So, I fell asleep in front of the TV tonight, and I guess while I was asleep the wife changed the channel, 'cuz when I wake up a couple of hours later that ugly Larry King jerk is staring me in the face. I'm about to change the channel when the jerk mentions his guests include Nicolas Cage, Christian Slater, a senator, and some of the original "code talkers" from WWII. Sounds interesting, what the hell.

So, they interview the two code talkers. Really nice old guys. They took a lot of shit from their fellow Marines, but rose to the occasion and saved a lot of lives in the end.

Blah blah blah... etc., whatever.

So, Larry "the frog" King asks the old guys how they felt about serving in the Marines, and they basically said they joined because they wanted to see what's on the "other side of the hill". Can't blame them for that, life on the reservation would get old.

Just about that time, Mr. Nick butts in with his own agenda and asks they how they felt serving white man and a nation that killed 19 million of their fellow Native Americans and countless other oppressed minorities?

One old Navaho guy responds, "What they did is just human nature."

So, here is Mr. Nick trying to bait the old guy and the old guy tells it like it is, that all people can be assholes, regardless of skin color.

So, Mr. Nick is now on my shit list.

I think that when a person becomes famous he is required to undergo surgery which includes a lobotomy and spine removal!!


[puke]      [:K]



Do these little characters help describe the "rich and famous"?

The next time I see Nicholas Cage in the media, I will mentally liken him to the first line of Doublefeed's user profile Bio.
[}:D]

[b]'19 [u]million[/u] of their fellow Native Americans'[/b]?????

Where in the hell did he get [u]that[/u] number from, anyway?

There's no way 19 million Native Americans lived in North America at any time!

And there were surely never that many killed by the White Man.

What a crock!

Eric The(Unbelievable)Hun[>]:)]

Naww, Eric, it was only "6 Million"(tm) [:K]

Anyway, the only time [i]I[/i] want an actor utter an opinion is when he talks about the new aftershave he uses or how she just sucks at tennis, or some such deep subject. Why do they think that only because occasionall you pay money to see a movie, you value their input on other subjects?

Maybe it's because I've been feeling argumentative lately.... [}:D]

...but I would have been curious about that myself.  The Native American culture was decimated by the settlers.  Fast forward to the time where the same people who altered your way of life are asking you to risk your life to help them defend theirs?  

It's the same reason I would be curious how the Japanese Americans felt about serving in the military for a country that interned their families.  

Or about how blacks felt about taking the same risks as any other service member but not being allowed the same training or opportunities.

I didn't see the interview.. but I can understand the line of questioning.    

Then I guess Charleton Heston shouldn't be speaking out on RKBA?  

Interesting, did you know that Charles Heston (born John Charles Carter, 4 October 1924,
Evanston, Illinois) is playing Dr Joseph Mengele in a movie shot by Italian director Egidio Eronico right now?

Yesiree, when Christopher Columbus landed in the New World he found a virtual paradise laid out before him.

Ritual cannibalism, gustatory cannibalism,  slavery, continuous warfare, murder of captives, low status of females, infanticide, ritual barbarities, and thoughtless cruelty on such a grand scale that even these jaded Europeans were shocked!

The history of the world has been such that no one nation or people should be singled out as particularly worthy of condemnation above all others. At least not in the ancient world.

There was a little town near the Aztec city of Tenochtitlán (now Mexico City) whose name in the Aztec tongue was 'The line started here.'

It was about four miles from the center of the Aztec capital, and the phrase 'the line started here' was a reference to the time when the Aztecs were dedicating a newly built temple to the Sun God, and were using captive tribes as human sacrifices whose blood was used to 'purify' their temple.

The line of doomed prisoners stretched from the little village to the temple in the center of the city, a distance of four miles!

Reasonable people, some of these Indians.

I'm certain that some of the indigenous tribes of present day Mexico were thrilled to see the coming of the Spanish, if for no other reason that to put an end to such barbarities.

Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]

Man, you wouldn't believe the kind of crap you hear from college kids these days. Just last week, some guy told me in the most sincere tone of voice "before White people came, all the native tribes everywhere, Africa, America, Australia, just lived in peace and harmony with each other and nature."

Well said Raf and Hun. Thanks for flipping the coin over. Now I'm armed with both views.

