Am I a racist ?

[Redleg]

Just because I feel like sharing a little more history that is balanced and shows both sides - here a site that lists many of the massacres. Oh by the way - I just love being called a rivisionist by someone who only views history from one narrow prespective.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Nati...massacres.html

If we loosen our definition further and decide to count all people who died violently in the ongoing warfare between whites and Native Americans -- battle deaths as well as murders -- we can turn to the 1894 estimate by the US Census Bureau (cited in Russel Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival). There it was calculated that some 30,000 to 45,000 Native American men, women, and children died at the hands of whites in formal wars, 1775-1890, while some 14,000 white men, women, and children died at the hands of Native Americans. In addition to these, some 5,000 whites and 8,500 Native Americans were killed in smaller, unofficial fights between individuals up and down the frontier.

Neither side stands out as being more merciful or humane than the other. Both sides collected scalps and scrota as trophies. Both sides raped. Both sides would promise safe conduct to defeated enemies or non-combatants, and then massacre them as soon as they let their guard down. Both sides attacked easy targets (such as peaceful -- even friendly -- villages and settlements) as retaliation for hostile acts by totally unrelated war bands and militia units.

Oh wait just in case you want to claim that site is baised and nothing but revisionist history. Wikipedia also has almost the same information. There list is a little larger - listing some of the battles as massacres verus battles that resulted in the destruction of the whites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_massacres

March 22, 1622 - Jamestown Massacre - Powhatans kill 347 English settlers throughout the Virginia colony.
May 26, 1637 - In the Pequot War, English colonists, with Mohegan and Narragansett allies, attack a large Pequot village on the Mystic River in what is now Connecticut and kill perhaps 500 villagers.
February 8, 1690 - French and Iroquois destroy Schenectady, NY, killing 60, including 10 women and 12-17 children.
February 29, 1704 - Deerfield Massacre - Deerfield, Massachutsetts - As an action during Queen Anne's War, a force comprised of Abenaki, Kanienkehaka, Wyandot, and Pocumtuck Indians, led by a small contingent of French-Canadian miltia, sacked the town of Deerfield, Massachutsetts, killing fifty-six civilians and taking dozens more as captives.
August 1757 - 70-180 British and colonial prisoners killed by Indian allies of the French after the fall of Fort William Henry.
July 3, 1778 - Wyoming Valley Massacre -- Occurred during the American Revolutionary War; labeled a massacre but most deaths were in battle.
1778 - Cherry Valley Massacre, New York - over 30 settlers killed.
1782 - Gnadenhutten massacre - in the final stages of the American Revolutionary War, nearly 100 noncombatant Christian Delaware (Lenape) Indians (mostly women and children) are killed one at a time (with a hammer blow to the head) by Pennsylvania militiamen.
January, 1813 - River Raisin Massacre - 30-60 Kentucky militia killed after surrendering.
August 30, 1813 - Fort Mims Massacre - A band of Red Sticks, one of several warring factions of the Creek Nation (see Creek Civil War), retaliates for his defeat at the Battle of Burnt Corn by sacking a militia post at Fort Mims, Alabama. Over four hundred civilians were killed by the Indians, taking some 250 scalps. This action precipitated the Creek War.
April 22, 1818 - Chehaw Affair - United States troops attack a non-hostile village during First Seminole War, killing an estimated fifty men, women, and children.
1832 - Black Hawk War - 850 men, women, and children are slaughtered in Bad Ax, Wisconsin by white soldiers
1836 - Fort Parker Massacre - 6 men killed by a mixed group of Native Americans in Limestone County, Texas
October 5, 1838 - Killough Massacre - 18 members of the Killough extended family, one of the last massacred in Texas
1848 - Whitman massacre in Walla Walla, Washington
1854 - Kaibai Creek, California - 42 Winnemem Wintu men, women, and children are killed by white settlers
1855 - Grattan Massacre, Brule Sioux in Nebraska Territory.
February 26, 1860 - Humboldt County, California - upwards of 100 Wiyot men, women, and children are slaughtered by settlers.
1862 - As many as 800 settlers killed in uprising of Santee Sioux.
January 29, 1863 - Bear River Massacre - upwards of 200 men, women, and children are slaughtered by whites near Preston, Idaho.
April 19, 1863 - Keyesville Massacre - in Kern County, California - 35 Tehachapi men are killed by whites [1]
November 29, 1864 - Sand Creek Massacre - Sand Creek, Colorado - upwards of 160 Cheyenne men, women, and children are slaughtered by militiamen
December 21, 1866 - Fetterman Massacre - near Fort Phil Kearny, Wyoming - Lt. Col. William J. Fetterman and a compliment of 79 US soldiers were sent to relieve a train under attack by Oglala Sioux led by Crazy Horse and they were wiped out by an ambush. (Evidence suggests that, like Custer's Last Stand [see below], this should be more fairly considered a battle than a massacre.) See Red Cloud's War.
November 27, 1868 - Washita Massacre - Washita River, Oklahoma - 100 people killed. (This is often considered a battle, not a massacre.)
January 23, 1870 - Marias Massacre - 200 Piegans, mainly elderly, women, and children, slaughtered by whites
June 25, 1876 - Battle of the Little Big Horn - About two hundred fifty men of the US 7th Cavalry Regiment, under Lt. Col. George A. Custer, are wiped out in a battle against Sioux and Northern Cheyenne Indians. (Though widely considered a "massacre", Custer's men died fighting and in any case initiated the battle by attacking a nearby Sioux village.)
December 29, 1890 - Wounded Knee Massacre - Wounded Knee, South Dakota - up to 300 Sioux men, women, and children are killed by US soldiers.

