California Education Goes Full Retard

[OldLady]

No, the purpose was to kill the bison so that the Plains Indian would be denied a food source. They just killed them en masse for no purpose.
I'm pretty sure it was the railroads that encouraged the wholesale slaughter of the bison. The bison were in the way of the railroads.

You can be sure of that... but it's simply not true.

'Kill Every Buffalo You Can! Every Buffalo Dead Is an Indian Gone'

Then again, a buffalo is a lumbering, hirsute cow, and the men were outfitted with some of the quickest horses and held the best guns owned by the U.S. Army, which was outfitting the hunting expedition. The Army wasn’t in the business of guiding hunting trips for soft-skinned Wall Streeters, but it was in the business of controlling the Native Americans in the area, and that meant killing buffalo. One colonel, four years earlier, had told a wealthy hunter who felt a shiver of guilt after he shot 30 bulls in one trip: "Kill every buffalo you can! Every buffalo dead is an Indian gone.”

The reason for such extravagance was undoubtedly because the New Yorkers were well-connected, but also because Major-General Phillip Sheridan, the man with the task of forcing Native Americans off the Great Plains and onto reservations, had come along with them. This was a leisure hunt, but Sheridan also viewed the extermination of buffalo and his victory over the Native Americans as a single, inextricable mission––and in that sense, it could be argued that any buffalo hunt was Army business. After the men circled the herd, they charged down the hill, chasing after the six buffalo, eager for the first kill.

Many things contributed to the buffalos demise. One factor was that for a long time, the country’s highest generals, politicians, even then President Ulysses S. Grant saw the destruction of buffalo as solution to the country’s “Indian Problem.”

Before Sheridan joined Cody and the New Yorkers on the hunt, and before he oversaw the relocation of Native Americans on the plains, he was a major-general for the Union during the Civil War. It was there he learned the power of destroying enemy resources. He’d used the same scorched-earth strategy that William Tecumseh Sherman, then a major-general, used in his March to the Sea, tearing up railroad ties, toppling telegraph poles, and lighting nearly all of Atlanta and anything an infantryman could digest ablaze. After the war, President Grant asked Sherman and Sheridan to command armies in the Great Plains.

"Many things contributed to the buffalos demise. One factor was the "Indian problem,"
Maybe we're both right.

 

[martybegan]

Take your privilege bullshit and cram it up your ass. It's nothing more than an attempt to de-legitimize a position without having to counter it.

No, it was exploitation. The goal wasn't to kill them, it was to get meat, get fur and get the bison out of the fucking way.

No, the purpose was to kill the bison so that the Plains Indian would be denied a food source. They just killed them en masse for no purpose.

Slavery was OK at the time.

Slavery was never "okay". I'm sorry you don't get this.

Again, Check your privilege buddy.

No, they would just slaughter all the men in another tribe, and cart off the women. To the men in question, concepts of genocide don't mean much.

There's a difference between war and genocide, buddy... I'm sorry you are too dumb to understand it.

They were in the way, Nothing more or less. Maybe they culled herds during wartime to deny them a food source, after all that's what was done by Sherman during his campaign, against white people. Still not genocide.

It was acceptable at the time. You can't apply current morality to the past.

Fuck the whole privilege thing. it shows you have weak arguments.

"Fuh Fuh Fuh, privilege, Fuh Fuh Fuh"

You make genocide a useless term by applying it for purely political reasons. That is hackitdude of the first order.

 

[JoeB131]

They were in the way, Nothing more or less. Maybe they culled herds during wartime to deny them a food source, after all that's what was done by Sherman during his campaign, against white people. Still not genocide.

The intent was not to wipe Southerners out, as it was clearly with the Native Americans.

"The only good Indian is a Dead Indian".

It was acceptable at the time. You can't apply current morality to the past.

Fuck the whole privilege thing. it shows you have weak arguments.

No, it shows how clueless you are. If you had to put up with the shit people of color have to put up with, you'd be screaming to high heaven, just given how much you bitch when white folks are slightly inconvenienced. "Oh, My God, I have to bake a cake with this equipment I bought to bake cakes, for which I'll be paid a ridiculous amount of money, but I have to put two plastic chicks on top!"

You make genocide a useless term by applying it for purely political reasons. That is hackitdude of the first order.

Um, no.

This is what Genocide looks like, buddy.

 

[martybegan]

They were in the way, Nothing more or less. Maybe they culled herds during wartime to deny them a food source, after all that's what was done by Sherman during his campaign, against white people. Still not genocide.

The intent was not to wipe Southerners out, as it was clearly with the Native Americans.

"The only good Indian is a Dead Indian".

It was acceptable at the time. You can't apply current morality to the past.

Fuck the whole privilege thing. it shows you have weak arguments.

No, it shows how clueless you are. If you had to put up with the shit people of color have to put up with, you'd be screaming to high heaven, just given how much you bitch when white folks are slightly inconvenienced. "Oh, My God, I have to bake a cake with this equipment I bought to bake cakes, for which I'll be paid a ridiculous amount of money, but I have to put two plastic chicks on top!"