Now for a little history lesson from the Hun:

The founding of the City of Tenochtitlán -

According to legend, the Aztecs left their homeland about 1000 AD and wandered south to the Valley of Mexico, following their patron deity and war god, Huitzilopochtli, until they saw an eagle perched upon the branch of a cactus, holding in its talons a snake with handsome plumage. The eagle greeted them humbly, bowing its head, and they knew that this was their home. This occurred around 1325 AD. At the time of the Spanish conquest, 200 years later, the city had 250,000 inhabitants.

This eagle, perched on a cactus, and grasping a snake in its talons, is today emblazoned on the national flag of Mexico!

[img]http://www.fotw.stm.it/images/mx.gif[/img]

[b]And now, I return you back to the thread on Nicholas Cage not liking Whitey too much![/b]

Eric The(Sorry!)Hun[>]:)]

Not all college kids are ignorant and brain washed. I know for a fact that the Chinese didn't get alone, and the Chinese has been around for a long time. I'd say long before modern or even medieval European Civilization.

Good night, y'all!  I'm not saying that Native Americans were pacifists before the Europeans showed up... but they had their own way of life that was permanently altered by the arrival of the first settlers.

I'm also not saying that human history isn't chock full of instances of imperialism and conquering other civilizations.

I'm saying I would be curious how someone would feel if they were in the situation that the code keepers were in.  Why would it be wrong to ask that question?  Heck, he apparently had made peace with the issue by how he responded.
 

You got that right! [:D]



He's certainly a piece of work and most of his movies suck anyway. Too many Beverly Hills brats end up in entertainment. (Surprise!)



Was thinking the exact same thing myself. Usually if they have the idealogy/dogma down pat then the numbers just start growing on their own. The number of slaves lost in the 'Middle Passage' and victims of the Rwandan genocide have been exaggerated over time as well (for the purpose of arguement).



Very few blacks were allowed into combat due to the military's segregation policy at the time. Most were "in the rear with the gear." For those that did... I've seen it discussed on a PBS documentary but I can't remember the name off hand to recommend it to you. [:|]



Many replied negatively on the questionaire they were given asking if they would serve in the US military, and never did serve. I guess the rest had some faith or rationalized like we all do...



No, I did not. Right subject matter to win an oscar, but wrong actor. *LOL*

Again, I'm referring to the people who were on the front lines.... just as the gentlemen that were questioned were.

Don't y'all every talk to your elders about their/our history?  How they felt about events that they lived through that we've only read about?



Actually there was a PBS special on those that did volunteer.  I was unable to watch the entire documentary but they did explore those issues and they were very emotional about it.  It was not an easy situation to be in.

I don't know where that number came from, but the old Navajo guy nodded after Nr. Nick said it, but I don't know if that nod means acceptance of the 19 million figure or just acceptance of what Mr. Nick said in general.

Whatever it was, that number sounds a tad high.

Maybe he was including Canada and what the Spanish did in Central and South America.

Oh man, that was so wrong. But so true.

LMAO, Now THAT"S good!!!!!

Yup, and small pox and influenza were just the ticket.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. he he

[b][size=6]KILL WHITEY![/size=6][/b]

He also was an anti-gunner......

Then, I guess that would make what happened on 9/11 a drop in the bucket.  [:(]

Excuse me, PRK.  In typing my own response to your post, I inadverdantly deleted most of yours.  My apologies.  RAF.

The key to the topic.

 Indian tribes would fight with each other over hunting grounds etc, would take slaves and plunder.

 The white man was the new BIG arse kickin' tribe on the block.  Whitey did to the entire population of Indians, what they were doing to each other previously.

The Indians have taken revenge on the White Man as of late, with casino gaming. ha ha [+]:D]

Really.  It's the only reason some 'tribes' are seeking federal recognition lately.

I don't remember asking that question.

As far as what the Aztecs did: to the outsider it was barbaric. To the Aztecs, being a human sacrifice considered an honor.

They would select a young man every once in a while and for two years this man, who was chosen for his overall skills in the arts or purity, would be put on a tour where he would be taken from city to city, and speak with the village elders and priests, learn and perform.

He would be offered his choice of women and the finest delicacies wherever he went. When the two years was up, he would willingly return home to be sacrificed. The Aztec believed him to be a living god and after cherishing him for a fixed period of time, he would be returned to the gods.

The Aztecs reasoned that we are on earth to suffer, and in the afterlife, we will be free of suffering and woe (See any parallels here?). So when they slaughtered more people than animals, they deemed it a more humane (Indeed!) way to please their gods, since people who were ritually sacrificed were "saved" no matter where they came from, in their mythos.

