Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans

[Richpo64]

>>Translation:  We never did anything wrong and if we did America is great so stop questioning us.<<

lol ... translated: don't ever question our preconceived notions, it makes our heads hurt. Reminds me of evolution. Just putting forth a contrary argument gets them all in an uproar. they revert to the the standard defense of name calling. I guess it's easier than thinking.

I'd suggest some study on the subject for both of you. Scholars are challenging many liberal templates with facts these days.

[_JS]

*yawn*

Let me know when you have something better than petty little sniping to contribute to the debate.

[Richpo64]

>>Let me know when you have something better than petty little sniping to contribute to the debate.<<

lol ... the high and mighty liar speaks.

 

[_JS]

The problem Medved has is that he believes once you've shown that the label of genocide is debatable, then you are completely off the hook.

It doesn't work that way. Native Americans are still hurting for what has been historically done to them. That's the issue.

[BT]

I don't think it is so much a matter of "guilt" as what impact that colonial mindset has had on modern times. Brass brings up blacks as well as Native Americans and I think he hits the nail on the head.

Good, because i have no intention of feeling guilty for deeds i did not do.

[Richpo64]

>>I've never denied that the 400 year history of American contact with the Indians includes many examples of white cruelty and viciousness --- just as the Native Americans frequently (indeed, regularly) dealt with the European newcomers with monstrous brutality and, indeed, savagery. In fact, reading the history of the relationship between British settlers and Native Americans its obvious that the blood-thirsty excesses of one group provoked blood thirsty excesses from the other, in a cycle that listed with scant interruption for several hundred years.<<

From this JS comes to this conclusion:

>>Medved's argument is that the Native American's didn't treat the white's well, so they got it back in kind.<<

JS concludes that Medvid claims the excesses of the settlers was brought on by the natives, which of course he didn't say that at all. He said it was a vicious circle and blames neither side.

Is JS dishonest? Or just stupid?

[_JS]

I don't think it is so much a matter of "guilt" as what impact that colonial mindset has had on modern times. Brass brings up blacks as well as Native Americans and I think he hits the nail on the head.

Good, because i have no intention of feeling guilty for deeds i did not do.

But certainly it is not anti-American to point out the blatantly racist policies we employed on the Native Americans well into the 20th century? I don't believe that telling the truth should be considered anti-American, if anything that notion itself is something I find to be dangerous.

[BT]

But certainly it is not anti-American to point out the blatantly racist policies we employed on the Native Americans well into the 20th century? I don't believe that telling the truth should be considered anti-American, if anything that notion itself is something I find to be dangerous.

I don't believe it anti-american to have the historical record lay it all on the table. I do sometimes question the wisdom of those who insist that white america is evil and them want them to accept that label in the hopes that somewhere down the road they will be good.

Fact is the majority are good now.

And i often wonder whether those who point out the past assigning guilt are eager to fix the wrongs or more interested in thumbing heir nose at the man.

[kimba1]

hey
I pointed out several times some white folks are oppressed also
theirs a reason we have a saint patricks day parade in america
people still don`t see why the word paddywagon is offensive

[_JS]

But certainly it is not anti-American to point out the blatantly racist policies we employed on the Native Americans well into the 20th century? I don't believe that telling the truth should be considered anti-American, if anything that notion itself is something I find to be dangerous.

I don't believe it anti-american to have the historical record lay it all on the table. I do sometimes question the wisdom of those who insist that white america is evil and them want them to accept that label in the hopes that somewhere down the road they will be good.

Fact is the majority are good now.

And i often wonder whether those who point out the past assigning guilt are eager to fix the wrongs or more interested in thumbing heir nose at the man.

Shouldn't people care about events of the past?

[BT]

Shouldn't people care about events of the past?

Define "care".

[_JS]

Shouldn't people care about events of the past?

Define "care".

For example, if a student reads about Wounded Knee and feels compelled to help those Native Americans in the poor counties of South Dakota, is there something wrong with that? Even if it is motivated by what you call, "guilt?"

[BT]

For example, if a student reads about Wounded Knee and feels compelled to help those Native Americans in the poor counties of South Dakota, is there something wrong with that? Even if it is motivated by what you call, "guilt?"

What others do is up to them.

I don't have a problem with awareness.

I do have a problem with the demand for an emotional response.

Take your student. Are they compelled to act because of an emotional response, or are they compelled to act because they can provide a solution.

Is the recepient of the action the student or the tribe?

[kimba1]

how about just learn from it

there`s a movie- at play in the field of our lord
which missionary`s and one american indian accidfentally pretty much wiped out a couple of forest tribes .
people don`t learn what safe for them is not safe for others
it`s not just diseases also
lets just say herbal medicine is alot more dangerous than people think.

[Brassmask]

Is the recepient of the action the student or the tribe?

Both.

It's a win/win for everyone.