You make genocide a useless term by applying it for purely political reasons. That is hackitdude of the first order.

Um, no.

This is what Genocide looks like, buddy.

View attachment 272454

The intent in both cases was to pacify, as Clauswitz describes, to remove the will of the enemy to fight.

Go suck on the cock of privilege.

A graph is meaningless, as is your posts.

 

[JoeB131]

The intent in both cases was to pacify, as Clauswitz describes, to remove the will of the enemy to fight.

Go suck on the cock of privilege.

A graph is meaningless, as is your posts.

Okay, man, for someone who never served, you babble a lot about "pacification". We went in and slaughtered those people... We also engaged in equally bad stuff in the Philippines, Vietnam and Iraq... it's like every 50 years or so, we say, "Let's go out and slaughter some people of color!"

Check your privilege, baby...

 

[martybegan]

The intent in both cases was to pacify, as Clauswitz describes, to remove the will of the enemy to fight.

Go suck on the cock of privilege.

A graph is meaningless, as is your posts.

Okay, man, for someone who never served, you babble a lot about "pacification". We went in and slaughtered those people... We also engaged in equally bad stuff in the Philippines, Vietnam and Iraq... it's like every 50 years or so, we say, "Let's go out and slaughter some people of color!"

Check your privilege, baby...

What a warped view of history you have. Only the US has ever done "bad" things.

 

[JoeB131]

What a warped view of history you have. Only the US has ever done "bad" things.

No, a lot of countries have done bad things... but this is the one I have to live in.

Why the Holocaust was bad and stuff, it has no real effect on my life, because I don't live in Germany. America's bad behavior has effects to this very day on a lot of our citizens. Other citizens have benefited from the bad behavior, but are in denial of what their privilege cost other people.

 

[martybegan]

What a warped view of history you have. Only the US has ever done "bad" things.

No, a lot of countries have done bad things... but this is the one I have to live in.

Why the Holocaust was bad and stuff, it has no real effect on my life, because I don't live in Germany. America's bad behavior has effects to this very day on a lot of our citizens. Other citizens have benefited from the bad behavior, but are in denial of what their privilege cost other people.

How does American behavior 200 years ago affect your life now?

Get a grip, you wimpering little baby.

 

[JoeB131]

How does American behavior 200 years ago affect your life now?

Get a grip, you wimpering little baby.

You mean the fact we still live in a racist society where people of color live in poverty?

Um... yeah, that has an effect on all of our lives...

 

[martybegan]

How does American behavior 200 years ago affect your life now?

Get a grip, you wimpering little baby.

You mean the fact we still live in a racist society where people of color live in poverty?

Um... yeah, that has an effect on all of our lives...

Poverty doesn't discriminate.

and making people dependent on government doesn't get them out of poverty, it enables it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hey textbook lovers: I just looked online. ONE science textbook from McGraw-Hill: $95. An entire year-long subscription for an online textbook for the teacher to use with all of her, say, biology classes: $146.43

Now tell us how schools are wasteful, make bad choices and blah blah whatever. Or I know, you would have EACH kid carry a $100 textbook because, by god, that's what you did in 1965 so they can too.

Glencoe Biology, Complete Teacher Bundle, 1-year subscription

Not at all triggered. I made an argument with information. You made an empty assertion based on the way things were when you were in school.

To be honest this is why conservatives are not too great with education

Seriously, how much do core science principles change in 4-6 years? 10, even.

$96 over a period of 4-6 years is not bad.

The books may physically last a year or two. That is where the expense comes in.

About 5 years ago, our state decided to forego text books. I used math textbooks that were 5-7 years old for 4 additional years. I used duct tape bubble gum, and baling wire to hold them together. I finally had to give up and photocopy online worksheets for the kids to do because their books were literally falling apart.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Who said we were limiting this conversation to elementary textbooks, for pity's sake? They're not the ones who typically have the expensive textbooks. What are you talking about???

Again, trying to follow your crazy conversations are a bit of a waste, anyway... Not sure where these $60.00 textbooks are. If they are in college, you can find a used one cheaper on Amazon...

How is that indoctrination?

Despite your OPINION of them, they did great things in history. Your self-loathing apologistic whining aside.

They also did awful things... This country was built on slavery and genocide. Admitting that is actually a good thing.

Maybe we shouldn't do the Disney Version of history.

K Joe I am talking about school districts purchasing curriculum. School districts cannot purchase used textbooks on Amazon.

Uh, we did!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Take your privilege bullshit and cram it up your ass. It's nothing more than an attempt to de-legitimize a position without having to counter it.

No, it was exploitation. The goal wasn't to kill them, it was to get meat, get fur and get the bison out of the fucking way.

No, the purpose was to kill the bison so that the Plains Indian would be denied a food source. They just killed them en masse for no purpose.

Slavery was OK at the time.