[Aenlic]

Must be a bad week then, Redleg?

I'm having trouble deciding if you just don't read all of the cites you post here (which is possible considering that you misread my post - twice now) or if you are being deliberately obtuse.

First you post a link to a site that uses amateur historian Osborn's much disputed book, then you post a link to a Wikipedia article claiming that it has the same info. It has some of the same info. You apparently couldn't be bothered to read the fine print in the Wiki article, could you? This is from your link, by the way.

For example, Osborn does not count Indian deaths on the Trail of Tears (because these were allegedly unintentional), but he does count several episodes of post-mortem mutilation, even of combatants killed in open battle. Osborn's exact total of 16,349 killed on both sides can therefore be disputed.

You haven't recently struck me as being that stupid; so I have to assume that the above is merely a case of you being intentionally wrong to provoke an argument.

As for your spelling, you decided to call me ignorant. In the same sentence you then misspelled a word I'd spelled correctly for you at least three times previously. I find that rather ironic. If you want to pick a fight and call others ignorant, then you'd best use a spell checker. Otherwise I recommend taking to heart the ancient Chinese proverb: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Have a nice day.

[Redleg]

Must be a bad week then, Redleg?

Nope its being called a revisionist by someone who has gotten their facts wrong.

I'm having trouble deciding if you just don't read all of the cites you post here (which is possible considering that you misread my post - twice now) or if you are being deliberately obtuse.

No more then you. Speaking of misreading - how else is one suppose to determine when one deliberatly uses the word revision effort. Hell Aenlic you got Wounded Knee confused with the 1876 uprising of the Souix, and you call my statements rivision. Yea right.

First you post a link to a site that uses amateur historian Osborn's much disputed book, then you post a link to a Wikipedia article claiming that it has the same info. It has some of the same info. You apparently couldn't be bothered to read the fine print in the Wiki article, could you? This is from your link, by the way.

Someone needs to read a little better himself. I stated Wikipedia also has almost the same information I guess you missed the word almost. But as for missing information I guess you missed the one that states
If we loosen our definition further and decide to count all people who died violently in the ongoing warfare between whites and Native Americans -- battle deaths as well as murders -- we can turn to the 1894 estimate by the US Census Bureau (cited in Russel Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival).

