4369628

Re: Barack Obama, should I be worried?

Von Mudra

June 4th, 2008 09:18 AM

We aren't minimizing it We agree that it was a horrible thing too. But its daft of you to say that it was any worse then what you guys did.

4369631

Re: Barack Obama, should I be worried?

June 4th, 2008 09:24 AM

I did nothing, you neither...well, maybe JumJum and Genl'Knight did...I heard there are daguerrotipes of them taken back then at Tucson.

It's the problem of your, dears, you see life in black and white, Stalin was so evil like Hitler, spaniards were so evil like the Mayflower descendants and so on. Others we love the greys.

4369654

Re: Barack Obama, should I be worried?

June 4th, 2008 09:47 AM

Is it possible to place a thread in an ignore list? I cant take this anymore, Lobo, youve truly lost your marbles man...

4369657

Re: Barack Obama, should I be worried?

June 4th, 2008 09:51 AM

Never, gringo pendejo!

Long Life to Cabeza de Vaca, Daniel Boone burn in Hell

4369672

Re: Barack Obama, should I be worried?

June 4th, 2008 10:09 AM

No me mata

4369715

Re: Barack Obama, should I be worried?

June 4th, 2008 10:51 AM

Just don't go on here. Where's your self-control?

4369726

Re: Barack Obama, should I be worried?

June 4th, 2008 10:56 AM

LOL! I cant look away from train wrecks!

4369732

Re: Barack Obama, should I be worried?

June 4th, 2008 10:57 AM

Yeah, but you're not sitting in the train.

4369746

Re: Barack Obama, should I be worried?

June 4th, 2008 11:04 AM

That is total bull crap...you have swallowed modern leftist propaganda that paints some picture of pre-Columbian America as a happy place full of joy and butterflies where Indians lived in bliss and harmony until the evil Puritans came and killed them all.

Except that religious settlers like the Puritans, Quakers and Pilgrims had some of the best relations with the natives of any new world colonists.

The Indians were not some monolithic entity...there were many many tribes and they didn't all get along. Which is why, if you look at the history of the Indian wars, you'll see that many Indian tribes sided with the Europeans against their rival tribes.

I'll bet you've never studied any of the Indian wars of North America. In fact, without looking it up, can you name a single battle of the Indian wars besides Custer at Little Big Horn?

There was no overarching campaign of genocide. Yes, forced removals were committed in some areas, and brutal massacres were committed by BOTH SIDES in many places. Ever heard of the Whitman Mission for example?

For example, the tribe that once lived in my area, the Catawbas, were on very good terms with the European setters of the area and made an alliance against rival tribes. They fought on the settler's side against other tribes who wanted to drive the Europeans into the sea.

If no one in the USA intermarried with native Americans, why do I know so many people who are part Native? Why is it almost impossible to find a full-blooded Native American outside of reservations?

Besides, you're acting like Spain's main goal in colonizing Latin America wasn't gold, fame and fortune, which it was...

The only Indians Daniel Boone killed were the ones fighting on the side of the British during the war of 1812...

The amount of people massacred in the Indian Wars was SMALL compared to other genocides (Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, Khmer Rouge etc)...

Check this book out...

From Wiki, about the book:

In the book The Wild Frontier: Atrocities during the American-Indian War from Jamestown Colony to Wounded Knee, amateur historian William M. Osborn sought to tally every recorded atrocity in the area that would eventually become the continental United States, from early contact (1511) to the closing of the frontier (1890), and determined that 9,156 people died from atrocities perpetrated by Native Americans, and 7,193 people died from atrocities perpetrated by Europeans. Osborn defines an atrocity as the murder, torture, or mutilation of civilians, the wounded, and prisoners.

Here's something else for you:

Indian Massacres

4369753

Re: Barack Obama, should I be worried?

June 4th, 2008 11:14 AM

Wait a minute I have not entered the Indian fray so do not take my nick in vain...

But since you asked...

The early American settlers and mountain men (circa 1800 give and take) had no problems with Indian brides. Truth be know I doubt any white man ever gave a pass to some Indian loving unless she was butt ugly.

It became early on a struggle for land at which the reservation system became adopted. Some Indian tribes benefited (Oklahoma oil) but most did not.

The crap really hit the fan when gold was discovered and ultimately lead to the ugliness surrounding Little Big Horn.

There evolved a racist element to the Indian situation but you cannot frame the whole country as guilty. As always there are elements both ways.

Basically though, the Spaniards were driven by greed for gold from Columbus on and it is easy to use religion to cover it up but greed is greed.

While Americans did rape and pillage, I do not recall the degree of debauchery and bestilality as ascribed to the Spaniards.

To translate Lobo, it appears your boys were worse than than my boys and basically for the same sin, just covering it up in different ways.

As far as slavery in the 19th century, the US was in the middle of all the civilized nations at the time in repealling the notion of slavery. I'm sure it took just as long before the ceasing of slavery actually took in all the countries involved as it did in the US so it is not fair to point that finger.

Of course, we know and have been told that only Bush is the hated one on this continent...

Let me ask this question if I may:

If a person is prejudiced does he really know it?

It is not as deep as the age old riddle of if a husband is alone in the woods is he still wrong but I thought I would throw it out there...

**Added for Megaraptor***

I've heard it said most Indians actually killed each other.