Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sorry, but exploitation was not genocide. And Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they crossed the pond.
The Allies reconciled after after 2 bloody World wars. Became quite close to each other. Neither blames the others for their shortcomings just 2 or 3 generations later.. The Japanese recovered from 2 atomic bombs and complete devastation and dont hold any long lasting "inter-racial" or nationalistic bias or reparational demands for the AUTHORIZED murders of 100s of thousands. Neither do the Brits who survived a rocket/air assault and were on the brink of total national destruction..
I LIKE reconciliation on past atrocities. The left deplores reconciliation because it is politically "inconvenient".. If they cant' point to folks TODAY as "slavery lovers" -- they lose a major playing card for race tension.,
I like the idea of "Never Again".. Which is the Jewish outlook at the Holocaust. The past is the past, but resolve to never "go there" again. Anyone NOT on board on train isn't focused on the present and future.
Too many racial tensions are political.,. And they DONT get reconciled, because of the struggle for power.. And this 1619 Project is a POLITICAL construct.. NOT DESIGNED on historical fact, but on POLITICAL CONVENIENCE to AVOID "racial reconciliation" which would do much better without the purposely designed POLITICAL barriers to it.
No that was not policySorry, but exploitation was not genocide. And Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they crossed the pond.
Except Genocide was the policy...
Check it out. This is what the Army did in the 1800's. They wiped out the bison in order to deprive the Plains Nations of their food source.
View attachment 431045
When Hitler was coming up with concentration camps, he looked at the American Indian Reservation system as a model.
No that was not policy
The buffalo were harvested by whites for their hides. This did deprive plains Indians of their food but it was not the purpose.
www.theatlantic.com
The Allies reconciled after after 2 bloody World wars. Became quite close to each other. Neither blames the others for their shortcomings just 2 or 3 generations later.. The Japanese recovered from 2 atomic bombs and complete devastation and dont hold any long lasting "inter-racial" or nationalistic bias or reparational demands for the AUTHORIZED murders of 100s of thousands. Neither do the Brits who survived a rocket/air assault and were on the brink of total national destruction..
Okay, the big difference there was that there WAS accountability after the war. They held War Crime trials in Nuremburg and Tokyo, and top Nazi and Japanese leaders were held accountable. On the other hand, there was no accountability for Confederate Leaders. Most wormed their way back to prominent places in society, and there were statues put up to them to remind blacks of "their place".
Should also point out that the reconciliation between the Western Allies and the former Axis members that weren't absorbed into the Warsaw Pact was based on fear of the Soviet Union, not any great love and forgiveness. A lot of people in Asia STILL hate the Japanese. Japan built a destroyer with a flight deck, and people screamed bloody murder they were building aircraft carriers again.
I LIKE reconciliation on past atrocities. The left deplores reconciliation because it is politically "inconvenient".. If they cant' point to folks TODAY as "slavery lovers" -- they lose a major playing card for race tension.,
Again, reconciliation means admitting wrongs. That means you don't have a statue of Robert E. Lee, Confederate flags, singing "Dixie", and saying absurd things like "The Civil War wasn't about slavery". The problem is white people were undermining "reconciliation" pretty much from when the last shot was fired in the war. Jim Crow, literacy tests, etc.
I like the idea of "Never Again".. Which is the Jewish outlook at the Holocaust. The past is the past, but resolve to never "go there" again. Anyone NOT on board on train isn't focused on the present and future.
Yet whenever anyone criticizes Israel or it's policies, they play the Nazi card faster than you can say "Godwin's Law". I would say handing them Palestine was massive reparations, not to mention the billions of dollars the US spends to prop it up, and we didn't even do the Holocaust.
Too many racial tensions are political.,. And they DONT get reconciled, because of the struggle for power.. And this 1619 Project is a POLITICAL construct.. NOT DESIGNED on historical fact, but on POLITICAL CONVENIENCE to AVOID "racial reconciliation" which would do much better without the purposely designed POLITICAL barriers to it.
They don't get resolved because you have one party (The GOP) that is committed to exasperating them.
