Indian Follies
Historical revisionism by the left has to be one its most aggravating facets.
"But it's easier to ignore the actions of our govt. than to admit we took a great deal of it illegally."
Illegally? Where do you get this stuff? The law of the land at the time was might makes right. Remember, it's only in post-modern western civilization that everyone seeks to solve all problems in an attorney's office.
"Killing each other: yes. Killing each other off: no."
Sorry, wrong again. The historical and archaeological record is full of "Native" American tribes committing genocide. The whole term, Native American is an oxymoron since humans were never indigenous to North America. Every human being on the continent is a descendant of an immigrant. While I was in High School alone, I know of the discovery of half a dozen tribes who were wiped out by enemies a thousand years or more before the first European ever showed up. I'm sure there plenty more have been discovered since.
"These are the remnants of a massacre of hundreds of Navajo WOMEN & CHILDREN!"
Oh please. First off, hundreds is a lot different than hundreds of millions. Second, I can recount dozens of massacres committed upon white settlers and indigents alike in which hundreds of women and children were slaughtered by the so-called natives. So what? People have been killing people since there were people. That doesn't make one race or ethnicity more intrinsically evil than another. That's pure bigotry.
"In the Mississippi River Valley ALONE, there were probably more than 20 million Native American inhabitants."
My turn to call BS this time. Do you understand what you are saying? There are slightly less than 300 million people in the United States. We occupy territory from wall to wall. You liberals screech about it all the time. If there had been hundreds of millions of indigents when the Europeans arrived, they would have been tripping over them while they walked up the beach. When the Europeans arrived here, there were estimated to be fewer than 20 million indigents from coast to coast. Besides all that, do you really want to assert that Europeans killed all 20 million on their way to slaughtering the "hundreds of millions?"
"But since the first Europeans who arrived killed millions with their diseases..."
Oh, so can I infer you think they did that on purpose? And millions is once again quite different than hundreds of millions. Let me give you a little clue as to why your population estimates are rampant crap. This little jab is indirectly proof of it. The reason that the Europeans blundered in with their diseases, not knowing it would be fatal to the indigents, was because population density and medicine in Europe had reached a point that human immune systems had developed natural resistance to most of these diseases. It was mostly due to the very sparse populations of indigents and their lack of social interchange that they were susceptible to the diseases the Europeans unknowingly brought with them. Of course, in your revisionist history, the Europeans did this on purpose in order to usurp the land and felt no remorse about having done so. That, of course, is utter horse manure. In numerous accounts of these few incidents, in which several hundred to several thousand (again, much different than millions or even hundreds of thousands) indigents died, the Europeans were extremely upset over what had happened and even instituted quarantine procedures to prevent its re-occurrence. As for your conspiracy theory about destroying records, that is pure, unprovable fantasy and I'm not even going to bother addressing it.
"I believe the ratio is approximately 90/10 con-artistry/diplomacy."
Possibly. Possibly not. In any case, that is quite different than "killing hundreds of millions" of indigents to steal their land.
"Not one broken treaty (and the majority of them have been broken) between the US government & "Indian" tribes was broken by a tribe."
That is utter fabrication. I think William Armstrong Custer might have a very different view of that. And before you come whining back with something about Custer deserving it or Sitting Bull's treaty violation being justified, I'll remind you that you said "Not one broken treaty..." If you're going to speak in absolutes, you better be absolutely sure you're right.
The whole point if this is silly, though. If we are going to take you and Cindy Sheehan seriously, then we have to roll back 6,000 years and more of human history. It is a pointless argument. It seeks to confer victim status on a group of humans who in their time victimized others to achieve nearly the same ends. As I said earlier, it is content-free and fact-free and designed solely to evoke an emotional response.
"But it's easier to ignore the actions of our govt. than to admit we took a great deal of it illegally."
Illegally? Where do you get this stuff? The law of the land at the time was might makes right. Remember, it's only in post-modern western civilization that everyone seeks to solve all problems in an attorney's office.
"Killing each other: yes. Killing each other off: no."
Sorry, wrong again. The historical and archaeological record is full of "Native" American tribes committing genocide. The whole term, Native American is an oxymoron since humans were never indigenous to North America. Every human being on the continent is a descendant of an immigrant. While I was in High School alone, I know of the discovery of half a dozen tribes who were wiped out by enemies a thousand years or more before the first European ever showed up. I'm sure there plenty more have been discovered since.
"These are the remnants of a massacre of hundreds of Navajo WOMEN & CHILDREN!"
Oh please. First off, hundreds is a lot different than hundreds of millions. Second, I can recount dozens of massacres committed upon white settlers and indigents alike in which hundreds of women and children were slaughtered by the so-called natives. So what? People have been killing people since there were people. That doesn't make one race or ethnicity more intrinsically evil than another. That's pure bigotry.
"In the Mississippi River Valley ALONE, there were probably more than 20 million Native American inhabitants."
My turn to call BS this time. Do you understand what you are saying? There are slightly less than 300 million people in the United States. We occupy territory from wall to wall. You liberals screech about it all the time. If there had been hundreds of millions of indigents when the Europeans arrived, they would have been tripping over them while they walked up the beach. When the Europeans arrived here, there were estimated to be fewer than 20 million indigents from coast to coast. Besides all that, do you really want to assert that Europeans killed all 20 million on their way to slaughtering the "hundreds of millions?"
"But since the first Europeans who arrived killed millions with their diseases..."
Oh, so can I infer you think they did that on purpose? And millions is once again quite different than hundreds of millions. Let me give you a little clue as to why your population estimates are rampant crap. This little jab is indirectly proof of it. The reason that the Europeans blundered in with their diseases, not knowing it would be fatal to the indigents, was because population density and medicine in Europe had reached a point that human immune systems had developed natural resistance to most of these diseases. It was mostly due to the very sparse populations of indigents and their lack of social interchange that they were susceptible to the diseases the Europeans unknowingly brought with them. Of course, in your revisionist history, the Europeans did this on purpose in order to usurp the land and felt no remorse about having done so. That, of course, is utter horse manure. In numerous accounts of these few incidents, in which several hundred to several thousand (again, much different than millions or even hundreds of thousands) indigents died, the Europeans were extremely upset over what had happened and even instituted quarantine procedures to prevent its re-occurrence. As for your conspiracy theory about destroying records, that is pure, unprovable fantasy and I'm not even going to bother addressing it.
"I believe the ratio is approximately 90/10 con-artistry/diplomacy."
Possibly. Possibly not. In any case, that is quite different than "killing hundreds of millions" of indigents to steal their land.
"Not one broken treaty (and the majority of them have been broken) between the US government & "Indian" tribes was broken by a tribe."
That is utter fabrication. I think William Armstrong Custer might have a very different view of that. And before you come whining back with something about Custer deserving it or Sitting Bull's treaty violation being justified, I'll remind you that you said "Not one broken treaty..." If you're going to speak in absolutes, you better be absolutely sure you're right.
The whole point if this is silly, though. If we are going to take you and Cindy Sheehan seriously, then we have to roll back 6,000 years and more of human history. It is a pointless argument. It seeks to confer victim status on a group of humans who in their time victimized others to achieve nearly the same ends. As I said earlier, it is content-free and fact-free and designed solely to evoke an emotional response.
posted by Anonymous | 4:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home