American Holocaust - Did we murder 12 million Indians?
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
(snip)
Thus, according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at
the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian
population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in
1900 represents a "vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on
record." By the end of the 19th century, writes David E. Stannard, a
historian at the University of Hawaii, native Americans had undergone
the "worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed, roaring
across two continents non-stop for four centuries and consuming the
lives of countless tens of millions of people." In the judgment of
Lenore A. Stiffarm and Phil Lane, Jr., "there can be no more
monumental example of sustained genocide—certainly none involving a
'race' of people as broad and complex as this—anywhere in the annals
of human history."
----------------------------------------------
BTW - in the last 15 years america has murdered a million iraqis.
aether
of North America. At least 100,000,000 in Mexico alone. It seems
they're doing quite alright. In fact, some might say they're retaking
the continent.
hoo...@aol.com
fucking on crack.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
I'm talking about american indians, you idiot. That's why i used the
term "american holocaust". I don't give two shits about the
pepperbellies in mexico.
JB
Don't be too hard on him. He learned that tactic from BushCo: If you
don't have a good answer, just change the question.
firel...@hotmail.com
> http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
>
> (snip)
>
> Thus, according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at
> the University of Colorado,
A man who so desperately wants to be an American Indian
that he commits fraud to present himself as such.
> the reduction of the North American Indian
> population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in
> 1900 represents a "vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on
> record."
And the vast majority of those deaths - perhaps even topping
99% - were from accidental transmission of diseases that
were beyond the medical science of the day. Read the
logs of the Lewis and Clark expedition, when they got to
the midwest area most of the Indian communities they
passed through were empty, their populations wiped out
by european diseases even though none of them had ever
even seen a white man.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
You don't give two shits about anybody except for islamic extremists.
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
Oops, I forgot; you also have deep feelings for the guys you hang out
at the bath house with.
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
You're talking to the queen of changing the subject.
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
<snip>
Who cares what some retard from Colorado thinks? No wonder you guys are
so fouled up; you've got people like Ward Churchill in your educational
system.
hoo...@aol.com
You hateful fuckers care about anybody? your a liar
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> And the vast majority of those deaths - perhaps even topping
> 99% - were from accidental transmission of diseases that
> were beyond the medical science of the day. Read the
> logs of the Lewis and Clark expedition, when they got to
> the midwest area most of the Indian communities they
> passed through were empty, their populations wiped out
> by european diseases even though none of them had ever
> even seen a white man.
99%???? Accidental??? HAHAHAHA.
she...@yahoo.com
firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> > http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
> >
> > (snip)
> >
>
> > population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in
> > 1900 represents a "vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on
> > record."
>
> And the vast majority of those deaths - perhaps even topping
> 99% - were from accidental transmission of diseases that
> were beyond the medical science of the day. Read the
> logs of the Lewis and Clark expedition, when they got to
> the midwest area most of the Indian communities they
> passed through were empty, their populations wiped out
> by european diseases even though none of them had ever
> even seen a white man.
Ah yes, another victim of holocaust denial, the saddest and most
malevolent historical revisionisms of our time - quite popular in
American schools today. Never mind that Washington said "exterminate
them like wolves", commanding his men to slit the throats of women and
children, or that Jackson used their skin for tack and cut their noses
off to keep count, or that the concentration camps in what is now
southern california were the most efficient ever. John Stannard's book
documents and estimates that the total killed was more like 100 million
(including central and south america) - quite a wakeup call to read
from the diaries of soldiers who were there, after being raised in an
environment of holocaust denial.
Why don't people don't want to learn from history?
firel...@hotmail.com
I'm sorry you find millions of horrible deaths
so amusing. Europeans and indians did a lot of
nasty things to each other, the Europeans are
just the ones that came out on top. I'm from a
region that has a lot of "founded in year X,
rebuilt after indians slaughtered everyone in
year Y" signs in town squares, so I'll admit my
view of what happened a few centuries ago may
be a little less rosy than yours.
FED UP
murdered 70 million in his own country.
I suppose this isn't worse than the Indians murdered because Mao
wasn't defined as "racist"...he killed fellow Chinese so it's excusable
evidently.
But I find all the various holocaust industries are incredibly
tiresome.
You ever get the feeling that it's exactly people like Ward Churchill
that are the type to actually COMMIT HOLOCAUST in the first place.
They claim to be the good guys...fighting "racism" and hate.......yet
at exactly the same time they make broad racist statements against
groups and promote hate against same !!!!
Nobody with a strong mind will fall for it.
firel...@hotmail.com
> Ah yes, another victim of holocaust denial, the saddest and most
> malevolent historical revisionisms of our time - quite popular in
> American schools today.
Sorry, you're off base with this one. I went to grade school
some decades ago, but my children's American History texts
have all the same kinds of references to the Trail of Tears
and the extermination of the Buffalo. The schoolbooks left
out some details, like the specifics of the frontier massacres
of the mid to late 1700's, or the bits in the laws of the
Iroquois Confederation specifying the proper way of
murdering peace envoys from other tribes.
> Never mind that Washington said "exterminate
> them like wolves", commanding his men to slit the throats of women and
> children,
Realize that Washington and his contemporaries lived in
a society where indian raiders regularly massacred frontier
settlements, men, women and children, in a most heinous
manner - and that their society had been like that for
over a century. There was some long-standing animosity
there, on *both* sides - or didn't you realize that?
> or that Jackson used their skin for tack and cut their noses
> off to keep count,
I hadn't read that, and it may be as spurious as bit
with the smallpox-infected blankets, but considering
how much of an SOB Jackson was I wouldn't be surprised
if it were true.
> Why don't people don't want to learn from history?
Everyone learns from history. Not everyone learns the
catechism you want them to.
she...@yahoo.com
firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Ah yes, another victim of holocaust denial, the saddest and most
> > malevolent historical revisionisms of our time - quite popular in
> > American schools today.
>
> Sorry, you're off base with this one. I went to grade school
> some decades ago, but my children's American History texts
> have all the same kinds of references to the Trail of Tears
> and the extermination of the Buffalo. The schoolbooks left
> out some details, like the specifics of the frontier massacres
> of the mid to late 1700's, or the bits in the laws of the
> Iroquois Confederation specifying the proper way of
> murdering peace envoys from other tribes.
>
Glad to hear you got a better education than most! I bet they also
left out the details of how some Iroquois Confederation democracy was
copied in the US Constitution, for instance the electoral college, and
the bits in the laws of the US Army dictating scalping procedures.
BTW if you want to harp on gruesome habits of early Americans, check
out the Aztecs - unbelievable amounts of human sacrifice.
> > Never mind that Washington said "exterminate
> > them like wolves", commanding his men to slit the throats of women and
> > children,
>
> Realize that Washington and his contemporaries lived in
> a society where indian raiders regularly massacred frontier
> settlements, men, women and children, in a most heinous
> manner - and that their society had been like that for
> over a century. There was some long-standing animosity
> there, on *both* sides - or didn't you realize that?
>
Justify it as you will, as long as you recognize that it took place -
and the numbers indicate it was -extremely- one-sided. BTW this
doesn't illegitimize Washington's other works - that would be an ad
hominem attack.
> > or that Jackson used their skin for tack and cut their noses
> > off to keep count,
>
> I hadn't read that, and it may be as spurious as bit
> with the smallpox-infected blankets, but considering
> how much of an SOB Jackson was I wouldn't be surprised
> if it were true.
>
Yes, and there's a lot worse that went on. If you want gruesome
details check out Stannard's book. What do you mean by "spurious" -
you don't think it happened?
> > Why don't people don't want to learn from history?
>
> Everyone learns from history. Not everyone learns the
> catechism you want them to.
>
In Germany they have monuments to the racist massacres so people will
remember and learn from past mistakes. Here, we try to keep it out of
sight and out of mind. I prefer the "always remember" approach - you
don't see "Jewish Mound Golf Courses" over there - or a lot of harping
that most WWII holocaust victims died of "natural causes" (diseases) -
true though it may be.
firel...@hotmail.com
> firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Ah yes, another victim of holocaust denial, the saddest and most
> > > malevolent historical revisionisms of our time - quite popular in
> > > American schools today.
> >
> > Sorry, you're off base with this one. I went to grade school
> > some decades ago, but my children's American History texts
> > have all the same kinds of references to the Trail of Tears
> > and the extermination of the Buffalo. The schoolbooks left
> > out some details, like the specifics of the frontier massacres
> > of the mid to late 1700's, or the bits in the laws of the
> > Iroquois Confederation specifying the proper way of
> > murdering peace envoys from other tribes.
> >
>
> Glad to hear you got a better education than most! I bet they also
> left out the details of how some Iroquois Confederation democracy was
> copied in the US Constitution, for instance the electoral college, and
> the bits in the laws of the US Army dictating scalping procedures.
The "they" you're on about would be me - I happen to have
an interest in history.
> BTW if you want to harp on gruesome habits of early Americans, check
> out the Aztecs - unbelievable amounts of human sacrifice.
Most interesting about them was how many of those sacrifices
were volunteers. Most of them weren't, but you had situations
where people would literally fight to the death for the honor
of being sacrificed to the gods.
> > > Never mind that Washington said "exterminate
> > > them like wolves", commanding his men to slit the throats of women and
> > > children,
> >
> > Realize that Washington and his contemporaries lived in
> > a society where indian raiders regularly massacred frontier
> > settlements, men, women and children, in a most heinous
> > manner - and that their society had been like that for
> > over a century. There was some long-standing animosity
> > there, on *both* sides - or didn't you realize that?
> >
>
> Justify it as you will, as long as you recognize that it took place -
"Justifying" it is your straw man - I'm merely recognizing that
it happened, and looking more than the "white men are evil"
point of view.
> and the numbers indicate it was -extremely- one-sided.
What were you expecting, when a unified industrialized
society competes with a disparate collection of stone
age peoples?
> BTW this
> doesn't illegitimize Washington's other works - that would be an ad
> hominem attack.
Nice retreat there.
> > > or that Jackson used their skin for tack and cut their noses
> > > off to keep count,
> >
> > I hadn't read that, and it may be as spurious as bit
> > with the smallpox-infected blankets, but considering
> > how much of an SOB Jackson was I wouldn't be surprised
> > if it were true.
>
> Yes, and there's a lot worse that went on. If you want gruesome
> details check out Stannard's book. What do you mean by "spurious" -
> you don't think it happened?
The smallpox blankets incident? There's a lot of controversy
over it, but no evidence that it was anything more than an
idea.
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html
> > > Why don't people don't want to learn from history?
> >
> > Everyone learns from history. Not everyone learns the
> > catechism you want them to.
>
> In Germany they have monuments to the racist massacres so people will
> remember and learn from past mistakes. Here, we try to keep it out of
> sight and out of mind.
Funny, I've never noticed any attempt to keep the destruction
of the indian nations "out of sight and out of mind". If
anything, I've seen attempts to glorify the indians and
demonize the settlers - the exact opposite of the persecution
complex you're working on here.
> I prefer the "always remember" approach - you
> don't see "Jewish Mound Golf Courses" over there - or a lot of harping
> that most WWII holocaust victims died of "natural causes" (diseases) -
> true though it may be.
So it doesn't matter if something is true or not, as long
as it follows the story you want to tell?
bush_li...@yahoo.com
hoo...@aol.com
<she...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130342310.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
million seesm a convient number. The now new doubled number for world war 2
jews. And in the same revisonist manner you make up wild storied of using
skin for tack. Thats just stupid and completey untrue. Fully ackowledging
wars with the indiaans and attack on there culture as a designed part of
"manifest destiny." but you futher destroy the abilty to learn whn you
taint historical fact with trumped history such is this. it is as absurd as
the orginal post citing there some one hundered and twenty millin around
today. Your bothj revisionst of history and extremeists.
mark...@yahoo.com
>
> (snip)
>
> Thus, according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at
> the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian
> population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in
Note the passive voice "the reduction of" ... passive is always the
handmaiden of the demogogue -- that way they aren't pinned down to the
"by ___" part and get to conveniently slip in any scapegoat or culprit
they want, in their conspiracy paranoia.
