"The only way I can maintain any integrity in regard to my ancestor’s relationship to the Indians is to call it painfully and regrettably, an American Holocaust.
According to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a “vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record.”"
This is the biggest indictment against the US. And it isn't "ancient history" either.
ReplyDeleteWe shall meet again ... in the future... demographically.
Mara, almost all the native Americans were killed by diseases and inadequete health care.
ReplyDeleteAnand, listen you little fucking idiot, you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you studied any of the butcheries that transpired? I seriously doubt it, but you post anyhow - you need your ass seriously kicked you little shit.
ReplyDeleteAlso, disease was used as a weapon little ignorant one - do you want to dent this? Tahn keep in mind, that from the 11th and 12th century, diseased bodies were catapulted over walls in warfare. Small pox infected blankets were purposefully given to the indigenous population in the states. I have records of local papers in numerous settler areas speaking of using disease as a weapon to genocide indigenous populations. In other words, instead of repeating bullshit, you need to look at credible original sources - or, alternative - shut up.
Anand, listen you little fucking idiot, you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you studied any of the butcheries that transpired? I seriously doubt it, but you post anyhow - you need your ass seriously kicked you little shit.
ReplyDeleteAlso, disease was used as a weapon little ignorant one - do you want to dent this? Than keep in mind, that from the 11th and 12th century, diseased bodies were catapulted over walls in warfare. Small pox infected blankets were purposefully given to the indigenous population in the states. I have records of local papers in numerous settler areas speaking of using disease as a weapon to genocide indigenous populations. In other words, instead of repeating bullshit, you need to look at credible original sources - or, alternative - shut up.
Anand, listen you little fucking idiot, you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you studied any of the butcheries that transpired? I seriously doubt it, but you post anyhow - you need your ass seriously kicked you little shit.
ReplyDeleteAlso, disease was used as a weapon little ignorant one - do you want to deny this? Than keep in mind, that from the 11th and 12th century, diseased bodies were catapulted over walls in warfare. Small pox infected blankets were purposefully given to the indigenous population in the states. I have records of local papers in numerous settler areas speaking of using disease as a weapon to genocide indigenous populations. In other words, instead of repeating bullshit, you need to look at credible original sources - or, alternative - shut up.
Read Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Gems and Steel
ReplyDeleteRead Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs and Steel
ReplyDeleteRead Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and Steel
ReplyDelete"Anand, listen you little fucking idiot, you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you studied any of the butcheries that transpired? I seriously doubt it, but you post anyhow - you need your ass seriously kicked you little shit."
ReplyDeletePotty-mouthed cyber bully
Read "holocaust hegemony" buy "I am a Zionist" piece of shit...lol
ReplyDeleteOh baloney. You are such a baby.
ReplyDeleteYes yes, just keep gobbling the "euro-centric history" down with little to no critique
ReplyDeleteFuck you asswipe :)
ReplyDeleteThere is no sense discussing anything with youy Anand, so, fuck you ignorant putz...lOL
ReplyDeleteHowever, to be fair, this denial is not merely among those who are Zionists, but among many of the stock and trade "historians" in American Universities. Perhaps many got their "education" from the Smithsonian Institute in the earlier part of the 20th century :) In many cases it does not matter if their leanings are either left or right, or even communist in some instances. For some reaason there is denial of the proven plain facts of history.
ReplyDelete"Not everyone backing Brown's version of the dispute appears to be part of the right wing. One of the scholars Brown says has had his findings distorted by Churchill is Russell Thornton, a professor of anthropology at the University of California at Los Angeles. Thornton, who is a Cherokee, has written extensively about the horrors of U.S. treatment of Indians. But his study of the Mandan concluded that the epidemic was not intentional."
ReplyDeleteThornton said in an interview last night that Brown's essay was correct. He said that people have periodically told him over the years that Churchill has "misrepresented my work."
"Issues like Ward Churchill cast aspersions on legitimate Indian scholars," Thornton said. Of U.S. treatment of Native Americans, Thornton said, "The history is bad enough -- there's no need to embellish it."
Churchill embellishes because he is not interested in scholarhship and searching for facts, He is interested in an indictment of the U.S. All the difference in the world.
