Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/23/2002 8:32:41 PM EDT
Well as the liberals attempt to rewrite history and tell everyones kids that long ago the evil white man arrived, assaulted the peaceful and benevolent native americans and then drove them off of their land. Well not exactly the case. And we often referred to them as "savages" for a reason. The treatment of early Europeans by the "natives." [url]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02751b.htm[/url] The next sixteen years of uninterrupted labours among these savages were a continual series of privations and sufferings which he used to say were only roses in comparison with what the end was to be. With him on this journey were Chabanel and Garreau, both of whom were afterwards murdered. On entering the village, they were met with a shower of stones, cruelly beaten with clubs, and then tied to posts to be burned to death. Brébeuf is said to have kissed the stake to which he was bound. The fire was lighted under them, and their bodies slashed with knives. Brébeuf had scalding water poured on his head in mockery of baptism, a collar of red-hot tomahawk-heads placed around his neck, a red-hot iron thrust down his throat, and when he expired his heart was cut out and eaten. Through all the torture he never uttered a groan. The Iroquois withdrew when they had finished their work. [url]http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19980901/SAINTS/CANADIAN.HTM[/url] He was taken captive by the Iroquois in 1642 and imprisoned for thirteen months. He was kept as a slave and beaten by the women of the tribe regularily. The Indians considered it a dishonourable and shameful thing to be captured and death preferable to slavery, so keeping the priest as a slave was a worse punishment than merely killing him. On a third visit to the Iroquois, he was seized by the Bear Clan who, believing him to be a sorcerer, held him responsible for the disease which was ravaging the tribe and for the failure of their food crops. He was tortured and beheaded. [url]http://home.golden.net/~parish/history.html[/url] Father Isaac Joques, born in Orleans, January 10, 1607, and was tomahawked and beheaded October 18, 1646. Jean de la Lande, born in Dieppe, was killed the next day, October 19, 1646. Rene Goupil, born in Anjou, May 15, 1608, was the first to die. He was tortured and tomahawked on September 19, 1642 for having made the Sign of the Cross on the foreheads of some children. Father John de Brebeuf, born in Normandy, March 15, 1563, was captured and put through four hours of extreme torture before dying on March 16, 1649. Father Anthony Daniel, born in Dieppe, May 27, 1601, was killed by the Iroquois on July 4, 1648. His body was thrown in to the chapel, which was then set on fire. Father Gabriel Lalemant, born in Paris, October 10, 1610, was horribly tortured to death along with Father Brebeuf in 1649. Father Charles Garnier, born in Paris, May 15, 1601, was shot to death as he baptized children and catechumens during an Iroquois attack on December 7, 1649. [url]http://www.tolatsga.org/iro.html[/url] Torture and ritual cannibalism were some of the ugly traits of the Iroquois, but these were shared with several other tribes east of the Mississippi.
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 8:47:37 PM EDT
You could probably find examples like that in almost any culture. Seeing what happened to the Indians later prehaps they should have been more agressive towards the white man.
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 8:56:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Atencio: You could probably find examples like that in almost any culture. Seeing what happened to the Indians later prehaps they should have been more agressive towards the white man.
View Quote
Ahhh yes, I forgot. "the evil white man arrived, assaulted the peaceful and benevolent native americans and then drove them off of their land." You have been successfully indoctrinized.
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 8:59:37 PM EDT
I saw 'Dances With Wolves" and the indians seemed like very peace loving people.[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:01:25 PM EDT
Aug is obviously a student of selective history. Sure there's examples of the sort of events he posted. However, there are 50x the examples of mass murder from the settlers towards the indians. To dispute that is simply admitting you know nothing of history. I'm not suggesting that we give them their land back. I'm simply stating what I would have thought is obvious.
