Three sisters age 12 to 16 each have a baby
-
K(arl) wrote: This cliché runs for a while, especially among the people who have no idea of what is the life of the ones living with minimal resources. FWIW, i have a reasonably good idea of what it takes to live with minimal resources. It often isn't much fun. But it's no excuse for abject stupidity. I will accept no opinion hinting that it takes a high level of education to figure out that if you neglect your kids to spend your Gov't cheque on meth, you're gonna quickly lose both. And your kids are gonna grow up fucked.
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
Shog9 wrote: But it's no excuse for abject stupidity Who said it was? Shog9 wrote: if you neglect your kids to spend your Gov't cheque on meth I'm not sure such behaviour is caused by stupidity. Also, I don't think removing the cheques will provide a viable solution. When people are involved in such an aberrant behaviour, I doubt they can be convinced by logical arguments. Let's build less jails, put less money in a repressive system, and invest more in education and psychological/behavioral help: IMO, this might be a more efficient solution.
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778 -
K(arl) wrote: Do you mean the US isn't a nation but a superposition of heterogeneous populations, or are you trying to exclude some categories to get the right numbers? I'm saying that comparing Middletown, IN to Los Angelos, CA is like comparing Greece to Ireland - there are many factors that have to be calcualted into the equation to understand the differences. K(arl) wrote: So you agree than when a society has a rigid moral instead of a good education, the result is disastrous on the youth I'm saying that disasters come in many forms. The children of Middletown, IN are not suffering from a disaster on any kind. They come from strong stable, church going families and are taught the concept of personal responsibility. K(arl) wrote: Ethnicity?? What do you mean? Purity of the Race? I mean race and everything that comes with it - culture, tradition, art, language. Your country, as with all others, may be a mixture of many invading races, but I can assure you that every invasion was met with opposition and that opposition assured the survival of the better parts of what had existed before. Your population will be naturally replaced by one that does not subsribe to your fine secular moral principles on birth control and your legacy will be something of a grand historic joke. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: culture, tradition, art, language To be alive these elements needs to move, transform, evolve. Such things are possible by integration of new elements. Stan Shannon wrote: may be a mixture of many invading races There is no race except the Human Race. Stan Shannon wrote: Your population will be naturally replaced by one that does not subsribe to your fine secular moral principles on birth control and your legacy will be something of a grand historic joke You aren't a reverend anymore, you're a prophet now?
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778 -
K(arl) wrote: Do you mean the US isn't a nation but a superposition of heterogeneous populations, or are you trying to exclude some categories to get the right numbers? I'm saying that comparing Middletown, IN to Los Angelos, CA is like comparing Greece to Ireland - there are many factors that have to be calcualted into the equation to understand the differences. K(arl) wrote: So you agree than when a society has a rigid moral instead of a good education, the result is disastrous on the youth I'm saying that disasters come in many forms. The children of Middletown, IN are not suffering from a disaster on any kind. They come from strong stable, church going families and are taught the concept of personal responsibility. K(arl) wrote: Ethnicity?? What do you mean? Purity of the Race? I mean race and everything that comes with it - culture, tradition, art, language. Your country, as with all others, may be a mixture of many invading races, but I can assure you that every invasion was met with opposition and that opposition assured the survival of the better parts of what had existed before. Your population will be naturally replaced by one that does not subsribe to your fine secular moral principles on birth control and your legacy will be something of a grand historic joke. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: I mean race and everything that comes with it - culture, tradition, art, language. Your country, as with all others, may be a mixture of many invading races, but I can assure you that every invasion was met with opposition and that opposition assured the survival of the better parts of what had existed before. Kind of like the Native American tribes that happened to be on this continent, but were never considered "owners." Those that attempted to "oppose invasion" as you put were considered the worst criminals that existed. Those who chose not to "oppose invasion" were considered the worst criminals that ever existed. Those who chose not to convert their religion, were killed for it. Those who translated the bible into their own language, were killed for it. Those who spoke the name of God as "The Great Spirit" or "The Great Father" or "The Great Mystery" were killed for it. Those who spoke their own language, expressed their culture, were starved, beaten or killed for it. Those who chose not to cloth themselves, were fed to the dogs and the children hung from the trees as a message to other tribes to be more "moral". Something "pure and natural" and of "moral principles" like that? X| _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Would I get beat up for making the obvious association between this and liberalism in general? When the state takes over being parent, we no longer need traditional morality. The state will always forgive us of our sins (well, I mean unless we insult someone's race or culture or something) "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Why do I always get the impressions in your posts that you think "liberalism" is the same as "socialism"? Just to let you know, it is NOT! At least not here in Europe. People believing in "liberalism" are far away from thinking that government is responsible for everything and should help/pay everyone. Indeed, it's the other way round. People believing in "liberalism" at first believe that everybody is free to do what ever he wants (as long as he stays within the laws) but therefore also everybody is responsible for his own life and also some basic stuff should be covered by government. What is completly different to what socialists think. So why are you always mixing those things up? Of course, as socialist do, liberal people have quite different opinions than politicians like George W. Bush (for example according the connection of religion and government), so they have some common things that seem to be oposite to your own believes, but that doesn't make them the same. So can you please stop messing things up and putting us liberals into the same pot as you put socialists? thanx Claudio Claudio's Website Hommingberger Gepardenforelle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I mean race and everything that comes with it - culture, tradition, art, language. Your country, as with all others, may be a mixture of many invading races, but I can assure you that every invasion was met with opposition and that opposition assured the survival of the better parts of what had existed before. Kind of like the Native American tribes that happened to be on this continent, but were never considered "owners." Those that attempted to "oppose invasion" as you put were considered the worst criminals that existed. Those who chose not to "oppose invasion" were considered the worst criminals that ever existed. Those who chose not to convert their religion, were killed for it. Those who translated the bible into their own language, were killed for it. Those who spoke the name of God as "The Great Spirit" or "The Great Father" or "The Great Mystery" were killed for it. Those who spoke their own language, expressed their culture, were starved, beaten or killed for it. Those who chose not to cloth themselves, were fed to the dogs and the children hung from the trees as a message to other tribes to be more "moral". Something "pure and natural" and of "moral principles" like that? X| _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Kind of like the Native American tribes that happened to be on this continent, but were never considered "owners." Those that attempted to "oppose invasion" as you put were considered the worst criminals that existed. Those who chose not to "oppose invasion" were considered the worst criminals that ever existed. Those who chose not to convert their religion, were killed for it. Those who translated the bible into their own language, were killed for it. Those who spoke the name of God as "The Great Spirit" or "The Great Father" or "The Great Mystery" were killed for it. Those who spoke their own language, expressed their culture, were starved, beaten or killed for it. Those who chose not to cloth themselves, were fed to the dogs and the children hung from the trees as a message to other tribes to be more "moral". I doubt you really know as much as you think you do concerning white-indian relations. But regardless, they were pretty much doing all of that to each other long before we ever invaded the place, and which we were doing to each other in Europe long before we invaded here. Human brutality did not begin with the European conguest of the Americas - all cultures throughout history appear to have been very good at it. At least the Indians had brains enough to resist - unlike some modern societies I could (and have) mentioned. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: culture, tradition, art, language To be alive these elements needs to move, transform, evolve. Such things are possible by integration of new elements. Stan Shannon wrote: may be a mixture of many invading races There is no race except the Human Race. Stan Shannon wrote: Your population will be naturally replaced by one that does not subsribe to your fine secular moral principles on birth control and your legacy will be something of a grand historic joke You aren't a reverend anymore, you're a prophet now?
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778K(arl) wrote: To be alive these elements needs to move, transform, evolve. Such things are possible by integration of new elements. Remember that as you're bowing to Mecca. K(arl) wrote: There is no race except the Human Race. A thoroughly western concept - one that will soon be gone. K(arl) wrote: You aren't a reverend anymore, you're a prophet now? Doesn't take ESP to see a train coming straight at you. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm saying that disasters come in many forms. The children of Middletown, IN are not suffering from a disaster on any kind. They come from strong stable, church going families and are taught the concept of personal responsibility. Or they simply "disappear" for a year, sent off to a special school for unwed mothers where they continue school separated from society for 9+ months and return the following school year, and no one speaks about what happened... ever. Lots of things happen when you first say "it never happens here" because you have to prove it never happens by changing the rules. For the Southwest, that particular school for such girls is outside of dallas. The children are automatically given up for adoption, no choice to the girl, as it would destroy the reputation of the town when they return. I don't know the right solution, but a lot gets hidden in the communities that cannot admit that this occurs, and that isn't all together healthy either. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Nope. Haven't noticed any of the girls disappearing lately. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Why do I always get the impressions in your posts that you think "liberalism" is the same as "socialism"? Just to let you know, it is NOT! At least not here in Europe. People believing in "liberalism" are far away from thinking that government is responsible for everything and should help/pay everyone. Indeed, it's the other way round. People believing in "liberalism" at first believe that everybody is free to do what ever he wants (as long as he stays within the laws) but therefore also everybody is responsible for his own life and also some basic stuff should be covered by government. What is completly different to what socialists think. So why are you always mixing those things up? Of course, as socialist do, liberal people have quite different opinions than politicians like George W. Bush (for example according the connection of religion and government), so they have some common things that seem to be oposite to your own believes, but that doesn't make them the same. So can you please stop messing things up and putting us liberals into the same pot as you put socialists? thanx Claudio Claudio's Website Hommingberger Gepardenforelle
