6
   

What are the positives to being biracial?

 
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 02:54 am
@snood,
Quote:
Specifically what part of the “historical record” was Max editing?

He objected to BillRW's historical accounts of Native Americans which portrayed the Plains Indians as warlike. They were warlike. So were the Iroquois. It doesn't mean their descendants should be castigated as bellicose people, or in Jefferson's words, "merciless Indian savages." I'm trying to find out if maxdancona believes that unflattering aspects of history should be ignored because they might offend modern sensibilities. It surprised me because it's akin to the sort of "political correctness" which he often decries. That's all.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 03:26 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Your response was attacking my rejection of BillRM's racism.

It really wasn't. I was questioning one element of your argument, which seemed like a rejection of the historical record.

Quote:
If you don't want to be involved in the argument then why you're jumping into the middle of it.

I'm not "jumping into the middle of it", I'm trying to clarify one portion of it, based on what you said in the quoted statement.

Quote:
It sure seems like you were supporting Bill's racist comments.

I wasn't. I joined the discussion subsequent to those exchanges and never made a statement supporting one side or the other. My interest was specifically in your apparent rejection of historical facts not your rejection of racism.

Personally, I wish the Europeans had never left their little enclave on the western end of the Asian land mass. I'm sorry that European invaders weren't immediately destroyed upon setting foot in the Western Hemisphere. Or anywhere else where they attempted to expropriate newly-discovered land, exploit newly- available resources, or exterminate newly-found peoples and cultures. **** the conquistador mentality. **** the missionary mentality. **** the "white man's burden" mentality.

If you want to discuss what you specifically consider to be "BillRW's racist comments" I'd consider that a different discussion, unrelated to the limited topic I'm discussing with you here. I'm thinking of historical events like the slaughter of the Armenians by the Ottomans and how present-day Turks feel they are being attacked by the mention of this aspects of history. There seems to be a desire to whitewash events in the past rather than deal with them seriously and critically.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 06:37 am
@hightor,
Just trying to clarify terms. Were the Europeans who conquered and appropriated the land “warlike”, in your view?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 06:59 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

Just trying to clarify terms. Were the Europeans who conquered and appropriated the land “warlike”, in your view?


You are being silly as I question if anyone had claimed the Europeans was and are not now warlike in this thread but so was many many of the native tribes that seized their neighbor tribes lands also along with their women in many cases.

Some of those warlike tribes also did cheerful taken part on one side or the other in Europeans conflicts even as late as the US civil war.

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War

Native Americans in the American Civil War participated as individuals, bands, tribes, and nations in numerous skirmishes and battles.[1] 28,693 Native Americans served during the war,[2] mostly in the Confederate military and a minority in the Union.[3] They participated in battles such as Pea Ridge, Second Manassas, Antietam, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and in Federal assaults on Petersburg.[1] They were found in the Eastern, Western, and Trans-Mississippi Theaters. At the outbreak of the war, for example, most Cherokees sided with the Union, but they soon allied with the Confederacy.[4] Native Americans fought knowing they might jeopardize their sovereignty, unique cultures, and ancestral lands if they ended up on the losing side of the Civil War.[1][4]


It is annoying that when you and people like you can not attack the facts so you add positions to those who dare to disagree with you that they had never taken and add the label of racist on top of that.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 07:01 am
@snood,
They were worse. Unlike the various Native American tribes which occasionally had inter-tribal conflicts, the European invaders saw the native inhabitants as impediments to colonization, worthy of extermination. Much worse, if you ask me.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 07:08 am
@hightor,
I'm with you on this one.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 07:13 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

They were worse. Unlike the various Native American tribes which occasionally had inter-tribal conflicts, the European invaders saw the native inhabitants as impediments to colonization, worthy of extermination. Much worse, if you ask me.


Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree. I struggle with narrow characterizations of non-white civilizations as “savage” or “warlike”, if similar or worse activities by European settlers are simply excused as a reasonable and necessary part of their culture.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 07:18 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

They were worse. Unlike the various Native American tribes which occasionally had inter-tribal conflicts, the European invaders saw the native inhabitants as impediments to colonization, worthy of extermination. Much worse, if you ask me.