"Not everyone backing Brown's version of the dispute appears to be part of the right wing. One of the scholars Brown says has had his findings distorted by Churchill is Russell Thornton, a professor of anthropology at the University of California at Los Angeles. Thornton, who is a Cherokee, has written extensively about the horrors of U.S. treatment of Indians. But his study of the Mandan concluded that the epidemic was not intentional."
ReplyDeleteThornton said in an interview last night that Brown's essay was correct. He said that people have periodically told him over the years that Churchill has "misrepresented my work."
"Issues like Ward Churchill cast aspersions on legitimate Indian scholars," Thornton said. Of U.S. treatment of Native Americans, Thornton said, "The history is bad enough -- there's no need to embellish it."
Churchill embellishes because he is not interested in scholarhship and searching for facts, He is interested in an indictment against the U.S. All the difference in the world.
http://m.insidehighered.com/news/2005/02/09/churchill2_9
Now I understand: Churchill is not a legitimate scholar because he draws conclusions from undisputed facts. Thanks for explaining it to me.
ReplyDeletePeople that specialize in Latin American history of the colonial period must become familiar with this source:
ReplyDeleteAnd the Christians attacked them with buffets and beatings, until finally they laid hands on the nobles of the villages. Then they behaved with such temerity and shamelessness that the most powerful ruler of the islands had to see his own wife raped by a Christian officer.
From that time onward the Indians began to seek ways to throw the Christians out of their lands. They took up arms, but their weapons were very weak and of little service in offense and still less in defense. (Because of this, the wars of the Indians against each other are little more than games played by children.) And the Christians, with their horses and swords and pikes began to carry out massacres and strange cruelties against them. They attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged nor pregnant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing them and dismembering them but cutting them to pieces as if dealing with sheep in the slaughter house. They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword, could split a man in two or could cut off his head or spill out his entrails with a single stroke of the pike. They took infants from their mothers' breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers, roaring with laughter and saying as the babies fell into the water, "Boil there, you offspring of the devil!" Other infants they put to the sword along with their mothers and anyone else who happened to be nearby. They made some low wide gallows on which the hanged victim's feet almost touched the ground, stringing up their victims in lots of thirteen, in memory of Our Redeemer and His twelve Apostles, then set burning wood at their feet and thus burned them alive. To others they attached straw or wrapped their whole bodies in straw and set them afire. With still others, all those they wanted to capture alive, they cut off their hands and hung them round the victim's neck, saying, "Go now, carry the message," meaning, Take the news to the Indians who have fled to the mountains. They usually dealt with the chieftains and nobles in the following way: they made a grid of rods which they placed on forked sticks, then lashed the victims to the grid and lighted a smoldering fire underneath, so that little by little, as those captives screamed in despair and torment, their souls would leave them....
After the wars and the killings had ended, when usually there survived only some boys, some women, and children, these survivors were distributed among the Christians to be slaves.
ReplyDeleteNotice the reference to 'wars'. You can also find references to 'wars' in north american literature. I doubt they were referring to 'wars' with a virus.
+++++
You arrogant poor excuse for a professor!!! I can see you prancing before your students like a self absorbed preening peacock!! I bet your students think you are an ass!! They can't wait to get out of your class, blah blah blah.
I miss fleming. :-D
There is plenty of worthy scholarship out there, just in case you are interested.
ReplyDeleteWell, no. The argument the dissenting prof is making is that Churchill is, in fact, not doing that. And he makes the point quite emphatically that the record of what the colonists did to the Indians is quite horrific enough without the need for embellishment.
ReplyDeleteDon't mistake my position: I fully agree that the horrors perpetrated against the American Indians was genocidal in intent and nature. That they colonists were innocent of one particular occurrence doesn't change that fact. And it doesn't change the fact that in recounting any history, scrupulous attention to factual detail is required. To take an example dear to our own hearts on this blog, Norman Finkelstein and Ilan Pappe would not be able to speak with such compelling authority of the genocide perpetrated against the Palestinians if they allowed themselves to embellish or make up historical "facts." The fact that they are, in fact, so scrupulous makes their arguments all the more persuasive and powerful. Brown is right to say that Churchill does a disfavor to scholars of American Indian history if he is doing that.