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:03:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2002 9:05:43 PM EDT by Steel_Core]
In college, UCSD, I took a year long GE sequence on American History. The two main principles of the class were: 1. The White Man Is The Devil 2. Capitalism Is The Root of All Evil And if you don't go along with their Sh*t they will fail you. Even worse is that the federal gov't pays these liberals to teach people to hate the USA as we know it. By the way, your not even allowed to comment on race according to the conduct rules. I think too many of the mods have been through the indoctrination. I hope you don't get banned. You would think they would have a little respect for someone with 3000 posts, but don't count on it. Oops, I just realized I mentioned "race," hopefully I don't get 3 million idiots posting IBTL, on my account. If I get banned, goodbye.
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:07:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:19:31 PM EDT
Guess the line "Home of the Brave" ought to stricken from the national anthem. Or is the story about that line referring to the Native American warrior another liberal myth?
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:25:36 PM EDT
I notice that most of your references are taken from websites of religious organizations, so it must be true. After all, no organization would tell lies, nor resort to murder, massacre or coercion in the name of religion.
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:26:35 PM EDT
I hate it when people say [i]Native American[/i] when they are referring to [i]American Indians[/i]. I'm a Native American and so is anyone born in American. PC categorizing is so full of it. Don't get me started on all the hyphenated Americans. USPC40 [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/line.gif[/img] [url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/alabamaflag.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:31:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:32:17 PM EDT
Can't we all just agree that everbody, everywhere got fucked over by somebody else at some point in time? Except for the Swiss of course. YOU'RE NEXT YOU NEUTRAL BASTARDS!!! I need to go to bed.
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:35:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By new-arguy: Thank you all for reminding me of why I never visit GD...
View Quote
Baa Bye! USPC40 [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/line.gif[/img] [url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/alabamaflag.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:49:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By USPC40: I hate it when people say [i]Native American[/i] when they are referring to [i]American Indians[/i]. I'm a Native American and so is anyone born in American. PC categorizing is so full of it. Don't get me started on all the hyphenated Americans.
View Quote
They're were only called [i]American Indians[/i] because Columbus thought he'd landed off the coast of India (Which happens to be named after the Indus valley and was subsequently altered by the British to Hindu). The pre-Pilgrim inhabitants of the continent didn't call themselves [i]American Indians[/i]. In fact they call themselves by tribal affiliation. By the way, under your definition, everybody born in Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Chile are Americans too.
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:49:27 PM EDT
And of course it has now been proved that the American Indians are descended form People off of Europe and Asia anyways... inlcuding Japan which I found interesting.
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 9:51:38 PM EDT
Well I bet if you had foreign invaders (Al Quida Iraq, Russia, ETC.) Come uninvited and just say "Hey, your 2000 acre farm is now mine!" I bet you would turn real "Savage". I'm sorry but their land was stolen pure and simple. It's too bad that they weren't better armed, the outcome may have been totally different. If there is a certain ethnic group that was mistreated I would say it was the Native American next to the Jews.. Hope this doesn't upset anyone, just giving my 2 cents worth...