Sorry, but exploitation was not genocide. And Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they crossed the pond.
Except Genocide was the policy...
Check it out. This is what the Army did in the 1800's. They wiped out the bison in order to deprive the Plains Nations of their food source.
View attachment 431045
When Hitler was coming up with concentration camps, he looked at the American Indian Reservation system as a model.
No that was not policy
The buffalo were harvested by whites for their hides. This did deprive plains Indians of their food but it was not the purpose.
Actually, that was exactly their purpose.
"Kill Every Buffalo You Can! Every Buffalo Dead Is an Indian Gone"
The American bison is the new U.S. national mammal, but its slaughter was once seen as a way to starve Native Americans into submission.
Then again, a buffalo is a lumbering, hirsute cow, and the men were outfitted with some of the quickest horses and held the best guns owned by the U.S. Army, which was outfitting the hunting expedition. The Army wasn’t in the business of guiding hunting trips for soft-skinned Wall Streeters, but it was in the business of controlling the Native Americans in the area, and that meant killing buffalo. One colonel, four years earlier, had told a wealthy hunter who felt a shiver of guilt after he shot 30 bulls in one trip: "Kill every buffalo you can! Every buffalo dead is an Indian gone.”
The reason for such extravagance was undoubtedly because the New Yorkers were well-connected, but also because Major-General Phillip Sheridan, the man with the task of forcing Native Americans off the Great Plains and onto reservations, had come along with them. This was a leisure hunt, but Sheridan also viewed the extermination of buffalo and his victory over the Native Americans as a single, inextricable mission––and in that sense, it could be argued that any buffalo hunt was Army business.
Many things contributed to the buffalo’s demise. One factor was that for a long time, the country’s highest generals, politicians, even then President Ulysses S. Grant saw the destruction of buffalo as solution to the country’s “Indian Problem.”
Before Sheridan joined Cody and the New Yorkers on the hunt, and before he oversaw the relocation of Native Americans on the plains, he was a major-general for the Union during the Civil War. It was there he learned the power of destroying enemy resources. He’d used the same scorched-earth strategy that William Tecumseh Sherman, then a major-general, used in his March to the Sea, tearing up railroad ties, toppling telegraph poles, and lighting nearly all of Atlanta and anything an infantryman could digest ablaze. After the war, President Grant asked Sherman and Sheridan to command armies in the Great Plains.
Interesting article, definitely worth the read.
Not Genocide.
Bisoncide is not genocide.
No, Hitler looked at the British system of camps during the Boer wars.
indiancountrytoday.com
An article of someone's opinion, nothing more.
Not Genocide.
Bisoncide is not genocide.
It is when the intent is to deprive a people of their food source, which was exactly the intent.
No, Hitler looked at the British system of camps during the Boer wars.
Ugly Precursor to Auschwitz: Hitler Said to Have Been Inspired by US Indian Reservation System
Hitler's concept of concentration camps only modeled the Indian reservation system of the United States, a system the "greatest nation" is unable to recognize about its past.
An article of someone's opinion, nothing more.
You mean someone who meticulously researched the issue, examined contemporaneous documents and supported his position?
I suppose if your doctor told you that you had cancer, you'd tell him, "Well, that's your opinion!"
More opinion pieces.
You can't compare academic research to medical diagnosis.
More opinion pieces.
You can't compare academic research to medical diagnosis.
Sure you can... both are based on knowledge and research. A doctor isn't "guessing" you have cancer, he's performing tests to prove it. (And sometimes, they get that wrong, like the lady who got a double mastectomy because a lab made a mistake.) An academic isn't guessing what happened 150 years ago, he's doing research, he's reviewing the original documentation of what happened, including records of how many bison were killed and who killed them and why.
That's not the reason for wiping out the buffalo.Sorry, but exploitation was not genocide. And Europeans were exploiting each other for centuries before they crossed the pond.
Except Genocide was the policy...
Check it out. This is what the Army did in the 1800's. They wiped out the bison in order to deprive the Plains Nations of their food source.