LOL the reason that they was worst is that first the Europeans a had longer history of very large scale conflicts to draw on and they was aided by the diseases they carry weakening the Tribes abilities to wage war.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 07:40 am
You know I had just taken note that I seems to be the only one linking to Historical Facts on this thread and even when a poster was ask to link to his claim that the Lew and Clark woman native guide was a victim of rape no one would or likely could post a link to that claim.

So when the historical facts does not support your falling back on labeling the poster who dare to disagree with you a racist is the way to go?
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 07:42 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
LOL the reason that they was worst is that first the Europeans a had longer history of very large scale conflicts to draw on and they was aided by the diseases they carry weakening the Tribes abilities to wage war.

That's the reason they succeeded but in itself does not make them "worse". The sheer rapaciousness of the European invaders differentiates the war against the native inhabitants from inter-tribal skirmishes.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 07:55 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
LOL the reason that they was worst is that first the Europeans a had longer history of very large scale conflicts to draw on and they was aided by the diseases they carry weakening the Tribes abilities to wage war.

That's the reason they succeeded but in itself does not make them "worse". The sheer rapaciousness of the European invaders differentiates the war against the native inhabitants from inter-tribal skirmishes.


Nonsense as some of those tribes repeat some of the tribes not all of them had a way of life revolving around conflicts with other tribes.

Even employing torture as part of their warfare tool kit.

One more link is upcoming below.

Quote:

https://truewestmagazine.com/indian-tribes-torture/

Long before the Euro-Americans arrived Indian tribes were constantly at war with one another. Captives were often put to death. While being tortured, they were expected to show self-control, bragging of their prowess as a warrior, showing defiance and singing their “death songs.” These were public events and the entire village attended, including the children. Some even participated in the torture, especially the women whose husbands or sons had died in battle. It was not uncommon to burn the captives. Execution of a captive, especially an adult male, could take several days and nights.

With some tribes, captives could be kept alive and assimilated into the tribe. When the Euro-Americans arrived they applied the established customary traditions to the newcomers.

Nearly all the tribes tortured their captives to some degree. Some, like the Plains tribes and the Apache were especially brutal. Rape was pretty common for women as was disfigurement. Many women who were taken as youngsters and were not ransomed eventually grew up and were taken as wives. Some, like Olive Oatman returned to her white culture after five years, while others like Cynthia Ann Parker, captured by Comanche at the age of nine on May 19th, 1836, she remained with her adopted people, eventually married the Quahadi, Chief, Peta Nokona and bore him three children. The oldest, Quanah became the greatest of Comanche chieftains.

On December 18th, 1860, Texas Rangers under Captain Sul Ross raided a Comanche hunting camp, captured Cynthia or Na’ura as she was now called, her infant daughter and brought her home. Na’ura missed her life as a Comanche and tried to escape several times. She learned that her young son, Pecos died of smallpox and her daughter, Topsanna, died of pneumonia. The stress of losing her children and unhappiness in not being able to rejoin her people brought on severe depression led to her death sometime around 1870.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 08:09 am
@hightor,
One thing I find amazing in this thread is that facts does not matter at all not to the smallest degree if those facts does not totally support the idea that native american tribes was just victims of evil whites.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 08:10 am
@BillRM,
I'm well aware of those aspects of pre-Columbian native culture. And, as a counterpoint, not all the Euro invaders were racist murderers. But I don't see those inter-tribal conflicts and their attendant cruelties, as serious, tragic, and reprehensible as the European conquest of the New World. I'm willing to concede that, had the tables been turned and the native Americans successfully invaded Europe for plunder, I might consider them with as much disdain as I do the Euros. But that's not what happened. I don't wish to argue this point with you. We may simply have different perspectives on history, what was, and what might have been.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 08:13 am
@BillRM,
It’s not about facts, it’s about your interpretation of said facts.

You are using the fact that the native Americans were less than perfect as justification for their subjugation.

