Holy freaking cow! Rich Rocket returns to the Hangout with a vengance! I guess the end of the holiday season signals an end to the incredibly efficacious behavior I'd noticed from you reciently? Or am I just seeing things that aren't there? I was so impressed with your low key self-effacing demenor the last few weeks... ah well... The thing with a melting pot: not only is the newly added stuff transformed into a part of the group as a whole, but in the process, the whole absorbs some of the newness, even if it's radicaly different than what's come before. Things change. Pull Jefferson out of the past, and he'll ask you why the hell you allowed the feble-minded weaker sex the vote, and why his slaves have become so quarelsome! But, Jefferson also recognised the need each generation to re-define the nature of the great nation he helped create. Evolve, or die. Anyone who becomes too fixated on the 'old ways' of doing things gets left behind to stew in their own fecund crapulance. The thing about our government is, it isn't the most efficent. It isn't the swiftest, or most unified. When a dictator like Hitler wanted to get something done, he was much more efficent than we ever could be. No appeals, no discenting views. Go ahead with what the furher wants. The only problem? The race doesn't always go to the swift. Facism or other dictatorial systems may have us beat in speed, but we're better, because our process, no matter how inefficent, ensures that we are inclusive. To argue against using as many languages or dialects or whatever on the grounds that it is inefficent is to ignore the lessons that our wonderful nation has taught us. Getting there first doesn't matter. When you get there in a way that is most inclusive, and considers the individual above the state, that's when you're 'proud to be an American'. Just FYI, the 'native' americans, especialy those in the southern hemisphere, were in many ways more advanced than the Europeans, most notably in metalurgy, and the logistics of large citys, specifically sewers and such. It's easy to think of 'native' americans as savages running around the plains in loin cloths, but not all were. My mostest favoritest person, cmrockfan. What happened when our American ancestors incured the national debt, in order to better the country for whatever reason, such as selling war bonds to beat back they facists? When they moved on, their debt was transfered to you and me. You inherit your parents debt, be it financial or moral. It's the same reason that the Austrian sons of Nazis don't get to keep their parents ill gotten facist gains. If your ancestors trod on others to give you an unfair advantage, you should be obligated to correct their wrongs, unless your a self serving, narrow minded, narcissist, IMHO. To ignore your fiducary duty to those who were downtroden to your benefit would be sad.
RichRocket, A year ago, I took Native American History. I still have all of my books from that class. If you have free time and are inclined to broaden your horizens, feel free to email me and I will give some to you if you cover the shipping. Now, if you think you're gonna sift through the books with a negative attitude and a preconceived opinion that won't budge, don't bother. I disagree with most of what you say, but respectfully so. I hope that after you read a few, your opinions of Native American History could be modified. Kim
<b>kim</b>: Thanks for the offer but I'm sure I won't be able to get through them. I don't have a negative attitude; I think I'm just being realistic. Horrific wrongs were committed by both sides. I'm not going to get in a dither about it. North America is better off that the settlers won out over the native Americans. Do you disagree? By the way, you must know that I'm likely to mistrust the authors of your books. Have you considered their perspectives? <b>Ottomaton</b>: I'm still that loveable peach! In fact, I'm in a better mood than usual: we got 8 inches of snow in the last 24 hours. We got some great video of our 2 YO sledding for the first time. What "incredibly efficacious" behavior are you referring to?! I agree with your description of the melting pot-- I think that is exactly what I described. The new ingredient takes on more of the pot itself than the pot takes on of the new ingredient. Influence resides with the pot.... if you get my drift. <b>subtomic</b>: ESL does not equal bi-lingual education. They are hugely different. I think you have mis-interpreted my point. I never said (or meant to say) that all violence originated with the native Americans. I did make a blanket statement that the settlers learned violence from the native Americans-- and I think that is typicallly true. As a whole the NA cultures were violent in a way that settlers were not. Search all of history and you'll not find Ohioans crossing the border on an ongoing basis to murder, rape, and pillage Indianans. Yet we find that in native American history-- constant warring among themselves. <b>Are you denying that?</b> <b>BigRockFan</b>: I'm not justifying anyone's behavior. As I said above horrors were committed by both sides. However I am not afflicted with liberal guilt about things that happened hundreds of years ago. North America is better off that the settlers won the struggle. <b>grizzled</b>: It is hard to make analogies to prairie warfares close combat and modern technological warfare. I'm a human rights advocate but what's done is done. <b>puedlfor</b>: Do you live in a teepee and eat dog?
