View Full Version : Native Americans = Sore Losers
The_Worlds_finest
10-10-2010, 09:44 AM
How often do you see these people bitching and moaning about us Americans taking their land from them through War? Upon defeat We even gave them reserves and let them open casinos. However to give them an "excuse" they were still living in basically the stone age, and didn't have something close to modern era weapons. Shit even the afghanis are putting up more of a fight and the technology gap is about the same if not worse.
Couple side notes:
Did they even know what Horticulture was until it was shown to them?
Ill give them this much did know what fire was.
silverblk mystix
10-10-2010, 09:57 AM
just curious....
how do you feel about hitler & the jews?
Vinnie_Johnson
10-10-2010, 10:18 AM
Wow glad I am not near you I would be punching you in the face.
silverblk mystix
10-10-2010, 10:21 AM
Wow glad I am not near you I would be punching you in the face.
who?
me or the OP?
The_Worlds_finest
10-10-2010, 08:22 PM
just curious....
how do you feel about hitler & the jews?
And this has anything to do with the native americans bitching and moaning how?
The_Worlds_finest
10-10-2010, 08:25 PM
Wow glad I am not near you I would be punching you in the face.
Dont punch me in the face punch Peter Minuit who purchased Manhattan Island for $1,000 usd (today value)
BlairForceDejuan
10-11-2010, 09:10 AM
Did they even know what Horticulture was until it was shown to them?
Yes
And the Native Americans pretty much curbstomped the Spanish in TX for a good 200 years before the Americans ganked them. Pale face had to extinct the buffalo to beat the Native Americans. Puss move imo.
Dont punch me in the face punch Peter Minuit who purchased Manhattan Island for $1,000 usd (today value)
ok.
TDMVPDPOY
10-11-2010, 02:08 PM
i think there is a double standard on how the govt treats native ppl and the immigrant who came and settle on the land and worked earn a living for themselves and contributed to society...
its only a minority that decides to get the shit out of the bushes and make a name for themselves for society, but too bad theres the majority that gives themselves a bad name by sitting in the bushes continue to get free handouts from the govt, while ur local citizen gets pushed around by the govt when you want too apply for handouts.
this is a load of horseshit, so are you telling me how many more generations does the hard working contributing taxpayers or person have to continue to pay for these freeloading shit? Theres ppl who come to new country with nothing like refugees and shit who end up becoming successful out of nothing, why cant native ppl do the same? Im mainly pissed about the bums sitting in the bushes, not the bums who dont need welfare but decide to live off the land they inherited
4>0rings
10-11-2010, 04:41 PM
http://tshirthell.vo.llnwd.net/e1/shirts/products/a355/a355_thumb.jpg
Most Natives were murdered by invading pathogens, with many millions dead within just a few decades of the first European arrivals.
Others were enslaved and indoctrinated, both in the name of Christianity and a mass land grab.
By the time "cowboys and Indians" were having their battles, the war had been long lost.
4>0rings
10-11-2010, 04:54 PM
How often do you see these people bitching and moaning about us Americans taking their land from them through War? Upon defeat We even gave them reserves and let them open casinos. However to give them an "excuse" they were still living in basically the stone age, and didn't have something close to modern era weapons.
Shit even the afghanis are putting up more of a fight and the technology gap is about the same if not worse.
Yes the government gave them land, found valueable resources on it and moved them to crappier land, found more minerals on it and moved them again. Lands that couldn't sustain their way of life prior to being expelled, such as hunting or agriculture.
Afghanis had access to weapons, funding, training, and intelligence from other countries along with terrain favoring their fighting style, not long flat plains where there is no hiding. By the same token, the US should be able to control Iraq/Afghanistan since we are so much more advanced. It's not that the allies can't beat them in a battle, it's being able to identify an insurgent from a civilian and finding the insurgents.
Indians didn't have that ability to blend in with their surroundings or being able to hid in mountains and caves.
TinTin
10-11-2010, 06:52 PM
How often do you see these people bitching and moaning about us Americans taking their land from them through War? Upon defeat We even gave them reserves and let them open casinos. However to give them an "excuse" they were still living in basically the stone age, and didn't have something close to modern era weapons. Shit even the afghanis are putting up more of a fight and the technology gap is about the same if not worse.
Couple side notes:
Did they even know what Horticulture was until it was shown to them?
Ill give them this much did know what fire was.
I don't think you have any idea on how the treaties and reserves worked. They weren't favourable to the natives at all
boutons_deux
10-11-2010, 08:08 PM
Exposing the GOP's Shameful Historical Role in the Native American Genocide
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148478
silverblk mystix
10-11-2010, 08:37 PM
Exposing the GOP's Shameful Historical Role in the Native American Genocide
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148478
...business as usual.