Which is the statement I used - regradless of the disputed work of the amateur historian being in the link. Which I don't agree with - therefor the use of the above mentioned following paragraph from that source.

Are you trying to say his work is false and revisionist? Or just that he was incorrect in his research and therefor his conclusion.

You haven't recently struck me as being that stupid; so I have to assume that the above is merely a case of you being intentionally wrong to provoke an argument.

Maybe so - but when some calls me a revisionist - I take it personal - especially when the information I cited in my initial post comes from easily reference sources. My only mistake was calling the Black Hill as part of the unceded land - the unceded land however happen to be on the border of the reservation. Shall I point out more of your mistakes on the history - which are more numerous then mine.

As for your spelling, you decided to call me ignorant. In the same sentence you then misspelled a word I'd spelled correctly for you at least three times previously. I find that rather ironic. If you want to pick a fight and call others ignorant, then you'd best use a spell checker. Otherwise I recommend taking to heart the ancient Chinese proverb: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Have a nice day.

You actually might want to look at who called who a name first - and then look at how the sentence was used. What I stated was simply this The problem comes from both poles of prespective - even in your statement you show ignorance of what actually happened and gognitive dissonance seems to be setting in - shall I spell out for you what that means - showing ignorance of what actually happened is different from calling someone ignorant. You like to play word games - but don't want them used at you it seems.

Yes indeed you also need to pay attention to the ancient Chinese proverb.

[Aenlic]

Nope its being called a revisionist by someone who has gotten their facts wrong.

Except, if you'll look back, sport, you'll see that you entered the discussion on the topic of massacres by calling me ignorant first; to which I responded with the post calling you a revisionist. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. Prior to that, I hadn't even directed a pst at you in this thread. You started it, now deal with it and quit whining.

At no point in this thread did I direct a post at you until you said this:

The problem comes from both poles of prespective - even in your statement you show ignorance of what actually happened and gognitive dissonance seems to be setting in.

"You" and "your" were directed at me specifically in a post directed at me specifically.

As for the use of the word revision. You accused Del Arroyo of it, before I accused you of it.

This isn't the first time you've pulled this crap. I guess it won't be the last. Next you'll start the usual rant that others are spuriously claiming the moral high ground after insulting you. I've seen better behaved children, Redleg. Really.

[Redleg]

Except, if you'll look back, sport, you'll see that you entered the discussion on the topic of massacres by calling me ignorant first; to which I responded with the post calling you a revisionist. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. Prior to that, I hadn't even directed a pst at you in this thread. You started it, now deal with it and quit whining.

Again then you misread the statement - where did I call you ignorant - I stated simply this The problem comes from both poles of prespective - even in your statement you show ignorance of what actually happened and gognitive dissonance seems to be setting in

Here is the statement that refers to:

But people like to feel good about themselves. They like to think their "civilization" is more advanced and better. So the realities are ignored if they are in any way negative. Cognitive dissonance sets in. It's so much easier to wave your flag about in happy ignorance than with a healthy dose of reality to leaven the nationalism.

Shall I point out the errors in your initial post regarding history again in that same post which was all one paragraph. Maybe I should of split them in two and I would of understood your statements within the context of what you orginally meant - but I read the paragraph as the paragraph being all of one thought..

When we found someplace that looked reasonably inhospitable and uninhabitable, we shunted them off to reservations from which they weren't allowed to leave - even to hunt for food.

Where you then went to refer to the Black Hills and the Souix Reservation and the resulting conflict because of the white intrusion onto the reservation because of Custer's scouting and actions.

Your initial paragraph was not true regarding the Souix of the Black Hills Reservation in the 1870-1875 time frame. Cheif Red Cloud won the tribe the rights to hunt in the unceded lands - something you seem to ignore or were ignorant of in your initial post.

Not once did I say you are ignorant - just that you have shown ignorance of what really happened in your statement.

Ingnorance of what actually happens could also be written as lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified (the thing specified being that some tribes were indeed allowed to hunt off of Reservation Lands)

Calling someone ignorant would imply something else. An direct insult meaning that one is destitute of knowledge or education. Which is not what I stated now is it.