On tjhe subject, Joseph Cannon -- one of my favorite bloggers -- had an excellent essay on this very issue, comparing the monument to the Nazi Holocaust in Washington D.C. to the very-much-whitewashed version of history presented at the same city's Museum of the American Indian:
ReplyDeletehttp://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2009/06/holocausts.html
Anand,
ReplyDeleteDisease wasn't the only thing that killed the "indigenous peoples". Some people might claim things like that out of ignorance, but teachers and scholars ought to know better. While one can forgive the man-on-the-street for believing such half-truths, a person who should know better and yet insists on repeating such nonsense can only be a bigot and a racist.
I should have known you would bring up "Brown" - ass, good name for someone full of shit. Who the hell is Borwn? Nothing, a stupid idiot not even worth mentioning - a big mouth with no standing. Why don't you ask a real scholar like Stannard to compare Churchill with Brown? I can tell you what the answer would be smartass...LOL
ReplyDeleteAND if you want to bring up the horse shit at Colorado, I will be more than happy to go over it with you. this is because it is absolutely ridicilous, and no scholar could stand up to the stupid pedantic sophistry of that ridiculous board. They need to make a decision on that count, because they were shown to be the idiots that they are in a court of law - reinstate Churchill is what they were told. Why? Because their other nonsense was not worth a hill of beans.
ReplyDeleteAND if you want to bring up the horse shit at Colorado, I will be more than happy to go over it with you. this is because it is absolutely ridiculous, and no scholar could stand up to the stupid pedantic sophistry of that ridiculous board. They need to make a decision on that count, because they were shown to be the idiots that they are in a court of law - reinstate Churchill is what they were told. Why? Because their other nonsense was not worth a hill of beans.
ReplyDeleteSorry, he is not doing that (Chruchill), but i can tell you for a fact that Brown is an ass...lol
ReplyDeleteMy recommendation, as always, is to READ the books of people you dispute third hand, as some here do with Churchill. I bet they have not cracked one book of his. If they did, they would not be spewing off at the mouth. That very fact that David Stannard would "blurb" the book like he does says volumes. Now, if you want to take up you case against such scholars on this subject as Stannard, than be my guest - but even the hacks of Zionist lore were shut down by him.
ReplyDeleteSEED OF AMERICAN IMPERIALISM
http://notinhisname.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-05_cy-2007_m-05_d-06_y-2007_o-0.html
By the way, I have also read what Brown the bullshit man has said, first hand, that is why I name it for what it is - bullshit
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you mentioned Finkelstein and Pappe, do you know how many "scholars" come after them? However, it is a known fact as an example, that raul Hilberg the dead of Jewish holocaust studies stands up for Finkelstein. It is also a known fact that Chirchill has a group of "scholars" that come after him, but the dean of American indigenous holocaust stands up for him. I wonder why this is so in both of these instances? That is because neither Finkelstein nor Churchill write without embellishment, and painful documentation (most of Churchill's volume "A Little Matter Of Genocide" is notes!). My only problem is with indivduals that like to jump on the bandwagon with these other "scholars" that all together are not worth a damn.
ReplyDeleteRead "holocaust hegemony" by "I am a Zionist" piece of shit...lol
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you mentioned Finkelstein and Pappe, do you know how many "scholars" come after them? However, it is a known fact as an example, that Raul Hilberg the dean of Jewish holocaust studies stands up for Finkelstein. It is also a known fact that Churchill has a group of "scholars" that come after him, but the dean of American indigenous holocaust stands up for him. I wonder why this is so in both of these instances? That is because neither Finkelstein nor Churchill write without embellishment, and painful documentation (most of Churchill's volume "A Little Matter Of Genocide" is notes!). My only problem is with individuals that like to jump on the bandwagon with these other "scholars" that all together are not worth a damn.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you mentioned Finkelstein and Pappe, do you know how many "scholars" come after them? However, it is a known fact as an example, that Raul Hilberg the dean of Jewish holocaust studies stands up for Finkelstein. It is also a known fact that Churchill has a group of "scholars" that come after him, but the dean of American indigenous holocaust stands up for him. I wonder why this is so in both of these instances? That is because Finkelstein and Churchill write without embellishment, and painful documentation (most of Churchill's volume "A Little Matter Of Genocide" is notes!). My only problem is with individuals that like to jump on the bandwagon with these other "scholars" that all together are not worth a damn.