That's typical of how lefto-rightist conservi-liberal demo-publican
partisans work and of how they lie and distort the facts.
There was no genocide. There may very well have been a massive number
of deaths, but this is totally different from saying that armies went
out into the land to systematically destroy every last inhabitant or a
large portion thereof.
What happened in North America was no different than what happened in
Europe and Asia 100-200 years before ... and an extension of it (and
even DURING the time of European contact) -- yet you don't hear anyone
disingeuously calling those wanton ("destroy all those savage white
Europeans and yellow Asians") genocides. It was the plague, and all the
other various diseases that the Old World was immune to, but not the
New World. Europe had already lost a good fraction of its population,
in case anyone forgot, not too long before; and the people who survived
and their descendants were buttressed against these and future
infections.
The people of the New World were not. They had nowhere near the
exposure of those of the Old World ... until contact was made.
To call this intentional is not only disingenuous, but malicious. It's
this kind of nonsense that needs to be wiped out from the face of this
Earth, just as much as the other diseases that plagued the world in
times past 500-700 years ago.
Partisanship (on both sides of the aisle) is a neurosis. The nonsense
above, just debunked, a case in point of the mental disease of Leftism;
and plenty of other extremes on the other side that don't need to be
called into play (e.g. the evolution-creationism nonsense) being ample
attestation to the mental disease of Rightism. You all need to be
checked in and to have your collective asses kicked out of Washington
(and out of every other venue on this planet) once and for all -- a
virtual genocide of political memes.
Gorf
<mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130356254.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> > http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > Thus, according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at
> > the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian
> > population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in
> > 1900 represents [sic] a "vast genocide . . . ,
>
> Note the passive voice "the reduction of" ... passive is always the
> handmaiden of the demogogue -- that way they aren't pinned down to the
> "by ___" part and get to conveniently slip in any scapegoat or culprit
> they want, in their conspiracy paranoia.
>
> That's typical of how lefto-rightist conservi-liberal demo-publican
> partisans work and of how they lie and distort the facts.
>
> There was no genocide. There may very well have been a massive number
> of deaths, but this is totally different from saying that armies went
> out into the land to systematically destroy every last inhabitant or a
> large portion thereof.
>
Think you better go study some history. Remember General Custer? His
attack was on a village of women and children with the soul intention of
wiping them out. This is only one example. What about the pilgrims passing
out blankets full of smallpox?
OR settlers wiping out whole herds of Bison for no other reason than they
were the Indians primary food source.
And what about south America? The Spanish killed anyone who would not
convert to Christianity - and enslaved those that did.
There are many, many more examples, Take off your blinders and read for a
change ......
she...@yahoo.com
firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Ah yes, another victim of holocaust denial, the saddest and most
> > > > malevolent historical revisionisms of our time - quite popular in
> > > > American schools today.
> > >
> > > Sorry, you're off base with this one. I went to grade school
> > > some decades ago, but my children's American History texts
> > > have all the same kinds of references to the Trail of Tears
> > > and the extermination of the Buffalo. The schoolbooks left
> > > out some details, like the specifics of the frontier massacres
> > > of the mid to late 1700's, or the bits in the laws of the
> > > Iroquois Confederation specifying the proper way of
> > > murdering peace envoys from other tribes.
> > >
> >
> > Glad to hear you got a better education than most! I bet they also
> > left out the details of how some Iroquois Confederation democracy was
> > copied in the US Constitution, for instance the electoral college, and
> > the bits in the laws of the US Army dictating scalping procedures.
>
> The "they" you're on about would be me - I happen to have
> an interest in history.
Sorry about my carelessness with the antecedent - in this case "they"
referred to the children's texts you mentioned.
>
> > BTW if you want to harp on gruesome habits of early Americans, check
> > out the Aztecs - unbelievable amounts of human sacrifice.
>
> Most interesting about them was how many of those sacrifices
> were volunteers. Most of them weren't, but you had situations
> where people would literally fight to the death for the honor
> of being sacrificed to the gods.
>
Hard to believe isn't it..
> > > > Never mind that Washington said "exterminate
> > > > them like wolves", commanding his men to slit the throats of women and
> > > > children,
> > >
> > > Realize that Washington and his contemporaries lived in
> > > a society where indian raiders regularly massacred frontier
> > > settlements, men, women and children, in a most heinous
> > > manner - and that their society had been like that for
> > > over a century. There was some long-standing animosity
> > > there, on *both* sides - or didn't you realize that?
> > >
> >
> > Justify it as you will, as long as you recognize that it took place -
>
> "Justifying" it is your straw man - I'm merely recognizing that
> it happened, and looking more than the "white men are evil"
> point of view.
>
I certainly never said that! Speaking of straw men..
> > and the numbers indicate it was -extremely- one-sided.
>
> What were you expecting, when a unified industrialized
> society competes with a disparate collection of stone
> age peoples?
>
Which side are you considering to have been "industrialized" circa
1600? Some of the highest populations and biggest trade economies in
the world of the pre-Columbus era were in the Americas. Europe could
just as easily have been called a "disparate collection of stone age
peoples" - many Europeans who arrived here expressed their amazement at
the high level of culture and workmanship.
> > BTW this
> > doesn't illegitimize Washington's other works - that would be an ad
> > hominem attack.
>
> Nice retreat there.
>
Thank you. Just wanted to clarify that I wasn't trying to attack our
Constitution or anything.
> > > > or that Jackson used their skin for tack and cut their noses
> > > > off to keep count,
> > >
> > > I hadn't read that, and it may be as spurious as bit
> > > with the smallpox-infected blankets, but considering
> > > how much of an SOB Jackson was I wouldn't be surprised
> > > if it were true.
> >
> > Yes, and there's a lot worse that went on. If you want gruesome
> > details check out Stannard's book. What do you mean by "spurious" -
> > you don't think it happened?
>
> The smallpox blankets incident? There's a lot of controversy
> over it, but no evidence that it was anything more than an
> idea.
>
> http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html
>
Thanks for the history. I guess it was more than an idea! From your
link:
<quote>
Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement:
... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small
Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.
<\quote>
> > > > Why don't people don't want to learn from history?
> > >
> > > Everyone learns from history. Not everyone learns the
> > > catechism you want them to.
> >
> > In Germany they have monuments to the racist massacres so people will
> > remember and learn from past mistakes. Here, we try to keep it out of
> > sight and out of mind.
>
> Funny, I've never noticed any attempt to keep the destruction
> of the indian nations "out of sight and out of mind".
> If
> anything, I've seen attempts to glorify the indians and
> demonize the settlers - the exact opposite of the persecution
> complex you're working on here.
One example I saw recently on the History channel was a show glorifying
the ability of some settlers to shoot Americans from close to a mile
away. I grew up and learned that Americans were horse-riders with
almost no population, who worked with the Pilgrims on "Thanksgiving".
In fact the Americas may have held 200m people pre-Columbus, boasting
the biggest city in the world, though no horses. Do you think the
average person on the street knows that official State and US
government policies included explicit genocide of Americans for
decades?
>
> > I prefer the "always remember" approach - you
> > don't see "Jewish Mound Golf Courses" over there - or a lot of harping
> > that most WWII holocaust victims died of "natural causes" (diseases) -
> > true though it may be.
>
> So it doesn't matter if something is true or not, as long
> as it follows the story you want to tell?
>
Of course the truth matters.
What also matters is that we learn from past mistakes. Judging from
several of our foreign policies, and the fact that the Bureau of Indian
Affairs is still in business, we haven't.
alanm...@yahoo.com
she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> > > http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> >
> > > the reduction of the North American Indian
> > > population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in
> > > 1900 represents a "vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on
> > > record."
> >
> > And the vast majority of those deaths - perhaps even topping
> > 99% - were from accidental transmission of diseases that
> > were beyond the medical science of the day. Read the
> > logs of the Lewis and Clark expedition, when they got to
> > the midwest area most of the Indian communities they
> > passed through were empty, their populations wiped out
> > by european diseases even though none of them had ever
> > even seen a white man.
>
>
> Ah yes, another victim of holocaust denial, the saddest and most
> malevolent historical revisionisms of our time - quite popular in
> American schools today. Never mind that Washington said "exterminate
> them like wolves", commanding his men to slit the throats of women and
> children,
or that Jackson used their skin for tack and cut their noses
> off to keep count,
So President Jackson, a Democrat, was an asshole- A. McIntire
she...@yahoo.com
What do I make up?
> I wouldnt eve buy 12 million where ever around.
Estimates of pre-Columbian population in the Americas do vary greatly,
but most are on the order of 100 million.
> 12
> million seesm a convient number. The now new doubled number for world war 2
> jews. And in the same revisonist manner you make up wild storied of using
> skin for tack. Thats just stupid and completey untrue.
I wish you were right. Sadly, you're not.
I'll let you do the literature search to confirm, but to get started
here's two sources:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Andrew%20Jackson
http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/im/im017.htm
> Fully ackowledging
> wars with the indiaans and attack on there culture as a designed part of
> "manifest destiny." but you futher destroy the abilty to learn whn you
> taint historical fact with trumped history such is this.
Your denial of fact doesn't look so good either.
> it is as absurd as
> the orginal post citing there some one hundered and twenty millin around
> today.
That does seem high to me as well.. of course it depends on what you
consider to be a native American.. if you include people with only one
relative who lived here in pre-Columbian times, the figure may indeed
be close to that, if you include all the Americas.
- shevek
she...@yahoo.com
alanm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> > > > http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
> > > >
> > > > (snip)
> > > >
> > >
> > > > the reduction of the North American Indian
> > > > population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in
> > > > 1900 represents a "vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on
> > > > record."
> > >
> > > And the vast majority of those deaths - perhaps even topping
> > > 99% - were from accidental transmission of diseases that
> > > were beyond the medical science of the day. Read the
> > > logs of the Lewis and Clark expedition, when they got to
> > > the midwest area most of the Indian communities they
> > > passed through were empty, their populations wiped out
> > > by european diseases even though none of them had ever
> > > even seen a white man.
> >
> >
> > Ah yes, another victim of holocaust denial, the saddest and most
> > malevolent historical revisionisms of our time - quite popular in
> > American schools today. Never mind that Washington said "exterminate
> > them like wolves", commanding his men to slit the throats of women and
> > children,
>
> That's a lie, George Washington said no such thing- A. McIntire
>
>
Learn to use google - shevek
>
> or that Jackson used their skin for tack and cut their noses
> > off to keep count,
>
> So President Jackson, a Democrat, was an asshole- A. McIntire
>
Who cares what party he was in? To the extent that the parties keep a
platform (which is a very small extent) it switches every decade
anyway.
Joshua Calvert
news:1130362524.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Most all in Mexico, central, and south America, and reflected in the
population that exists in those regions.
--
----
Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a
Space Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.
But Republicans say, "Bush can not be blamed" or "It's Clinton's
fault."
What will be the next disaster for which Bush can't be blamed?
sar...@racsa.co.cr
published by Houghton Mifflin are that from 4 to 5 million natives
lived on the mainland US when Columbus arrived.
"...there is a general consensus that Native American populations
experienced declines that began after 1492 and continued for around
four hundred years. Not until about 1900 did the native population
reach its nadir, after which some population recovery occurred. At the
beginning of the twentieth century-when the total population of the
United States and Canada had grown to over 80 million-the two
nations' census figures indicated a total of about 400,000 native
people in North America.
