Am I a racist ?

[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.