Indians: Had Enough of the Mythology?

[PoliticalChic]

Difference being that Native Americans didn't enslave people based on race.

So....some kinds of slavery is acceptable to you?

You're not able to condemn slavery categorically???


What the heck is wrong with you????

 

[Ravi]

Difference being that Native Americans didn't enslave people based on race.

So....some kinds of slavery is acceptable to you?

You're not able to condemn slavery categorically???


What the heck is wrong with you????

No, some forms of slavery are worse than others because it dehumanizes an entire race.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Difference being that Native Americans didn't enslave people based on race.

So....some kinds of slavery is acceptable to you?

You're not able to condemn slavery categorically???


What the heck is wrong with you????

No, some forms of slavery are worse than others because it dehumanizes an entire race.

That's absurd.
It's so stupid that I'm sure you'd like to retract it, in light of the following:
"1. About 25 miles West of Amstetten, on the Danube, was the town of Mauthausen. Prisoners from the concentration camp at Dachau had been sent to build a much larger facility where political prisoners could be held. The state owned Mauthausen expanded, and by 1944, it was grouped with nearby Gusen, as a commercial enterprise.

1. The German mining company DEST, used the prisoners as slave labor, to work in the quarries, or to be hired out to local manufacturers and farmers. The Amstetten railway network came in handy to transport the slaves.
   1. The labor supply was inexhaustible…and when a prisoner’s productivity dropped, they would simply be transported to Mauthausen-Gusen and killed."
      Stefanie Marsh and Bohan Pancevski, “I’m No Monster.”

So....this slavery is not high on your list of savagery.



2. What is important here is that I've shown that slavery was as much a part of Indian culture as any other culture.

 

[Ravi]

Difference being that Native Americans didn't enslave people based on race.

So....some kinds of slavery is acceptable to you?

You're not able to condemn slavery categorically???


What the heck is wrong with you????

No, some forms of slavery are worse than others because it dehumanizes an entire race.

That's absurd.
It's so stupid that I'm sure you'd like to retract is, in light of the following:
"1. About 25 miles West of Amstetten, on the Danube, was the town of Mauthausen. Prisoners from the concentration camp at Dachau had been sent to build a much larger facility where political prisoners could be held. The state owned Mauthausen expanded, and by 1944, it was grouped with nearby Gusen, as a commercial enterprise.

1. The German mining company DEST, used the prisoners as slave labor, to work in the quarries, or to be hired out to local manufacturers and farmers. The Amstetten railway network came in handy to transport the slaves.
   1. The labor supply was inexhaustible…and when a prisoner’s productivity dropped, they would simply be transported to Mauthausen-Gusen and killed."
      Stefanie Marsh and Bohan Pancevski, “I’m No Monster.”

So....this slavery is not high on your list of savagery.



2. What is important here is that I've shown that slavery was as much a part of Indian culture as any other culture.

That was genocide. What WE did was wrong, what the German's did was worse, and what the NAs did didn't touch either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "It was a hugely profitable death camp and the only camp designated Grade III (“incorrigible enemies of the Reich ). The motto was ‘Vernichtung durch Arbeit (“Extermination through Work”)
   1. Far beyond Jews, the camp included communists, socialists, Polish boy scouts, homosexuals, Romanies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, anarchists, Spanish Republicans who had fled Franco.
   2. In 1943, life expectancy in the camps was 6 months; by war’s end it was 3 months.
2. Slave labor was responsible for construction of Austria’s largest steelworks and Steyr munitons, Puch automobiles, and most businesses in Amstetten." Ibid.

I can't imagine anyone excusing any kind of slavery.

 

[Ravi]

1. "It was a hugely profitable death camp and the only camp designated Grade III (“incorrigible enemies of the Reich ). The motto was ‘Vernichtung durch Arbeit (“Extermination through Work”)
   1. Far beyond Jews, the camp included communists, socialists, Polish boy scouts, homosexuals, Romanies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, anarchists, Spanish Republicans who had fled Franco.
   2. In 1943, life expectancy in the camps was 6 months; by war’s end it was 3 months.
2. Slave labor was responsible for construction of Austria’s largest steelworks and Steyr munitons, Puch automobiles, and most businesses in Amstetten." Ibid.

I can't imagine anyone excusing any kind of slavery.

I can't either, and yet here you are excusing the German genocide of Jews.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is a teachable moment.

Here we find sister Ravi making allowances for one group that had slaves, but not others....

Let's stipulate that Ravi considers slavery by Indians as not close to the slavery of plantation owners, or Nazi industrialitsts.