I think most political terms no longer nave any meaning. In fact, I think that I am a "liberal" in the original meaning of that word - ie someone who believes that government should be small and non-intrusive and that people should be free to live their own lives in their own way. But, at least in the US, those who discribe themselves as "liberal" are, in fact, socialist. Therefore, I describe myself as a conservative simply to make a distinction. In the US, the socialist have tried to pass themselves off as liberals, knowing that the American people will always reject socialism out of hand - the socialist have hi-jacked liberalism in the US, hence the problem. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Kind of like the Native American tribes that happened to be on this continent, but were never considered "owners." Those that attempted to "oppose invasion" as you put were considered the worst criminals that existed. Those who chose not to "oppose invasion" were considered the worst criminals that ever existed. Those who chose not to convert their religion, were killed for it. Those who translated the bible into their own language, were killed for it. Those who spoke the name of God as "The Great Spirit" or "The Great Father" or "The Great Mystery" were killed for it. Those who spoke their own language, expressed their culture, were starved, beaten or killed for it. Those who chose not to cloth themselves, were fed to the dogs and the children hung from the trees as a message to other tribes to be more "moral". I doubt you really know as much as you think you do concerning white-indian relations. But regardless, they were pretty much doing all of that to each other long before we ever invaded the place, and which we were doing to each other in Europe long before we invaded here. Human brutality did not begin with the European conguest of the Americas - all cultures throughout history appear to have been very good at it. At least the Indians had brains enough to resist - unlike some modern societies I could (and have) mentioned. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: I doubt you really know as much as you think you do concerning white-indian relations. But regardless, they were pretty much doing all of that to each other long before we ever invaded the place, and which we were doing to each other in Europe long before we invaded here. Human brutality did not begin with the European conguest of the Americas - all cultures throughout history appear to have been very good at it. Actually I think from your statements it is you who do not know that much at all. If they had been "doing that" the continent would have already been abandoned. Those who believed in fighting for their territories were killed, they were few. Those who believed in not killing others, were enslaved, and as I said, those who did not believe in clothing were simply killed outright as immoral. I sincerely doubt you know what was done, how long it continued, or how cruel it was. The society of people who developed their own written language the fastest in all the history of this planet was on this continent. We sent them on the trail of tears. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I think most political terms no longer nave any meaning. In fact, I think that I am a "liberal" in the original meaning of that word - ie someone who believes that government should be small and non-intrusive and that people should be free to live their own lives in their own way. But, at least in the US, those who discribe themselves as "liberal" are, in fact, socialist. Therefore, I describe myself as a conservative simply to make a distinction. In the US, the socialist have tried to pass themselves off as liberals, knowing that the American people will always reject socialism out of hand - the socialist have hi-jacked liberalism in the US, hence the problem. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: In fact, I think that I am a "liberal" in the original meaning of that word - ie someone who believes that government should be small and non-intrusive and that people should be free to live their own lives in their own way. That's what I think of me too. And that's why I always feel a bit offended when you use what seems to be todays American version of the world "liberal". But at least I know now why you use that word this way. Claudio Claudio's Website Hommingberger Gepardenforelle
-
Shog9 wrote: But it's no excuse for abject stupidity Who said it was? Shog9 wrote: if you neglect your kids to spend your Gov't cheque on meth I'm not sure such behaviour is caused by stupidity. Also, I don't think removing the cheques will provide a viable solution. When people are involved in such an aberrant behaviour, I doubt they can be convinced by logical arguments. Let's build less jails, put less money in a repressive system, and invest more in education and psychological/behavioral help: IMO, this might be a more efficient solution.
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778K(arl) wrote: I'm not sure such behaviour is caused by stupidity. I'm fairly sure it isn't. The behavior is stupidity... The cause is something else. And i don't mean lack of funds to buy better drugs... K(arl) wrote: Let's build less jails, put less money in a repressive system, and invest more in education and psychological/behavioral help: IMO, this might be a more efficient solution. I didn't suggest any other solution, so i'm not knocking yours. The prison population here is truely astounding. That said, the education is out there...