What accounted for such a decline in the face of remarkable population
growth of the groups who colonized North America after 1492? An
important reason for the Native American holocaust were the diseases
the Europeans and Africans brought with them to North America; other
reasons included war, genocide, the destruction of traditional ways of
life, and forms of colonial rule that both reduced native populations
and prevented normal recovery."
The point is that Europeans came to the Americas and, in various ways,
destroyed the native populations. By any standard, this constitutes
ethnic cleansing, defined as "an attempt to purge an area of an
unwanted ethnic group. It can include deportation, intimidation, and
acts of genocide or mass murder." - Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
No amount of spin or rationalization changes the fact that the US was
born out of slavery and was nurtured on genocide. In that regard, it
is no different than a host of other countries that engaged in and
continue to engage in the same practices. It is unfortunate that
Americans are delusional about their history, but it does explain alot
about their distorted self-image.
hoo...@aol.com
<she...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130362524.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
other hysterics typicaly used by the holocaust industry. The true facts tell
a horrid enough story of genocide without fluffling them up with such false
tales of making soap out of people. how many people are supposed relaitves
of anybody would not give accuaret numbers of how many people were around at
any one point in time. 12 million is the number of convience. It more of the
same revisonism designed to spark emotion and accociate with the newly
bloated number for World War 2 Europe.
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
Ward Churchill? ROTFLMAO. The only person I've known to argue in
support of Ward Churchill's statements is "Laura Bush Murdered Her
Boyfriend." *Very* far away from someone I would describe as having "a
strong mind." In fact, it's difficult to say that LBMHBF has any mind
at all. Of course, they are both Colorado residents, so that might
explain it.
hoo...@aol.com
Google prooves nothiing. Websites are not gospel. Anybody can make a website
that says whatever they want it to.
hoo...@aol.com
No amount of spin or rationalization changes the fact that the US was
born out of slavery and was nurtured on genocide. In that regard, it
is no different than a host of other countries that engaged in and
continue to engage in the same practices. It is unfortunate that
Americans are delusional about their history, but it does explain alot
about their distorted self-image."
This is very true. I agree completely. But I do dipsute the numbers and the
specfic facts about Jackson and Washington. By no means do I belive the
Dutch, Spanish, French, British and later Americans were nivce to the locals
nor did then not rape and murder them whenver they found it convient to.
firel...@hotmail.com
> firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Justify it as you will, as long as you recognize that it took place -
> >
> > "Justifying" it is your straw man - I'm merely recognizing that
> > it happened, and looking more than the "white men are evil"
> > point of view.
>
> I certainly never said that! Speaking of straw men..
Your tone strongly indicated to me that you were accusing me
of justifying the actions of the European settlers. I'm merely
seeing the history from more points of view than Ward Churchill
and his ilk are happy with.
> > > and the numbers indicate it was -extremely- one-sided.
> >
> > What were you expecting, when a unified industrialized
> > society competes with a disparate collection of stone
> > age peoples?
>
> Which side are you considering to have been "industrialized" circa
> 1600?
The side that had swords, armor, muskets, cannon, and people
from concentrated, disease-resistant populations. Check out
Diamond's _Guns, Germs and Steel_.
> Some of the highest populations and biggest trade economies in
> the world of the pre-Columbus era were in the Americas. Europe could
> just as easily have been called a "disparate collection of stone age
> peoples" - many Europeans who arrived here expressed their amazement at
> the high level of culture and workmanship.
"Stone age" and "Industrialized" have specific meanings, and these
definitions are relevant to this discussion. The quality of
workmanship and cultural expression have nothing to do with
"stone age" or "industrialized", so please stop mixing these
words up - the way you are doing it smacks of hagiography,
not history.
<snip>
[Smallpox blankets incident]
> > > Yes, and there's a lot worse that went on. If you want gruesome
> > > details check out Stannard's book. What do you mean by "spurious" -
> > > you don't think it happened?
> >
> > The smallpox blankets incident? There's a lot of controversy
> > over it, but no evidence that it was anything more than an
> > idea.
> >
> > http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html
>
> Thanks for the history. I guess it was more than an idea! From your
> link:
>
> <quote>
> Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement:
>
> ... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small
> Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.
> <\quote>
Now check out the discussion at
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/%7Ewest/threads/disc-smallpox.html
Realize that smallpox spread so easily to the native american
tribes (both enemies *and* allies) that it would have been
rare for such a plan of deliberate infection to keep up with
natural exposure.
<snip>
> > > In Germany they have monuments to the racist massacres so people will
> > > remember and learn from past mistakes. Here, we try to keep it out of
> > > sight and out of mind.
> >
> > Funny, I've never noticed any attempt to keep the destruction
> > of the indian nations "out of sight and out of mind".
> > If
> > anything, I've seen attempts to glorify the indians and
> > demonize the settlers - the exact opposite of the persecution
> > complex you're working on here.
>
> One example I saw recently on the History channel was a show glorifying
> the ability of some settlers to shoot Americans from close to a mile
> away.
The History Channel is visual entertainment, noone uses it
for historical research. Let me guess, you were watching
Wild West Tech, and the reason they were "glorifying" these
mile-away shots was because the specific focus of the show
was on the development of high-powered rifles in the American
West?
> I grew up and learned that Americans were horse-riders with
> almost no population, who worked with the Pilgrims on "Thanksgiving".
I'm sure there was a library or two within easy distance
of your home while you were growing up. Didn't you use them?
> In fact the Americas may have held 200m people pre-Columbus, boasting
> the biggest city in the world, though no horses. Do you think the
> average person on the street knows that official State and US
> government policies included explicit genocide of Americans for
> decades?
The average person on the street may well think that the
universe was created a few thousand years ago in six days.
> > > I prefer the "always remember" approach - you
> > > don't see "Jewish Mound Golf Courses" over there - or a lot of harping
> > > that most WWII holocaust victims died of "natural causes" (diseases) -
> > > true though it may be.
> >
> > So it doesn't matter if something is true or not, as long
> > as it follows the story you want to tell?
>
> Of course the truth matters.
Then please act like it.
> What also matters is that we learn from past mistakes. Judging from
> several of our foreign policies, and the fact that the Bureau of Indian
> Affairs is still in business, we haven't.
Check out how the Maori of New Zealand handle the affairs of
the people they displaced, it may give you a new perspective
on the USA's Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Question for you: do you think you should make reparations
to the indian tribes in your country? What reparations should
you, personally, make? Realize that shifting this onto your
government is just dodging the question, since anything your
government gives, in the end, comes from you.
firel...@hotmail.com
> <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1130356254.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> > > http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > Thus, according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at
> > > the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian
> > > population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in
> > > 1900 represents [sic] a "vast genocide . . . ,
> >
> > Note the passive voice "the reduction of" ... passive is always the
> > handmaiden of the demogogue -- that way they aren't pinned down to the
> > "by ___" part and get to conveniently slip in any scapegoat or culprit
> > they want, in their conspiracy paranoia.
> >
> > That's typical of how lefto-rightist conservi-liberal demo-publican
> > partisans work and of how they lie and distort the facts.
> >
> > There was no genocide. There may very well have been a massive number
> > of deaths, but this is totally different from saying that armies went
> > out into the land to systematically destroy every last inhabitant or a
> > large portion thereof.
> >
>
> Think you better go study some history. Remember General Custer? His
> attack was on a village of women and children with the soul intention of
> wiping them out. This is only one example. What about the pilgrims passing
> out blankets full of smallpox?
Whew...go study some history yourself. Even the proponents
of the "smallpox blankets" story don't start their accusations
about it until the mid 1700's.
Docky Wocky
"Whew...go study some history yourself. Even the proponents
of the "smallpox blankets" story don't start their accusations
about it until the mid 1700's..."
_____________________________
And don't forget that smallpox blankets were most likely a two way street
when it came to 18th Century biologic warfare.
Besides, how do you think those blankets got smallpoxed, and who were the
most likely biologic workers who infected them?
firel...@hotmail.com
There is that...but we should remember that the millions
of Europeans who were going to die from smallpox had
largely already done so at this point. Smallpox was
still a quite serious disease to them, but the fatality
rate was nothing like what the indians faced.
she...@yahoo.com
firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Justify it as you will, as long as you recognize that it took place -
> > >
> > > "Justifying" it is your straw man - I'm merely recognizing that
> > > it happened, and looking more than the "white men are evil"
> > > point of view.
> >
> > I certainly never said that! Speaking of straw men..
>
> Your tone strongly indicated to me that you were accusing me
> of justifying the actions of the European settlers. I'm merely
> seeing the history from more points of view than Ward Churchill
> and his ilk are happy with.
>
Sorry, no - I'm not about to accuse you of something that other people
did. That bugs me about the subject tag here as well.. Let's be
honest: "we" didn't murder anyone. Blaming somebody for the actions of
their distant relatives makes no sense at all. We're all related if
you go far enough back.
> > > > and the numbers indicate it was -extremely- one-sided.
> > >
> > > What were you expecting, when a unified industrialized
> > > society competes with a disparate collection of stone
> > > age peoples?
> >
> > Which side are you considering to have been "industrialized" circa
> > 1600?
>
> The side that had swords, armor, muskets, cannon, and people
> from concentrated, disease-resistant populations. Check out
> Diamond's _Guns, Germs and Steel_.
>
>
> > Some of the highest populations and biggest trade economies in
> > the world of the pre-Columbus era were in the Americas. Europe could
> > just as easily have been called a "disparate collection of stone age
> > peoples" - many Europeans who arrived here expressed their amazement at
> > the high level of culture and workmanship.
>
> "Stone age" and "Industrialized" have specific meanings, and these
> definitions are relevant to this discussion. The quality of
> workmanship and cultural expression have nothing to do with
> "stone age" or "industrialized", so please stop mixing these
> words up - the way you are doing it smacks of hagiography,
> not history.
Where in the definition of "industrialized" does it say we are only to
consider weapons industry or disease tolerance? If people are
producing metalwork, clothing, and other goods, and trading them in
bulk across large geographical areas, I'd call that industrious.
Wouldn't you?
What you meant to say was: "What were you expecting, when a disparate
group of heavily armed and disease hardened peoples competes with a
disparate collection of less armed and less disease hardened peoples?"
Do you accuse me of hagiography for suggesting Americans were
industrious?
>
> <snip>
> [Smallpox blankets incident]
> <snip>
> >
> > One example I saw recently on the History channel was a show glorifying
> > the ability of some settlers to shoot Americans from close to a mile
> > away.
>
> The History Channel is visual entertainment, noone uses it
> for historical research. Let me guess, you were watching
> Wild West Tech, and the reason they were "glorifying" these
> mile-away shots was because the specific focus of the show
> was on the development of high-powered rifles in the American
> West?
Yes, something like that. Not a mention that killing someone you've
never met for sport might have ramifications. I guess that isn't too
uncommon the the tube these days unfortunately..
>
> > I grew up and learned that Americans were horse-riders with
> > almost no population, who worked with the Pilgrims on "Thanksgiving".
>
> I'm sure there was a library or two within easy distance
> of your home while you were growing up. Didn't you use them?
>
Not soon enough. Still growing up I guess.
> > In fact the Americas may have held 200m people pre-Columbus, boasting
> > the biggest city in the world, though no horses. Do you think the
> > average person on the street knows that official State and US
> > government policies included explicit genocide of Americans for
> > decades?
>
> The average person on the street may well think that the
> universe was created a few thousand years ago in six days.
>
Good point. Sad but true.
>
> > What also matters is that we learn from past mistakes. Judging from
> > several of our foreign policies, and the fact that the Bureau of Indian
> > Affairs is still in business, we haven't.