By the way I can more then take it - but some things seem to be more of your misunderstanding of what is written and you having a thin skin when someone states your lack of knowledge concerning a given subject. You like to play little word games - but it seems you missed the intent and the context of my statment and took it for an insult. Laughable and sad at the same time.

The statement as used does not imply one is ignorant as an individual - just lacks knowledge or understanding of a particlur subject. I am ignorant of a few things - like how a submarine works under water. How to repair a nuclear power plant. That does not mean I am ignorant as an individual - just that I lack knowledge of those subjects.

Did you not in an earlier thread attempt to critize people for not reading what is written and seeing what they wanted to see. I suspect you wanted to see the statement as an insult - not for what it actually stated so that you can claim my statements were nothing but revision. However I haven't seen you address your conflicts about Wounded Knee and the 1876 Souix Uprising. Nor your other historical inaccuracies on the subject.

It seems again that instead of reading what is written you decided to assume that my statement was an insult - verus a simple statment.

Now the use of the word rivisionist is indeed a delibrate attempt at insulting a person with an opposing view. Where my use of the word ignorance was used correctly in the context of the statement - but I was ignorant is assuming that you were an educated individual who understood the finer points of the english language in a written discussion. I tell you what - I will attempt to use even simplier english and fewer bigger words so that my spelling mistakes don't confuse you.

Hell the use of the word ignorance was even about massacres but the whole jumbled paragraph that you initially written about the Black Hills and hunting. But a nice attempt to take the statement out of context of what was written.

[Aenlic]

Again then you misread the statement - where did I call you ignorant - I stated simply this The problem comes from both poles of prespective - even in your statement you show ignorance of what actually happened and gognitive dissonance seems to be setting in

Here is the statement that refers to:

But people like to feel good about themselves. They like to think their "civilization" is more advanced and better. So the realities are ignored if they are in any way negative. Cognitive dissonance sets in. It's so much easier to wave your flag about in happy ignorance than with a healthy dose of reality to leaven the nationalism.

Shall I point out the errors in your initial post regarding history again in that same post which was all one paragraph. Maybe I should of split them in two and I would of understood your statements within the context of what you orginally meant - but I read the paragraph as the paragraph being all of one thought..

Well, it's becoming obvious that the problem is your ability to read. It shows in your ability (or lack thereof) to write. It's a problem with your comprehension of the English language.

Where you then went to refer to the Black Hills and the Souix Reservation and the resulting conflict because of the white intrusion onto the reservation because of Custer's scouting and actions.

Once again, you're misreading my post. I can try to use smaller words. Would misspelling them, using incorrect punctuation, and taking everything you say out of context help you to understand my posts? I'm trying to help you out here.

Your initial paragraph was not true regarding the Souix of the Black Hills Reservation in the 1870-1875 time frame. Cheif Red Cloud won the tribe the rights to hunt in the unceded lands - something you seem to ignore or were ignorant of in your initial post.

You almost had it within your grasp; and then you lost it. That portion in my post didn't refer to the Black Hills. As I tried to clarify for you later, I should have (please note: it's "should have" not "should of") split the paragraph there. When I wrote that portion, I was thinking of Wounded Knee. I then went on to describe another crime, which was in addition to forcing tribes onto unwanted land. That crime was removing tribes from lands we later wanted. I used the Black Hills as an example. Yes, I should have split those two thoughts up into separate paragraphs; so some dolt wouldn't come along and combine the two thoughts and then build a strawman to knock down.

Not once did I say you are ignorant - just that you have shown ignorance of what really happened in your statement.

This is rather sad. It is so very much like Clinton's pathetic "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is" statement. Coming from you, it's almost but not quite more ironic than idiotic.

Ingnorance of what actually happens could also be written as lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified (the thing specified being that some tribes were indeed allowed to hunt off of Reservation Lands)

At no point did I ever say that all tribes were not allowed to hunt off their lands. Again, you're making a strawman to knock down. Feel better?