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
-
K(arl) wrote: To be alive these elements needs to move, transform, evolve. Such things are possible by integration of new elements. Remember that as you're bowing to Mecca. K(arl) wrote: There is no race except the Human Race. A thoroughly western concept - one that will soon be gone. K(arl) wrote: You aren't a reverend anymore, you're a prophet now? Doesn't take ESP to see a train coming straight at you. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: you're bowing to Mecca Paranoia. Funny how rightwingers often rely on fear and hatred. Think positive. Stan Shannon wrote: A thoroughly western concept - one that will soon be gone. Western? You mean european, right?
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778 -
Stan Shannon wrote: I doubt you really know as much as you think you do concerning white-indian relations. But regardless, they were pretty much doing all of that to each other long before we ever invaded the place, and which we were doing to each other in Europe long before we invaded here. Human brutality did not begin with the European conguest of the Americas - all cultures throughout history appear to have been very good at it. Actually I think from your statements it is you who do not know that much at all. If they had been "doing that" the continent would have already been abandoned. Those who believed in fighting for their territories were killed, they were few. Those who believed in not killing others, were enslaved, and as I said, those who did not believe in clothing were simply killed outright as immoral. I sincerely doubt you know what was done, how long it continued, or how cruel it was. The society of people who developed their own written language the fastest in all the history of this planet was on this continent. We sent them on the trail of tears. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
No actually your guite wrong. In fact, I'm a long time student of the subject and was even temporary head librarian at the Western Histories collections at the University of Oklahoma for a time based on my knowledge of Indian history and culture. I am part Cherokee (very,very little) and my family was involved in the Indian wars from Virginia to Texas. So I am well aware of precisely how cruel it was on both sides. (There is a story in my family about my grandmother's uncle who shot a starving Indian in the stomach with a shot gun when he came begging for food in West Texas (circa 1890) he threw the poor man, still alive, into his hog pen for them to eat - when I was a child that story was still being told as a humorous subject) However, intertribal warfare of the most violent sort greatly predates European colonization and continued long after we arrived. The Cherokees you speak of were themselves in the process of conquering and enslaving other Indians of the South east when whites made contact with them. They had previously been trying to expand northward but were repelled by an alliance of Shawnee, Huron and other large tribes. The Indians who survived the Cherokee conquest, the Dakota, migrated into the northern plains where they proceded to destroy the tribes inhabiting that region - all before they ever saw a white man. The same stories can be told for the Commanches, the Kiowa, the Osage, the Pawnee, the Chickasaw and many many others. One need look no further than the way the Aztecs (related to the Apache) treated their neighbors in order to appreciate the true nature of pre-Columbian native American culture. Their culture was preciesly as violent and inhumane as anything in Europe, Africa or Asia, if not more so. EDIT - It may interest you to note than almost all Indian tribes refer to themselves as "The people" and to their neighbors as "The enemy". "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
K(arl) wrote: I'm not sure such behaviour is caused by stupidity. I'm fairly sure it isn't. The behavior is stupidity... The cause is something else. And i don't mean lack of funds to buy better drugs... K(arl) wrote: Let's build less jails, put less money in a repressive system, and invest more in education and psychological/behavioral help: IMO, this might be a more efficient solution. I didn't suggest any other solution, so i'm not knocking yours. The prison population here is truely astounding. That said, the education is out there...
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
Shog9 wrote: And i don't mean lack of funds to buy better drugs I shouldn't but can't resist.... :laugh::laugh:
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778 -
Stan Shannon wrote: you're bowing to Mecca Paranoia. Funny how rightwingers often rely on fear and hatred. Think positive. Stan Shannon wrote: A thoroughly western concept - one that will soon be gone. Western? You mean european, right?
