Names like Corn, Davis, and Bird, as well as the Chambers families, were of Cherokee blood. Surnames like Limley and Cagle were of Creek and Seminole blood. Though not afforded state or federal recognition, these families still practice their traditions as Cherokee and Creek people. The Cherokee called the area Talonega, which means yellow; George Featherstonhough, an English geologist who visited the town in 1837, observed that the courthouse was built upon a broad expanse of hornblende slate “and that the soil of the public square was impregnated with small specks of gold.”[5] The spelling of the Cherokee word Da-lo-ni-ge-i was disputed by early correspondents, with Featherstonhough, for example, calling it “Tahlonekay.”[6] Since 1977, the state recognized tribe has been known as The Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee.[citation needed]
      Illegal mining
      Numerous gold mines were illegally developed in the area. Miners, entering illegally into the Cherokee Nation lands, came into conflict with the Cherokee, whose territory they had tresspassed. The Cherokee lands were defined by the treaty between the Federal Government and the Cherokee Nation in The Treaty of Washington 1819. The miners raised political pressure against the Cherokee because they wanted to get the gold. The Federal Government forced the Native Americans west of the Mississippi River to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears during Indian Removal.
      Dahlonega was founded two years before the Treaty of New Echota 1835, which made its founding a violation of The Treaty of Washington of 1819.[7][8]
      Naming the city
      In 1833 the city was named Talonega by the Georgia General Assembly on 21 December 1833.[10] The name was changed from Talonega by the Georgia General Assembly on 25 December 1837 to Dahlonega,[10] from the Cherokee-language word Dalonige, meaning “yellow” or “gold.”[9] The city is just east of Auraria; each claims to be the site of the first discovery of gold. Senator John Calhoun of South Carolina (7th Vice President of the United States) owned the Calhoun Mine, just south of the City Square. . .

      SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahlonega,_Georgia

      P.P.P.S. The rotunda dome of the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta is covered with Dahlonega Gold. Behold The White Man’s Burden, how brightly it doth shine!

  8. Talkback
    Talkback
    December 11, 2013, 8:25 pm

    Liberal Nazism.

  9. crypticvalentin
    crypticvalentin
    December 11, 2013, 9:39 pm

    Regev obviously approves of America’s crime against their indigenous people, would like Israel to emulate that action..

  10. Mayhem
    Mayhem
    December 11, 2013, 11:01 pm

    The same as what the Egyptian government did to the Nubian people when it built the Aswan dam and what the Jordanian government did to the Bedouin when they turned Petra into a tourist venue.
    This is the inexorable march of modern civilization.

  11. Cliff
    Cliff
    December 12, 2013, 4:05 am

    From a moonofalabama commentator quoting a book by Mark Mazower:

    There were no historical parallels for such a project. In Europe neither Napoleon nor the Habsburgs had aimed at such an exclusive domination, but then Hitler’s upbringing as a German nationalist critic of Vienna helps explain the contrast with the methods of governance pursued by the Dual Monarchy. In its violence and racism, Nazi imperialism drew more from European precedents in Asia, Africa and – especially – the Americas. ‘When we eat wheat from Canada,’ remarked Hitler one evening during the war, ‘we don’t think about the despoiled Indians.’ On another occasion he described the Ukraine as ‘that new Indian Empire’ .

    And from above:

    “You want to transfer an entire population,” MK Hanna Swaid (Hadash) said.

    Committee chairwoman MK Miri Regev (Likud) responded, “Yes, as the Americans did to the Indians.”

  12. Citizen
    Citizen
    December 12, 2013, 5:25 am

    America and Israel share progressive values.

  13. talknic
    talknic
    December 12, 2013, 11:27 am

    I get it!!

    If the US had not treated the Indians so badly, Israel would withdraw from all non-Israeli territories. Stop its vile illegal settlements. Pay rightful compensation for 65 years of crimes!

  14. LanceThruster
    LanceThruster
    December 12, 2013, 5:00 pm

    The trick of declaring war against the armed resistance and then attacking the resisters’ unarmed kin as well as the sur­rounding population with the most gruesome products of Death-Science”; this trick is not new. American Pioneers were pioneers in this too; they made it standard practice to declare war on indigenous warriors and then to murder and burn villages with only women and children in them. This is already modern war, what we know as war against civilian populations; it has also been called, more candidly, mass murder or genocide.

    Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that the perpetrators of a Pogrom portray themselves as the victims, in the present case as victims of the Holocaust.

    Herman Melville noticed over a century ago, in his analysis of the metaphysics of Indian-hating, that those who made a full-time profession of hunting and murdering indigenous people of this continent always made themselves appear, even in their own eyes, as the victims of manhunts.

    The use the Nazis made of the International Jewish Conspiracy is better known: during all the years of atrocities defying belief, the Nazis considered themselves the victimized.

    It’s as if the experience of being a victim gave exemption from human solidarity, as if it gave special powers, as if it gave a license to kill.

    Fredy Perlman from his essay, “Anti-Semitism and the Beirut Pogrom” – http://libcom.org/library/anti-semitism-beirut-program-fredy-perlman

  15. Nevada Ned
    Nevada Ned
    December 13, 2013, 12:28 am

    Miri Regev is correct: there is a parallel between the ethnic cleansing of the native Americans by European settlers and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israel. “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”, proclaimed President Andrew Jackson.

    The ethnic cleansing of the Indians was genocide.
    The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is not yet genocide, but could very well become genocide.

    And the long-range goal of Israeli officialdom is to reduce the Palestinians to the status of the American Indians.

    MK Miri Regev said more than she realized!

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      December 13, 2013, 8:15 am

      Oh, I see the parallels now. It’s like in the proclamation that only a death Jew is a good Jew.

  16. just
    just
    December 14, 2013, 3:53 pm

    “What do Knesset member Miri Regev and an unknown Israeli named Sagi have in common?

    In both cases, their unvarnished hatred of African migrants is a matter of public record, thanks to the magic of Facebook and social media.

    In Regev’s case, it was her statements at the rally in south Tel Aviv last Wednesday that that brought her several days of social media fame. She stood in front of the crowd and compared the African migrants to a ‘cancer’ that was spreading throughout the country. Later, when the crowds at that rally went on a violent rampage against Africans, she and other Knesset members who had spoken at the rally were blamed for the consequences.

    At first, Regev tried to deny the statements. In the past, claiming her words were twisted and taken out of context might have worked. But in age of the Internet and social networks, attempting to deny saying something that you actually said is a recipe for failure.

    No sooner did Regev deny it then a video went up on Facebook, since shared by thousands, interspersing clips of her denials with video of her making the very statements that she denies. ”

    more here:

    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/routine-emergencies/when-your-racism-goes-viral-on-facebook.premium-1.432987

    Is she Mark Regev’s (Freiberg) kin? Sure sounds like him……..and his PM.

  17. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    December 15, 2013, 9:39 am

    The question isn’t whether transfers of whole populations occurred in the past but whether they occurred rightfully, even whether they should by rights have occurred more often. I haven’t seen any arguments asserting the rightfulness and legitimacy of transfers except perhaps some versions of the idea that might is sometimes right, all of which I’m inclined to reject.

Leave a Reply