THE ORIGINAL AMERICANS
DAVID ARTHUR WALTERS
FOREWARDThe state is the political outcome of force applied, and not the development described in the economic fairy tale, that the most capable take control of limited resources and hire their inferiors to husband them.
Since land could not have acquired “natural scarcity,” the scarcity must have been “legal.” This means that the land has been preempted by a ruling class against its subject class, and settlement prevented. Therefore the State, as a class-state, can have originated in no other way than through conquest and subjugation.
The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.
Where that element is lacking, where only roving huntsmen are found, who may be exterminated but not subjugated, the conquerors resort to the device of importing from afar masses of men to be exploited, to be subject perpetually to forced labor, and thus the slave trade arises.
In the European colonies, we find the selfsame type, wherever a settled element of the population has been found, as for example, in South America and Mexico. Where that element is lacking, where only roving huntsmen are found, who may be exterminated but not subjugated, the conquerors resort to the device of importing from afar masses of men to be exploited, to be subject perpetually to forced labor, and thus the slave trade arises.
One of these colonies, the United States of America, is among the most powerful state formations in all history. The exception there found is to be explained by this, that the mass of men to be exploited and worked without cessation imports itself, by; emigration in great hordes from primitive states or from those in higher stages of development in which exploitation has become unbearable, while liberty of movement has been attained. (1)
THE ORIGINAL AMERICANSI have a great deal of respect for our Original Americans, and that is why I have frequently advocated that Native Americans and American Indians be referred to as “Original Americans.”
Many Original Americans do not like to be called “Native Americans.” Many others do not like the appellation “American Indians.” Therefore, whenever writing about them, an author may be tempted to use both appellations. For example: “According to American Indians and Native Americans, Andrew Jackson is a ….”
But that procedure is cumbersome and leaves everyone unsatisfied. Why not be honest and refer to the original human settlers in America as Original Americans?
Archeologists and anthropologists believe Original Americans lived on the American continent at least 20,000 years ago. The earliest pioneers may have arrived 100,000 years ago. Thus far there is no evidence that hominids such as the Neanderthal man or any near-human apes ever lived in America. Naturally the Original Americans were not all of one type, but they were here long before White Eyes. And it now appears some of their highly civilized societies were trading with related people in China long before White Eyes arrived.
Most of us know little about the difference between the attitudes of the Original Indians towards the appellations ‘Native American’ and ‘American Indian.’ ‘India’ means “in-god,” or god-within, a pejorative term for the country of India, a heathen land of “god-men” or “pantheists.” Such a “sin of pride” was a horror to the humble, God-fearing British missionaries who dedicated their lives to saving Indian souls from the Hindu pantheon headed by the triune, Brahma (Creator), Vishnu (Maintainer), Siva (Destroyer).
Now many Original Americans do not like to be called ‘American Indians’ because they were so named by an oppressive United States government.
As for ‘Native Americans,’ the term ‘native’ began to be applied as an euphemism for ‘barbarian’ because colonials or invading ‘civilizers’ were themselves behaving like barbarians, hence to keep their self-respect they began to call the ‘alien’ or ‘uncivilized’ societies ‘natives,’ and that term became politically correct among ‘educated’ people. But the hypocrisy is obvious. ‘Native’ was really an insulting term. The historian Arnold Toynbee had this to say on the subject:
“The decisive downward step…is not the change ‘Unbeliever’ to ‘Barbarian’, but the change from ‘Unbeliever’ to ‘Native’, in the definition of the stigma by means of which the oppressor seeks to rob his victim of an inalienable humanity. In stigmatizing the members of an alien society as ‘Natives’ of their homes, ‘top-dog’ is denying their humanity by asserting their political and economic nullity…. By designating them as ‘Natives’, he is implicitly assimilating them into the non-human fauna and flora of a virgin ‘New World’ that has been waiting for it predatory and acquisitive latest human discoverers to enter and and take possession in virtue of a right of ’eminent domain’ over a ‘Promised Land’ deemed to be the gift of some war-goddess of Private Enterprise…”
It is with the forgoing in mind that I believe that ‘Original American’ should replace the current parlance where ‘Native American’ and ‘American Indian’ is now employed. At least there is good reason for a palaver between the White Eyes and Original Americans on the subject.
XYXNOTE (1) THE STATE, ITS HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT VIEWED SOCIOLOGICALLY By FRANZ OPPENHEIMER, M. D., PH. D. TRANSLATION By JOHN M. GITTERMAN, PH. D., LL. B., INDIANAPOLIS, THE BOBBS-MERRILL COMPANY PUBLISHERS 1914