Indian Land???

[NYcarbineer]

For different reasons I just happened upon this Paul Harvey quote at least tangentially on the topic:

"We sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and we kept our best weapons in their silos. Even now, we're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies, more moral, more civilized.

Our image is at stake, we insist.

But we didn't come this far because we are made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and into this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. Yes, that was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on, to grab this land from whomever, and we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves.

And so it goes with most great nation-states, which feeling guilty about their savage pasts, eventually civilize themselves out of business, and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry, up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."

Read carefully, because, yes, he really was endorsing the practices he cites. Chillingly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, that's one.

How about it, Nycarbineer? When are you giving your house to a local Indian? If you're not, why is your profiting from "forced removals of Indians from their lands" okay?

This thread is about history. And people like the OP trying to rewrite it.

Still trying to dictate what others may and may not say, I see. How's that working out for you?

It's okay, Carby. I understand you're uncomfortable when your progressive hypocrisy is pointed out.

There is no hypocrisy in wanting history to be factual.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What whites did to Indians is certainly not as bad as what Aztecs did to their neighbors.

It was just another case of historical tough shit.

Too bad Indians didn't have a Stalin or Mao to jerk them forward a few centuries, whether they liked it or not.

The world changes; it is adapt or die.

When Stone Age met Modern Age, something had to give.

That is just the way it is.

I've never understood the inclination to justify one evil by pointing out others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

It is entertaining to get PC to deny irrefutable facts isn't it?

You'd better hide, the garbage collector is coming!

The difference between you and a garbage man?

The garbage man has a job.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What whites did to Indians is certainly not as bad as what Aztecs did to their neighbors.

It was just another case of historical tough shit.

Too bad Indians didn't have a Stalin or Mao to jerk them forward a few centuries, whether they liked it or not.

The world changes; it is adapt or die.

When Stone Age met Modern Age, something had to give.

That is just the way it is.

I've never understood the inclination to justify one evil by pointing out others.

I refer to it as the 'hey, OJ Simpson must have been innocent, because he wasn't the only person that killed somebody that day' argument.

 

[Roadrunner]

What whites did to Indians is certainly not as bad as what Aztecs did to their neighbors.

It was just another case of historical tough shit.

Too bad Indians didn't have a Stalin or Mao to jerk them forward a few centuries, whether they liked it or not.

The world changes; it is adapt or die.

When Stone Age met Modern Age, something had to give.

That is just the way it is.

I've never understood the inclination to justify one evil by pointing out others.

I did not justify it.

I pointed out what happened was inevitable.

Europeans could have loved the torturing, cannabilizing native Americans and disease would still have gotten 90% of them.

It was simply a collision that could have only one result.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

For different reasons I just happened upon this Paul Harvey quote at least tangentially on the topic:

"We sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and we kept our best weapons in their silos. Even now, we're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies, more moral, more civilized.

Our image is at stake, we insist.

But we didn't come this far because we are made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and into this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. Yes, that was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on, to grab this land from whomever, and we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves.

And so it goes with most great nation-states, which feeling guilty about their savage pasts, eventually civilize themselves out of business, and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry, up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."

Read carefully, because, yes, he really was endorsing the practices he cites. Chillingly.

Except the small pox blanket thing never actually happened. It's a very popular myth. I've had detailed debates about this in the past, journals discussing the viability of plans to give infected blankets to the Indians. This alone has been cited as "proof" that it happened when in fact it didn't.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What whites did to Indians is certainly not as bad as what Aztecs did to their neighbors.

It was just another case of historical tough shit.

Too bad Indians didn't have a Stalin or Mao to jerk them forward a few centuries, whether they liked it or not.

The world changes; it is adapt or die.

When Stone Age met Modern Age, something had to give.

That is just the way it is.

I've never understood the inclination to justify one evil by pointing out others.

I did not justify it.

I pointed out what happened was inevitable.

Europeans could have loved the torturing, cannabilizing native Americans and disease would still have gotten 90% of them.

It was simply a collision that could have only one result.

I'm glad my people were brought to modernity, but the way it happened wasn't necessary. The "ends justify the means" argument has always been a fallacy. There were peaceful ways for us to share this country. Greed and xenophobia fueled the choice of the White man to use violence instead.

 

[Roadrunner]

What whites did to Indians is certainly not as bad as what Aztecs did to their neighbors.

It was just another case of historical tough shit.

Too bad Indians didn't have a Stalin or Mao to jerk them forward a few centuries, whether they liked it or not.