>
> Check out how the Maori of New Zealand handle the affairs of
> the people they displaced, it may give you a new perspective
> on the USA's Bureau of Indian Affairs.
>
> Question for you: do you think you should make reparations
> to the indian tribes in your country? What reparations should
> you, personally, make? Realize that shifting this onto your
> government is just dodging the question, since anything your
> government gives, in the end, comes from you.
>
No, I don't think reparations are a good idea at all. Is that what
Churchill was pushing for? In that case I will step back from my
defense of him a bit. No amount of reparations will bring back the
dead - and who would pay? It makes no sense.
The government needs to do less, not more - for example we should stop
shipping weapons and deforestation chemicals to indigenous areas of
Columbia. We should stop giving away American owned lands to corporate
cronies, like is being done to the Hopi on Black Mesa. We should stop
sending money and weapons to racist and apartheid regimes.
Thanks for the conversation - shevek
Docky Wocky
in the smallpox arena.
Indians had no interest in cows, other than to eat. No indian milkmaids. No
cowpox moderated immunities.
Edward Jenner, who , observed the significant moderation in expression of
the smallpox disease in folks who worked with cows, began actively infecting
folks with cowpox (1796). Jenner used the word "vaccination," for his
treatment (Latin for cow = vacca). Later, when the full nature of the
problem was more understood, Louis Pasteur adopted the word for
immunization against any disease.
firel...@hotmail.com
> firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > Justify it as you will, as long as you recognize that it took place -
> > > >
> > > > "Justifying" it is your straw man - I'm merely recognizing that
> > > > it happened, and looking more than the "white men are evil"
> > > > point of view.
> > >
> > > I certainly never said that! Speaking of straw men..
> >
> > Your tone strongly indicated to me that you were accusing me
> > of justifying the actions of the European settlers. I'm merely
> > seeing the history from more points of view than Ward Churchill
> > and his ilk are happy with.
> >
>
> Sorry, no - I'm not about to accuse you of something that other people
> did.
Which is why you wrote to me, "justify it as you will"? Please,
at least be honest with your statements.
You are welcome to discuss history while making up your
own meanings for terms. You must expect there to be
confusion in the process. Yes, some of the civilzations
the Europeans encountered in the Americas had extensive
trade routes, and many produced interesting material
goods (though there was very little non-decorative
metalwork). No, they didn't by any stretch of the
imagination qualify as "industrialized".
> What you meant to say was: "What were you expecting, when a disparate
> group of heavily armed and disease hardened peoples competes with a
> disparate collection of less armed and less disease hardened peoples?"
I said what I meant.
> Do you accuse me of hagiography for suggesting Americans were
> industrious?
"Industrious" and "industrialized" are not the same term,
and do not refer to the same thing. Yes, I *am* accusing
you of hagiography for your insistence in this detail.
Are you reading my use of "stone age" as an epithet?
> > <snip>
> > [Smallpox blankets incident]
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > One example I saw recently on the History channel was a show glorifying
> > > the ability of some settlers to shoot Americans from close to a mile
> > > away.
> >
> > The History Channel is visual entertainment, noone uses it
> > for historical research. Let me guess, you were watching
> > Wild West Tech, and the reason they were "glorifying" these
> > mile-away shots was because the specific focus of the show
> > was on the development of high-powered rifles in the American
> > West?
>
> Yes, something like that. Not a mention that killing someone you've
> never met for sport might have ramifications.
Context, shevek, context. "Sport", plus percieved economic
and physical survival.
> I guess that isn't too
> uncommon the the tube these days unfortunately..
What has ever been on it? It's entertainment, and I
enjoy it as such.
UncleG
story. By the way, the thinking of the first settlers in New England
was a shocking match to the think of the Mongols and Tatars in Central
Asia. When they massacred resisting peoples, they considered it to be
the work of God. So did the people we call "pilgrims". They
considered the villages full of dead aboriginals a sign from God, that
this continent was being given to White People. Later on when William
Sherman wrote about exterminating aboriginals (ethnic cleansing), God
no longer was even mentioned. The thinking was the same as that of the
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
she...@yahoo.com
firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > Justify it as you will, as long as you recognize that it took place -
> > > > >
> > > > > "Justifying" it is your straw man - I'm merely recognizing that
> > > > > it happened, and looking more than the "white men are evil"
> > > > > point of view.
> > > >
> > > > I certainly never said that! Speaking of straw men..
> > >
> > > Your tone strongly indicated to me that you were accusing me
> > > of justifying the actions of the European settlers. I'm merely
> > > seeing the history from more points of view than Ward Churchill
> > > and his ilk are happy with.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, no - I'm not about to accuse you of something that other people
> > did.
>
> Which is why you wrote to me, "justify it as you will"? Please,
> at least be honest with your statements.
>
I'm trying. Justifying the actions of others is not the same as
accepting their responsibility! You (and I) are certainly not to blame
for actions of "White" people hundreds of years ago. I would say you
are justified in trying to put the actions of Washington in the context
of his time, but of course you will likely agree that they are still
reprehensible and counter-productive when it came to his polocies vis a
vis the native Americans.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Some of the highest populations and biggest trade economies in
> > > > the world of the pre-Columbus era were in the Americas. Europe could
> > > > just as easily have been called a "disparate collection of stone age
> > > > peoples" - many Europeans who arrived here expressed their amazement at
> > > > the high level of culture and workmanship.
> > >
> > > "Stone age" and "Industrialized" have specific meanings, and these
> > > definitions are relevant to this discussion. The quality of
> > > workmanship and cultural expression have nothing to do with
> > > "stone age" or "industrialized", so please stop mixing these
> > > words up - the way you are doing it smacks of hagiography,
> > > not history.
> >
> > Where in the definition of "industrialized" does it say we are only to
> > consider weapons industry or disease tolerance? If people are
> > producing metalwork, clothing, and other goods, and trading them in
> > bulk across large geographical areas, I'd call that industrious.
> > Wouldn't you?
>
> You are welcome to discuss history while making up your
> own meanings for terms. You must expect there to be
> confusion in the process. Yes, some of the civilzations
> the Europeans encountered in the Americas had extensive
> trade routes, and many produced interesting material
> goods (though there was very little non-decorative
> metalwork). No, they didn't by any stretch of the
> imagination qualify as "industrialized".
>
Then by what stretch of the imagination does 16th century Europe
qualify as "industrialized"? Keep in mind that the biggest textile
producer of the time was India, the biggest city was in America, and
technologies such as internal combustion engines and electrical power
were far in the future. There were probably close to as many
languages, monarchies, and social systems across Europe as there were
across North America.
> > What you meant to say was: "What were you expecting, when a disparate
> > group of heavily armed and disease hardened peoples competes with a
> > disparate collection of less armed and less disease hardened peoples?"
>
> I said what I meant.
>
> > Do you accuse me of hagiography for suggesting Americans were
> > industrious?
>
> "Industrious" and "industrialized" are not the same term,
> and do not refer to the same thing. Yes, I *am* accusing
> you of hagiography for your insistence in this detail.
> Are you reading my use of "stone age" as an epithet?
>
I guess I was reading it as an epithet, my apologies. I am merely
trying to be equitable..
> > > <snip>
> > > [Smallpox blankets incident]
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > One example I saw recently on the History channel was a show glorifying
> > > > the ability of some settlers to shoot Americans from close to a mile
> > > > away.
> > >
> > > The History Channel is visual entertainment, noone uses it
> > > for historical research. Let me guess, you were watching
> > > Wild West Tech, and the reason they were "glorifying" these
> > > mile-away shots was because the specific focus of the show
> > > was on the development of high-powered rifles in the American
> > > West?
> >
> > Yes, something like that. Not a mention that killing someone you've
> > never met for sport might have ramifications.
>
> Context, shevek, context. "Sport", plus percieved economic
> and physical survival.
>
Both economic and physical survival were made far harder for the
settlers by such actions! That's the real lesson here.
> > I guess that isn't too
> > uncommon the the tube these days unfortunately..
>
> What has ever been on it? It's entertainment, and I
> enjoy it as such.
>
True enough. Perhaps part of the entertainment is that we can complain
about the bits we don't like :)
Cheers-
hoo...@aol.com
> > remember and learn from past mistakes. Here, we try to keep it out of
> > sight and out of mind.
B. The lefties try to keep the CSA flag out of sight and applaud the
destruction of history in Civil War battlefields and monuments to CSA
generals and soldiers.
I agree America hasn't learned from history. Native American Genocide is
example. Look at Isreal they support the same ideals as manifest destiny.
one of the biggest reasons history isnt learend is everybody attempting to
change it. Political Correctness is as much censorship as Right wing Bible
thumpers and there Intelligent Design bullshit.
firel...@hotmail.com
His actions were demonstrably productive, given the goal of
breaking the native American (and, by means of alliance, the
European) threat to the ascendancy of his young country. I
can't crawl far enough inside his head to automatically agree
with "reprehensible", especially considering what his native
American opponents were famous for doing to their enemies.
<snip>
> Then by what stretch of the imagination does 16th century Europe
> qualify as "industrialized"?
Management trade on a literally global scale, rise of capitalist
investment into serious expansion of production efficiencies,
advanced metalsmithing technologies in terms of scale and
application, early application of the "citizen army/nation
at arms" concept. Note also that European ascendancy over
the Americas happened from the 16th through the 19th
centuries, and during that timeframe any hopes you have of
defining Europe as non-Industrialized fade away without ever
having seen a single instance of industrialization in native
American civilizations. Left alone another few centuries,
perhaps...but we'll never know.
> Keep in mind that the biggest textile
> producer of the time was India,
> the biggest city was in America, and
> technologies such as internal combustion engines and electrical power
> were far in the future. There were probably close to as many
> languages, monarchies, and social systems across Europe as there were
> across North America.
Interesting, but irrelevant. You're proving that there were
other powerful and interesting cultures on Earth during the
early stages of the American colonial period, but that point
was never under contention.
<Snip>
> > > Do you accuse me of hagiography for suggesting Americans were
> > > industrious?
> >
> > "Industrious" and "industrialized" are not the same term,
> > and do not refer to the same thing. Yes, I *am* accusing
> > you of hagiography for your insistence in this detail.
> > Are you reading my use of "stone age" as an epithet?
>
> I guess I was reading it as an epithet, my apologies. I am merely
> trying to be equitable..
If the colonizing Europeans and the native Americans were *equal*,
the Europeans probably wouldn't have had a chance. The Europeans
had a passel of advantages and, like it or not, used them. Getting
wiped out by invaders doesn't mean that you're good or bad, it just
means they wiped you out.
<Snip>
> > > Yes, something like that. Not a mention that killing someone you've
> > > never met for sport might have ramifications.
> >
> > Context, shevek, context. "Sport", plus percieved economic
> > and physical survival.
> >
>
> Both economic and physical survival were made far harder for the
> settlers by such actions! That's the real lesson here.
In the short term, perhaps. In the long term, there's no question
that settlers on frontier territories were safer when there were
fewer native Americans contesting said frontier with them.
> > > I guess that isn't too
> > > uncommon the the tube these days unfortunately..
> >
> > What has ever been on it? It's entertainment, and I
> > enjoy it as such.
>
> True enough. Perhaps part of the entertainment is that we can complain
> about the bits we don't like :)
I like some of the series fiction on SciFi Network myself.
she...@yahoo.com
firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > [..]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, no - I'm not about to accuse you of something that other people
> > > > did.
> > >
> > > Which is why you wrote to me, "justify it as you will"? Please,
> > > at least be honest with your statements.
> > >
> >
> > I'm trying. Justifying the actions of others is not the same as
> > accepting their responsibility! You (and I) are certainly not to blame
> > for actions of "White" people hundreds of years ago. I would say you
> > are justified in trying to put the actions of Washington in the context
> > of his time, but of course you will likely agree that they are still
> > reprehensible and counter-productive when it came to his polocies vis a
> > vis the native Americans.