WTF is this???? Nobody denies that there was warfare between the Native American tribes, just as there was warfare between the caucasian nations. Mankind has historically been a warmongering species. You're the only one who thinks the Native Americans were unique in their war-mongering. Other posters have done a more successful job in disproving your claims. I'll let them take over from here.
Otto, I did not know that you cared! I have not seen you in a while, but I assumed you were recovering from that last rave. I hope you got plenty of fluids to combat that bad bathtub X. btw, I could not disagree more with your above argument. We don't pay reparations for the sins of our ancestors because the offended parties are dead. We paid money to Japanese internment victims from WW2, only because the victims were still alive. If we take your argument to its absurd conclusion, then every culture and nation would be in debt to several other cultures, because man has always killed and conquered his neighbors. You are correct that our founding fathers wanted a government that was slow to react to the people's will. Our founding fathers were very sensitive to the notion that a true Democracy run by a "mob rule" mentality was a very bad idea. These ideas have nothing to do with enforcing the notion that we all should speak English. We have always insisted that our citizens speak English and learn American History for a reason. There is no more important component to a "common culture" than language. How do we impart our value system to new immigrants if they don't know our history?
No one has disproved my claims; they've disagreed ... that's it. I can cite a few quotes from some books which prove my point. What's the point? HWTHFII: <b>puedlfor</b>: "...but the "good guy's" certainly didn't win." So, my natural follow-up question is to find out if he prefers the native American lifestyle to a European-American. If he does, he should be living it. Simple really, although a tad sarcastic. I get that way when facing multiple critics simultaneously. I didn't say that the native Americans were unique in their war-mongering. I think they were just very constant about it.
I don't see what everyone is getting so riled up about. Damn near everyone in this country has ancestors that immigrated from somewhere outside the borders. Besides, it's not like "America" isn't a big collection of stolen (I'm sorry......discovered) land anyway. LOL. I love "His-Story" and this thread........cause I sure as hell don't have anything to do at work right now........ And Jeff, how do you know what piss tastes like? Whoa!! I'm not even gonna touch those. Good point. Am I the only one that thinks it's a lil messed up that genocide had the church's support?
We can thank the Spaniards for scalping! >> http://www.vdare.com/fulford/home_of_the_braves.htm Thank God my ancestors are Scottish/Welsh! Read about the Head-Bashed-In Buffalo Jump... Hey, <b>icehouse</b>, touch this! (from AskJeeves): " Many misconceptions exist about the institution of slavery in North Georgia. One is that a significant number of North Georgians owned slaves. The most accurate figure is about <b>7%</b> of North Georgians owned slaves at the time of the Civil War. That percentage was significantly lower (3%) in the mountains of North Georgia, and higher in the eastern piedmont area (almost 10% in some places). Only in the larger cities of Rome, Athens, and Lawrenceville did ownership exceed 10%. Slaves were a sign of wealth. Most slaves were owned by planters and, to a much less extent, professionals.
What on earth is that site about!? Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump is a international historic sight, not a town. This method of hunting Buffalo was not wasteful, but was very efficient. Almost all of the animal was used for clothing, shelter, tools, and food. The meat was dried for use over the winter. The reason there are so many bones at the base of the cliff is that the same site was used for many centuries. There aren't many suitable cliffs for stampeding Buffalo over on the open prairie. It's also only two hours from Calgary.