The europeans didn't understand that line of reasoning at all.

Not everything they did was barbaric, they knew numbers better than most cultures and still have a more accurate timekeeping scheme than we use currently. (It works on a different number base.)

Did they have to die? Probably. Their empire was in rapid decline already the europeans finally showed up.
 

Wow, what a great thread this is:  Pretty damn intelligent.  

Just a few more factoids about the nature loving natives.

1) Along with regular old cannibalism, like I capture your men in battle and then I eat them, or I take your slaves and eat them, a particular delicacy among the Central and South American tribes was to east babies, and, for a special treat, cut open the stomach of a woman pregnant 6 months and, well, use your imagination.  

2) Depending on what source you consult, 'bone smuggling' was also widely practiced by the citizens of the great Mexican empire.

3) Eric the Hun brought out the best point though, that other tribes allied themselves with Cortez against the Empire.  There was a book written just relating those facts, that first, the Mexican Empire was actually in decline when Cortex came on the scene AND, every other tribe hated them because in a brutal culture they were a step below the rest of them.  When those Spanish Missionaries tied these 'Native Peoples' to whipping posts, upon which were written in Latin "Out of Darkness", the were not kidding.

4)  While some of the South American Empires created amazing feats of engineering like the City in the Clouds and had advanced mathamatics, there cultural and religious outlook was based on the following:

If you have ever wondered why the portrayals of their gods in stone all made the gods look so damned ugly and deformed, is because somewhere along the line of their religious and cultural development, someone was shrewd enough to realize that the natural tendency of a human being is to things of beauty.  Your garden variety Aztec or Inca though he could aunravel the mystery of the universe, in part by working directly backward!  By making his gods and most art so absolutely ugly, somehow that would spiritually enlighten him.  

Tough concept to understand.  But it is like the corner stone of the entire Central, Island, and South AMerican Native system.  Despite the abuses, there was no way such a disgusting and largely evil culture would be stomped out would be by force.  And in a lot of ways, the native classes in those areas have not changed one bit.

Post from Acheron -

That's what the Aztecs may have been saying about those among them who were chosen as symbolic sacrifices, but the poor captured tribes that the Aztecs proceeded to sacrificially murder for the honor of gods that were foreign to them, most likely would have declined the 'honor.'

We're talking about two very different types of sacrifices here, one voluntary and one involuntary!

Besides, whether the practice was voluntary or not, doesn't make it any less barbaric!

I'm a fundamentalist Christian, but it still pains me no end to see some primitive Christian peoples around the world reenact the crucifixion by being 'nailed' to crosses!

There is no honor or glory in that! Jesus never required it, the church never required it, and it reeks of arrogance, 'cause none of them go through the 'whole' crucifixion scene!

Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]

I am a christian, and I personally abhor what the Aztecs did.

Sometimes though, to understand how things work in other cultures, you have to think outside the box. The Aztecs thought they were doing the victims a favor.

Do I think they were doing their victims a favor? No. Can I understand the line of reasoning? Unfortunately, yes.

Did the victims of Aztecs like the fact that they were going to end up with their heart and body parting company or enslaved under unspeakable conditions? Certainly not.

Sacrificial Death might have been a better alternative: It was simply a matter of when not *if* they were going to die.

Since so much of their culture is lost, we may never know what other exigencies that may have made the Aztecs do what they did.

As was mentioned before, no culture holds a monopoly on barbarism.

They did not have Chrisitianity, and the brand that was imported by Cortez was at the height oif the Inquisition. Not a good time to be a non-believer.

According to one (admittedly dated) reference I just found, in 1492 the number of native americans in the hemisphere was about 72 million.  In the area that currently defines the US lower 48, it was about 5 million.  According to the last census, the number of native americans is just under 2 million.  Hard to kill 19 million when there were only 5 total.  I'm not trying to trivialize the horror of starvation from killing their food sources, death from diseases, or from driving many of them from their homes, but that number has to be exaggerated if he is talking just about the US.

DoubleFeed, your "brain suck" comment gets my insight of the day award.  That statement is so true.z

raf, don't you know that all the evils throughout history, up to and including present day, are the fault of the 'evil white man'?  Just watch TV or go to a movie.

No, that wasn't their point. The 'only' and the '(tm)' (damn, that is so true!) are.