She said "What WE did was wrong, what the German's did was worse, and what the NAs did didn't touch either."


1. I don't know who the "we" is....whites? Americans? Europeans? Other blacks? All of whom owned slaves.
But not Indians who were slave owners......?
No logic there;



2. See...here is the corner Liberals paint themselves into: Liberals cannot have principles.

They find themselves making allowances and excuses for 'authenitic' groups, or recognized groups....or groups whose support they seek, but cannot condemn misbehavior of said groups.
Under Liberalism there can never be justice.


3 "If “fairness” is associated with group-identity,with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice.Law, to be just, but be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants."
David Mamet

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "It was a hugely profitable death camp and the only camp designated Grade III (“incorrigible enemies of the Reich ). The motto was ‘Vernichtung durch Arbeit (“Extermination through Work”)
   1. Far beyond Jews, the camp included communists, socialists, Polish boy scouts, homosexuals, Romanies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, anarchists, Spanish Republicans who had fled Franco.
   2. In 1943, life expectancy in the camps was 6 months; by war’s end it was 3 months.
2. Slave labor was responsible for construction of Austria’s largest steelworks and Steyr munitons, Puch automobiles, and most businesses in Amstetten." Ibid.

I can't imagine anyone excusing any kind of slavery.

I can't either, and yet here you are excusing the German genocide of Jews.

I did no such thing.

You must be so ashamed of what you wrote, that you're reduced to lying about me.

 

[Ravi]

Nope, when you post "far beyond Jews" you are aiming to belittle the genocide committed against them.

 

[Ravi]

Let it be noted that PC thinks enslaving black people is a-okay.

 

[Camp]

history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm

Here is what these guys have to say about the topic of germ warfare during the period being discussed.

By now you should have realized that I'm never wrong.

Gill's work is based on the lies of Francis Parkman.

" At that moment, the "new Indian history" that has revolutionized early American scholarship was just coming into its own, and its most vociferous advocate, Francis Jennings, dealt Parkman a death blow in a critical essay published in 1985. Two years earlier, the Library of America had unearthed Parkman's writings from the seventeen volumes of the nineteenth-century Frontenac edition and re-embalmed them in a new two-volume set, weighing in at over three thousand pages. Jennings countered the canonical authority of the Library of America imprimatur with an assault on Parkman's much vaunted historical accuracy—"his 'facts' cannot be relied on and are sometimes fabricated"—and on the assumptions, biases, and outright prejudices that "poisoned" his approach to the past."
Common-place How and Why to Read Francis Parkman

Actually, your nutty theses are almost always exposed as nutty within the first few pages of the thread. Usually for the same reason this one is being shown to be nutty. You are taking both Gill's and Jennings's writings out of context and cherry picking quotes to fit your agenda, while ignoring the fuller content and conclusions of the authors. Gill is giving an overall view of germ warfare during the colonial period that allows the reader to make their own conclusions about Parkman's assessment of the Fort Pitt incident. Jennings challenged Parkman's conclusions 30 years ago in an essay, but Parkman's conclusions are still generally used and accepted today by historians.

How simple is it to prove you to be a moron?

This simple: Parkman himself says he couldn't find the supposed letter that proves the slander.....but goes on to make the fabricated argument.

So...what sort of moron accepts and advances the lie?

You are distorting the critics of Parkman's assessment and ignoring the supporting documents and evidence used by him and others to reach his conclusions. Here is another link that explains how those conclusions and a detailed list, with links to the evidence that makes your conclusion on this portion of your thesis look so ridiculous. Included in this link are links to micro film image's to the actual supporting letters that became the basis of Parkman's conclusions. The original letters are still in existence.
You are attempting to stereotype 400 years of history, hundreds of distinct tribes and cultures, a dozen European conquerors and a thousand historians into a silly thesis that ignores factual data that has been available to historians for hundreds of years. The topic of Amherst, Fort Pitt and small pox is just one tiny slice of that history, but one you haven't gotten right. Instead of accepting documents that are hundreds of years old you have chosen to base your thesis on an essay written in 1985 that doesn't even support your thesis the way you present it when it is taken in whole and reviewed in an objective way.

umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope, when you post "far beyond Jews" you are aiming to belittle the genocide committed against them.

You're really embarrassed, aren't you.
And, you should be.

BTW...those are quotes from the book, as noted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let it be noted that PC thinks enslaving black people is a-okay.

