patrick.net

In light of Hillary's crimes, I don't see why we're even thinking about this.

That "100 million natives murdered" from the poster is very far wrong.

While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus,[6] estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

And the vast majority of native deaths were due to smallpox.

But if you really want to feel guilty for something that you had absolutely nothing to do with, go ahead. Just don't pretend the rest of us had anything to do with it either.

Another white, guilty pussy with a giant mangina. Make sure you go around and sniff everyone's farts.

Blurtman says

California Slaughter: The State-Sanctioned Genocide of Native Americans

There isn't any part of the world where this sort of thing did not happen at some point in history.
Stop blaming 21st century America for everything.

rando says

That 100 million natives murdered from the poster is very far wrong.

The cited story is more relevant. Please feel free to refute those details. Similar stories of Indian massacres occurred in other states or territories. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre

rando says

Just don't pretend the rest of us had anything to do with it either.

I don't believe I have said that anywhere in the post. But you are likely living on property that was stolen through horrific violence, and enjoying resources that likewise were taken through murder. Does history absolve the country of horrid crimes? The Armenians would say no. The Chinese would say no, too. If time allows people to enjoy land and resources that were taken through murder, is that an acceptable strategy for enriching future generations?

Blurtman says

I don't believe I have said that anywhere in the post. But you are likely living on property that was stolen through horrific violence, and enjoying resources that likewise were taken through murder. Does history absolve the country of horrid crimes? The Armenians would say no. The Chinese would say no, too. If time allows people to enjoy land and resources that were taken through murder, is that an acceptable strategy for enriching future generations?

So what are you suggesting?

Blurtman says

But you are likely living on property that was stolen through horrific violence

I'm currently living on land taken from Mexico without violence.

The Mexicans had great difficulty populating it at all, not only because there were so few Indians to begin with, but also because the large majority of them simply dropped dead because of smallpox.

And earlier than that, the Indians regularly massacred each other.

Knock it off with the guilt-mongering. It helps absolutely no one and is a shallow manipulative trick to extract money. Or maybe you just enjoy pretending you are guilty for something you are not. It's like a kind of religion with a lot of white people.

Never miss an opportunity.

To all Republican & Democrats,
What are you going to do about the slaughter of innocent men,women & children
& genocide of American servicemen based on "IRAQ HAS WMD." & the continued attacks
on Brown People countries in the Middle East without an act of war.
Thank goodness Ds & Rs set it up so the military can kill at the slightest whim.

I'm sure you have an excuse for sitting on your sorry asses as the Muslim world gets pissed off
& cost Americans & her Allies lives & treasure.
These aren't peaceful Indians. You've fucked yourselves?
Well! You did bring it on,so enjoy. Anal lubrication won't make it more bearable.

Strategist says

So what are you suggesting?

Facing reality. Admitting how the USA started and explaining why this behavior is or is not OK. And taking an open mind about it. For example, if this were to happen in today's PC mindset, there would be no USA. Is that a good thing or not? For example, if you do not keep up with technology and do not develop contemporary defensive systems, you may be annihilated. And admitting how things really work, i.e., if you take land and resources, even through horrific violence. you get to keep it and lecture others on why that is wrong.

rando says

Knock it off with the guilt-mongering.

Guilt would be counter-productive to the viral spread.

BTW, I have been banned from three blogs - Market Ticker, Raw Story and for a time, Mish's blog - for taking positions contrary to the host's. I hope that does not happen here.

As sad as it may be the genocide of the indians in the US is probably why the US isn't like Mexico and everything else south of the border. Like others have said there is not one place on earth that has not had the same thing happen.

Blurtman says

BTW, I have been banned from three blogs - Market Ticker, Raw Story and for a time, Mish's blog - for taking positions contrary to the host's. I hope that does not happen here.

Don't worry about that! The whole point of this site is free speech no matter how objectionable.