Link Posted: 9/23/2002 10:00:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 4:59:38 AM EDT
Yeah, the "discoverers of the New World" were real charmers too. "The govenor was accustomed to place a guard over the chief so that the chief might not go away, and took the chief along with him until leaving the chief's land; for by taking the chief (by surprise attack with swift horses), the people (of the chief's village) would await in their towns (for the army to arrive) and the chief would give a guide and Indians as carriers (for all of the food and clothing found in their village to be used by the Spaniards as they passed). Before departing from their lands, (DeSoto) would give the chiefs leave to return to their homes as soon as he reached another dominion where others were (forced to be) given to him" (in the same manner). "Those (Indians) of Coosa, seeing their lord detained, thought ill of it and revolted and went away to hide themselves in the woods - both those of their lord's town and those of other chiefs towns, who were his vassals. The govenor sent four captains (out to find them, as the army arrived), each in a different direction... They seized many Indians, men and women, who were put in chains (by the footsoldiers). Upon seeing the harm they received, and how little they gained in absenting themselves (from the fast moving horsemen), they came, saying that they wished to serve in whatever might be commanded them. Some of the principal men among those imprisoned were set free on petition of the chief. Of the rest, each man (in the army) took away as slaves those he had in chains, without allowing them to go to their lands. [Curious on-lookers from surrounding areas, were, no doubt, attracted by the spectacle of the Spaniards. They were captured by the army as it advanced.] Nor did many of them return (to their homes) except some whose good fortune and assiduous industry aided them, who managed to file off their chains at night; or some, who were able, while on the march, to wander away from the road upon observing any lack of care in their guard. They went off with their chains, their loads (of food and supplies) and the clothes they were carrying (for the Spaniards)." Enjoy the read about dog-eating Christians who would enslave and kill any who did not immediately give up all food and treasure to them: [url]http://www.conquestchannel.com/inset9.html[/url] -White Horse Just keeping it real for all sides. [;)]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 5:14:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2002 5:15:06 AM EDT by Ponyboy]
Where in the world do you come up with this stupid shit, SA? Just when I thought you couldn't write anything dumber than what I've seen you write in the past you go off and start a thread like this. [b]Are you the one in the front or the back?[/b] [img]http://www.sports-point.com/images/Dumb%20and%20Dumber.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 5:33:26 AM EDT
As Texas author John Graves so eloquently put it in his classic 'Goodbye to a River', when it came to depredations between the White Man and the Red Man, 'each took as well as they gave.' There were just too many white men that came over the years, so the red men was replaced by another race/tribe/whatever. And remember that migrations of pre-Columbian natives, displaced other tribes and peoples, as well. The result was a tapestry of various tribes, languages, and cultures in the New World. Whether the White Man was 'right' or not, who cares? He won, he writes the History, he pays for and air-conditions the buildings for those who would teach otherwise, and pays their salaries as well. Let me tell [u]you[/u] folks a little history: The Utes were natives to the area now known as Colorado and parts of Utah and northern New Mexico. They were a unique people and had a unique way of life. The Ute Indians lived apart from most tribes. They lived on the plains and in the mountains of an area covering about 150,000 square miles. This land included hunting grounds, places of spiritual importance, and the territories of the seven Ute bands. The seven Ute bands were known as the Mouache, the Capote, the Weeminuche, the Tabeguache/Uncompahgre, the Parianucs, the Uintahs, and the Yampahs. The Utes lived off the land. They hunted the many animals in the area. These included bear, elk, deer, buffalo, antelope, mountain sheep, beaver, jack rabbits, sage hens, geese, ducks, wolves, minks, and more. From these animals they got their clothing and homes. The Utes lived in tipis. They used twelve to eighteen straight poles and put them in a cone shape. They then covered these with the skins of the animals they had killed. The Utes were very religious. Their medicine man or shaman was a doctor or healer. The medicine man carried a bag of special things to heal people. Some of the special things they carried in the bag were deer tails, small drums, rattles, and a tiny sack of herbs containing yarrow. Besides using medicines to cure someone, the Utes also had many dances. One of the important dances was the Bear Dance. The Utes believed that they were very closely related to bears. The Utes called the Bear Dance "Momaqui Mowat". This was a very sacred and honored name. The Utes had other words for things. They called themselves Yuuttaa. The state of Utah was named after the Utes. They also called horses "magic dogs". This was because the horses seemed like big dogs that magically appeared as a present from the Great Spirit. Today the Utes don't have Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico to roam in the way of their ancestors. Today, reservations are what most Utes call home. What weakened the Utes so badly, that they were barely able to give the Mormons any fight at all when their homelands were invaded by this band of settlers? Give up? Here's a clue for you: You know what the [i][b]Ute[/b][/i] word for 'enemy' is? [i][b]'Comanche'[/b][/i] It is, in fact, how the Comanches got their name. Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 5:36:26 AM EDT
He's not denying that what happened to the American Indians never happened. He' just educating us on the FACT that they were not the people that Hollyweird portrays them as. You can thank Europeans for weening them from their cannibalistic ways which I beleive FAR outweighs any atrocity that ever happened to them. Oh... Almost forgot. IBTL
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 5:39:54 AM EDT
Horses aren't native to North America, They were brought here by Evil Europeans. Or so I've been told.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 5:53:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ARChoo: He's not denying that what happened to the American Indians never happened.