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778K(arl) wrote: Paranoia. Funny how rightwingers often rely on fear and hatred. Think positive. You imply that you are not willing to stand up and defend any aspect of your culture for fear someone might be offended or injured. I don't believe "thinking positive" will change the inevitable. K(arl) wrote: Western? You mean european, right? No. I think all westernes understand that, at least genetically, there is only one human species - that individual differences dwarf racial differences in all but the most insignificant ways (ie, skin color). I don't know a single American who would disagree with that. I certainly don't "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
No actually your guite wrong. In fact, I'm a long time student of the subject and was even temporary head librarian at the Western Histories collections at the University of Oklahoma for a time based on my knowledge of Indian history and culture. I am part Cherokee (very,very little) and my family was involved in the Indian wars from Virginia to Texas. So I am well aware of precisely how cruel it was on both sides. (There is a story in my family about my grandmother's uncle who shot a starving Indian in the stomach with a shot gun when he came begging for food in West Texas (circa 1890) he threw the poor man, still alive, into his hog pen for them to eat - when I was a child that story was still being told as a humorous subject) However, intertribal warfare of the most violent sort greatly predates European colonization and continued long after we arrived. The Cherokees you speak of were themselves in the process of conquering and enslaving other Indians of the South east when whites made contact with them. They had previously been trying to expand northward but were repelled by an alliance of Shawnee, Huron and other large tribes. The Indians who survived the Cherokee conquest, the Dakota, migrated into the northern plains where they proceded to destroy the tribes inhabiting that region - all before they ever saw a white man. The same stories can be told for the Commanches, the Kiowa, the Osage, the Pawnee, the Chickasaw and many many others. One need look no further than the way the Aztecs (related to the Apache) treated their neighbors in order to appreciate the true nature of pre-Columbian native American culture. Their culture was preciesly as violent and inhumane as anything in Europe, Africa or Asia, if not more so. EDIT - It may interest you to note than almost all Indian tribes refer to themselves as "The people" and to their neighbors as "The enemy". "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: Their culture was preciesly as violent and inhumane as anything in Europe, Africa or Asia, if not more so. "their culture" is proof you did not read enough as a student of the subject. There are hundreds of federally recognized tribes, each with different organized structures within, each with differences in behavior, religion, majority peaceful. There are hundreds more who are not federally recognized, again with same variety, and hundreds again that are no more, also with similar variety. By simply putting them in one group with one behavior, you prove my point not yours. the Divergent culture and variety across the continent was as great as any other continent with people. With pueblo culture so greatly influenced by the ideal of "thou shalt not kill" that the pueblo revolt out of their enslavement destroyed themselves even though they won, because the violence horrified them so much they pulled inward. Each tribe was diffent, each group with different cultures and histories and ways. But I do recognize your desire to use a few as representative of all. Warrior tribes represented less than 20% of the overall population, and for the most part were not successful in enslaving other cultures. The Cherokee, as you brought up, began their actions following the chaos of the landing cultures from the east. Knowing that the balance had been upset, they did seek to take advantage of it, but the balance was relatively stable with conflict in the minor % rather than the major. Europeans also took advantage of those cultures and encouraged conflict in hopes of reducing their problems, or giving gifts of small-pox blankets to let nature take its course with those who would not fight each other. The continent was still in a state of growth, not decline until the irradication of the peoples began. It is because 80% of the population was peaceful that the genocide was so successful. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
K(arl) wrote: Paranoia. Funny how rightwingers often rely on fear and hatred. Think positive. You imply that you are not willing to stand up and defend any aspect of your culture for fear someone might be offended or injured. I don't believe "thinking positive" will change the inevitable. K(arl) wrote: Western? You mean european, right? No. I think all westernes understand that, at least genetically, there is only one human species - that individual differences dwarf racial differences in all but the most insignificant ways (ie, skin color). I don't know a single American who would disagree with that. I certainly don't "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: You imply that you are not willing to stand up and defend any aspect of your culture for fear someone might be offended or injured No, I imply my culture isn't threatened by immigration. If there's a threat on my culture, it would rather come from your side of the Atlantic: Hollywood-made BS, reality shows, fast foods, all of these being an attack against our traditionnal way of life. Immigrants come mostly from ex-french colonies, and they often have a cultural background much closer to mine than you can think. Stan Shannon wrote: I don't know a single American who would disagree with that. I certainly don't Good to hear, but then why do you worry about the elimination of your ethnicity?