ReplyDeleteOne other point for Mara, individuals say that the indigenous died of disease "by accident" for the most part, because they are TAUGHT this nonsense in the states. It is the common stock and fare of places like the Smithsonian, which held this view for amtters of cover-up for years, even after their great "scholars" knew beyond a shadow of a doubt it was bullshit. In case you were not aware of it, it is STILL taught today - and is taught in some of the "books" quoted by some as a recommendation for reading here. The "Indians" were accidently killed...my ass.
ReplyDeleteJoe, I would like the facts to be laid bare to the indigenous, and I want the indictment to go forward against what was done to them by the "land of the brave and the home of the free." I want individuals to know what was done 'afterwards' (as if the genocide stopped), how they were made to subject to atomic materials and waste, their waters and land fouled - how they were moved like pawns. How their children suffered in boarding schools, and how they were subject to be imprisoned and persecuted, robbed of all their money, laid destitute and pauperized. I want everyone to know how the list is endless, and how in the very fabric of the society which committed genocide they are constantly humiliated - I want them to know
ReplyDeleteJoe, I would like the facts to be laid bare regarding the indigenous, and I want the indictment to go forward against what was done to them by the "land of the brave and the home of the free." I want individuals to know what was done 'afterwards' (as if the genocide stopped), how they were made to subject to atomic materials and waste, their waters and land fouled - how they were moved like pawns. How their children suffered in boarding schools, and how they were subject to be imprisoned and persecuted, robbed of all their money, laid destitute and pauperized. I want everyone to know how the list is endless, and how in the very fabric of the society which committed genocide they are constantly humiliated - I want them to know
ReplyDeleteWard Churchill is a character-in other words, he is a teacher who is passionate about what he teaches and actually teaches something. As far as I'm concerned, our education system could use thousands more like him. I think it's great that he sometimes says shocking things which get people to think. And you can be sure that all the harrassment he faces has to do with his politics and not any alleged academic misdemeanors he allegedly committed...I love the way how suddenly Ward Churchill's character is the issue and not the death of millions of people.
ReplyDeleteYeah that is exactly the point Joe.
ReplyDeleteWho are you talking to, Mara (the arrogant professor stuff)?
ReplyDeleteSo Indians didn't die as soon as Europeans arrived from the common cold? I am not denying the many slaughters as well as purposeful infections.
ReplyDeleteWho is Stannard?
ReplyDeleteWhy is he an ass?
ReplyDeleteOh you mean Churchill that made the "little Eichmanns" comment? That was so nice of him.
ReplyDeleteHa! I was just imitating fleming's likely reply to my post. It had become so standard that I actually miss it :) (not really).
ReplyDeletesuddenly Ward Churchill's character is the issue and not the death of millions of people.
ReplyDeleteYou said it, Joe!
Anand never said that disease was the only thing. He said most. Scholars agree that the majority of Indians did die because of diseases, so I do not see why some have to jump all over the poor guy in an obnoxious manner. I have never even heard of anyone ignorant enough to claim disease was the only reason.
ReplyDeleteThe FACT that the majority of deaths were as a result of disease does not diminish or detract from the horrors that were inflicted upon the Indians.
This bibliography was compiled by the Smithsonian. I have used many lesson plans from the Smithsonian. This year they sent excellent materials for Thanksgiving. The landing of the Mayflower and the settlement from the point of view of the indigenous people.
ReplyDeletelolol
ReplyDeleteYeah, he called the "technocrats" in the twin towers - you know, the ones that make the war machine lucrative, that financially help to destroy nations in order to exploit them, etc etc. Which was really terrible...However, no one is saying that they had to die like that, neither me nor Churchill. What he did say is that the "chickens came home to roost," and that you have to "stop killing their babies," the target nations. It was too much to have to face and handle the truth, and that is why they attacked Churchill -
ReplyDeleteWHEN THEY CAME FOR WARD CHURCHILL
http://www.wardchurchill.net/freespeech_video.html
Yeah, he called the "technocrats" in the twin towers "little Eichman's" - you know, the ones that make the war machine lucrative, that financially help to destroy nations in order to exploit them, etc etc. Which was really terrible...However, no one is saying that they had to die like that, neither me nor Churchill. What he did say is that the "chickens came home to roost," and that you have to "stop killing their babies," the target nations. It was too much to have to face and handle the truth, and that is why they attacked Churchill -
ReplyDeleteWHEN THEY CAME FOR WARD CHURCHILL
http://www.wardchurchill.net/freespeech_video.html
However. there are many that think you have to keep repeatedly have to "kill their babies," in order to "liberate them."