View Quote
What the hell does this mean then?
"Well as the liberals attempt to rewrite history and tell everyones kids that long ago the evil white man arrived, assaulted the peaceful and benevolent native americans and then drove them off of their land."
View Quote
Besides, nobody ever said that the American Indians were peaceful. They were warrior communities. Your place in the tribe was determined by your skill at warfare. Anybody who thinks that warriors are peaceful is fucking stupid.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 6:26:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2002 6:44:47 AM EDT by USPC40]
Originally Posted By talbalos: They're were only called [i]American Indians[/i] because Columbus thought he'd landed off the coast of India (Which happens to be named after the Indus valley and was subsequently altered by the British to Hindu).
View Quote
Not to be picky, but I thought Columbus thought he had landed in the East Indies (islands between Vietnam and Australia), not India (sub-continent).
The pre-Pilgrim inhabitants of the continent didn't call themselves [i]American Indians[/i]. In fact they call themselves by tribal affiliation.
View Quote
I'm sure they did. If I knew the 100+ possible tribe names, I'd call them that too.
By the way, under your definition, everybody born in Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Chile are Americans too.
View Quote
You are correct. It's a bit arrogant for U.S. citizens to think only THEY are Americans, don't ya think? USPC40 [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/line.gif[/img] [url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/alabamaflag.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 6:43:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2002 6:44:49 AM EDT by satcong]
No, No!!! You guys....are WRONG!!! The "Indians" were really LAMANITES!!!! Go--llll--y! get it right youse guys!!! (Sarcasm on) [img]http://www.helpingmormons.org/images/importD36.jpg[/img] And I quote~! "Ancient America became inhabited by two major people groups: the Nephites, the people of God, and the Lamanites, the enemies of God (about 589 B.C.). The Lamanites, or American Indians as they are now more commonly known, were said to be a white people at one time just as their brethren the Nephites. However due to their rebellion and hardness of heart, God cursed them with a "skin of blackness" to make them "loathsome" unto the white Nephites, who today are represented by the Mormons."
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 6:43:44 AM EDT
I'll tell you what the Native American Indian tribes usually called themselves: [b]'Human beings'![/b] The tribal name for most tribes that I know, is just 'people' or 'human beings.' The various clans and groups were mostly known by names connected with [u]where[/u] they [i][b]lived[/b][/i]. That's it. Just like the in the movie 'Little Big Man', the Indians called themselves 'human beings.' Eric The(Serious)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 6:44:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 6:46:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By ARChoo: He's not denying that what happened to the American Indians never happened.
View Quote
What the hell does this mean then?
View Quote
Uh... Their land was forcefully taken from them? That is what happened to them, isn't it?