Your repeated use of such examples is ignorant in so many ways, here are a few: 1. The teepee is only one form of native american architecture (of only the nomadic types) that existed over the course of their history. Other types include structures that were just as or more complicated/efficient than the settlers cabins. Read about it. 2. This assumes that the native americans's technoloy would have remined stagnant while the rest of the world's would have evolved. 3. a. Where do you get that Native Americans ate dog? As far as I have seen, they used them mostly for work. b. Even if they did eat dog, why is that bad? A dog is an animal just like a cow, pig, chicken, etc. c. My father-in-law has eaten dog...does he deserve to be killed? Is he a lesser human? 4. If the settlers "lost," Europeans would have remained in Europe and life would be very similar for most whites that are now in the US (except appliances and cars would be smaller). A brief summary of early encounters of the Jamestown colonies, taken from primary sources: Even though Jamestown was set up inside of an Indian confederacy, its chief, Powhatan, did not attack the settlement. Many English ran off to join the Indians during the "starving time" just to be fed. When summer came, the Governor of the colony sent a message to Powhatan to return the runaways and according to the English account, he replied with "noe other than prowde and disdaynefull Answers," some soldiers were sent out "to take Revendge", when they fell upon an Indian settlement, killed 15 or 16 Indians, burned the houses, cut down the corn . . ., took the queen of the tribe and her children into boats, then ended up throwing the children overboard and "shoteinge owtt their Braynes in the water." The queen was later taken off and stabbed to death. Twelve years later, the Indians, alarmed as the English settlements kept growing in numbers, apparently decided to try and wipe them out for good. They went on a rampage and massacred 347 men, women, and children. From then on it was total war. A letter from Powhatan to the English settlers of Jamestown: I have seen two generations of my people die . . .I know the difference between peace and war better than any man in my country. I am now grown old, and must die soon; my authority must descend to my brothers, Opitchapan, Opechancanough and Catatough - then to my two sisters, and then to my two daughters. I wish them to know as much as I do, and that your love to them may be like mine to your. Why will you take by force what you may have quietly by love? Why will you destroy us who supply you with food? What can you get by war? We can hide our provisions and run into the woods; then you will starve for wronging your friends. Why are you jealous of us? We are unarmed, and willing to give you what you ask, if you come in a friendly manner, and not so simple as not to know that it is much better to eat good meat, sleep comfortably, live quietly with my wives and children, laugh and be merry with the English, and trade for their copper and hatchets, than to run away from them, and to lie cold in the woods, feed on acorns, roots and such trash, and be so hunted that I can neither eat nor sleep. In these wars, my men must sit up watching, and if a twig break, they all cry out "Here comes Captain Smith!" So I must end my miserable life. Take away your guns and swords, the cause of all our jealousy, or you may all die in the same manner. Native Americans first thought European warfare to be more savage and brutal. After a joint English/Narragansetts raid on the Pequots, the English were reproached by their allies: "It is naught, it is naught, because it is too furious, and slays too many men." To this charge, Capt. John Underhill wrote that the Narragansett fighting style was: "more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies." General Philip Sheridan "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" and "we took away their country and their means of support, and it was for this and against this they made war. Could anyone expect less?"
<b>rimbaud</b>: 1. I never said anyone deserved to die. Dog-eaters are people too. It was a question about his culture. 2. Who in the world would fight for "pastime?" 3. Their relative isolation would have kept their technology pretty stagnant, don't you think? 4. So they used teepees? It was a question about culture not a thesis. 5. A long rifle pointing at me would make think that fighting was more savage and brutal too. Survival was at stake. 6. I don't blame the Indians for fighting back; I'm just glad we won.