ReplyDelete"The Native American community is not a monolith. I am sure that quite a few agree with Carter Camp, while quite a few may believe that the NMAI should continue to focus primarily on the positive. Which stance is correct? I'm not an Indian, so that's not a call for me to make; I'm not even sure that a correct answer exists. Perhaps <span style="font-style: italic;">two</span> museums...?"
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this DancingOpossum. Very thought provoking essay...I respect the manner in which he acknowledges that maybe there is just one correct answer here. Refreshing.
However. there are some that think you have to repeatedly "kill their babies," in order to "liberate them."
ReplyDelete"The Native American community is not a monolith. I am sure that quite a few agree with Carter Camp, while quite a few may believe that the NMAI should continue to focus primarily on the positive. Which stance is correct? I'm not an Indian, so that's not a call for me to make; I'm not even sure that a correct answer exists. Perhaps <span style="font-style: italic;">two</span> museums...?"
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this DancingOpossum. Very thought provoking essay...I respect the manner in which he acknowledges that maybe there is not just one correct answer here. Refreshing.
There are certain people that arise in academia that try to "make their bones," so to speak on the destruction of the character and quality of others in the profession - Brown, in my book is one of these. Like those little wonders that follow around and hound Finkelstein, in fact, some of them are the same people. Those who have this agenda to cover the truth, and to try to bury anyone else who uncovers it. They pose as totally "detached" individuals, but they are part and parcel of the same crowd that wishes the murderous status quo to continue (whether it be facts regarding what took place in the United States or Palestine) - that cadre who essentially want to further themselves at any cost to others.
ReplyDeleteActually Noam Chomsky does a good job talking about this issue. That group of "intellectuals" that want you to line up and sing praises to this nation or any other nations magnificent "leaders." They do not throw people in jail like they used to years ago, but they have their hencemen (and women) who use their little bag of tricks that everyone in similar fields is familar - make em look bad. However, here, let Noam tell you himself in short order, under 4 minutes-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocPTdtXEKD8
I might add, I will never be one of these servile "crew," i would rather be dead -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhjCzK2mNlc
Hope that "embellishes" it a bit for you
Here is a bonus song for you -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3AoiVMQqX4
("...weve got all the wrong songs, we've got all the wrong moves, we are not leading...")
Joe said "Now I understand:"
ReplyDeleteWell no, actually. You don't.
In case you did not read the orginal post, the gentleman who wrote his heartfelt thoughts quoted Churchill as a source. It is quite legitimate to scrutinize sources.
ReplyDeleteAre you implying that when this topic comes up, if the correct kinds of facts or sources ( Facts or sources you agree with!) are given, we are to just accept it all as TRUTH without questioning? Anything less would be tantamount to not caring about the death of millions, right guys?
In case you did not read the original post, the gentleman who wrote his heartfelt thoughts quoted Churchill as a source. It is quite legitimate to scrutinize sources.
ReplyDeleteAre you implying that when this topic comes up, if the correct kinds of facts or sources ( Facts or sources you agree with!) are given, we are to just accept it all as TRUTH without questioning? Anything less would be tantamount to not caring about the death of millions, right guys?
That is your problem vza, you divorce an issue from the context - or, in religious parlay - "you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." LOL
ReplyDeleteHow about living in the present reality vza, which should give a clue to your mysterious mystical query, look at the present it gives you clues in regard to the past -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_sLNYDU1yQ
Because the author's intent (and you undeniably concur) in the context of the thread was that it somehow lessens the charge, which it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteYou know, kind of like your attempt to backtrack after stating: "It is pertinent to note that many Muslims do not object to invasion and occupation as long as they are doing the invading and occupying. They do not object to a people losing their homeland if they are the ones stealing it."
Yeah right! You didn't say "all" Muslims, but your intent was obvious.
Or, the next time you see a "dirty" drunk Indian, think this way-
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKoZqB2nM4
Instead of what you were taught
I must admit I am more familiar with the South American literature. Disease is mentioned there as well but as a secondary and not as important contributor to the extermination of the indigenous tribes. Las Casas has contributed enormously to de-mystifying the whole encounter between Europeans and the indigenous populations (obviously in the Caribbean context). However, when I used to teach Caribbean history, students would still find it hard to believe what Padre Las Casas was describing (I mean, just check out my link!).