Blurtman says

if you do not keep up with technology and do not develop contemporary defensive systems, you may be annihilated

Yes, that is true, and will always be true.

HydroCabron says

In light of Hillary's crimes, I don't see why we're even thinking about this.

They did not have e-mail back then. ;>) And it is probable that her ancestors were lured to America by the promise of free land for the settling.

HydroCabron says

Can we dump the Confederate Flag now, and close the book on what happened between 1860 and 1865?

Actually, the argument would be to keep the flag as the past does not matter.

www.youtube.com/embed/WNHKDJzgqJg

No genocide...

Nowhere CLOSE to 100 million natives being murdered - that's a crock. Most died soon after the Spanish arrived from disease.

just_passing_through says

Nowhere CLOSE to 100 million natives being murdere

Yes, and Hillary really didn't have photos of herself taken as a dominatrix. Address the Newsweek story.

Blurtman says

Yes, and Hillary really didn't have photos of herself taken as a dominatrix. Address the Newsweek story.

Why not work Hillary into the title of this post? Something about "Native American Massacre Archeologists Discover Trove of Hillary Documents - Indictment Pending".

Blurtman says

Actually, the argument would be to keep the flag as the past does not matter.

Yes, and dumb rednecks going full Breitbart, screaming "We hate Mexicans" are not racist, because "Mexican" is not a race.

rando says

Don't worry about that! The whole point of this site is free speech no matter how objectionable.

You must admit that this topic is quite a hot button. And please don't forget about my residuals.

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

But weapons alone can't account for the breathtaking speed with which the indigenous population of the New World were completely wiped out.

Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas.

No medieval force, no matter how bloodthirsty, could have achieved such enormous levels of genocide. Instead, Europeans were aided by a deadly secret weapon they weren't even aware they were carrying: Smallpox.

rando says

No medieval force, no matter how bloodthirsty, could have achieved such enormous levels of genocide. Instead, Europeans were aided by a deadly secret weapon they weren't even aware they were carrying: Smallpox.

I read that the Europeans' habit of co-habitating with their animals lead to beneficial disease exposure and resistance (for survivors).

HydroCabron says

You might want to try reading Orwell some time.

I prefer They Live. And I did enjoy 1984. Not the movie so much.

Ironman says

Giving them the ability to "self-censor" or "self-moderate" completely negates the "free speech" aspect of the site.

I disagree. Users A's right to ignore user B does not stop user B from communicating with all other users.

You're free to speak, and other individuals are free to ignore you.

But user A should never have the right to prevent all other users from hearing user B.

Blurtman says

rando says

Knock it off with the guilt-mongering.

Guilt would be counter-productive to the viral spread.

I disagree.

Guilt is a pleasure for lots of people. It gives them meaning, especially the idea that they can extirpate their guilt and become "saved" somehow. Guilt and redemption by admitting your guilt is actually the basis for Christianity, which is an extremely successful meme.

The point is, white, western Europeans did so much more with the country than the Indians ever would have. All they ever did was chase buffalo around, live in TP's and say "Ugh" and "How". Do you think they would have ever developed classical architecture as lovely as that in Williamsburg? Monticello? Mount Vernon? How about cars and electricity? Strictly the preserve of the white man. They disliked trains, called them "iron horses" and tried to shoot their passengers. Here's an Indian meeting a flapper in 1925--I'll bet he's thinking "me like-um squaw!":

http://www.shorpy.com/node/11300?size=_original#caption

And here's a general history of Indian life--take special note from 3:32-3:37:

www.youtube.com/embed/oaNZY1vZSlo

More history:

www.youtube.com/embed/Fz5cW6maHlI

For all of those kids these days who think you got it tough these days, just remember there was a generation that slaughtered each other on a daily basis. And it wasn't racist either, everyone fucking slaughtered everyone. Boy sure makes one appreciate modern days.

Not that it matters, but that 100 million claim is highly exaggerated.