>
> His actions were demonstrably productive, given the goal of
> breaking the native American (and, by means of alliance, the
> European) threat to the ascendancy of his young country.
You must be kidding. How does starting wars eliminate a threat? It
-produces- a threat. When "his young country" could have been building
up a rich trade base with natives, learning about the land and history,
while fighting off external enemies - he instead decided to incite
violence inside "his young country" - violence which killed thousands
of his countrymen and interfered with trade and production. And you
call that demonstrably productive??
> I
> can't crawl far enough inside his head to automatically agree
> with "reprehensible", especially considering what his native
> American opponents were famous for doing to their enemies.
>
Practices -encouraged- by Washington's policies and public statements
advocating genocide!!
> <snip>
> > Then by what stretch of the imagination does 16th century Europe
> > qualify as "industrialized"?
>
> Management trade on a literally global scale, rise of capitalist
> investment into serious expansion of production efficiencies,
> advanced metalsmithing technologies in terms of scale and
> application, early application of the "citizen army/nation
> at arms" concept. Note also that European ascendancy over
> the Americas happened from the 16th through the 19th
> centuries, and during that timeframe any hopes you have of
> defining Europe as non-Industrialized fade away without ever
> having seen a single instance of industrialization in native
> American civilizations. Left alone another few centuries,
> perhaps...but we'll never know.
>
"Serious expansion of production efficiencies" - what did you have in
mind? Feudal labor systems? The best metalsmithing technologies were
actually in the East - they exported steel into Europe, the Europeans
didn't know how to make it yet. I'd be glad to point out the many
elements of 16th century Europe that I personally think are very
impressive and in many ways superior to other cultures, you've
mentioned metalwork, but I still think you are a little premature with
"industrialized".
> > Keep in mind that the biggest textile
> > producer of the time was India,
> > the biggest city was in America, and
> > technologies such as internal combustion engines and electrical power
> > were far in the future. There were probably close to as many
> > languages, monarchies, and social systems across Europe as there were
> > across North America.
>
> Interesting, but irrelevant. You're proving that there were
> other powerful and interesting cultures on Earth during the
> early stages of the American colonial period, but that point
> was never under contention.
>
Good. I don't think the point that powerful and interesting cultures
were in America at that time is under contention either.
> <Snip>
> > > > Do you accuse me of hagiography for suggesting Americans were
> > > > industrious?
> > >
> > > "Industrious" and "industrialized" are not the same term,
> > > and do not refer to the same thing. Yes, I *am* accusing
> > > you of hagiography for your insistence in this detail.
> > > Are you reading my use of "stone age" as an epithet?
> >
> > I guess I was reading it as an epithet, my apologies. I am merely
> > trying to be equitable..
>
> If the colonizing Europeans and the native Americans were *equal*,
> the Europeans probably wouldn't have had a chance. The Europeans
> had a passel of advantages and, like it or not, used them. Getting
> wiped out by invaders doesn't mean that you're good or bad, it just
> means they wiped you out.
>
Agreed.
> <Snip>
> > > > Yes, something like that. Not a mention that killing someone you've
> > > > never met for sport might have ramifications.
> > >
> > > Context, shevek, context. "Sport", plus percieved economic
> > > and physical survival.
> > >
> >
> > Both economic and physical survival were made far harder for the
> > settlers by such actions! That's the real lesson here.
>
> In the short term, perhaps. In the long term, there's no question
> that settlers on frontier territories were safer when there were
> fewer native Americans contesting said frontier with them.
>
And you'd be safer if all your neighbors were killed too, right?
Better safe then sorry, might as well kill them.
Hint- sarcasm. You are safer if you can get along with others! Safer
and richer.
GOod luck - shevek
she...@yahoo.com
hoo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > In Germany they have monuments to the racist massacres so people will
> > > remember and learn from past mistakes. Here, we try to keep it out of
> > > sight and out of mind.
> A American has more holocaust monuments then Germany.
Wow, is that true? But which holocaust do they memorialize? Not one
that took place here.
> B. The lefties try to keep the CSA flag out of sight and applaud the
> destruction of history in Civil War battlefields and monuments to CSA
> generals and soldiers.
>
So, who do you mean by the "lefties"? I saw the CSA flag prominently
displayed at a televised pro soccer game from Spain recently, that was
interesting. I have no problem with the Confederate flag, and decry
such destruction of monuments.
> I agree America hasn't learned from history. Native American Genocide is
> example. Look at Isreal they support the same ideals as manifest destiny.
> one of the biggest reasons history isnt learend is everybody attempting to
> change it. Political Correctness is as much censorship as Right wing Bible
> thumpers and there Intelligent Design bullshit.
I agree! Thank you!
firel...@hotmail.com
The European enemies of his young country - France, later
England, and eventually even Spain - were using alliances
with the native Americans against the fledgling USA, in a
continuation of the age-old divide and conquer strategy.
Nail the USA, then later on nail the tribes, or expend
the tribes and later on nail the USA. These conflicts
were already in progress, the initial American campaigns
on the Alleghany and Mohawk frontiers were against treaty
allies of people who were already shooting at Americans.
The "rich trade base" was going to the French and English,
not the the Americans, and the French and English liked it
that way.
> > I
> > can't crawl far enough inside his head to automatically agree
> > with "reprehensible", especially considering what his native
> > American opponents were famous for doing to their enemies.
>
> Practices -encouraged- by Washington's policies and public statements
> advocating genocide!!
Shall I show you the tree in Cherry Valley, NY where the
Iroquois hung the body parts of the town school teacher
after hacking her apart? It's only about a dozen miles
from my house. Burning alive, skinning alive, whipping
captives to death, these were standard "things you do to
enemies" in the Northeastern native American civilizations
before the first traders from Europe started showing up.
> > <snip>
> > > Then by what stretch of the imagination does 16th century Europe
> > > qualify as "industrialized"?
> >
> > Management trade on a literally global scale, rise of capitalist
> > investment into serious expansion of production efficiencies,
> > advanced metalsmithing technologies in terms of scale and
> > application, early application of the "citizen army/nation
> > at arms" concept. Note also that European ascendancy over
> > the Americas happened from the 16th through the 19th
> > centuries, and during that timeframe any hopes you have of
> > defining Europe as non-Industrialized fade away without ever
> > having seen a single instance of industrialization in native
> > American civilizations. Left alone another few centuries,
> > perhaps...but we'll never know.
> >
>
> "Serious expansion of production efficiencies" - what did you have in
> mind? Feudal labor systems?
No, development of merchant houses, investment banking and
corporate charters, providing the capital to support large-scale
movement of goods and transition from cottage industry collection
to guild-based work systems all the way to production-line
factories - all but the last known in Europe since before the
1600's, and the last one developed in Europe in the early 1700's.
> The best metalsmithing technologies were
> actually in the East - they exported steel into Europe, the Europeans
> didn't know how to make it yet.
"Metalsmithing" refers to iron (and others) as well as steel - and
we weren't talking about the East - another area subjugated by
Europeans - we were talking about the Americas. The native
Americans never developed effective ironsmithing, while the
Europeans went past iron and into steel only less than halfway
through the colonization period. As for "best", "good enough"
demonstrably sufficed.
> I'd be glad to point out the many
> elements of 16th century Europe that I personally think are very
> impressive and in many ways superior to other cultures, you've
> mentioned metalwork, but I still think you are a little premature with
> "industrialized".
Dominance of the Americas by people of European descent
didn't happen at the crack of dawn on January 1st 1600 - it
was still ongoing through the 1800's. Perhaps most of
Europe was still pre-Industrial at the moment you're
concentrating on, but realize that most native Americans
still wouldn't see their first European for a century or more,
if ever.
> > > Keep in mind that the biggest textile
> > > producer of the time was India,
> > > the biggest city was in America, and
> > > technologies such as internal combustion engines and electrical power
> > > were far in the future. There were probably close to as many
> > > languages, monarchies, and social systems across Europe as there were
> > > across North America.
> >
> > Interesting, but irrelevant. You're proving that there were
> > other powerful and interesting cultures on Earth during the
> > early stages of the American colonial period, but that point
> > was never under contention.
>
> Good. I don't think the point that powerful and interesting cultures
> were in America at that time is under contention either.
You keep bringing up examples of how wonderful other
cultures were compared to those Europeans. I've never
said they weren't wonderful cultures, and I'm still
not sure how the wonderfullness of a particular
culture came into the conversation. We weren't
talking about wonderful, and I keep getting the
suspicion that your talk of the glories of everyone
else is a framing of the old "noble red man/evil
white man" schtick.
What we were talking about was survival.
<Snip>
> > In the short term, perhaps. In the long term, there's no question
> > that settlers on frontier territories were safer when there were
> > fewer native Americans contesting said frontier with them.
>
> And you'd be safer if all your neighbors were killed too, right?
> Better safe then sorry, might as well kill them.
Realize that those "neighbors" (North American plains and
southwest indian tribes) have a history of kidnapping
people like you and torturing them to death. That's got to
have an effect on how safe these people felt.
> Hint- sarcasm. You are safer if you can get along with others! Safer
> and richer.
If the plains indian cultures had survived, in no way would
the European-origin inhabitants of the great plains states be
"safer or richer", at least not there. If you want to be
completely cold about it, there was no way the plains tribes
could have traded anything a hundredth as valuable as the
agricultural potential of the land they inhabited, an
agricultural potential that could never have been realized
by those tribes - so "richer" goes out the window. Now
realize that these tribes had a warrior ethic similar to
that of Germanic tribes in the early Roman period, and
you'll see that "safer" doesn't come into the picture
at all. No sarcasm, just an analysis of what happened.
she...@yahoo.com
firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > His actions were demonstrably productive, given the goal of
> > > breaking the native American (and, by means of alliance, the
> > > European) threat to the ascendancy of his young country.
> >
> > You must be kidding. How does starting wars eliminate a threat? It
> > -produces- a threat. When "his young country" could have been building
> > up a rich trade base with natives, learning about the land and history,
> > while fighting off external enemies - he instead decided to incite
> > violence inside "his young country" - violence which killed thousands
> > of his countrymen and interfered with trade and production. And you
> > call that demonstrably productive??
>
> The European enemies of his young country - France, later
> England, and eventually even Spain - were using alliances
> with the native Americans against the fledgling USA, in a
> continuation of the age-old divide and conquer strategy.
> Nail the USA, then later on nail the tribes, or expend
> the tribes and later on nail the USA. These conflicts
> were already in progress, the initial American campaigns
> on the Alleghany and Mohawk frontiers were against treaty
> allies of people who were already shooting at Americans.
> The "rich trade base" was going to the French and English,
> not the the Americans, and the French and English liked it
> that way.
>
Exactly. Had Washington made allies with the Americans, instead of
calling for their extermination, things would have been a lot easier
for his young country, and harder for its enemies.
> > > I
> > > can't crawl far enough inside his head to automatically agree
> > > with "reprehensible", especially considering what his native
> > > American opponents were famous for doing to their enemies.
> >
> > Practices -encouraged- by Washington's policies and public statements
> > advocating genocide!!
>
> Shall I show you the tree in Cherry Valley, NY where the
> Iroquois hung the body parts of the town school teacher
> after hacking her apart? It's only about a dozen miles
> from my house. Burning alive, skinning alive, whipping
> captives to death, these were standard "things you do to
> enemies" in the Northeastern native American civilizations
> before the first traders from Europe started showing up.
>
Exactly. These kind of atrocities were encouraged by Washington's
policies and statements.
> > > <snip>
> > > > Then by what stretch of the imagination does 16th century Europe
> > > > qualify as "industrialized"?