Calling someone ignorant would imply something else. An direct insult meaning that one is destitute of knowledge or education. Which is not what I stated now is it.

Isn't it? Oh, wait. There's that pesky word "is" again. I suppose it depends on what your definition of the word "is" is. You might also want to try using a "?" when asking a question. Not being able to spell or punctuate could be construed as a lack of knowledge or education.

By the way I can more then take it - but some things seem to be more of your misunderstanding of what is written and you having a thin skin when someone states your lack of knowledge concerning a given subject. You like to play little word games - but it seems you missed the intent and the context of my statment and took it for an insult. Laughable and sad at the same time.

Is that why you always get your panties in a wad when someone calls you on your inability to read and comprehend simple English? You insult others then play games trying to claim they insulted you first. Rather childish, don't you think?

The statement as used does not imply one is ignorant as an individual - just lacks knowledge or understanding of a particlur subject. I am ignorant of a few things - like how a submarine works under water. How to repair a nuclear power plant. That does not mean I am ignorant as an individual - just that I lack knowledge of those subjects.

Redefining ignorant again? Can you spell redundant too?

Did you not in an earlier thread attempt to critize people for not reading what is written and seeing what they wanted to see. I suspect you wanted to see the statement as an insult - not for what it actually stated so that you can claim my statements were nothing but revision. However I haven't seen you address your conflicts about Wounded Knee and the 1876 Souix Uprising. Nor your other historical inaccuracies on the subject.

You intended it as an insult. You're now attempting to claim it wasn't. Whatever you say. And which historical inaccuracies are you discussing? The ones you made up to make a point, after misreading my post?

It seems again that instead of reading what is written you decided to assume that my statement was an insult - verus a simple statment.

What is the definition of "is" anyway?

Now the use of the word rivisionist is indeed a delibrate attempt at insulting a person with an opposing view. Where my use of the word ignorance was used correctly in the context of the statement - but I was ignorant is assuming that you were an educated individual who understood the finer points of the english language in a written discussion. I tell you what - I will attempt to use even simplier english and fewer bigger words so that my spelling mistakes don't confuse you.

Well, we can agree on your first sentence here. You did indeed insult Del Arroyo when you said he was a revisionist, in the post you made right before insulting me. As for the finer points of the English language, I think perhaps you should rethink that statement; or perhaps buy a dictionary and a book on grammar and proper usage. It isn't just spelling mistakes. It's an entire record of a total inability to understand and use English, either written or read. While we're on the subject, when did a "-" become a period, a semi-colon, and a colon all rolled into one? There is a difference between a typo and ignorance. No wait. I meant lack of knowledge, not ignorance. Or did I? What is the meaning of the word "is" again?

Hell the use of the word ignorance was even about massacres but the whole jumbled paragraph that you initially written about the Black Hills and hunting. But a nice attempt to take the statement out of context of what was written.

Ah, finally we get to your favorite tactic. Now it's me taking entire statements out of context instead of you. Along with a good dictionary, a good thesaurus, a manual of punctuation, grammar and usage such as the Chicago Manual of Style and a refresher course in reading, I recommend that you seek professional help for this problem with projection. I'm using projection in the psychiatric sense, by the way. I wouldn't want to end up in a discussion of how you were accused of being bad at showing home movies or something equally asinine.

[Redleg]

Well, it's becoming obvious that the problem is your ability to read. It shows in your ability (or lack thereof) to write. It's a problem with your comprehension of the English language.

Blah blah blan

Its all really rather sad - your just spoiling for a fight.

I express my views the way I like to express them. You can believe what you want to believe - but once again before criticizing my use of language maybe you should read the statement again.

Since when is the use of the term ignorance an intended insult?

However telling me to see a professional - you might want to rethink that statement. You just went a little to far with that one.