View attachment 431045
When Hitler was coming up with concentration camps, he looked at the American Indian Reservation system as a model.
You ignore the inherent bias in any academic research. An MD isn't trying to prove the cancer is the fault of the person with it, or some other person or say a demon, he is trying to cure the cancer.
Sorry, buy most of this type of research is done by someone with an axe to grind, that makes their bias the determining factor, not whatever nuggets of information they pull up.
You ignore the inherent bias in any academic research. An MD isn't trying to prove the cancer is the fault of the person with it, or some other person or say a demon, he is trying to cure the cancer.
Sorry, buy most of this type of research is done by someone with an axe to grind, that makes their bias the determining factor, not whatever nuggets of information they pull up.
Seems to me that the nuggets she dug up are pretty good ones, like original quotes from Sherman and Sheridan that they were killing off the Buffalo for EXACTLY that reason.
History is a science like any other science. She applied scientific analysis ...
If the Democratic party starts goose stepping and arbitrarily taking people off to be interred, tortured, and gassed, when they hold power would it be poetic justice or tragic irony?
*****SMILE*****
I don't think it will happen that way but it's looking a bit more likely that the Dems will arrest your outgoing president and try him for treason. Gassing him is quite unlikely though.
Tactically maybe.
Sherman did the same thing to the South's infrastructure, was he trying to commit southern Genocide?
History is not science.
Tactically maybe.
Sherman did the same thing to the South's infrastructure, was he trying to commit southern Genocide?
History is not science.
According to my degree it is.. "Bachelor of Science in History".
Sherman didn't destroy the south's ability to grow food.
The Allies reconciled after after 2 bloody World wars. Became quite close to each other. Neither blames the others for their shortcomings just 2 or 3 generations later.. The Japanese recovered from 2 atomic bombs and complete devastation and dont hold any long lasting "inter-racial" or nationalistic bias or reparational demands for the AUTHORIZED murders of 100s of thousands. Neither do the Brits who survived a rocket/air assault and were on the brink of total national destruction..
Okay, the big difference there was that there WAS accountability after the war. They held War Crime trials in Nuremburg and Tokyo, and top Nazi and Japanese leaders were held accountable. On the other hand, there was no accountability for Confederate Leaders. Most wormed their way back to prominent places in society, and there were statues put up to them to remind blacks of "their place".
Should also point out that the reconciliation between the Western Allies and the former Axis members that weren't absorbed into the Warsaw Pact was based on fear of the Soviet Union, not any great love and forgiveness. A lot of people in Asia STILL hate the Japanese. Japan built a destroyer with a flight deck, and people screamed bloody murder they were building aircraft carriers again.
I LIKE reconciliation on past atrocities. The left deplores reconciliation because it is politically "inconvenient".. If they cant' point to folks TODAY as "slavery lovers" -- they lose a major playing card for race tension.,
Again, reconciliation means admitting wrongs. That means you don't have a statue of Robert E. Lee, Confederate flags, singing "Dixie", and saying absurd things like "The Civil War wasn't about slavery". The problem is white people were undermining "reconciliation" pretty much from when the last shot was fired in the war. Jim Crow, literacy tests, etc.
I like the idea of "Never Again".. Which is the Jewish outlook at the Holocaust. The past is the past, but resolve to never "go there" again. Anyone NOT on board on train isn't focused on the present and future.
Yet whenever anyone criticizes Israel or it's policies, they play the Nazi card faster than you can say "Godwin's Law". I would say handing them Palestine was massive reparations, not to mention the billions of dollars the US spends to prop it up, and we didn't even do the Holocaust.
Too many racial tensions are political.,. And they DONT get reconciled, because of the struggle for power.. And this 1619 Project is a POLITICAL construct.. NOT DESIGNED on historical fact, but on POLITICAL CONVENIENCE to AVOID "racial reconciliation" which would do much better without the purposely designed POLITICAL barriers to it.
They don't get resolved because you have one party (The GOP) that is committed to exasperating them.