Another thing about Liberals like you....they lie.
As above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm

Here is what these guys have to say about the topic of germ warfare during the period being discussed.

By now you should have realized that I'm never wrong.

Gill's work is based on the lies of Francis Parkman.

" At that moment, the "new Indian history" that has revolutionized early American scholarship was just coming into its own, and its most vociferous advocate, Francis Jennings, dealt Parkman a death blow in a critical essay published in 1985. Two years earlier, the Library of America had unearthed Parkman's writings from the seventeen volumes of the nineteenth-century Frontenac edition and re-embalmed them in a new two-volume set, weighing in at over three thousand pages. Jennings countered the canonical authority of the Library of America imprimatur with an assault on Parkman's much vaunted historical accuracy—"his 'facts' cannot be relied on and are sometimes fabricated"—and on the assumptions, biases, and outright prejudices that "poisoned" his approach to the past."
Common-place How and Why to Read Francis Parkman

Actually, your nutty theses are almost always exposed as nutty within the first few pages of the thread. Usually for the same reason this one is being shown to be nutty. You are taking both Gill's and Jennings's writings out of context and cherry picking quotes to fit your agenda, while ignoring the fuller content and conclusions of the authors. Gill is giving an overall view of germ warfare during the colonial period that allows the reader to make their own conclusions about Parkman's assessment of the Fort Pitt incident. Jennings challenged Parkman's conclusions 30 years ago in an essay, but Parkman's conclusions are still generally used and accepted today by historians.

How simple is it to prove you to be a moron?

This simple: Parkman himself says he couldn't find the supposed letter that proves the slander.....but goes on to make the fabricated argument.

So...what sort of moron accepts and advances the lie?

You are distorting the critics of Parkman's assessment and ignoring the supporting documents and evidence used by him and others to reach his conclusions. Here is another link that explains how those conclusions and a detailed list, with links to the evidence that makes your conclusion on this portion of your thesis look so ridiculous. Included in this link are links to micro film image's to the actual supporting letters that became the basis of Parkman's conclusions. The original letters are still in existence.
You are attempting to stereotype 400 years of history, hundreds of distinct tribes and cultures, a dozen European conquerors and a thousand historians into a silly thesis that ignores factual data that has been available to historians for hundreds of years. The topic of Amherst, Fort Pitt and small pox is just one tiny slice of that history, but one you haven't gotten right. Instead of accepting documents that are hundreds of years old you have chosen to base your thesis on an essay written in 1985 that doesn't even support your thesis the way you present it when it is taken in whole and reviewed in an objective way.

umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html

"You are distorting the critics of Parkman's assessment...."

Liar.

Your English lesson for today...."distort: To give a false or misleading account of; misrepresent."


Parkman quotes a letter saying :“Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

But then he says: "I have not found this letter..."

That ends his credibility.

You never had any to lose.


Distort???
You moron, how is "I have not found this letter..." distorted??

What could it mean other than the clear and obvious meaning??


So typical of Liberals, lying or agreeing to lies.
As long as it slanders anyone they disagree with...
Bet you also believe that J.Edgar Hoover wore a dress.

 

[koshergrl]

People who have limited understanding of native cultures tend to romanticize them and think they were a lot more *civilized* than they actually were/are.

 

[koshergrl]

I think it's an innate racism..they associate the natives with innocent animals, instead of recognizing their humanity...with all it's flaws.

They were just human. And they did some pretty atrocious things. Ultimately, they were conquered. It doesn't mean they were *nicer* than the people who conquered them. It just means they were weaker.

 

[Camp]

history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm

Here is what these guys have to say about the topic of germ warfare during the period being discussed.

By now you should have realized that I'm never wrong.

Gill's work is based on the lies of Francis Parkman.

" At that moment, the "new Indian history" that has revolutionized early American scholarship was just coming into its own, and its most vociferous advocate, Francis Jennings, dealt Parkman a death blow in a critical essay published in 1985. Two years earlier, the Library of America had unearthed Parkman's writings from the seventeen volumes of the nineteenth-century Frontenac edition and re-embalmed them in a new two-volume set, weighing in at over three thousand pages. Jennings countered the canonical authority of the Library of America imprimatur with an assault on Parkman's much vaunted historical accuracy—"his 'facts' cannot be relied on and are sometimes fabricated"—and on the assumptions, biases, and outright prejudices that "poisoned" his approach to the past."
Common-place How and Why to Read Francis Parkman

Actually, your nutty theses are almost always exposed as nutty within the first few pages of the thread. Usually for the same reason this one is being shown to be nutty. You are taking both Gill's and Jennings's writings out of context and cherry picking quotes to fit your agenda, while ignoring the fuller content and conclusions of the authors. Gill is giving an overall view of germ warfare during the colonial period that allows the reader to make their own conclusions about Parkman's assessment of the Fort Pitt incident. Jennings challenged Parkman's conclusions 30 years ago in an essay, but Parkman's conclusions are still generally used and accepted today by historians.

