when was the last time anyone gave 2 hot shyts as to what an indian thought of any thing?
when was the last time anyone gave 2 hot shyts as to what an indian thought of any thing?
"Except that Indians weren't shot on site because they were infidels."
Duh
"Whatever your views of wars of conquest, it was really more about grabbing land (which the Native Americans had already been doing to one another for centuries of out memory--just with less effective weaponry)."
This happened in the name of greed, to people thought of as subhuman, because they lived on the land.
"Except that the pipeline will leak? Well, yes."
You cede my point.
"Except that Montana, North and South Dakota aren't the last lands of the Americans (the ones who crossed the Bering Strait land bridge, not the ones who crossed the Atlantic Ocean). Oh, and by the way, there are some white folks not very happy about the proposed pipeline crossing their lands, too. Eminent domain is always a difficult issue, but the Native Americans have not been especially singled out here. Are they impacted? Yes. Will they be compensated? Yes. See my post above and understand they're already leveraging white guilt to make sure they get a very nice compensation. And I scarcely blame them for that--I guess it's one way of getting back at the white man."
I'm sure you're aware that different tribes have different lands.
Obviously white people don't want it either. I'm sure quite a few black people and some Mexicans don't either.
"Except that nobody buys this kind of argument and its stretched analogies unless it serves their own immediate political purposes. There are some useful points of thought here but to call it the most intelligent LR post you've read suggests you've read less than 10 or you don't read with a very critical eye."
The analogy is not that stretched.
My political agenda is to make sure that humans can survive on this planet for millennia to come.
Deliberate infection:
One of the most contentious issues relating to disease depopulation in the Americas concerns the degree to which Europeans deliberately infected indigenous peoples with diseases such as smallpox.
Letters exist between two British officers, General Jeffrey Amherst (later Lord Amherst) and Colonel Henry Bouquet, that explicitly advocate the idea of using smallpox-infested blankets to kill Indians at the Siege of Fort Pitt.[29] Bouquet suggests the distribution of blankets to "inocculate the Indians." Amherst approves this plan and suggests "to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race." Also cited by this source is an entry in the Journal of William Trent, who was the local militia commander: "we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."
29:
Back to the pipeline:
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7216751/keystone-pipeline-facts-controversy
doo doo wrote:
"Except that Indians weren't shot on site because they were infidels."
Duh
"Whatever your views of wars of conquest, it was really more about grabbing land (which the Native Americans had already been doing to one another for centuries of out memory--just with less effective weaponry)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#MassacresThis happened in the name of greed, to people thought of as subhuman, because they lived on the land.
"Except that the pipeline will leak? Well, yes."
You cede my point.
"Except that Montana, North and South Dakota aren't the last lands of the Americans (the ones who crossed the Bering Strait land bridge, not the ones who crossed the Atlantic Ocean). Oh, and by the way, there are some white folks not very happy about the proposed pipeline crossing their lands, too. Eminent domain is always a difficult issue, but the Native Americans have not been especially singled out here. Are they impacted? Yes. Will they be compensated? Yes. See my post above and understand they're already leveraging white guilt to make sure they get a very nice compensation. And I scarcely blame them for that--I guess it's one way of getting back at the white man."
I'm sure you're aware that different tribes have different lands.
Obviously white people don't want it either. I'm sure quite a few black people and some Mexicans don't either.
"Except that nobody buys this kind of argument and its stretched analogies unless it serves their own immediate political purposes. There are some useful points of thought here but to call it the most intelligent LR post you've read suggests you've read less than 10 or you don't read with a very critical eye."
The analogy is not that stretched.
My political agenda is to make sure that humans can survive on this planet for millennia to come.
doo doo, I think I might be wasting my time with you. You like to post a lot here, but you're not listening very well. I'll try once here, but I'm already feeling you're too committed to your positions to consider anything that might trim away the edges of any.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Duh." It could be a duh of derision, as if to say, "was so!" If so, you seem to contradict that in your next statement where you say it was all about greed. If it's to say, "well, that's obvious," remember I was responding to a point in your extended analogy.
You agree with me that the conquest of the Native Americans was about grabbing land. You don't seem to grasp, however, that the Native American complaint here is blunted by the fact they had been doing the same among themselves long before the white man arrived.
Yes, different tribes have different lands. But your analogy as originally stated depends on the assumption that all tribes were fundamentally one. I'm just pointing out that the analogy fails if we make that assumption.
Obviously some white people don't want it. I dare say a whole lot more do than don't.
Your analogy isn't that stretched for you. If you're the only person you're trying to convince, though, there's no need to post it here.
Actually I skipped over the part where you said they took lands from each other at first. I cede a point.
Also my analogy is lacking in that it asserts the US was attacked by Iran, when the natives did not have one country. Even so, when applied to one Indian nation or another, it is still relevant. Pretend we are talking only about the Sioux.