RR: I would suggest that, while the schismatic nature of multiculturalism it bad, I guess I was trying to suggest that it was a result of the intractability of the pot in absorbing the new parts. My experience is that the many people who bring something new to the country as imigrants are resented by the non-naturalised citizens for not eschewing all vestages of their differentness and being assimilated. Therefore I tolerate the concept as long as it remains limited. BTW, I was refering to a couple of posts you made right after christmas in some particularly vitrolic thread that struck me as almost 'pastoral' in tone. It amused me at the time as, while you manage to avoid (I hope this doesn't sound insulting) the particular beligerant tone of many with whom your views intersect (a trait which compells me to continue reading and disceminating your posts, despite philosophical differences), you are, from my experience, generaly an opinionated person. Just not exactly what I'd expected from you.
That fat b*stard is a complete facist and that is all that I am going to say. I take everything he says with a grain of salt, since he basically hates everyone who is not white.
I am 48 years old; I should have opinions. I get pastoral when I don't feel like fighting the fight. Usually, on this board, I face a 1-6 ratio... or thereabouts. It's not always fun being the minority opinion, but I'm not compelled to change my thinking just because of that. It takes a convincing argument. I get criticized for not changing my mind (I've heard most of your arguments), but I don't see most of you with whom I joust here changing yours either. So be it. I'm not counting. Let's just make the discussion lively and interesting.
I wasn't trying to be derragatory, BTW. I think you do a very good job, certanly better than I, of maintaining, presenting, and aligning yourself with a strong opinion, yet not being agressive or derisive. I hope you don't feel slighted by my comments. Not my intention.
BTW the Greeks wrestled, the Egyptians had fights between wariors, the peoples of the far east codified various fighting techniques which became the martial arts. Fencing was a sport practiced by europeans, and the biathlon was started as a competition by swiss and austrian border guards to see who would make better fighters. Lacrosse was directly derived by Europeans from Iroquois combat games. In fact, most sport, to some degree, is a sublimation of the primal combat instinct hard wired into your brain. I would suggest, also, not that you underestimate the culture of Indians, but perhaps that you overestimate the culture of most of Europe at the time. Also, perhaps, I'd like to suggest that culture and technology aren't directly linked. Would you say that the Russians were more cultured than the US when they put Sputnik in orbit? Or how about the Nazi's and their V2's and ME-232's these were far ahead of what our technology could accomplish, yet I wouldn't want to say that the Nazis or Soviets had more culture...
I agree that there is not necessarily a correlation between culture and technology.. but usually the best technology wins if there is a struggle-- especially if it is weapons technology. I think that the Indians were cool. I can get into all that mystical stuff... for awhile. I can get my dander raised here and there, but I'm here for fun and enlightenment and stimulation. I try not to be mean-spirited although sometimes I do lose control. Apologies in advance!
Actually there's something to be said about not changing your mind on subjective things. But when someone offers you the opportunity to read up on a subject and you tell them, "No thanks. Won't make it through them, and they probably have an agenda," you don't look admirably resolute. Nor does it lend creedence to your claim that a "convincing argument" will change your mind. Strong opinions are great, if you can back them up. We need you to back your opinions better Rich.
<b>subtomic</b>: Thanks for the patronizing advice and the liberal lecture. How many people's lives do you try to guide?!!! I stated a practical inability not an unwillingness. I'm glad you know how to live my wife so well. I have 4 kids between 18 YO and 2 MO, I have a new job, and I have my own business. I think I have the right to determine what my priorities are. Reading several volume on native American cultures will not be one of them. Will that be okay with you?!!!!!!! I think my opinions have been backed sufficiently here by me. I'm arguing with people who don't agree with me in the first place and you are judging the outcome by a ridiculously small sample here on the CC BBS. I will continue to make the right choices for me and you can make them for yourself, okay? And you can make them for anyone else who is willing to let you. I'm not.
Yet you are willing to trust, learn from, and post a link to an article that is found on a website that presents an obvious agenda of "preserving American culture," is dedicated to the first European born on this soil, and (the article) written by a man who supports the deportation of *all* Muslim-Americans. In regards to your previous response to my specific points, I will assume that you are just playing games and are not really so dense as to misread everything so extremely as to prompt your flippant replies.