The USA. The good guys throughout history.
history2b
10-12-2010, 12:58 PM
Spurs fans continue to make the case for dumbest fans on the planet.
Spurs fans continue to make the case for dumbest fans on the planet.
Don't worry, Laker/Yankee/Cowboys fans like yourself have got that category all locked up.
Galileo
10-12-2010, 01:55 PM
Other facts:
* The Indians tried to get the rest of the world hooked on tobacco.
* Hunted the Woolly Mammoths, Mastodons, and Saber Toothed Tiger into extinction.
* Set up oppressive military empires like the Aztecs, Olmecs, Mayans, and Incas.
* practiced cannibalism.
* scalped people, including women and children.
* practiced deviant sexual practices like sex and mariage with underage women.
* rejected the scientific principles of Galileo.
* rejected modern technology.
* rejected the wisdom of the ancient Greeks and Renaissance.
* rejected civilization.
* worshiped fake "Gods" that do not exist.
* failed to recognize freedom of religion and mixed church and state.
* never set up a Constitutional and democratic republic like the US Constitution.
* more
what's really amazing is that the aztecs hunted wooly mammoths in mesoamerica and studied greek philosophy !!!
coyotes_geek
10-12-2010, 02:19 PM
* rejected the wisdom of the ancient Greeks and Renaissance.
.
.
.
.
* worshiped fake "Gods" that do not exist.
Someone help refresh my memory, who were those wise ancient Greeks worshiping again?
Wild Cobra
10-12-2010, 04:58 PM
Someone help refresh my memory, who were those wise ancient Greeks worshiping again?
LOL...
Besides, who's to say any of those Gods didn't exist? In our Bible, the Chaldean word for God was plural. Not singular.
CosmicCowboy
10-12-2010, 06:50 PM
No doubt we totally fucked the "native Americans". We actually fucked em twice. Instead of assimilating them into our society we allowed/promoted the reservation system to assuage our collective guilt. That was big governments first dabbling into the Nanny State. Now they are multiple generations into it and are hooked on the government crack. They lost their land, their culture, and now their souls. BTW, some of the southern tribes including New Mexico are exceptions, probably because of the hundreds of years of Spanish missionary influence and assimilation prior. Some of the northern reservations (My personal experience was Sioux in Montana) are just disgusting ghettos in the country even though the government spends millions trying to maintain them. You would see nice homes (maybe $150,000 homes here?) the government built for them to live in for free and garbage would be piled up to the window sills around them because they were too lazy to take their trash to the street to be picked up.
Jacob1983
10-12-2010, 08:49 PM
None of us fucked Native Americans because we didn't steal their land. White people that lived back in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s stole land from the Native Americans. I wasn't alive back then and I have never stolen land from anyone. This shit is just as annoying when black people want to be paid because their ancestors were slaves. I'm sure that if every person in the world looked at their geneaology, they would probably find that they had a relative that was a slave. Does that mean they should be paid because of that? Fuck no.
Wild Cobra
10-12-2010, 08:53 PM
None of us fucked Native Americans because we didn't steal their land. White people that lived back in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s stole land from the Native Americans. I wasn't alive back then and I have never stolen land from anyone. This shit is just as annoying when black people want to be paid because their ancestors were slaves. I'm sure that if every person in the world looked at their geneaology, they would probably find that they had a relative that was a slave. Does that mean they should be paid because of that? Fuck no.
I agree with you, but knowing several native Americans, I have never heard any of them complain about reparations like black people sometime do. I think this is similar to the mascot thing. You get one native American complain about an Indian being used as a team or logo. The PC crowd goes nuts. Funny thing is, many if not most, feel honored by it.
CosmicCowboy
10-12-2010, 08:58 PM
None of us fucked Native Americans because we didn't steal their land. White people that lived back in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s stole land from the Native Americans. I wasn't alive back then and I have never stolen land from anyone. This shit is just as annoying when black people want to be paid because their ancestors were slaves. I'm sure that if every person in the world looked at their geneaology, they would probably find that they had a relative that was a slave. Does that mean they should be paid because of that? Fuck no.
I had a relative that owned slaves...does that count? I also had a great great grandmother on the other side that was full Cherokee.
LnGrrrR
10-12-2010, 09:02 PM
I had a relative that owned slaves...does that count?
RACIST!
I also had a great great grandmother on the other side that was full Cherokee.
Uhm... nevermind, I guess. :lol
Crookshanks
10-12-2010, 10:53 PM
I had a relative that owned slaves...does that count? I also had a great great grandmother on the other side that was full Cherokee.
Wow...me too! Although it was all on my father's side. They lived in Tennessee and owned slaves and my great, great grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee. Small world!
CosmicCowboy
10-12-2010, 11:02 PM
Wow...me too! Although it was all on my father's side. They lived in Tennessee and owned slaves and my great, great grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee. Small world!