[Strike For The South]

It was wrong what we did to the indians and blacks and we need to learn from it but there is not one person today who makes off slavery or owned a slave or killed an idian just because he was an indian but if they get a handout so should I for a couple of reasons

1. The saxons kicked my celtic anscetors out of mainland britian to wales im going to go complain to Germany

2. The english reliougsly persecuted my ansectors forcing them to move to america after berlin onto london

3. My ansectors who fought for the confederacy who went to war not becuase they owned slaves (very few people actually did) but because they had to defend there homeland Im going to Washingtion

4. My Itilain heritage because they were persecuted espiacly down here in texas just for being Italian Im going to austin

5. My grand parents on my step dads side never gaduated high school hell my step Dad didn't graduate his parents worked 5 jobs combined to feed 7 kids and my dad for 20 years has had to bust his ass working in the grocery business to provide were the perfect family for free goverment handouts right lets go over the checklist

- Ansectors Raped Pillaged murdered check
- Ancestors forced to do things they wouldn't want to check
- Family not given a good position in the wrold because of this Check

alright wheres my fat check wait a second Im white this dosent apply to me although mu ansectors went through just as many hardships. If I asked for a check for the offenses listed above I'd get laughed at but switch my skin color and bravo suddenly Im eligible. What we did was wrong no doubt in my mind it was but you stand here and tell me my familys tax dollars should go to right the wrongs we never committed and were sometimes forced upon us. Save me the PC bullshit

[Don Corleone]

You're missing the point, Strike. If YOU weren't able to get a job because you're a stinking Celt, Welsh, Confederate... and more importantly an entire group of people likewise couldn't make headway, then I'd agree with you.

I don't agree with Affirmative Action or direct reparations, unless as in the case of the Maori, it's to honor a treaty. It's not equality, it's a vote-garnering fake-cure, and that's not what I'm talking about. But when you look and see 40% of Native Americans are illiterate and 70% question the value of an education (numbers created for the purpose of a hypothetical point, I have no idea what they truly are), primarily because it was by sending their kids to school in the past that cost them their language (Native children were beaten for speaking in any tongue but English) then yeah, we should stop and see what we can do to encourage education among Native Americans to counteract the affects of our past 'education'.

Make sense?

[Azi Tohak]

I do call for an equal educational opportunity for them, and for further social assistance programs - which were promised, but somehow are still lacking.

Equal educational opportunities? Futher social assistance programs? Don't both already exist? Or do you want to continue to coddle the useless and make them even more dependant upon Daddy government? Think the programs might be lacking because it is easier to just sit and wait for the check (that I pay for) in the mail? There is no incentive towards productivity when everything you want will be given to you.

Calling someone that asks for equality and justice for his felllowman, a racist?

If I demand the abolishment of the race blocks from the national standardized tests... am I racist? If I demand the elimination of quotas... am I racist (or sexist)? Equality of justice, that is an admirable goal. But Cops do the best they can too. So do the courts.

If we persist in believing that all is well - simply because we have successfully suppressed a people for a time? Then believe. Believe the Watts riots are in the "distant past" - but, know that the new coming of a call for equality maybe right around the corner.

Successfully suppressed a people? Wouldn't that mean that no minorities are allowed to do anything beyond penal work? Like White-Australia right? What about the 'suppressed people' who have become something? Were they white enough that all us evil crackers allowed them to join our club? No. They earned it. I will never believe that useless people are useless because it is someone else's fault. Some people are born dumb, but there are (always) jobs for them. Some people are born useless... why are they still alive? 500 years ago they would die. Not in the wonders of today's welfare state though! Nope, they can continue to drain productive people. I miss the good old days for that anyway.

Equality in education, in job opportunity, in housing, and in justice.

Sounds lovely! When do we start? Get rid of affirmative action, to take care of the first two. Housing? What, you want everyone in a $100,000 home? You live in what you can earn. If you don't earn money, or don't earn much, what entitles you to live in my Mom's house? Justice... ah yes... Justice. I already dealt with this above, but basically, you are going to see racism if you want to find it. I don't believe there is any systematic racism in the courts or in Cops either.

Azi

P.S. Counting the minutes until someone calls me racist...