I realize that.. but people were still making crude jokes and casual observations about whole civilizations being wiped out... and, yet, people were up in arms when 9/11 was lumped in with other historical tragedies.  

That was MY point.

Eric the Hun, the aztecs are an example of native American Culture at its worst.  However, Europe at the time was not exactly a stellar example of humanity either.  I would consider witch burning to be human sacrifice due to religious beliefs.  Other wonderful practices included live human dissection of war prisioners (dissection of human corpses was consider sacriligious).  Don't forget that lovely thing known as the feudal system.  Humanity is capable of atrocious things.  In contrast to the Aztecs were many native american groups who lived peacefully.  You probably didn't know that the Iriquois used a democratic system and had a congress.  Settlers were impressed by this system and incorporated some of it's elements into the constitution.

I wonder how many people were living here when columbus arrived.  I wouldn't put much stock in a reference from 1942.  I'm not sure how many people were in the states, but 19 million in North America doesn't sound unreasonable.  19 million in the US may not be unreasonable either as there were some rather densely populated areas and people lived close enough together that trade routes were running coast to coast for thousands of years (horses didn't live in North America until the Europeans left them).

Twenty years from now when 9/11 is all but forgotten, PBS will continue to produce documentaries about the "6 million killed" every other week to make sure people don't forget. And that tragedy wasn't on US soil and for the most part, does not affect Americans.

Post from sk8brdnick -

Oh no, they're really not. The Mound Builders of the Mississippi Valley may have been worse, but all we know of them is what we gathered from their former victims.

There were lots of Indian tribes that were far worse than the Aztecs, I only chose the Aztecs because they are more well known and we have a great deal more information on them!

The only cannibalism that the Aztecs engaged in was ritualistic, and confined to priests eating organs from sacrificed victims.

There were numerous tribes where the cannibalism was gustatory, meaning the tribes had a real yen for human flesh.

The purpose of my story was not to paint the Spaniards or other Europeans as the 'Saviors of the New World', but to illustrate that the Native tribes were no saints either!

And we already have a post that states that the number of Indians in the continental US was around 5 million at the time of Columbus, which still sounds a bit high, but 19 million is way too many, IMHO.

And remember, we're not talking about how many Indians lived in what was to become this country, but we were commenting on the statement made by Nicholas Cage:

[b]'...a nation that killed 19 million of their fellow Native Americans and countless other oppressed minorities?'[/b]

So do [u]you[/u] think there were enough Indians living in North America, or even this Hemisphere, that the 'white man' could have killed 19 million of them?

Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]

One, 9/11 will NOT be forgotten.  [:(]

Two, the six million killed was a reference to Native Americans killed in North America... what is now know at the US.  How could this not affect Americans?

If you reread the original statement, Nicolas Cage was referring to Native Americans [i]and other oppressed minorities.[/i]

Just don't want this to be another "cling to part of a sentence and run with it" thread.  [:D]

I thought we were referring to the other 6 million?

Lord, everyone, get out your pocket calculators and tell me, truthfully:

1. How many people were killed on both sides during the collective military expeditions known as 'The Crusades'?

2. How many people were killed curing the entire run of the Spanish Inquisition?

3. How many people were killed during the witch trials (or witch hunts) in Europe? (We already know how many were killed during the witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts)

4. How many people have been killed totally in any war in which 'Christianity' should be given the blame for starting?

5. How many Africans died during the Middle Passage to the New World?

When and if you guys come up with some verifiable numbers, then and only then will I feel like discussing these matters.

Until then, hold your water![:D]

Eric The(TheBlondLeadingTheBlond)Hun[>]:)]

Eric,

I'm not arguing numbers... suffice to say it was "a lot."

mattja,

Whaaa?  [>:/]

I know, [b]Miss_Magnum[/b], but for anyone to say the magic number [b]'19 million'[/b], I must insist that they provide [u]some[/u] [u]basis[/u] for that statement.

To let it go unchallenged, is to make it appear as if we outdid the [b]Nazis[/b] in their verifiable murder of [b]'six million'[/b], not in the far distant past, but within living human memory!

I sincerely doubt that we, meaning the 'white man', murdered anywhere near the number given, nor even within a small percentage of that number.

Just start adding up the number of Indian dead in the historical record of our conflicts.

Double it, and I still believe that the number remains miniscule.

And do we get to subtract white dead from the figure, as an offset?

Eric The(That'sWhyIDon'tEngageInNumbers)Hun[>]:)]