The world changes; it is adapt or die.

When Stone Age met Modern Age, something had to give.

That is just the way it is.

I've never understood the inclination to justify one evil by pointing out others.

I did not justify it.

I pointed out what happened was inevitable.

Europeans could have loved the torturing, cannabilizing native Americans and disease would still have gotten 90% of them.

It was simply a collision that could have only one result.

I'm glad my people were brought to modernity, but the way it happened wasn't necessary. The "ends justify the means" argument has always been a fallacy. There were peaceful ways for us to share this country. Greed and xenophobia fueled the choice of the White man to use violence instead.

OK, you are Columbus.

You land in a strange land, and people start dropping like flies.

The natives begin saying, "If a Spaniard looks at you, you die".

90% of the Native population is going to die no matter what you do.

How would you have done it?

 

[Roadrunner]

What whites did to Indians is certainly not as bad as what Aztecs did to their neighbors.

It was just another case of historical tough shit.

Too bad Indians didn't have a Stalin or Mao to jerk them forward a few centuries, whether they liked it or not.

The world changes; it is adapt or die.

When Stone Age met Modern Age, something had to give.

That is just the way it is.

I've never understood the inclination to justify one evil by pointing out others.

I did not justify it.

I pointed out what happened was inevitable.

Europeans could have loved the torturing, cannabilizing native Americans and disease would still have gotten 90% of them.

It was simply a collision that could have only one result.

I'm glad my people were brought to modernity, but the way it happened wasn't necessary. The "ends justify the means" argument has always been a fallacy. There were peaceful ways for us to share this country. Greed and xenophobia fueled the choice of the White man to use violence instead.

There was no violence in the Indian cultures, no.

200,000 skulls on display in Tenochtitlan sorta dispels that myth.

Bloody altars in almost every village Cortez arrived in do too.

The Europeans did not encounter hippies, they encountered people who brutally enslaved, tortured and even ate their enemies.

And, from what I have seen on reservations from Florida to Washington State, your people have not been brought into the modern world, unless you define the modern way of life as being a Federal dependent.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

OK, you are Columbus.

You land in a strange land, and people start dropping like flies.

The natives begin saying, "If a Spaniard looks at you, you die".

90% of the Native population is going to die no matter what you do.

How would you have done it?

Let's stay focused here, shall we? I'm talking about Manifest Destiny, not the confusion that defined the first contact centuries before.

Think about this, because it proves my point. Canada doesn't have the same guilt of slaughtering, displacing, and oppressing Indians like America does because they chose peace and treaties instead. French Settlers found ways to get along with their aboriginal neighbors and their interaction was one of peaceful trade. Mexico has a similar story, as well as most of South America. So yes it could have happened that way with the United States, but a California gold rush caused a greedy and violent jostling of anyone who got in the way, that is, my people. If so many countries found peaceful ways to share the land with it's original inhabitants, why didn't the United States? Greed and the religious "Manifest Destiny" philosophy put the American White man on a course of violence and slaughter.

It didn't have to happen that way.

 

[Roadrunner]

OK, you are Columbus.

You land in a strange land, and people start dropping like flies.

The natives begin saying, "If a Spaniard looks at you, you die".

90% of the Native population is going to die no matter what you do.

How would you have done it?

Let's stay focused here, shall we? I'm talking about Manifest Destiny, not the confusion that defined the first contact centuries before.

Think about this, because it proves my point. Canada doesn't have the same guilt of slaughtering, displacing, and oppressing Indians like America does because they chose peace and treaties instead. French Settlers found ways to get along with their aboriginal neighbors and their interaction was one of peaceful trade. Mexico has a similar story, as well as most of South America. So yes it could have happened that way with the United States, but a California gold rush caused a greedy and violent jostling of anyone who got in the way, that is, my people. If so many countries found peaceful ways to share the land with it's original inhabitants, why didn't the United States? Greed and the religious "Manifest Destiny" philosophy put the American White man on a course of violence and slaughter.

It didn't have to happen that way.

You don't get to define the terms of the debate.

You said the White Man handled the encounter badly.

Columbus and the Spaniards were the first whites here in numbers and set the pattern.

Tell us about these many countries where peaceful ways were found to share the land.

Would that be Russia in Ukraine?

China in Tibet?

India in Kashmir?

Canada in the Far North?

Be specific, or be written off.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Okay, that's one.

How about it, Nycarbineer? When are you giving your house to a local Indian? If you're not, why is your profiting from "forced removals of Indians from their lands" okay?