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 6:54:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: I'll tell you what the Native American Indian tribes usually called themselves: [b]'Human beings'![/b] The tribal name for most tribes that I know, is just 'people' or 'human beings.' The various clans and groups were mostly known by names connected with [u]where[/u] they [i][b]lived[/b][/i]. That's it. Just like the in the movie 'Little Big Man', the Indians called themselves 'human beings.' Eric The(Serious)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Yeah, but don't ya think that would get a little confusing if historians referred to all groups of people as only "human beings". "The human beings fought the human beings between 500 B.C. - 300 B.C." "A great army of human beings made their way across Europe defeating all human beings in their way" "The human beings were allies with the human beings but were enemies with the human beings." I know I'm confused! USPC40 [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/line.gif[/img] [url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/alabamaflag.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 6:55:57 AM EDT
Well, I gotta toss my 2 cents in here. First, I have always thought that Indians got the shitty end of the stick. After working for them for almost a year I could almost care less now. There are some very good people out there that are indians. Unfortunatly, the majority I met at this place are some of the most racist people I have met. People in power would openly make jokes about the "white Man" in meetings and such. A lot of them are hiding behind regulations and know they can't be touched. They are making far more enemys around here than they did in the 1800s. One example, the indians here are using the money from the casino, to go around buying up a LOT of land in the county and adding it to their settlement. Every acre that they purchase (and they are buying a LOT) comes off the county tax property tax register and its making everyone elses taxes go sky high. A lot of the indians think its funny. Once again, not all of them that I have met are like this, but around here, the racist ones are the majority. Working with them has left a bitter taste in my mouth. Aviator
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:00:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ARChoo: Uh... Their land was forcefully taken from them? That is what happened to them, isn't it?
View Quote
Thier land? Land doesn't belong to any man. Even they knew that. It's just occupied by whoever has the most power and/or advantage. USPC40 [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/line.gif[/img] [url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/alabamaflag.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:01:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By M4: Aug is obviously a student of selective history. Sure there's examples of the sort of events he posted. However, there are 50x the examples of mass murder from the settlers towards the indians. To dispute that is simply admitting you know nothing of history. I'm not suggesting that we give them their land back. I'm simply stating what I would have thought is obvious.
View Quote
"Selective history" is ignoring the fact that loooooong before Europeans arrived, the Native Savages who worshipped bears were brutally inhuman in their genocidal treatment of other Native Savages who worshipped eagles who were, in turn, brutally inhuman in their genocidal treatment of other Native Savages who worshipped buffalo who were, in turn, brutally inhuman in their genocidal treatment of other Native Savages who worshipped mud who were, in turn... you get the idea. Primitive Native Savages of this land were engaged in genocidal warfare for centuries before the white man came along. They also treated the land like SHIT. Many were nomadic tribes following the seasons and leaving behind purposefully-burnt forests and prairies so no subsequent tribes could follow. It's disgusting how historical revisionism is so blatant regarding these Native Savages in today's society. It's gotten so bad now that even traditional customs of these savages have been PC'ed into benign little lies about their savage heritage. Like the "War Dance" that many tribes would do to ready themselves for battle. Nowadays, during "Native Savage Celebration Month" when they get all dressed up in feathers and furs and pretend to be bear-worshipping savages again, they don't call it a "War Dance" anymore, now it's called the "Fancy Dance". [rolleyes] Yeah, Native Savages never went to war until the white man arrived [rolleyes] Yeah, and the tomahawk was invented AFTER the white man arrived [rolleyes] Yeah, and scalping was something the white man taught the Native Savages how to do [rolleyes] Yeah, and conquering Native Savage tribes took the vanquished Native Savage tribe's women and children as slaves for a short time then slaughtered them because that's what the white man told them to do [rolleyes] Yeah, the Native Savages were all living in peace until the white man arrived [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:22:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2002 7:29:45 AM EDT by Fearandloathing37]
No, Of course there has never been such savage behavior in the people's that sprang from Western Europe. "Druids sacrificed; they sacrificed everything they got their hands on, and they sacrificed a lot. Bulls, dogs, stags, slaves, criminals, gold, silver, you name it they burned it, drowned it, strangled it, or examined its entrails (except for the gold). Druids would stab people in the backs and divine the future based on how they twitched when they died. The Romans looked upon the Druids, a lot like we look at the Taliban today." -Pulled From an E-mail letter I once wrote to a supposed Celtic scholar, who's cleaned up PC view of the Druids, made them out to be happy peace loving people who danced around Stonehenge all day. How do you say, "Nits make lice" in Latin?