> > >
> > > Management trade on a literally global scale, rise of capitalist
> > > investment into serious expansion of production efficiencies,
> > > advanced metalsmithing technologies in terms of scale and
> > > application, early application of the "citizen army/nation
> > > at arms" concept. Note also that European ascendancy over
> > > the Americas happened from the 16th through the 19th
> > > centuries, and during that timeframe any hopes you have of
> > > defining Europe as non-Industrialized fade away without ever
> > > having seen a single instance of industrialization in native
> > > American civilizations. Left alone another few centuries,
> > > perhaps...but we'll never know.
> > >
> >
> > "Serious expansion of production efficiencies" - what did you have in
> > mind? Feudal labor systems?
>
> No, development of merchant houses, investment banking and
> corporate charters, providing the capital to support large-scale
> movement of goods and transition from cottage industry collection
> to guild-based work systems all the way to production-line
> factories - all but the last known in Europe since before the
> 1600's, and the last one developed in Europe in the early 1700's.
>
I don't know much about early American currencies, but I imagine you
are quite right that the Europeans had more advanced capital and
banking systems. Large-scale movement of goods was more common in
south and central America than North America I think.
> > I'd be glad to point out the many
> > elements of 16th century Europe that I personally think are very
> > impressive and in many ways superior to other cultures, you've
> > mentioned metalwork, but I still think you are a little premature with
> > "industrialized".
>
> Dominance of the Americas by people of European descent
> didn't happen at the crack of dawn on January 1st 1600 - it
> was still ongoing through the 1800's. Perhaps most of
> Europe was still pre-Industrial at the moment you're
> concentrating on, but realize that most native Americans
> still wouldn't see their first European for a century or more,
> if ever.
>
Good point.
> > > > Keep in mind that the biggest textile
> > > > producer of the time was India,
> > > > the biggest city was in America, and
> > > > technologies such as internal combustion engines and electrical power
> > > > were far in the future. There were probably close to as many
> > > > languages, monarchies, and social systems across Europe as there were
> > > > across North America.
> > >
> > > Interesting, but irrelevant. You're proving that there were
> > > other powerful and interesting cultures on Earth during the
> > > early stages of the American colonial period, but that point
> > > was never under contention.
> >
> > Good. I don't think the point that powerful and interesting cultures
> > were in America at that time is under contention either.
>
> You keep bringing up examples of how wonderful other
> cultures were compared to those Europeans. I've never
> said they weren't wonderful cultures, and I'm still
> not sure how the wonderfullness of a particular
> culture came into the conversation. We weren't
> talking about wonderful, and I keep getting the
> suspicion that your talk of the glories of everyone
> else is a framing of the old "noble red man/evil
> white man" schtick.
>
> What we were talking about was survival.
>
My examples were only to counter yours, sorry for getting off-topic. I
refuse to engage in any obviously incorrect noble or evil cricatures
based on continent of origin.
> <Snip>
> > > In the short term, perhaps. In the long term, there's no question
> > > that settlers on frontier territories were safer when there were
> > > fewer native Americans contesting said frontier with them.
> >
> > And you'd be safer if all your neighbors were killed too, right?
> > Better safe then sorry, might as well kill them.
>
> Realize that those "neighbors" (North American plains and
> southwest indian tribes) have a history of kidnapping
> people like you and torturing them to death. That's got to
> have an effect on how safe these people felt.
>
Completely bogus! First of all, you should realize that the "Plains
Indians" didn't arise until after colonization, and were made of a
hodgepodge of refugees from tribes and nations in North America.
Second of all, you are placing the blame of some crimes on others who
look similar or speak the same language.
I'm stating the obvious here: if certain settlers hadn't been so
adamant about commiting genocide, not as many of the settlers would
have been kidnapped and killed.
> > Hint- sarcasm. You are safer if you can get along with others! Safer
> > and richer.
>
> If the plains indian cultures had survived, in no way would
> the European-origin inhabitants of the great plains states be
> "safer or richer", at least not there.
Again totally false. More hands for labor, more knowledge of plants
and animals, and less loss of capital and life to violence, would
clearly have made the inhabitants safer and richer.
> If you want to be
> completely cold about it, there was no way the plains tribes
> could have traded anything a hundredth as valuable as the
> agricultural potential of the land they inhabited, an
> agricultural potential that could never have been realized
> by those tribes - so "richer" goes out the window.
Cold and incorrect, yes. Even the plains tribes, risen from the influx
of European capital, weaponry, and horses, filled with hatred that some
assholes had killed their families for no reason, could have provided
labor and knowledge, already bringing "richer" back into the picture.
When you consider the time and money spent in eradicating them, you
begin to see how much richer the settlers would have been had it not
been for a few assholes and their psychological problems.
For God's sake at least keep them as slaves! I can't believe anyone
could imagine a slaughter of man or beasts, left where they were
killed, as "productive". It'a waste of time, of ammunition, of money,
of life, completely senseless and driven by psychological disorders
that SHOULD BE HEALED.
> Now
> realize that these tribes had a warrior ethic similar to
> that of Germanic tribes in the early Roman period, and
> you'll see that "safer" doesn't come into the picture
> at all.
Are you saying the Romans made similar mistakes? If a person of any
color or language is violent or takes others freedoms from them, then I
would agree that a punishment should be applied. But if the Romans
applied collective punishment to any "germanic" - then they were being
just as counterproductive as the original criminals.
hoo...@aol.com
control. Another lefty tactic is hero destruction. They think the can
deafeat ignorat rednecks who rally around historical heroes by defaming said
hero. Like the Bullshit about Jackson. Or when goofballs start in the
lampshades and how hilter really hated his digs. Totaly idiotic and untrue.
simply stories designed to control minds. Thats what Americans do left and
right. The difference between left and right is little except thre tactics
in attempting to control.
she...@yahoo.com
Well thanks. It seems everyone has a completely different opinion
about what "right" and "left" means in almost every context. It seems
to me a best practice to simply use "left" to signify those we disagree
with, and better yet to avoid using the terms all together.
As for the bullshit about Jackson, I'm not trying to censor or rewrite
history. It's simply a commonly cited anecdote about his campaign
against the native Americans - commonly cited by reputable historians,
which seems to me the best we can do at establishing its validity.
You're right in that it doesn't really matter, a dead person is still
dead regardless of how his/her corpse is disfigured, however historical
anecdotes are useful in getting a feel for the mindset of the time
period.
Def...@easynews.com
But those such as yourself tend to end the "period" when it's
advantageous to your argument. Have you ever wondered how the "native
Americans" you allude to killed off those who we could be called the
"Kennewicks?"
Probably not.
Def...@easynews.com
This might interest you also:
"To the several cabinets the several political establishments of the
world are clotheslines; and a large part of the official duty of these
cabinets is to keep an eye on each other's wash and grab what they can
of it as opportunity offers. All the territorial possessions of all
the political establishments in the earth--including America, of
course--consist of pilferings from other people's wash. No tribe,
howsoever insignificant, and no nation, howsoever mighty, occupies a
foot of land that was not stolen. When the English, the French, and
the Spaniards reached America, the Indian tribes had been raiding each
other's territorial clothes-lines for ages, and every acre of ground
in the continent had been stolen and re-stolen 500 times. The English,
the French, and the Spaniards went to work and stole it all over
again; and when that was satisfactorily accomplished they went
diligently to work and stole it from each other."
-Mark Twain, Following the Equator - Chapter 63
firel...@hotmail.com
Problem was, those alliances had already been made - against him.
The Iroquois Confederation and the Pontiac Alliance thought
their interests were better served by the European settlements
remaining colonies of countries far away - countries that, they
hoped, would remain at odds with each other so these colonies
would remain contested frontiers. The native Americans were
hoping for a divide and conquer as well, or at least a divide
and status quo.
> > > > I
> > > > can't crawl far enough inside his head to automatically agree
> > > > with "reprehensible", especially considering what his native
> > > > American opponents were famous for doing to their enemies.
> > >
> > > Practices -encouraged- by Washington's policies and public statements
> > > advocating genocide!!
> >
> > Shall I show you the tree in Cherry Valley, NY where the
> > Iroquois hung the body parts of the town school teacher
> > after hacking her apart? It's only about a dozen miles
> > from my house. Burning alive, skinning alive, whipping
> > captives to death, these were standard "things you do to
> > enemies" in the Northeastern native American civilizations
> > before the first traders from Europe started showing up.
>
> Exactly. These kind of atrocities were encouraged by Washington's
> policies and statements.
You're simply not getting it. This is what native Americans
did as normal course of business, the only way you can call
Washington's policies "encouragement" is that he and his
were willing to bring matters to a head instead of leave it
to another few centuries of raiding.
If you're talking about native American trade routes, there
never was any large-scale movement, compared to what happened
in Europe. The civilizations of Central and South America had
the size to get trade going but were all limited to porter and
llama, since road, wheel and water transport never developed.
Before the conflict between European colonists and native
Americans was complete the people of European origin were
using railroads, so you've got a matter of the situation
getting far better for the one as it got far worse for the
other.
<Snip>
Your last paragraph here makes me wonder.
> > <Snip>
> > > > In the short term, perhaps. In the long term, there's no question
> > > > that settlers on frontier territories were safer when there were
> > > > fewer native Americans contesting said frontier with them.
> > >
> > > And you'd be safer if all your neighbors were killed too, right?
> > > Better safe then sorry, might as well kill them.
> >
> > Realize that those "neighbors" (North American plains and
> > southwest indian tribes) have a history of kidnapping
> > people like you and torturing them to death. That's got to
> > have an effect on how safe these people felt.
>
> Completely bogus! First of all, you should realize that the "Plains
> Indians" didn't arise until after colonization, and were made of a
> hodgepodge of refugees from tribes and nations in North America.
For groups like the Cherokee, sure. For groups like the Arapaho,
Lakota Sioux, and Cheyenne, "completely bogus".
> Second of all, you are placing the blame of some crimes on others who
> look similar or speak the same language.
Whoa...you actually think these groups spoke the same language?
Where did you get your information about native American
tribes?
> I'm stating the obvious here: if certain settlers hadn't been so
> adamant about commiting genocide, not as many of the settlers would
> have been kidnapped and killed.
Nor would there have been a tenth as many settlers.
> > > Hint- sarcasm. You are safer if you can get along with others! Safer
> > > and richer.
> >
> > If the plains indian cultures had survived, in no way would
> > the European-origin inhabitants of the great plains states be
> > "safer or richer", at least not there.
>
> Again totally false. More hands for labor,
...that had no interest in agriculture. Note that lack of people
wasn't a problem, countries in Europe and cities in the Eastern
USA were literally giving people away by the mid to late 1800's.
> more knowledge of plants and animals,
Plants and animals that supported a nomadic lifestyle.
*Different* plants and animals were introduced, that led
to the massive agricultural wealth produced by these
regions.
> and less loss of capital and life to violence,
Violence that was all over in a matter of decades, at
least as far as the westward expansion of the mid-1800's
was concerned. Had the solution been an attempt at
coexistance, levels of violence would have continued
throughout and required a lot of capital and life to
prevent.
Note that we've got several different types of conflict
going on here. The wars of in the East were very
different from the wars in the southeast, the Spanish
dominion of Mexico and Central/South America and
California.
> would
> clearly have made the inhabitants safer and richer.
Nothing clear about it, at least to me.
> > If you want to be
> > completely cold about it, there was no way the plains tribes
> > could have traded anything a hundredth as valuable as the
> > agricultural potential of the land they inhabited, an
> > agricultural potential that could never have been realized
> > by those tribes - so "richer" goes out the window.
>
> Cold and incorrect, yes.
You have yet to show "incorrect".
> Even the plains tribes, risen from the influx
> of European capital, weaponry, and horses, filled with hatred that some
> assholes had killed their families for no reason, could have provided
> labor and knowledge, already bringing "richer" back into the picture.