Really is...the Cherokee was from my fathers side and they came from Tennessee too...Both sides came while it was still Mexico but my mothers side is documented and the GGF on that side signed the Texas Declaration of Independence. My daughter is DAR and DRT pedigreed LOL.
4>0rings
10-12-2010, 11:02 PM
I had a relative in a po-dunk town in Texas that was a Sheriff that hung a negro.
RACIST!
Oh, Gee!!
10-13-2010, 08:51 AM
How often do you see these people bitching and moaning about us Americans taking their land from them through War?
rarely tbh
lot of anglo mutts in this forum
Oh, Gee!!
10-13-2010, 12:40 PM
hey, I'm 1/32 navajo, so I can make blanket statements about native americans.
Wild Cobra
10-13-2010, 12:43 PM
hey, I'm 1/32 navajo, so I can make blanket statements about native americans.
I forget how far back. I was told once, but I think I'm 3/32 Indian between the Cherokee and Blackfoot in me.
Winehole23
10-24-2010, 05:46 AM
ABORIGINIES, n. Persons of little worth found cumbering the soil of a newly discovered country. They soon cease to cumber; they fertilize.
SnakeBoy
10-24-2010, 04:11 PM
Yes the government gave them land, found valueable resources on it and moved them to crappier land, found more minerals on it and moved them again. Lands that couldn't sustain their way of life prior to being expelled, such as hunting or agriculture.
Afghanis had access to weapons, funding, training, and intelligence from other countries along with terrain favoring their fighting style, not long flat plains where there is no hiding. By the same token, the US should be able to control Iraq/Afghanistan since we are so much more advanced. It's not that the allies can't beat them in a battle, it's being able to identify an insurgent from a civilian and finding the insurgents.
Indians didn't have that ability to blend in with their surroundings or being able to hid in mountains and caves.
If you have to compare native americans to the afghan war then you should at least make the most important point...genocide works.
AussieFanKurt
10-24-2010, 05:28 PM
Other facts:
* worshiped fake "Gods" that do not exist.
Aren't all gods fake..... except maybe Clint Eastwood who is a living god
DeadlyDynasty
10-25-2010, 03:23 AM
just curious....
how do you feel about hitler & the jews?
Great band, I saw them at the Rex in pitt last year...they opened for Zyklon B and the Soap Bars.
diego
10-25-2010, 06:05 AM
obviously a stupid troll post, but besides noting what others have posted (the role of disease, technology, religion, "blockading" (ie depriving native americans of resources), western civilization's hypocrisy (ie, the greeks were intellectuals but Native Indians were barbarians), I just want to add a couple more points (in other words, i'll bite):
not all NA tribes were familiar with horticulture, however:
a) the americas were so rich with resources and life that well adapted hunter gatherers lived quite well without the need for agriculture. it wasnt quite paradise of course, but there is little evidence that lack of food was a regular problem.
b) still there were many that did practice horticulture successfully, without the use of fertilizers and insecticides and without leaving the land barren from over use.
c) in other areas they were significantly more advanced than europeans. one of the reasons disease killed so many native americans was that they were far more hygenic than europeans. this cant be explained simply by population density; for example, Tenochtitlan was easily one of the 5 biggest cities (population) on earth, if not the biggest, till europeans conquered it; yet unlike any european city at the time, it had a sewer system to remove dirty water and bring clean water in.
why is it that european history is filled with stories of plague and famine, yet none such records exist for native american peoples? The native americans have every reason to be sore losers, for they didn't lose a war, they were defeated by plague and famine (european "inventions") and simple trickery. Western revisionism has is that europeans triumphed because of their technological, cultural, even moral superiority, but in reality dirtiness, moral and phsyical, was what saw them through.
Finally, I just want to say that native americans were able to win in the sense that they resisted assimilation (despite the explicit intent of politicians to assimilate their culture and turn them into economic slaves), and that the govts (including the US govt) have only been able to keep them down through repression. Thats why I cant stand western "progressives" who spout off about Tibetans but dont say a word for their native american peoples.
obviously a stupid troll post, but besides noting what others have posted (the role of disease, technology, religion, "blockading" (ie depriving native americans of resources), western civilization's hypocrisy (ie, the greeks were intellectuals but Native Indians were barbarians), I just want to add a couple more points (in other words, i'll bite):
not all NA tribes were familiar with horticulture, however:
a) the americas were so rich with resources and life that well adapted hunter gatherers lived quite well without the need for agriculture. it wasnt quite paradise of course, but there is little evidence that lack of food was a regular problem.
b) still there were many that did practice horticulture successfully, without the use of fertilizers and insecticides and without leaving the land barren from over use.
c) in other areas they were significantly more advanced than europeans. one of the reasons disease killed so many native americans was that they were far more hygenic than europeans. this cant be explained simply by population density; for example, Tenochtitlan was easily one of the 5 biggest cities (population) on earth, if not the biggest, till europeans conquered it; yet unlike any european city at the time, it had a sewer system to remove dirty water and bring clean water in.
why is it that european history is filled with stories of plague and famine, yet none such records exist for native american peoples? The native americans have every reason to be sore losers, for they didn't lose a war, they were defeated by plague and famine (european "inventions") and simple trickery. Western revisionism has is that europeans triumphed because of their technological, cultural, even moral superiority, but in reality dirtiness, moral and phsyical, was what saw them through.