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:23:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2002 8:06:11 AM EDT by Halfcocked]
I've said this before. No one lives any place on the face of this Earth that didn't kick some else's, or their ancestor's, ass off it first. The white mans biggest hypocrisy is making treaties they never kept. The indigenous peoples never even offered treaties. I think we should declare all treaties within the boarders of this country null and void and re-declare war. Settle for nothing less than unconditional surrender and become 1 nation. No nations within nations.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:33:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:46:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:56:52 AM EDT
No doubt, if the American Indians, had figured out, that whole Sailing Ship, Loadstone thing, they'd have been invading Spain faster than you can say El Cid.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 8:02:29 AM EDT
man, there's so much hate and misunderstanding on this board! SteyrAUG, i am used to your inflamatory rhetoric, BUT i do commend you on one small point: instead of just complaining about the "one-sided liberal indoctrination camps" known as "school", you are actually out there reading, researching, and looking for another side to every story. kudos. but the problem you fail to realize, is that most of what you bring to the table also comes from a "one-sided indoctrination camp" known as "Church". i certainly don't have all the answers, but i do know, that religious dogma is incapable of change. therefore, your opinions (if you can call them yours) are between 2000 and 200 years old. it is no small wonder that we have made little PROGRESS, yet much war in that time. i would like to see some hard evidence that any person, or people are perfect and without blame or shame of any kind. by the way, the local Indians called Louis and Clark savages because their expedition party refused to eat fish from the rivers, thinking it beneath them, so instead, they feasted on the Indian's dogs! ... yeah, real civilized.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 8:34:57 AM EDT
Yeah and that Holocaust thing was fake too. [rolleyes] Seems to me that everyone on AR15.com is posting there own personal agenda lately. Mormons today are some of the most hate filled people I know. If you live around Salt Lake and don't happen to be Mormon good luck finding land to build a house, or a bank to give you a loan. They justify and distort the truth even to there own followers. Now I am close friends with a few Mormons (and some x-Mormons) but as a group they get on my nerves really quick. So I guess that means we should declare war on them and put them on a reservation on interment camps (after all they are spreading into my beloved Colorado). Now then on a side note. Cannibalism is a very taboo subject for just about any tribe. The Iroquois have a few stories about cannibalism driving people insane and causing them to have deformed babies. I don't believe that they would cannibalize as a whole, maybe there where a few outcast, but labeling groups has its prices. Just because it is on a website or in a book doesn't mean it is right. Think for yourself or have someone do it for you.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 8:45:48 AM EDT
Interesting info Eric. But did you know that there was a small off-shoot of the Capote tribe that was distinguished by the fact that they never lied? They were known as the True Man Capotes.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:01:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Spade: Can't we all just agree that everbody, everywhere got fucked over by somebody else at some point in time? Except for the Swiss of course. YOU'RE NEXT YOU NEUTRAL BASTARDS!!! I need to go to bed.
View Quote
The Swiss joined the UN a couple of weeks back. Does that mean they're not neutral any more? Will this affect the price of hot cocoa? Is it true that Swiss chicks uhh... nevermind.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:19:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Aviator: They are making far more enemies around here than they did in the 1800s.
View Quote
Failure to learn from past mistakes...
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:24:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Where in the world do you come up with this stupid shit, SA? Just when I thought you couldn't write anything dumber than what I've seen you write in the past you go off and start a thread like this.