ReplyDeleteFrom DancingOpposum's Cannon link:
ReplyDelete"Visitors to the Holocaust Museum will encounter another anomaly. When Jimmy Carter convened his commission, the directive was to create a museum dedicated to <span style="font-style: italic;">all</span> of the victims of the Holocaust, and to all victims of other genocides. Nobody really knows how many non-Jews perished in the Nazi camps Simon Weisenthal believed that the numbers of Jewish and non-Jewish victims were roughly equal. Proportionally, the gypsies suffered losses roughly equivalent to Jewish losses."
"One would expect an American museum to represent those other victims. Yet that is not the case."
"The Museum does make some reference to the crimes committed against homosexuals, but the sufferings of Gypsies, slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others go unmentioned. Moreover, the Museum was originally intended to include a permanent display on the Armenian genocide. Those plans faded -- due, it is said, to pressure from Israel, which boasted good relations with Turkey. In recent times, the Museum has devoted some space to the general topic of genocide -- for example, visitors may now see an exhibit on Darfur. That exhibit is not permanent."
This really bothers me. Why couldn't all groups who suffered be mentioned and mourned at the Holocaust museum in America? I don't get this at all. Who would oppose such a thing?
You do?
ReplyDeletefrom the intro:
Children's history books use terms such as "westward expansion" and "Manifest Destiny" to describe what would be more accurately called ethnic genocide. These books alternately portray Indians as "noble savages," "faithful Indian guides," or "sneaky savages" who lead "ambushes" and "massacres," while in contrast, cavalrymen fight "brave battles." These books propagandize the "glory and honor" of taking land and oppressing native people for European purposes that are portrayed as holy and valid.
Yes, I forgot. You know everything. You can divine intent and can see deep into the hearts of all. Such a superior being you are!
ReplyDeleteAs you saw Mara, the idea of the disease being the cause of the majority of deaths, as an accident is still commonly tauted - note who calls it a "fact." What utter ignorance
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not a matter of "understanding," it is a matter of not swallowing your thrid hand fallacious points vza
ReplyDeleteYou will learn more from this vza -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptLD0kCoHG4&feature=related
AMERICAN LIE
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OirEQpRkjks
IT AIN'T OVER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6LFNCryryA&feature=related
now there are two of us who "know everything" Mara :)
ReplyDelete"For years we watched movie after movie that demonstrated the white man's benevolence. Jimmy Stewart, the epitome of fairness, puts his arm around Cochise and tells how the Indians and the whites can live in peace if only both sides will be reasonable, responsible and rational (the three R's imperialists always teach the "natives"). "You will find good grazing land on the other side of the mountain," drawls the public relations man. "Take your people and go in peace." Cochise as well as millions of youngsters in the balcony of learning, were being dealt off the bottom of the deck. The Indians should have offed Jimmy Stewart in every picture and we should have cheered ourselves hoarse."
ReplyDeleteAbbie Hoffman - Steal This Book
WHO IS THAT HANGING ON A CROSS?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pirLWdYeMBg&feature=related
They are not interested in other genocide, and to be frank they are not REALLY interested in the Holocaust - just its image to exploit, they could care less about the people.
ReplyDeleteLong before Churchill wrote his book -
ReplyDelete<span>"Hear how the bargain was made for the West
With her shivering children in zero degrees
Blankets for your land, so the treaties attest
Oh well, blankets for land is a bargain indeed
And the blankets were those Uncle Sam had collected
From smallpox-diseased dying soldiers that day
And the tribes were wiped out and the history books censored..."</span>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl08n8_b3Sw
You either do not possess any analytical skills or you use them very selectively. I would venture the latter.
ReplyDeletePolitics my dear, good ole double standard poltiics that look after the interests of one side over the other ...
ReplyDeleteConsidering all of the atrocities committed against them, which of the native Indians of South America and North American have faired out better when compared to each other today? It seems that in South America many natives are in the process of trying to regain their inherited rights, which to me appears to mean that the colonizers of South America did not do as thorough of a job demonizing them, wiping them out, and rendering them powerless as they did in North America....
ReplyDeleteOh Yes, my analytical skills or lack thereof are what sticks in your craw. Very funny.