I agree that the conquest was about land, but the justification that they are subhuman falls in line with the Muslim justification that Americans are infidels.
doo doo wrote:
dial it up wrote:Lucky for us Americans we are smart enough to be more developed than both Iran and the Indians. Survival of the fittest, it has driven our earth forever and it will continue to do so.
I am a stronger man than you. I walk into your house, beat the shit out of you, leave you gasping for air on the floor and rape your wife.
Good thing we value people like me, right?
You can try. I don't spew BS, I practice what I preach. I welcome intruders who want to try me.
dial it up wrote:
doo doo wrote:I am a stronger man than you. I walk into your house, beat the shit out of you, leave you gasping for air on the floor and rape your wife.
Good thing we value people like me, right?
You can try. I don't spew BS, I practice what I preach. I welcome intruders who want to try me.
Lol. I'm not actually threatening you. Omg.
Let me take it a step further, if Indians were stronger than us, they would force us to follow whatever plans they had for us. Survival of the fittest, It just so happens the Indians are weaker.
dial it up wrote:
Let me take it a step further, if Indians were stronger than us, they would force us to follow whatever plans they had for us. Survival of the fittest, It just so happens the Indians are weaker.
Actually when we arrived, they showed us how to grow corn and fed us.
In reality, though, the reverse is true in regard to Americans (i.e. the US government) and Muslims. The propaganda machine will stereotype Muslims as thinking of Americans as being sub-human, but we are the ones waging an illegal/immoral war against them (though the better term is "Arabs," as there are non-Muslims caught in the crossfire). Hence, I must assume that you are using this paradigm only within the scope of your proposed analogy.
outsiderunner wrote:
In reality, though, the reverse is true in regard to Americans (i.e. the US government) and Muslims. The propaganda machine will stereotype Muslims as thinking of Americans as being sub-human, but we are the ones waging an illegal/immoral war against them (though the better term is "Arabs," as there are non-Muslims caught in the crossfire). Hence, I must assume that you are using this paradigm only within the scope of your proposed analogy.
I assure you, my usage of terms is within the scope of the analogy.
You could almost word for word turn my analogy over and replace Iran with US/UN/EU/ Jews and America with Palestine.
For those who are surely going to attack now based on this statement watch this:
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/30/henry_siegman_leading_voice_of_usand this:
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/31/us_jewish_leader_henry_siegman_toIf Siegman is credible (as he seems to be), Israeli military leaders executed Palestinian civilians as a scare tactic to drive them out of the country, when Israel was being founded. The same psychopathy that led Hitler to exterminate Jews was passed down, through the Jews and against the common Muslim Palestinian, which obviously incited rage and is now modern terrorism.
I'm sure you're familiar with the saying "hurt people hurt people." I suggest at some point you try to break the cycle.
I understand the situation in regard to the Middle East, and I know what you mean about being hurt. I am puzzled by your "breaking the cycle comment." My comments were not intended to be sarcastic or antagonistic toward you. I just wanted to discern if you saw the irony, outside of the analogy, in the scenario you proposed. I see now that you see the irony.
My "break the cycle" comment is directed toward the inevitable Israel defenders who will jump at a chance to dehumanize Palestinians.
Nothing to do with you at all.
doo doo wrote:
dial it up wrote:You can try. I don't spew BS, I practice what I preach. I welcome intruders who want to try me.
Lol. I'm not actually threatening you. Omg.
I know bud, keep up. I'm proving my point, you can try to do as you describe, but as survival of the fittest shows I can kill you as you attempt it. Tis the way the world turns.
Back to the topic, you guys are over complicating something simple. Dear redskins, fall in line or ship out.
We aren't really in disagreement. Survival of the fittest is the way the world turns. I do not deny that. I'm just suggesting we use empathy to make decisions instead of force. I guess that's too unrealistic though.
dial it up wrote:
Lucky for us Americans we are smart enough to be more developed than both Iran and the Indians. Survival of the fittest, it has driven our earth forever and it will continue to do so.
Do you have to practice being stupid or does it just come naturally for you? I've seen you on so many threads and it's just one stupid post after another. Pretty impressive in its own way.
doo doo wrote:
We aren't really in disagreement. Survival of the fittest is the way the world turns. I do not deny that. I'm just suggesting we use empathy to make decisions instead of force. I guess that's too unrealistic though.
I'll word this more coherently.
I am suggesting we use empathy to make decisions instead of using greed and then using force to carry out said decisions.
dial it up wrote:
doo doo wrote:I am a stronger man than you. I walk into your house, beat the shit out of you, leave you gasping for air on the floor and rape your wife.
Good thing we value people like me, right?
You can try. I don't spew BS, I practice what I preach. I welcome intruders who want to try me.
Oh how cute, another internet tough guy.
Oooh, you are so manly!
Frank Lager wrote:
They don't get much of anything, and have been decimated by alcoholism and drug abuse, perhaps because of centuries of oppression, lack of education, and racism, by the U.S. government.
What? Whose fault is it that they like al-kee-hall?