View Quote
I come up with this stuff from "docuemnted history" are you challenging the sources I linked? And everyone got their tit in a ringer because I said: "Well as the liberals attempt to rewrite history and tell everyones kids that long ago the evil white man arrived, assaulted the peaceful and benevolent native americans and then drove them off of their land. Well not exactly the case. And we often referred to them as "savages" for a reason." I specifically draw everyones attention to this line: [b]Well not exactly the case."[/b] So I NEVER said the indians didn't get there land jacked. Some of you really need a refresher in reading and comprehension. To elaborate on what I said, it was not a case of white Europeans showing up and the slaughter of a benevolent inidigenous population without provocation. I further suggest the following. We showed up, encountered a sometimes violently hostile population and war ensued. As a result of losing a more or less ongoing centuries old war with various tribes we won their territory. Very simplistic and certainly not always the case, but it does apply enough to be considered part of the actual complete truth.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:25:06 AM EDT
This occured in [b]1635[/b]. To suggest that North American indians are the sole participants in brutality is just flat out f*ckin' stupid. Again, this happened in 1635...not in the 1800's. Who set the rules of warfare for who? [b]In the Connecticut Valley, the powerful Pequot tribe had not entered an alliance with the British (as had the Narragansett, the Wampanoag, and the Massachusetts peoples). At first they were far from the centers of colonization. Then, in 1633, the British stole the land where the city of Hartford now sits--land which the Pequot had recently conquered from another tribe. That same year two British slave raiders were killed. The colonists demanded that the Indians who killed the slavers be turned over. The Pequot refused. The Puritan preachers said, from Romans 13:2, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." The colonial governments gathered an armed force of 240 under the command of John Mason. They were joined by a thousand Narragansett warriors. The historian Francis Jennings writes: "Mason proposed to avoid attacking Pequot warriors which would have overtaxed his unseasoned, unreliable troops. Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy's will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk, and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective." The colonist army surrounded a fortified Pequot village on the Mystic River. At sunrise, as the inhabitants slept, the Puritan soldiers set the village on fire. William Bradford, Governor of Plymouth, wrote: "Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire...horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them." Mason himself wrote: "It may be demanded...Should not Christians have more mercy and compassion? But...sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents.... We had sufficient light from the word of God for our proceedings."[/b] Let's not jerk eachother off here fellas, a "savage" is a savage regardless of their place of origin.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:35:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2002 9:35:47 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Originally Posted By fatty: man, there's so much hate and misunderstanding on this board! SteyrAUG, i am used to your inflamatory rhetoric, BUT i do commend you on one small point: instead of just complaining about the "one-sided liberal indoctrination camps" known as "school", you are actually out there reading, researching, and looking for another side to every story. kudos. but the problem you fail to realize, is that most of what you bring to the table also comes from a "one-sided indoctrination camp" known as "Church".
View Quote
Problem being is in most cases the church was the ONLY allowable recorder of history. I purposely ommitted the motivators because they are subject to political interpretation and just stated the events.
Originally Posted By fatty: i certainly don't have all the answers, but i do know, that religious dogma is incapable of change. therefore, your opinions (if you can call them yours) are between 2000 and 200 years old. it is no small wonder that we have made little PROGRESS, yet much war in that time. i would like to see some hard evidence that any person, or people are perfect and without blame or shame of any kind. by the way, the local Indians called Louis and Clark savages because their expedition party refused to eat fish from the rivers, thinking it beneath them, so instead, they feasted on the Indian's dogs! ... yeah, real civilized.
View Quote
No group of people is blameless, that is a given. I also went as a given that the white mans wrongs aginst the indians are well known and documented. I never dusputed them. I just addrerssed the part we aren't supposed to talk about. You know, the "rest of the truth."
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:46:08 AM EDT
I do not get what everyone is getting so upset about. Mr. SteyrAug is just pointing out that the natives were not exactly saints. In fact, they were pretty barbaric. Can anyone disagree with this? After all, they did [b]eat[/b] their enemies. The original post does not say that the Europeans were perfectly civil with the natives. There just might be two sides to this story. So many people are afraid to have their assumptions questioned. Be a little open minded. This reminds me of another thread in a way: it is OK for the "Native Americans" to eat white men, but heaven forbit that a white man should wound a coyote with a bow.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:57:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By USPC40:
Originally Posted By talbalos: They're were only called [i]American Indians[/i] because Columbus thought he'd landed off the coast of India (Which happens to be named after the Indus valley and was subsequently altered by the British to Hindu).
View Quote
Not to be picky, but I thought Columbus thought he had landed in the East Indies (islands between Vietnam and Australia), not India (sub-continent).