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778 -
Stan Shannon wrote: Their culture was preciesly as violent and inhumane as anything in Europe, Africa or Asia, if not more so. "their culture" is proof you did not read enough as a student of the subject. There are hundreds of federally recognized tribes, each with different organized structures within, each with differences in behavior, religion, majority peaceful. There are hundreds more who are not federally recognized, again with same variety, and hundreds again that are no more, also with similar variety. By simply putting them in one group with one behavior, you prove my point not yours. the Divergent culture and variety across the continent was as great as any other continent with people. With pueblo culture so greatly influenced by the ideal of "thou shalt not kill" that the pueblo revolt out of their enslavement destroyed themselves even though they won, because the violence horrified them so much they pulled inward. Each tribe was diffent, each group with different cultures and histories and ways. But I do recognize your desire to use a few as representative of all. Warrior tribes represented less than 20% of the overall population, and for the most part were not successful in enslaving other cultures. The Cherokee, as you brought up, began their actions following the chaos of the landing cultures from the east. Knowing that the balance had been upset, they did seek to take advantage of it, but the balance was relatively stable with conflict in the minor % rather than the major. Europeans also took advantage of those cultures and encouraged conflict in hopes of reducing their problems, or giving gifts of small-pox blankets to let nature take its course with those who would not fight each other. The continent was still in a state of growth, not decline until the irradication of the peoples began. It is because 80% of the population was peaceful that the genocide was so successful. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: their culture" is proof you did not read enough as a student of the subject. I meant "culture" in the context of generic culture such as saying "European" culture eventhough many subcultures exist within it. You are correct to point out that there were as maney "cultures" in the pre-columbian western hemesphere as there were tribes - just as any where else on the planet occupied by human beings. Aside from that, however, you are speaking absolute nonsense. There may have been many differneces between tribal cultures but the vast majority were dominated by powerful warrior cults. Some, such as the Caddo and the Arapaho were, indeed, peaceful but only survived by serving as intermediaries between larger tribes or living in areas no other tribes wanted. Study the history of the Chickasaw sometime. They were a small tribe but had a fearsome reputation for exterminating those they went to war with as can be verified by archeological digs in the areas of Mississippi they conquered shortly before the arrival of whites. Please don't assume that I am trying to excuse European behavior, but there is absolutely nothing unique or unusually peaceful about native Americans as compared to other human societies. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: You imply that you are not willing to stand up and defend any aspect of your culture for fear someone might be offended or injured No, I imply my culture isn't threatened by immigration. If there's a threat on my culture, it would rather come from your side of the Atlantic: Hollywood-made BS, reality shows, fast foods, all of these being an attack against our traditionnal way of life. Immigrants come mostly from ex-french colonies, and they often have a cultural background much closer to mine than you can think. Stan Shannon wrote: I don't know a single American who would disagree with that. I certainly don't Good to hear, but then why do you worry about the elimination of your ethnicity?
Fold with us!
All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire, 1694-1778K(arl) wrote: Good to hear, but then why do you worry about the elimination of your ethnicity? I wouldn't worry about it if there were any indication that it were being replaced by something better. It isn't. I defend it because I beleive it to be better than what appears on the horizon to replace it. At the very least, it is as good as any other and has equal right to survive. I will not sacrifice it for some stupid new-age secular morality. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: their culture" is proof you did not read enough as a student of the subject. I meant "culture" in the context of generic culture such as saying "European" culture eventhough many subcultures exist within it. You are correct to point out that there were as maney "cultures" in the pre-columbian western hemesphere as there were tribes - just as any where else on the planet occupied by human beings. Aside from that, however, you are speaking absolute nonsense. There may have been many differneces between tribal cultures but the vast majority were dominated by powerful warrior cults. Some, such as the Caddo and the Arapaho were, indeed, peaceful but only survived by serving as intermediaries between larger tribes or living in areas no other tribes wanted. Study the history of the Chickasaw sometime. They were a small tribe but had a fearsome reputation for exterminating those they went to war with as can be verified by archeological digs in the areas of Mississippi they conquered shortly before the arrival of whites. Please don't assume that I am trying to excuse European behavior, but there is absolutely nothing unique or unusually peaceful about native Americans as compared to other human societies. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
you are still showing examples in very small sections. Although even digs have shown the Anasazi adopted rather violent ways, this is also mentioned in "age of many peoples" by their decendants, most of which gave up those ways long before whites came. If this continent were so terrible no one could have ever crossed it, yet many people did until various peoples started rebelling against their enslavement. I am familiar with the history of the Chickasaw, Apache (about 5), Arapaho, Navaho, Hopi (modern, ancient), various Inuit (also unfairly grouped together, there are multiple groups), about a dozen Pueblo cultures and their differences (the advantage of the area). Anasazi cultures and decendant cultural references as well as the current research, discoveries (and controversies therein), and the list would go on until my hand tires. Anasazi and all the various decendant cultures are my strongest hobby though. I agree that there is nothing unusually different between societies, except that modern interpretation of defense from slaughter is generally reguarded as "warrior". Because we write the history. They are like us, because we made them like us. We granted tribes the right to enslave or rule over others, and still do. We cannot separate our actions from that. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)