Finally, I just want to say that native americans were able to win in the sense that they resisted assimilation (despite the explicit intent of politicians to assimilate their culture and turn them into economic slaves), and that the govts (including the US govt) have only been able to keep them down through repression. Thats why I cant stand western "progressives" who spout off about Tibetans but dont say a word for their native american peoples.
Too sweeping are your generalizations. There were plenty of Natives who lived very primitive, dirty lives. Lack of food was most definitely a problem, especially in the winters (read La Relacion, a very interesting documentation indeed). The reason they were destroyed by plague had little, if anything to do with hygiene, and everything to do with simply owning bodies that had, by and large, very little immunity to these new pathogens. No amount of hygiene (at that stage of technology) could have mended this situation. I am not familiar with insecticide history, so I am not sure what the Europeans would have used - insecticides are either natural, or chemically synthesized, from what I know (could be wrong). Finally, having no widespread written word, unlike the Europeans and others, who wrote concisely for as many as 2000 years before the conquer of the Aztecs, is why so few legends persist from the Indians' "ancient history." the Natives kept few records and almost nothing is in tact compared to say, the Classical Greek's civilization period.
And there are many Natives who were fond of enslaving their other tribesmen and war, trading their wives and overall dominating the female sex, and otherwise, living very primitively. The Europeans were much more advanced by 1500, had large, unified nations, and had a long established history.
The Aztecs, conversely, were sacrificing thousands for their gods, and spread over a large area of land. They didn't even know what a ship was, believing it a large mobile island whose sails were specially grown trees. Montezuma supposedly cried when he heard about the Spaniards from a messenger.
They were definitely the victims of a murderous, zealot-fumed land grab, I agree. Yet they also did hold a predominantly savage, primitive nature.
diego
10-25-2010, 07:13 PM
I didnt mean to say they ate like kings every night or had better standard of living (you'd have to define it first) than europeans, Im sorry if my post came off that way.
the point about food was that they didnt have the same need as europeans for agriculture because there was more land, more bountiful land, and a better climate (compared to most of europe). In any case, there is no evidence that native americans had less food than their european contemporaries.
the point about hygiene, was that natives were less resistant to disease because they were less exposed to it, until europeans arrived. (much like developed nations that implemented mandatory antibacterial soap laws, now find their population far more susceptible to infection). if they had poor hygiene like their european counterparts, they would have likely fared better against the foreign pathogens.
there is less written documentation from native american cultures, but they do exist. there are several codices, pre and post "discovery", and they have lots of information, about themselves and about the invasion. the spaniards still keep them (along with the rest of the loot) in Madrid and only released uncensored versions in 1979. why didnt they release them earlier? something to hide, perhaps? according to Spanish records, they melted TONS of gold and silver engravings the Inca's had in their "palaces" depicting their history. hey, at least it went to good use, as the spaniards used it to fund more war mongering. who knows what other records they destroyed in their quest for more?
And there are many Natives who were fond of enslaving their other tribesmen and war, trading their wives and overall dominating the female sex, and otherwise, living very primitively. The Europeans were much more advanced by 1500, had large, unified nations, and had a long established history.
and europeans weren't "fond" of enslaving their fellow man and dominating the female sex? by 1500 europe had large unified nations? tenochtitlan by itself was bigger than sevilla and madrid combined (spain's two largest cities at the time). Spain still has secessionist movements to this day. europeans are so unified they still identify themselves by their city/town and nearly destroyed the planet fighting one another, but they're the civilized ones?
if the aztecs were savages, why did they greet Cortes with gifts? It was Cortes who declared war, not them. And so it was in most of the Americas.
The Aztecs, conversely, were sacrificing thousands for their gods
and the inquisition was? the crusades? why the double standard?
I'm not arguing that the native americans were utopian saints, but I cant stand the "primitive savage" BS. Europeans had technologies that native americans didnt, the same way chinese had technologies europeans didnt. europeans gained dominance through war, and yet the other cultures are the savages? please.
diego
10-25-2010, 07:17 PM
also, there were many many different cultures and some of them were definitely more hostile and "barbaric" than others; also, like any other culture there were different movements within them, it most certainly is a generalization to treat them as a single block and again that wasnt the intent of my post.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.