There is no justification.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 08:26 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

I'm well aware of those aspects of pre-Columbian native culture. And, as a counterpoint, not all the Euro invaders were racist murderers. But I don't see those inter-tribal conflicts and their attendant cruelties, as serious, tragic, and reprehensible as the European conquest of the New World. I don't wish to argue this point with you. We may simply have different perspectives on history, what was, and what might have been.


Yes we do not agree for one thing the life of plain Indians before the ships arrive was hard as in very very hard and very short on average.

Painting the natives as happy nature lovers before the evil whites arrived to kill and rape happen to be completely false.

I am too tires at the moment to look up the links but I remember reading that there are now more of a population with native blood alive in the US now that then when Europeans first arrived.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 08:38 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

It’s not about facts, it’s about your interpretation of said facts.

You are using the fact that the native Americans were less than perfect as justification for their subjugation.

There is no justification.


Love to see you cut and paste any of my postings that support the subjugation of anyone.

At worst I am stating that the Europeans was not evil and just did what every other new groups did over thousands of years when settling into their new home.

The now so call natives did not all arrived at the same time and there are indications that whole groups was wipe completely out by ,at the time, newcomers.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 08:46 am
@BillRM,
Instead of demanding I prove something by your standards why don’t you consider why I, and everyone else on this thread, think you are justifying the subjugation of the indigenous population.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 09:40 am
@izzythepush,
It's the blame the victim syndrome. Just like it is today. Trayvon Martin gets murdered. He automatically is designated a thug. Indians get murdered they automatically deserved it.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 09:44 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

It's the blame the victim syndrome. Just like it is today. Trayvon Martin gets murdered. He automatically is designated a thug. Indians get murdered they automatically deserved it.


And when one points out this kind of thing, they are automatically ‘virtue signaling’. Maddening.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2021 09:46 am
@izzythepush,
LOL daring to take the position that Europeans are no more evil than any other group in world history seem enough to produce such nonsense claims or that the natives was not just peaceful nature lovers and who was not willing taken part in European conflicts.

Now let address the moving of the tribes to west of the Mississippi for example. Leaving powerful arm groups that already have some of the tribes taking sides with your enemy IE England in the very heart of your nation is not wise.

Now moving all the tribes even those who had fought on your side seem over the top and the moving should had been far far better supported so there was far less deaths then want happen still it was not in itself an evil thing to do.

Jackson was a SOB but that does not make all Americans at the time evil or racist.

Quote:

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/conflict-with-native-american-tribes

st Native American tribes during the War of 1812 sided with British because they wanted to safeguard their tribal lands, and hoped a British victory would relieve the unrelenting pressure they were experiencing from U.S. settlers who wanted to push further into Native American lands in southern Canada and in the lower Great Lakes and the south. Although some tribes remained neutral and some supported the United States, the majority allied with Britain.

The Shawnee leader Tecumseh and his charismatic younger brother Tenskwatawa, a religious revivalist known as The Prophet, spearheaded a movement for Native American political and military unity to resist settler encroachment. When war began, Tecumseh persuaded activist warriors from tribes like the Fox, Chickamauga, Iroquois, Kickapoo, Mascouten, Mohawk, Ojibway, Piankeshaw, Potawatomi, Sauk and Shawnee to form an alliance to aid the British. This confederation supplied vital support to British forces on the western frontier and in Canada, notably in forcing surrenders of U.S. outposts on Mackinac Island and Detroit and aiding British victories at Queenston Heights and Beaver Dams in Ontario. After Tecumseh was killed in October 1813 at the Battle of the Thames in Upper Canada, the alliance began to fall apart, considerably diminishing the power of Native Americans east of the Mississippi to retain their homelands.

In western Georgia and eastern Mississippi Territory (now Alabama), General Andrew Jackson's forces defeated factions in the Creek Nation's ongoing civil war that opposed expansion of U.S. settlements in Creek territory, raising Jackson's national profile and forcing the Creeks to negotiate a peace treaty. The resulting Treaty of Fort Jackson compelled the Creeks to surrender about 23 million acres (most of southern Georgia and half of present-day Alabama) to the United States.


History is never simple.
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/20/2024 at 01:35:25