ReplyDeleteCave ab homine unius libri
ReplyDeletePerhaps you might actually read the foreword of the Smithsonian link I put up yesterday.
You have a knack for avoiding the issue if it makes you look anything less than stellar. If you go back and actually read the thread again from the beginning, you would be hard pressed not to conclude that Anand's intent was to blunt or even contradict my initial statement about the issue. Is that so hard to fathom? You should be able to agree with that obvious assessment. Let me add further that he has every right to contest what I say. Nonetheless, I maintain that the overwhelming evidence is in my favor. The disease issue doesn't detract from my initial acquiescence to the genocide verdict. That you don't buy it is your prerogative, but I'm going to call you on it. The Smithsonian link I posted didn't distract your attention, it seems, because if it had, you might have seen things you would not agree with.
ReplyDeleteAs for your intent and my supposed "mind reading" capabilities, I find it interesting that when the topic concerns anything damaging to the reputation of the United States government, you summon all manner of caution and exhort to careful analysis with particular attention to dissenting views as if these possess a greater truth. HOWEVER, when it comes to issues involving Arabs (or perhaps I should say Muslims), you throw all caution to the wind, lunge forth into making generalized and (frankly) such patently bigoted statements as the one I occasionally cite that puts your knickers in a twist.
As you well know, the research process requires one to take into consideration all, including dissenting, views (a review of the literature), but the researcher must ultimately reach a final conclusion. That your benign view of the 'Indian' question is flawed is evident from the fact that to this day, the descendants of those indigenous peoples must still fight for their rights in what was once their own land.
Mara, she is the "lady of no book"...LOL
ReplyDeleteOh, and another thing. You refer to me jumping on Anand in an "obnoxious" manner. Perhaps. I see it slightly differently - I levelled a very strong criticism to Anand, but I did so because I believed it appropriate. However, NEVER ONCE DID I USE FILTHY INVECTIVE. Yet my expressions seem to disgust you much more than the REAL filth that other commenters here have flung at you! And yet, you continue to engage those individuals in discussion (strange!; to me anyway). I guess I'm just different: when your funny "friend" flemming interrupted my discussions with others so as to fling filthy language, I simply chose not to respond. So if having filth flung at you is enjoyable, that is fine. To each their own. Apparently THAT is not as obnoxious as having serious discussion. 8-)
ReplyDeleteI shall answer this post first since it will be the one requiring the least amount of time... I have just come home. I must apologize for my imprecise language. I did not mean to refer to you when I said, some jumped all over anand. My comment was a response to both yours and V's comments but I should have been more clear that I thought V was the one who jumped all over anand in an obnoxious manner. My apologies.
ReplyDeleteNo, you have never engaged in filthy invective at all. In fact when we have been able to have a discussion, I have always learned something interesting from you. Ricardo Semler, for example. I ended up buying the book, Maverick because of your comments.
You know quite well what my problem with you is. The comment you like to use as a weapon is not posted merely as a part of a discussion, You post it to wound, to score a point, to strike back. That's your perogative, but I do not have to just take it, either, and invariably I end up giving back as good as I get! I can understand you vociferously disagreeing wiith the comment. That is your perogative, too. But I am not going to cheerfully engage with someone who is just setting me up for another insult. You made up your mind about me and you are not going to let me or anyone else forget it. I don't believe in holding past comments or arguments against others. Disagree. Move on.
I shall answer this post first since it will be the one requiring the least amount of time... I have just come home. I must apologize for my imprecise language. I did not mean to refer to you when I said, some jumped all over anand. My comment was a response to both yours and V's comments but I should have been more clear that I thought V was the one who jumped all over anand in an obnoxious manner. My apologies.
ReplyDeleteNo, you have never engaged in filthy invective at all. In fact when we have been able to have a discussion, I have always learned something interesting from you. Ricardo Semler, for example. I ended up buying the book, Maverick because of your comments.
You know quite well the problem I have with you. The comment you like to use as a weapon is not posted merely as a part of a discussion, You post it to wound, to score a point, to strike back. That's your perogative, but I do not have to just take it, either, and invariably I end up giving back as good as I get! I can understand you vociferously disagreeing wiith the comment. That is your perogative, too. But I am not going to cheerfully engage with someone who is just setting me up for another insult. You made up your mind about me and you are not going to let me or anyone else forget it. I don't believe in holding past comments or arguments against others. Disagree. Move on.