Labor wasn't in short supply, and their knowledge wasn't of the
sort that provided the agricultural wealth I'm talking about.
> When you consider the time and money spent in eradicating them, you
> begin to see how much richer the settlers would have been had it not
> been for a few assholes and their psychological problems.
There were assholes on both sides, and dismissing a major
cultural clash as the actions of "a few assholes and their
psychological problems" is, to put it bluntly, a ridiculous
parody of history.
> For God's sake at least keep them as slaves! I can't believe anyone
> could imagine a slaughter of man or beasts, left where they were
> killed, as "productive". It'a waste of time, of ammunition, of money,
> of life, completely senseless and driven by psychological disorders
> that SHOULD BE HEALED.
>
> > Now
> > realize that these tribes had a warrior ethic similar to
> > that of Germanic tribes in the early Roman period, and
> > you'll see that "safer" doesn't come into the picture
> > at all.
>
> Are you saying the Romans made similar mistakes? If a person of any
> color or language is violent or takes others freedoms from them, then I
> would agree that a punishment should be applied. But if the Romans
> applied collective punishment to any "germanic" - then they were being
> just as counterproductive as the original criminals.
I was talking about the Germanic tribes, tribes that were beyond
the Roman frontiers and looked up to by some Roman historians
as idealized examples of strength and personal courage. Somehow,
you turned it into a lament about oppression. Reading your
paragraph above, the only conclusion I can come to is that your
study of history consists of looking for victims to empathize
with.
she...@yahoo.com
Thanks, Twain has a good point. However there's a difference between
stealing and murder! Some had plenty of land but were not content as
mere thieves, they wanted to be murderers. In either case the fact
that others have been doing it doesn't mean it's a wise choice.
I was also interested in the American (native) tradition of destrying
literature.. burning the records of previous chieftans/tribes/nations
(previous land-owners as Twain would say) was common by the Aztecs and
likely other peoples.
Cheers -
firel...@hotmail.com
> Def...@easynews.com wrote:
> > "To the several cabinets the several political establishments of the
> > world are clotheslines; and a large part of the official duty of these
> > cabinets is to keep an eye on each other's wash and grab what they can
> > of it as opportunity offers. All the territorial possessions of all
> > the political establishments in the earth--including America, of
> > course--consist of pilferings from other people's wash. No tribe,
> > howsoever insignificant, and no nation, howsoever mighty, occupies a
> > foot of land that was not stolen. When the English, the French, and
> > the Spaniards reached America, the Indian tribes had been raiding each
> > other's territorial clothes-lines for ages, and every acre of ground
> > in the continent had been stolen and re-stolen 500 times. The English,
> > the French, and the Spaniards went to work and stole it all over
> > again; and when that was satisfactorily accomplished they went
> > diligently to work and stole it from each other."
> > -Mark Twain, Following the Equator - Chapter 63
>
> Thanks, Twain has a good point. However there's a difference between
> stealing and murder!
There's seldom a difference between the two, when we're talking
about one people displacing another in occupation of a territory.
If you're a fan of Biblical "history" you'll see that the
Old Testament accounts of taking land didn't involve asking
people nicely, they involved killing everyone you couldn't
take as a useful slave. Things have improved marginally
since then.
hawat....@gmail.com
..
> Exactly. Had Washington made allies with the Americans, instead
> of calling for their extermination, things would have been a lot
> easier for his young country, and harder for its enemies.
they weren't called the French and Indian wars for nothing :)
-Thufir
she...@yahoo.com
And why do you think the Iroquois thought that? They listened to
Washington's speeches, and heard of what happened under his command.
Talk about botched diplomacy..
> > > > > I
> > > > > can't crawl far enough inside his head to automatically agree
> > > > > with "reprehensible", especially considering what his native
> > > > > American opponents were famous for doing to their enemies.
> > > >
> > > > Practices -encouraged- by Washington's policies and public statements
> > > > advocating genocide!!
> > >
> > > Shall I show you the tree in Cherry Valley, NY where the
> > > Iroquois hung the body parts of the town school teacher
> > > after hacking her apart? It's only about a dozen miles
> > > from my house. Burning alive, skinning alive, whipping
> > > captives to death, these were standard "things you do to
> > > enemies" in the Northeastern native American civilizations
> > > before the first traders from Europe started showing up.
> >
> > Exactly. These kind of atrocities were encouraged by Washington's
> > policies and statements.
>
> You're simply not getting it. This is what native Americans
> did as normal course of business, the only way you can call
> Washington's policies "encouragement" is that he and his
> were willing to bring matters to a head instead of leave it
> to another few centuries of raiding.
>
Bringing matters to a head, I guess that's what happened to the school
teacher in your example. You are advocating collective punishment
here, a war crime under the Geneva convention, and guaranteed to foment
violence by survivors.
Products from one city were commonly found for sale thousands of miles
away, I would call that large-scale movement. There were certainly
roads, wheels, and water transport, but of different character.
> Before the conflict between European colonists and native
> Americans was complete the people of European origin were
> using railroads, so you've got a matter of the situation
> getting far better for the one as it got far worse for the
> other.
>
So when do you think the confict was complete? The Americans were and
are using railroads too..
> <Snip>
> >
> > My examples were only to counter yours, sorry for getting off-topic. I
> > refuse to engage in any obviously incorrect noble or evil cricatures
> > based on continent of origin.
>
> Your last paragraph here makes me wonder.
>
Wonder what?
> > > <Snip>
> > > > > In the short term, perhaps. In the long term, there's no question
> > > > > that settlers on frontier territories were safer when there were
> > > > > fewer native Americans contesting said frontier with them.
> > > >
> > > > And you'd be safer if all your neighbors were killed too, right?
> > > > Better safe then sorry, might as well kill them.
> > >
> > > Realize that those "neighbors" (North American plains and
> > > southwest indian tribes) have a history of kidnapping
> > > people like you and torturing them to death. That's got to
> > > have an effect on how safe these people felt.
> >
> > Completely bogus! First of all, you should realize that the "Plains
> > Indians" didn't arise until after colonization, and were made of a
> > hodgepodge of refugees from tribes and nations in North America.
>
> For groups like the Cherokee, sure. For groups like the Arapaho,
> Lakota Sioux, and Cheyenne, "completely bogus".
>
What?? The Cherokee weren't the "Plains Indians"..
> > Second of all, you are placing the blame of some crimes on others who
> > look similar or speak the same language.
>
> Whoa...you actually think these groups spoke the same language?
> Where did you get your information about native American
> tribes?
>
There are a few main branches of North American languages.. if not
that, what was your criteria for whom should be suspected of kidnapping
and torture?
> > I'm stating the obvious here: if certain settlers hadn't been so
> > adamant about commiting genocide, not as many of the settlers would
> > have been kidnapped and killed.
>
> Nor would there have been a tenth as many settlers.
>
?? How so? AFAIK, violence with the natives was a serious threat back
then, things were a lot easier for those who could make peace.
> > > > Hint- sarcasm. You are safer if you can get along with others! Safer
> > > > and richer.
> > >
> > > If the plains indian cultures had survived, in no way would
> > > the European-origin inhabitants of the great plains states be
> > > "safer or richer", at least not there.
> >
> > Again totally false. More hands for labor,
>
> ...that had no interest in agriculture. Note that lack of people
> wasn't a problem, countries in Europe and cities in the Eastern
> USA were literally giving people away by the mid to late 1800's.
>
LOL - that's why Columbus was trying to bring Americans back to Europe
as slaves? That's why they were selling Africans here?
> > more knowledge of plants and animals,
>
> Plants and animals that supported a nomadic lifestyle.
> *Different* plants and animals were introduced, that led
> to the massive agricultural wealth produced by these
> regions.
>
Again LOL - it is centuries of careful American selective breeding that
now feeds much of the world.. who developed the potato, tomato, and
corn?
> > and less loss of capital and life to violence,
>
> Violence that was all over in a matter of decades, at
> least as far as the westward expansion of the mid-1800's
> was concerned. Had the solution been an attempt at
> coexistance, levels of violence would have continued
> throughout and required a lot of capital and life to
> prevent.
>
The only solution still is attempted coexistance. You may want to live
life all alone but most of us like to coexist. Remember you are
talking about your neighbors.
> Note that we've got several different types of conflict
> going on here. The wars of in the East were very
> different from the wars in the southeast, the Spanish
> dominion of Mexico and Central/South America and
> California.
>
True, but many of them featured misguided characters who imagined
members of the same species were a different race, and who tragically
played out cycles of violence to the detriment of all involved.
> > would
> > clearly have made the inhabitants safer and richer.
>
> Nothing clear about it, at least to me.
>
If you want to lay your life and fortune on the line to fight for
"manifest destiny", if something from your experiences makes you feel
the need to murder, than perhaps that is your perogative. But at least
admit that you are risking your life and fortune for these goals.
You'd be richer and safer if you pursued a less "glamorous" activity
like agriculture, history, or music - many did those things with the
Americans and were far more biologically fit.
> > > If you want to be
> > > completely cold about it, there was no way the plains tribes
> > > could have traded anything a hundredth as valuable as the
> > > agricultural potential of the land they inhabited, an
> > > agricultural potential that could never have been realized
> > > by those tribes - so "richer" goes out the window.
> >
> > Cold and incorrect, yes.
>
> You have yet to show "incorrect".
>
> > Even the plains tribes, risen from the influx
> > of European capital, weaponry, and horses, filled with hatred that some
> > assholes had killed their families for no reason, could have provided
> > labor and knowledge, already bringing "richer" back into the picture.
>
> Labor wasn't in short supply, and their knowledge wasn't of the
> sort that provided the agricultural wealth I'm talking about.
>
Once again, labor was in short enough supply that people were shipping
in slaves, and the agricultural wealth of the Americas is perhaps still
the greatest trophy.
> > When you consider the time and money spent in eradicating them, you
> > begin to see how much richer the settlers would have been had it not
> > been for a few assholes and their psychological problems.
>
> There were assholes on both sides, and dismissing a major
> cultural clash as the actions of "a few assholes and their
> psychological problems" is, to put it bluntly, a ridiculous
> parody of history.
>
I'm not speaking of the cultural clash, I'm spaking of mass murder in
the first degree. Plenty of rational people work with the cultural
clashes to their advantage - encouraging trade, exchange of ideas, and
collaboration.
> > For God's sake at least keep them as slaves! I can't believe anyone
> > could imagine a slaughter of man or beasts, left where they were
> > killed, as "productive". It'a waste of time, of ammunition, of money,
> > of life, completely senseless and driven by psychological disorders
> > that SHOULD BE HEALED.
> >
> > > Now
> > > realize that these tribes had a warrior ethic similar to
> > > that of Germanic tribes in the early Roman period, and
> > > you'll see that "safer" doesn't come into the picture
> > > at all.
> >
> > Are you saying the Romans made similar mistakes? If a person of any
> > color or language is violent or takes others freedoms from them, then I
> > would agree that a punishment should be applied. But if the Romans
> > applied collective punishment to any "germanic" - then they were being
> > just as counterproductive as the original criminals.
>
> I was talking about the Germanic tribes, tribes that were beyond
> the Roman frontiers and looked up to by some Roman historians
> as idealized examples of strength and personal courage. Somehow,
> you turned it into a lament about oppression. Reading your
> paragraph above, the only conclusion I can come to is that your
> study of history consists of looking for victims to empathize
> with.
>
Just curious, who did you mean originally by "these tribes"? There
were various societies in North America, including tribes, chiefdoms,
and nations - amongst the tribes which ones were you comparing to the
"Germanic hordes" ?
she...@yahoo.com
And why do you think the Iroquois thought that? They listened to
Washington's speeches, and heard of what happened under his command.