How simple is it to prove you to be a moron?

This simple: Parkman himself says he couldn't find the supposed letter that proves the slander.....but goes on to make the fabricated argument.

So...what sort of moron accepts and advances the lie?

You are distorting the critics of Parkman's assessment and ignoring the supporting documents and evidence used by him and others to reach his conclusions. Here is another link that explains how those conclusions and a detailed list, with links to the evidence that makes your conclusion on this portion of your thesis look so ridiculous. Included in this link are links to micro film image's to the actual supporting letters that became the basis of Parkman's conclusions. The original letters are still in existence.
You are attempting to stereotype 400 years of history, hundreds of distinct tribes and cultures, a dozen European conquerors and a thousand historians into a silly thesis that ignores factual data that has been available to historians for hundreds of years. The topic of Amherst, Fort Pitt and small pox is just one tiny slice of that history, but one you haven't gotten right. Instead of accepting documents that are hundreds of years old you have chosen to base your thesis on an essay written in 1985 that doesn't even support your thesis the way you present it when it is taken in whole and reviewed in an objective way.

umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html

"You are distorting the critics of Parkman's assessment...."

Liar.

Your English lesson for today...."distort: To give a false or misleading account of; misrepresent."


Parkman quotes a letter saying :“Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

But then he says: "I have not found this letter..."

That ends his credibility.

You never had any to lose.


Distort???
You moron, how is "I have not found this letter..." distorted??

What could it mean other than the clear and obvious meaning??


So typical of Liberals, lying or agreeing to lies.
As long as it slanders anyone they disagree with...
Bet you also believe that J.Edgar Hoover wore a dress.

He admits that he did not find the letter. So he isn't lying, he is being honest. He explains how he reached his conclusion that the rumored letter was real by referring to supporting documents. Other officers in Amherst's command wrote about the topic in question. You distort by not including the documents and evidence with your analysis. You have cherry picked the Parkman quote and use it by itself without including pertinent other quotes. You are distorting by omission of factual data that changes the whole nature of your claim. You accuse the author of lying when he in fact pointed out that his claim was a speculation and conclusion reached dependent of corroborating evidence and documents. You ignore those facts and instead call him a liar. You use that claim to declare victory and the rightness of your thesis. You claim you caught a historian lying, therefore, you claim you are right. Problem is you didn't catch the historian lying and someone caught you lying instead. Worse, someone posted indisputable academic factual data from a recognized University to prove your thesis is based on BullCr-p.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hopefully, even our dense pal Cabbie can begin to understand how fictional his image of the Indian is.

Hopefully.

Now...one more note on how erroneous view of the Indians as caretaker of the natural environment is....



7. Of course, if one gets their view of history from Kevin Costner’s 'Dances with Wolves,' and of the Disney cartoon 'Pocahontas,' with its nature-loving Indians and destructive British settlers, or Liberal universities (redundant?) they probably believe that Indians sent smoke signals to each other by waving a blanket over a campfire. The reality was more dramatic: while the Indians regularly used fire to communicate with each other, they wouldn't bother to burn anything less than an entire hillside. Budiansnky, S., "Nature’s Keepers: The New Science of Nature Management," p.107.


a. Lewis and Clark, in the first serious study of Native American lifestyles at the beginning of the nineteenth century, wrote that Indians in the Rocky Mountains would set trees alight ‘as after-dinner entertainment; the huge trees would explode like Roman candles in the night.'
Ibid.


b. Now...get this study:
B.L. Turner and Karl Butzer wrote an article for Environment in which they looked at the extent to which evidence supports the view that the American Indians, prior to Columbus, lived in a state of minimal interference with nature. The found the very opposite!!!
These are their conclusions with regard to the forests of America:

· Deforestation in the Americas was probably greater before the Columbian encounter than it was for several centuries thereafter

· Many of the primeval forests that we supposedly encountered by the Europeans in 1492 and that remain today, including forests with the highest biodiversity, were not ‘pristine’ or ‘virgin’ but were the product of extensive use and modification by Amerindians

· The scale of deforestation, or forest modification, in the American tropics has only recently begun to rival that undertaken prior to the Columbian encounter. Turner, B.L. and Butzer, K.W., 'The Columbian Encounter and Land-Use Change', in Environment, Vol 34 No 8, October 1992, p.42.