I was listening to Howard Bloom. He was going to do a promotion for a "Little Steven" (E Street Band) Fundraiser on Aparteid some years ago along the same lines as Farm Aid.

He would do it for free, but had one condition: He also be allowed to mention the violence between Hutu and Tutsi, which broken out previously in the early 80s (when this proposal was discussed) with countless deaths.

Because black-vs-black violence was (and is) unsexy to discuss, they decided not to take him up.

He said that if he could have raised public awareness back then, there would have been stronger pressure to at least mitigate against the massacres ofthe 90s.

HydroCabron says

In light of Hillary's crimes, I don't see why we're even thinking about this.

were thinking about it so we forget Hillary's crimes

OH THE HUMANITYYYYYY

OH THE OUTRAGE

OHHHHHHHHH

Ironman says

You missed my point. It's truly not free speech if only one side is speaking, and the other side can't respond. When User A can post what ever they want but block User B, C, or D from responding to that post (through ignore), that's not an open conversation or free speech.

You're still free to say what you want to say. It just means other people don't have to listen.

Ironman says

When User A can post what ever they want but block User B, C, or D from responding to that post (through ignore), that's not an open conversation or free speech.

Ah, you're referring to the "hide me from that guy" part of ignore. (When you ignore a user, he disappears for you, but your comments also disappear from his view, at least while he's logged in.) Neither one can see the other.

So you're saying that since you can't see what Dan is saying when you're logged in, you don't get a chance to reply to what he's saying. I can see your point.

The reason that ignore is mutual is because people were uncomfortable using the ignore option if they felt the guy was then mocking their comments without their knowledge. So making ignore mutual seemed like a good idea, and so far it does seem to have encouraged people to use the ignore function and maybe chilled the flame wars a little.

I don't want to stifle debate, but maybe some individuals just should not interact with each other if there's no hope of their ever getting along. That doesn't stop you from saying anything you want to to everyone else.

Blurtman says

California Slaughter: The State-Sanctioned Genocide of Native Americans

rando says

I don't want to stifle debate, but maybe some individuals just should not interact with each other if there's no hope of their ever getting along.

Or wanting to debate in good faith...

Why is it that you are putting forth reasoned arguments here but act like a child when actually responding to people's posts day-to-day? I take it that you want ignore removed so you can troll more people rather than really wanting a 'back and forth display of opinions on a topic.'

The crimes of the past done by people long dead have no relevance to the world now.

Yes dumb ass their legacy lives on.

indigenous says

crimes of the past done

THE PROPHECY OF RUNNING BEAR

in the times before

the white man came

when the red man lives in peace

and smoked the pipe

and hunted the buffalo

without wasting

we were told by our elders

that the white man will come

and make war

and destroy

and enslave the innocent woman

and make things bad

now that time has come

and we are sad

very sad

so we await the new time of the red man

and until then

we have

half off potato skins

at Apache Dawn Casino and Grill

with your purchase of surf and turf meal for two

and if you buy now

you will also receive

half off bud light

P N Dr Lo R says

The point is, white, western Europeans did so much more with the country than the Indians ever would have.

"Doing more" is relative and a matter of opinion. Nonetheless, if I promise to do more with your property and resources, I assume you will have no problem with me taking them. In fact, that is the one defense that will get one off for having robbed a bank.

Ironman says

Wow, you being here for half a day makes you an expert!! Congratulations on YOUR trolling your FIRST day here!

Naah, I've been around long enough to see how you respond to posters. Your response to me was pretty typical of your posts.

Ironman says

I knew you were an Alt account, I can tell by your writing style.

Isn't it you that has all the alt accounts on here?

Ironman says

So why don't you cry about it.

Naah, you've been doing more than enough of that on this thread for everyone.

Ironman says

I knew you were an Alt account

so he can contradict himself without losing credibility

The Original Bankster says

so he can contradict himself without losing credibility

My views are consistent. You however just post stuff you don't believe to get a rise from others.

everything I state I believe in 100%.