View Quote
True, but you're thinking with 21st Century geography. The charts of the day were pretty vague. In the 15th, travel to the east from Europe was best by land and difficult by sea. I also made the mistake of 'dumbing down' things. I've heard that US school kids don't learn it anymore.
The pre-Pilgrim inhabitants of the continent didn't call themselves [i]American Indians[/i]. In fact they call themselves by tribal affiliation.
View Quote
I'm sure they did. If I knew the 100+ possible tribe names, I'd call them that too.
View Quote
Yeah. There is that.
By the way, under your definition, everybody born in Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Chile are Americans too.
View Quote
You are correct. It's a bit arrogant for U.S. citizens to think only THEY are Americans, don't ya think?
View Quote
My point exactly.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 10:08:34 AM EDT
Post from fatty -
by the way, the local Indians called Louis and Clark savages because their expedition party refused to eat fish from the rivers, thinking it beneath them, so instead, they feasted on the Indian's dogs! ... yeah, real civilized.
View Quote
Now [u]that[/u] is certainly odd. I've always considered myself well-versed in all things Lewis and Clark and their trek across the Louisiana Purchase and beyond. Never, ever, I have heard that the members of the expedition preferred 'dog' to 'fish.' And I have read beaucoup books about them. Can you cite some evidence for what the 'local Indians' believe? Not that it would be a bad thing to have to eat a dog under survival conditions, of course, but to eat a dog when other food was available? That seems so odd and out of keeping with what I've read about the men of the [i][b]Corps of Discovery[/b][/i]. Do you remember the name of Meriwether Lewis' dog? Or did he even have one with him? Eric The([u]Subsailor[/u]WouldKnow!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 10:13:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By imposter: I do not get what everyone is getting so upset about. Mr. SteyrAug is just pointing out that the natives were not exactly saints. In fact, they were pretty barbaric. Can anyone disagree with this? After all, they did [b]eat[/b] their enemies. The original post does not say that the Europeans were perfectly civil with the natives. There just might be two sides to this story. So many people are afraid to have their assumptions questioned. Be a little open minded. This reminds me of another thread in a way: it is OK for the "Native Americans" to eat white men, but heaven forbit that a white man should wound a coyote with a bow.
View Quote
Thank you for "getting it." I think what people are getting upset about is this. They didn't fully read or understand the post and/or they read their own interpretations into it. Some mentioned "selective history" and "holocaust denial" when neither was the case. They felt their preconcieved notions/beliefs were threatened and acted accordingly. I didn't cite broken treaties and reservations because they had little to do with the topic and are already known to everyone. I just pointed out the "other" factors of the total picture and many don't want to see it. They are like modern American communist that pretend Stalinist Russia was a perfect community with a few growing pains. I also didn't point out the good that the native americans did, because it is also well known and hammered into us in school. While the Thankgiving story may be simplistic and modfied for indocrination purposes, the fact is they did save the early Europeans butts. Also I happen to think the American Indians on a whole were pretty cool. They lived a unique existence and taught us many things. As a kid one of the coolest things I did was dig up hand axes and spearheads on my families Iowa farm. But none of this means "some" of them weren't murderous bloodthirsty savages from your worst nightmare.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 10:23:00 AM EDT
Anyone else notice the irony: Indians hated capitalism untill they figured out they could open casinos.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 10:24:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By USPC40: I hate it when people say [i]Native American[/i] when they are referring to [i]American Indians[/i]. I'm a Native American and so is anyone born in American. PC categorizing is so full of it. Don't get me started on all the hyphenated Americans. USPC40
View Quote
Even Russell Means (one of the founding members of AIM (the American Indian Movement), who was arrested and convicted in connection with the Wounded Knee incident, and who most recently began a career in acting (starring as Chingachgook in Last of the Mohicans) calls himself an American Indian by your same reasoning. If one of the most outspoken and active American Indian activists calls himself and Indian, who am I to argue?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top