These savages are the caretakers of nature?????

Does burning it to the ground constitute living in harmony with nature????


So....
a. there was no genocide.
b. they owned slaves
c. they destroyed the environment



More tomorrow.

 

[PoliticalChic]

By now you should have realized that I'm never wrong.

Gill's work is based on the lies of Francis Parkman.

" At that moment, the "new Indian history" that has revolutionized early American scholarship was just coming into its own, and its most vociferous advocate, Francis Jennings, dealt Parkman a death blow in a critical essay published in 1985. Two years earlier, the Library of America had unearthed Parkman's writings from the seventeen volumes of the nineteenth-century Frontenac edition and re-embalmed them in a new two-volume set, weighing in at over three thousand pages. Jennings countered the canonical authority of the Library of America imprimatur with an assault on Parkman's much vaunted historical accuracy—"his 'facts' cannot be relied on and are sometimes fabricated"—and on the assumptions, biases, and outright prejudices that "poisoned" his approach to the past."
Common-place How and Why to Read Francis Parkman

Actually, your nutty theses are almost always exposed as nutty within the first few pages of the thread. Usually for the same reason this one is being shown to be nutty. You are taking both Gill's and Jennings's writings out of context and cherry picking quotes to fit your agenda, while ignoring the fuller content and conclusions of the authors. Gill is giving an overall view of germ warfare during the colonial period that allows the reader to make their own conclusions about Parkman's assessment of the Fort Pitt incident. Jennings challenged Parkman's conclusions 30 years ago in an essay, but Parkman's conclusions are still generally used and accepted today by historians.

How simple is it to prove you to be a moron?

This simple: Parkman himself says he couldn't find the supposed letter that proves the slander.....but goes on to make the fabricated argument.

So...what sort of moron accepts and advances the lie?

You are distorting the critics of Parkman's assessment and ignoring the supporting documents and evidence used by him and others to reach his conclusions. Here is another link that explains how those conclusions and a detailed list, with links to the evidence that makes your conclusion on this portion of your thesis look so ridiculous. Included in this link are links to micro film image's to the actual supporting letters that became the basis of Parkman's conclusions. The original letters are still in existence.
You are attempting to stereotype 400 years of history, hundreds of distinct tribes and cultures, a dozen European conquerors and a thousand historians into a silly thesis that ignores factual data that has been available to historians for hundreds of years. The topic of Amherst, Fort Pitt and small pox is just one tiny slice of that history, but one you haven't gotten right. Instead of accepting documents that are hundreds of years old you have chosen to base your thesis on an essay written in 1985 that doesn't even support your thesis the way you present it when it is taken in whole and reviewed in an objective way.

umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html

"You are distorting the critics of Parkman's assessment...."

Liar.

Your English lesson for today...."distort: To give a false or misleading account of; misrepresent."


Parkman quotes a letter saying :“Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

But then he says: "I have not found this letter..."

That ends his credibility.

You never had any to lose.


Distort???
You moron, how is "I have not found this letter..." distorted??

What could it mean other than the clear and obvious meaning??


So typical of Liberals, lying or agreeing to lies.
As long as it slanders anyone they disagree with...
Bet you also believe that J.Edgar Hoover wore a dress.

He admits that he did not find the letter. So he isn't lying, he is being honest. He explains how he reached his conclusion that the rumored letter was real by referring to supporting documents. Other officers in Amherst's command wrote about the topic in question. You distort by not including the documents and evidence with your analysis. You have cherry picked the Parkman quote and use it by itself without including pertinent other quotes. You are distorting by omission of factual data that changes the whole nature of your claim. You accuse the author of lying when he in fact pointed out that his claim was a speculation and conclusion reached dependent of corroborating evidence and documents. You ignore those facts and instead call him a liar. You use that claim to declare victory and the rightness of your thesis. You claim you caught a historian lying, therefore, you claim you are right. Problem is you didn't catch the historian lying and someone caught you lying instead. Worse, someone posted indisputable academic factual data from a recognized University to prove your thesis is based on BullCr-p.

OK...you're a liar, too.

Feel better?

 

[initforme]

As far as I am concerned I would say most all slave owners were mean and mistreated their slaves miserably. That goes for any of our founding fathers and presidents who owned them. Too lazy to do their own work. This pc u cannot debate.