Talk about botched diplomacy..
> > > > > I
> > > > > can't crawl far enough inside his head to automatically agree
> > > > > with "reprehensible", especially considering what his native
> > > > > American opponents were famous for doing to their enemies.
> > > >
> > > > Practices -encouraged- by Washington's policies and public statements
> > > > advocating genocide!!
> > >
> > > Shall I show you the tree in Cherry Valley, NY where the
> > > Iroquois hung the body parts of the town school teacher
> > > after hacking her apart? It's only about a dozen miles
> > > from my house. Burning alive, skinning alive, whipping
> > > captives to death, these were standard "things you do to
> > > enemies" in the Northeastern native American civilizations
> > > before the first traders from Europe started showing up.
> >
> > Exactly. These kind of atrocities were encouraged by Washington's
> > policies and statements.
>
> You're simply not getting it. This is what native Americans
> did as normal course of business, the only way you can call
> Washington's policies "encouragement" is that he and his
> were willing to bring matters to a head instead of leave it
> to another few centuries of raiding.
>
Bringing matters to a head, I guess that's what happened to the school
teacher in your example. You are advocating collective punishment
here, a war crime under the Geneva convention, and guaranteed to foment
violence by survivors.
Products from one city were commonly found for sale thousands of miles
away, I would call that large-scale movement. There were certainly
roads, wheels, and water transport, but of different character.
> Before the conflict between European colonists and native
> Americans was complete the people of European origin were
> using railroads, so you've got a matter of the situation
> getting far better for the one as it got far worse for the
> other.
>
So when do you think the confict was complete? The Americans were and
are using railroads too..
> <Snip>
> >
> > My examples were only to counter yours, sorry for getting off-topic. I
> > refuse to engage in any obviously incorrect noble or evil cricatures
> > based on continent of origin.
>
> Your last paragraph here makes me wonder.
>
Wonder what?
> > > <Snip>
> > > > > In the short term, perhaps. In the long term, there's no question
> > > > > that settlers on frontier territories were safer when there were
> > > > > fewer native Americans contesting said frontier with them.
> > > >
> > > > And you'd be safer if all your neighbors were killed too, right?
> > > > Better safe then sorry, might as well kill them.
> > >
> > > Realize that those "neighbors" (North American plains and
> > > southwest indian tribes) have a history of kidnapping
> > > people like you and torturing them to death. That's got to
> > > have an effect on how safe these people felt.
> >
> > Completely bogus! First of all, you should realize that the "Plains
> > Indians" didn't arise until after colonization, and were made of a
> > hodgepodge of refugees from tribes and nations in North America.
>
> For groups like the Cherokee, sure. For groups like the Arapaho,
> Lakota Sioux, and Cheyenne, "completely bogus".
>
What?? The Cherokee weren't the "Plains Indians"..
> > Second of all, you are placing the blame of some crimes on others who
> > look similar or speak the same language.
>
> Whoa...you actually think these groups spoke the same language?
> Where did you get your information about native American
> tribes?
>
There are a few main branches of North American languages.. if not
that, what was your criteria for whom should be suspected of kidnapping
and torture?
> > I'm stating the obvious here: if certain settlers hadn't been so
> > adamant about commiting genocide, not as many of the settlers would
> > have been kidnapped and killed.
>
> Nor would there have been a tenth as many settlers.
>
?? How so? AFAIK, violence with the natives was a serious threat back
then, things were a lot easier for those who could make peace.
> > > > Hint- sarcasm. You are safer if you can get along with others! Safer
> > > > and richer.
> > >
> > > If the plains indian cultures had survived, in no way would
> > > the European-origin inhabitants of the great plains states be
> > > "safer or richer", at least not there.
> >
> > Again totally false. More hands for labor,
>
> ...that had no interest in agriculture. Note that lack of people
> wasn't a problem, countries in Europe and cities in the Eastern
> USA were literally giving people away by the mid to late 1800's.
>
LOL - that's why Columbus was trying to bring Americans back to Europe
as slaves? That's why they were selling Africans here?
> > more knowledge of plants and animals,
>
> Plants and animals that supported a nomadic lifestyle.
> *Different* plants and animals were introduced, that led
> to the massive agricultural wealth produced by these
> regions.
>
Again LOL - it is centuries of careful American selective breeding that
now feeds much of the world.. who developed the potato, tomato, and
corn?
> > and less loss of capital and life to violence,
>
> Violence that was all over in a matter of decades, at
> least as far as the westward expansion of the mid-1800's
> was concerned. Had the solution been an attempt at
> coexistance, levels of violence would have continued
> throughout and required a lot of capital and life to
> prevent.
>
The only solution still is attempted coexistance. You may want to live
life all alone but most of us like to coexist. Remember you are
talking about your neighbors.
> Note that we've got several different types of conflict
> going on here. The wars of in the East were very
> different from the wars in the southeast, the Spanish
> dominion of Mexico and Central/South America and
> California.
>
True, but many of them featured misguided characters who imagined
members of the same species were a different race, and who tragically
played out cycles of violence to the detriment of all involved.
> > would
> > clearly have made the inhabitants safer and richer.
>
> Nothing clear about it, at least to me.
>
If you want to lay your life and fortune on the line to fight for
"manifest destiny", if something from your experiences makes you feel
the need to murder, than perhaps that is your perogative. But at least
admit that you are risking your life and fortune for these goals.
You'd be richer and safer if you pursued a less "glamorous" activity
like agriculture, history, or music - many did those things with the
Americans and were far more biologically fit.
> > > If you want to be
> > > completely cold about it, there was no way the plains tribes
> > > could have traded anything a hundredth as valuable as the
> > > agricultural potential of the land they inhabited, an
> > > agricultural potential that could never have been realized
> > > by those tribes - so "richer" goes out the window.
> >
> > Cold and incorrect, yes.
>
> You have yet to show "incorrect".
>
> > Even the plains tribes, risen from the influx
> > of European capital, weaponry, and horses, filled with hatred that some
> > assholes had killed their families for no reason, could have provided
> > labor and knowledge, already bringing "richer" back into the picture.
>
> Labor wasn't in short supply, and their knowledge wasn't of the
> sort that provided the agricultural wealth I'm talking about.
>
Once again, labor was in short enough supply that people were shipping
in slaves, and the agricultural wealth of the Americas is perhaps still
the greatest trophy.
> > When you consider the time and money spent in eradicating them, you
> > begin to see how much richer the settlers would have been had it not
> > been for a few assholes and their psychological problems.
>
> There were assholes on both sides, and dismissing a major
> cultural clash as the actions of "a few assholes and their
> psychological problems" is, to put it bluntly, a ridiculous
> parody of history.
>
I'm not speaking of the cultural clash, I'm spaking of mass murder in
the first degree. Plenty of rational people work with the cultural
clashes to their advantage - encouraging trade, exchange of ideas, and
collaboration.
> > For God's sake at least keep them as slaves! I can't believe anyone
> > could imagine a slaughter of man or beasts, left where they were
> > killed, as "productive". It'a waste of time, of ammunition, of money,
> > of life, completely senseless and driven by psychological disorders
> > that SHOULD BE HEALED.
> >
> > > Now
> > > realize that these tribes had a warrior ethic similar to
> > > that of Germanic tribes in the early Roman period, and
> > > you'll see that "safer" doesn't come into the picture
> > > at all.
> >
> > Are you saying the Romans made similar mistakes? If a person of any
> > color or language is violent or takes others freedoms from them, then I
> > would agree that a punishment should be applied. But if the Romans
> > applied collective punishment to any "germanic" - then they were being
> > just as counterproductive as the original criminals.
>
> I was talking about the Germanic tribes, tribes that were beyond
> the Roman frontiers and looked up to by some Roman historians
> as idealized examples of strength and personal courage. Somehow,
> you turned it into a lament about oppression. Reading your
> paragraph above, the only conclusion I can come to is that your
> study of history consists of looking for victims to empathize
> with.
>
Just curious, who did you mean originally by "these tribes"? There
hoo...@aol.com
<she...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130809529.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
way...period.
mark...@yahoo.com
> Note the passive voice "the reduction of" ... passive is always the
> handmaiden of the demogogue -- that way they aren't pinned down to the
> "by ___" part and get to conveniently slip in any scapegoat or culprit
> they want, in their conspiracy paranoia.
>
> That's typical of how lefto-rightist conservi-liberal demo-publican
> partisans work and of how they lie and distort the facts.
Gorf wrote:
> Think you better go study some history.
... the absence of any refutation of what was replied to makes you
automatically in agreement, by default, and therefore the rest of your
reply disingenuous, since you've just default-stated your agreement
with the primary point made.
Number two, two examples of something that have nothing to do with the
word "genocide" mean utterly nothing. That's nothing but the "one,
two, three, many!" contrivance typical you demopublican partisans.
Number three, I know more about the history of this world and its
current affairs than anything that walks the face of this Earth. Next
time, pay mind to *who* you are talkking to before you reply.
she...@yahoo.com
You seem to say that with some authority.. how do you know what
happened? As an element of "his story" the only proof that could be
proffered is written stories supposedly of witnesses.
And what do you me mean by "my way"?
Perhaps your denial is also designed to make people think "your way"?
No, actually the truth or falsehood of the anecdote has little bearing
on what we think of Jackson's behavior. That he was in favor of
killing the Americans is clear, as manifested in his "Indian Removal
Act", which did a lot more harm for everyone involved than a little bit
of creative leatherwork may have done.
she...@yahoo.com
mark...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In reply to:
> > Note the passive voice "the reduction of" ... passive is always the
> > handmaiden of the demogogue -- that way they aren't pinned down to the
> > "by ___" part and get to conveniently slip in any scapegoat or culprit
> > they want, in their conspiracy paranoia.
> >
> > That's typical of how lefto-rightist conservi-liberal demo-publican
> > partisans work and of how they lie and distort the facts.
>
> Gorf wrote:
> > Think you better go study some history.
>
> ... the absence of any refutation of what was replied to makes you
> automatically in agreement, by default, and therefore the rest of your
> reply disingenuous, since you've just default-stated your agreement
> with the primary point made.
You might want to make some room for neutrality. We can't all go
around denying all the falsehoods on the internet!
>
> Number two, two examples of something that have nothing to do with the
> word "genocide" mean utterly nothing. That's nothing but the "one,
> two, three, many!" contrivance typical you demopublican partisans.
>
I'm sure you can come up with two examples of your own relating to the
word "genocide". Can you think of any better application of the word
than the situation vis a vis the Americans?
> Number three, I know more about the history of this world and its
> current affairs than anything that walks the face of this Earth. Next
> time, pay mind to *who* you are talkking to before you reply.
Wow! I have stumbled upon a great resource. Can you please grant me
three answers, oh great genie?
hoo...@aol.com
print is not gospel. The exegartions of events like American progression
west are an attempt to shame people into extremes.
she...@yahoo.com
Certainly, print is not gospel - hence the almost infinite difficulty
behind "learn to use google".
What kind of exagerations, and extremes, do you refer to? Sounds like
you are talking about WMDs or something.. :)
hoo...@aol.com
Lampshades out of Jews thing. All design to push views into extreme.
Through fear shame or intimidation. Very amerian tactic. Left and Right do
it.
she...@yahoo.com
I think you have a good point there actually. None the less, some may
be interested in the truth for its own sake. I'm not arguing that
because of Jackson's custom bridle we should give a few hundred billion
US$ away in no bid contracts.
hoo...@aol.com
<she...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131507642.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That mythical story is not a reason to do anything but laugh. That being
said there is no way to pay the Natives back for the treatment they deserve.
The best that can be hoped for is that the American goverment finally treat
them with some fairness and dignity. Not likely though.