Slavery was never "okay". I'm sorry you don't get this.

Again, Check your privilege buddy.

No, they would just slaughter all the men in another tribe, and cart off the women. To the men in question, concepts of genocide don't mean much.

There's a difference between war and genocide, buddy... I'm sorry you are too dumb to understand it.

No, the purpose was to kill the bison so that the Plains Indian would be denied a food source. They just killed them en masse for no purpose.
I'm pretty sure it was the railroads that encouraged the wholesale slaughter of the bison. The bison were in the way of the railroads.

You are wrong.

 

[OldLady]

How does American behavior 200 years ago affect your life now?

Get a grip, you wimpering little baby.

You mean the fact we still live in a racist society where people of color live in poverty?

Um... yeah, that has an effect on all of our lives...

Poverty doesn't discriminate.

and making people dependent on government doesn't get them out of poverty, it enables it.

Take your privilege bullshit and cram it up your ass. It's nothing more than an attempt to de-legitimize a position without having to counter it.

No, it was exploitation. The goal wasn't to kill them, it was to get meat, get fur and get the bison out of the fucking way.

No, the purpose was to kill the bison so that the Plains Indian would be denied a food source. They just killed them en masse for no purpose.

Slavery was OK at the time.

Slavery was never "okay". I'm sorry you don't get this.

Again, Check your privilege buddy.

No, they would just slaughter all the men in another tribe, and cart off the women. To the men in question, concepts of genocide don't mean much.

There's a difference between war and genocide, buddy... I'm sorry you are too dumb to understand it.

No, the purpose was to kill the bison so that the Plains Indian would be denied a food source. They just killed them en masse for no purpose.
I'm pretty sure it was the railroads that encouraged the wholesale slaughter of the bison. The bison were in the way of the railroads.

You are wrong.

"Many things contributed to the buffalos demise. One factor was the "Indian problem,"
Maybe we're both right.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

How does American behavior 200 years ago affect your life now?

Get a grip, you wimpering little baby.

You mean the fact we still live in a racist society where people of color live in poverty?

Um... yeah, that has an effect on all of our lives...

People of color who live in poverty do so DESPITE the fact racism is hardwired into our system, not because of it.

Blacks lacks receive all sorts of advantages over others via the racist system of affirmative action. The fact that they do not avail themselves to these advantages offered has to do with cultural attitudes in the black community and not racism.

 

[JoeB131]

Poverty doesn't discriminate.

and making people dependent on government doesn't get them out of poverty, it enables it.

Sure it does. YOu are a lot more likely to get out of poverty if you are white than if you are black.

Most people who go on government programs are only on it for a few years... usually the years Republicans are in charge and fuck up everything.

Check your privilege, buddy.

 

[JoeB131]

People of color who live in poverty do so DESPITE the fact racism is hardwired into our system, not because of it.

Blacks lacks receive all sorts of advantages over others via the racist system of affirmative action. The fact that they do not avail themselves to these advantages offered has to do with cultural attitudes in the black community and not racism.

Dogpile, Affirmative Action is great if you are a white woman, but a black man, not so much.

In 2005, they did a study... they put out a bunch of resumes with identical education and experience.. Half of them had names like "Greg" and "Emily"... and the other half had names like "Jamal" and "Keisha". To no one's surprise, the resumes with the "black" names received 50% fewer call backs.

That's just in the resume stage. Not in the other ten steps in the completely broken hiring system we have in this country.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

People of color who live in poverty do so DESPITE the fact racism is hardwired into our system, not because of it.

Blacks lacks receive all sorts of advantages over others via the racist system of affirmative action. The fact that they do not avail themselves to these advantages offered has to do with cultural attitudes in the black community and not racism.

Dogpile, Affirmative Action is great if you are a white woman, but a black man, not so much.

In 2005, they did a study... they put out a bunch of resumes with identical education and experience.. Half of them had names like "Greg" and "Emily"... and the other half had names like "Jamal" and "Keisha". To no one's surprise, the resumes with the "black" names received 50% fewer call backs.

That's just in the resume stage. Not in the other ten steps in the completely broken hiring system we have in this country.

You are full of shit as always. Blacks receive a 230 boost over whites on their SAT scores during college applications and a 280 point boost over Asians.

 

[JoeB131]

You are full of shit as always. Blacks receive a 230 boost over whites on their SAT scores during college applications and a 280 point boost over Asians.

Um... so what? So they get one small advantage on a test that is only one factor in dozens of factors for college selection, that makes up for a lifetime of second class citizenship? Really?

This was the best you could come up with?

 

[martybegan]

Poverty doesn't discriminate.

and making people dependent on government doesn't get them out of poverty, it enables it.

Sure it does. YOu are a lot more likely to get out of poverty if you are white than if you are black.

Most people who go on government programs are only on it for a few years... usually the years Republicans are in charge and fuck up everything.

Check your privilege, buddy.

More made up facts from the biggest bullshitter on this board.

Fuck yo check crap.