This thread is about history. And people like the OP trying to rewrite it.

Still trying to dictate what others may and may not say, I see. How's that working out for you?

It's okay, Carby. I understand you're uncomfortable when your progressive hypocrisy is pointed out.

PC has to be trained to debate.

All she can do is paste crap from her hates sites. A one trick pony.

OK....you three (mental) dwarfs have convinced me: the beatings must continue until I am satisfied that you have been educated.

Early next week.....a more thorough disciplining.

Unfortunately, the Wry guy loves beatings......

If you were honest, PC, you would debate issues, not post conclusions framed by biased premises and defend your consclusion by calling other poster's names. You have the right to hold opinions, the right to express them and a duty (if you were honest) to defend them, using facts, not simply the opinions of others.

 

[Ravi]

Idiotic. Since I'm nearly always the only genuine Native American in any of these discussions, let me set you straight on a few things. We didn't own the land from sea to shining sea and what land we did have we often took from others by force. There's nothing done to us by white settlers that we weren't doing to other tribes, who we considered mortal enemies to be destroyed if possible. For thousands of years, this continent belonged to the most brutal, ruthless killers. There were no grandfathers because most of us died in some pointless war before we ever turned 30. The only difference is now, the savages with the best technology, the white settlers, have put an end to a very primitive and futile life. We aren't killing each other anymore, we live to see our grandchildren, we make art, beads, and make music for tourists. All in all, we're better off, or at least I am.

And I, as the only genuine Native here, don't consider "native" born Americans to be illegal aliens. That's just stupid.

Lying is a sin.

 

[rightwinger]

Indians were repeatedly removed from land that the Great White Father had "given" them by treaty for as long as the grass grows and the river flows

It is entertaining to get PC to deny irrefutable facts isn't it?

You'd better hide, the garbage collector is coming!

The difference between you and a garbage man?

The garbage man has a job.

The garbage man can make coherent posts

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Idiotic. Since I'm nearly always the only genuine Native American in any of these discussions, let me set you straight on a few things. We didn't own the land from sea to shining sea and what land we did have we often took from others by force. There's nothing done to us by white settlers that we weren't doing to other tribes, who we considered mortal enemies to be destroyed if possible. For thousands of years, this continent belonged to the most brutal, ruthless killers. There were no grandfathers because most of us died in some pointless war before we ever turned 30. The only difference is now, the savages with the best technology, the white settlers, have put an end to a very primitive and futile life. We aren't killing each other anymore, we live to see our grandchildren, we make art, beads, and make music for tourists. All in all, we're better off, or at least I am.

And I, as the only genuine Native here, don't consider "native" born Americans to be illegal aliens. That's just stupid.

Lying is a sin.

Then don't do it.

 

[Gracie]

Idiotic. Since I'm nearly always the only genuine Native American in any of these discussions, let me set you straight on a few things. We didn't own the land from sea to shining sea and what land we did have we often took from others by force. There's nothing done to us by white settlers that we weren't doing to other tribes, who we considered mortal enemies to be destroyed if possible. For thousands of years, this continent belonged to the most brutal, ruthless killers. There were no grandfathers because most of us died in some pointless war before we ever turned 30. The only difference is now, the savages with the best technology, the white settlers, have put an end to a very primitive and futile life. We aren't killing each other anymore, we live to see our grandchildren, we make art, beads, and make music for tourists. All in all, we're better off, or at least I am.

And I, as the only genuine Native here, don't consider "native" born Americans to be illegal aliens. That's just stupid.

You are the only NA here? Imagine that.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Idiotic. Since I'm nearly always the only genuine Native American in any of these discussions, let me set you straight on a few things. We didn't own the land from sea to shining sea and what land we did have we often took from others by force. There's nothing done to us by white settlers that we weren't doing to other tribes, who we considered mortal enemies to be destroyed if possible. For thousands of years, this continent belonged to the most brutal, ruthless killers. There were no grandfathers because most of us died in some pointless war before we ever turned 30. The only difference is now, the savages with the best technology, the white settlers, have put an end to a very primitive and futile life. We aren't killing each other anymore, we live to see our grandchildren, we make art, beads, and make music for tourists. All in all, we're better off, or at least I am.

And I, as the only genuine Native here, don't consider "native" born Americans to be illegal aliens. That's just stupid.

You are the only NA here? Imagine that.

Another one responded on the first page.

 

[Gracie]

But you said you were the only one.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

But you said you were the only one.

Troll. Permanent ignore.