In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
Well that's mongidig screwed, because 'bating is all he does.
We didn’t really eliminate indigenous people, in fact they have lots of special statuses and treaties that other groups don’t have because we still feel bad about it. Which is surprising given how much animosity there really was from both sides.
Amazing to see the libs actually spell out the bothsidesness of land theft and genocide.
Amazing to see the libs actually spell out the bothsidesness of land theft and genocide.
First of all, I never both-sidesed anything in the sense of morally equating them. I just said that they hated each other. Secondly, I highly doubt you have ever looked into what the relationship was actually like between native americans and american settlers and how much the hatred came from both sides. Here’s a lovely story about a kidnapping ring that the comanche established where they kidnapped little kids in order to sell them back to settlers:
On March Chief Muguara brought in some trade articles and horses as well as an abused and tortured 14-year captive white girl named Matilda Lockhart that they had kidnapped and hoped that they would fetch a better price for her ransom, than what they received from nine year old, James Putnam/Putman just two weeks before. If the price was right, they may soon deliver over more captives.[4][5][6]
The remainder of the Penateka Comanche were, at the time, at Enchanted Rock with thirteen other captives that they planned to sell one by one to fetch better prices.[5][7]
The Southern Comanche had broken the 1835 as well as the 1838 treaty traveling hundreds of miles down the Colorado River and Guadalupe Rivers into the Texas settlements to steal horses and abduct children and had no intention of stopping this lucrative market economy that gave their young men a purpose. The various bands of the Southern Comanche had about thirty white captives and sixty Mexican captives, all abducted in recent raids.[8][9][10][11]
The council at the courthouse in San Antonio began when the 30 Comanche men were invited into a courthouse in downtown San Antonio, on the east side of the square east of San Fernando Cathedral, facing it. The men brought their women who concealed several tomahawks under the blankets they held. The men left their rifles with their horse handlers out front and unstrung their bows and walked in as a procession and sat on the floor facing the table of Texian representatives including judges and Colonels. Captive Matilda Lockhart was delivered over. Enraged by Lockhart's condition, as well as by the Comanches' failure to deliver any other captives and their demands for a better price, the Texans took the Comanche delegation as hostages for a forced prisoner exchange. After soldiers from a nearby building entered the premises, the Comanche began to stab the Texans. The council ended with 12 Comanche men shot to death inside the Council House and 23 others killed outside. Two elderly men and two dozen women were held captive in order to obtain an exchange for the remaining Texan children held by the Comanche.
…
One of the women prisoners was sent on a horse to relay the news of the Comanche prisoners. On the 19th of April, twenty-five Comanche braves returned to San Antonio bringing seven Mexican captives and begged the release of the captives, but none of the whites, all of whom were massacred by order the Buffalo Hump and the other chiefs. The emissaries begged, insisting upon the release of at least two. It was determined that five of the seven captives they had brought with them were citizens of Mexico and were so, "Indianized" after being so long captive, they would certainly return to their tribe. The two Mexican citizens of San Antonio were exchanged. These were then interviewed and asked of the disposition of the white captives in their possession. They stated there were eight or nine white children in the Comanche's camps, but they had all been, "put to death by the savages after they heard of the Council House incident."[22]
After trading for the two Mexican captives, these braves then swung by the Mission at San Jose and stole twenty mules and murdered an elderly Mexican man.[30]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_...
Anyway I’m sure you’ll misconstrue this as genocide apologia, but it’s just pointing out that it’s amazing that we were able to bring about such good relations between the US and the native american tribes given just how much hatred and dehumanization there was.
Damned unappreciative of those Comanche to object to the theft of their land so strongly. Why couldn't they just enjoy all the trappings of a superior culture instead?
First of all, I never both-sidesed anything in the sense of morally equating them. I just said that they hated each other.
That's both-sidesing.
Anyway I’m sure you’ll misconstrue this as genocide apologia, but it’s just pointing out that it’s amazing that we were able to bring about such good relations between the US and the native american tribes given just how much hatred and dehumanization there was.
The tribes were just reduced to the point where they couldn't meaningfully object to anything.
Damned unappreciative of those Comanche to object to the theft of their land so strongly. Why couldn't they just enjoy all the trappings of a superior culture instead?
You’re taking descriptive statements as normative statements. But I’ll bite. I’d say that kidnapping, torturing, and murdering children for money is a little bit more than “unappreciative”. I’d almost call it indications if animosity, wouldn’t you?
You’re taking descriptive statements as normative statements. But I’ll bite. I’d say that kidnapping, torturing, and murdering children for money is a little bit more than “unappreciative”. I’d almost call it indications if animosity, wouldn’t you?
If three different people "miscontsrued" what you're saying...maybe it's you.
Nah, it’s not.
What to Know
Bothsidesing refers to the media or public figures giving credence to the other side of a cause, action, or idea to seem fair or only for the sake of argument when the credibility of that side may be unmerited. The term is also used to describe public figures equivocating about a seemingly condemnable action saying that people on both sides are equally responsible for that action.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay...
The tribes were just reduced to the point where they couldn't meaningfully object to anything.
I don’t know why you consider that an objection to what I said. I’m not even sure you know what I was trying to say lol
Nah, it’s not.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay...
I don’t know why you consider that an objection to what I said. I’m not even sure you know what I was trying to say lol
Yeah. Again maybe it's you...
You’re taking descriptive statements as normative statements. But I’ll bite. I’d say that kidnapping, torturing, and murdering children for money is a little bit more than “unappreciative”. I’d almost call it indications if animosity, wouldn’t you?
I think maybe you should try to think about where the animosity began, what form it took and how that might incite people to react with sporadic acts of violence. Try to put yurself in the place of those people and imagine how you and your community might feel about the invaders.
And then if you've got this far maybe you can think about Palestine in a similar way.
I think maybe you should try to think about where the animosity began, what form it took and how that might incite people to react with sporadic acts of violence. Try to put yurself in the place of those people and imagine how you and your community might feel about the invaders.
And then if you've got this far maybe you can think about Palestine in a similar way.
lol I support a two-state solution. I have positive views of Palestinians, I just have very negative views of Hamas.
I know where the animosity came from, it came from the project of settlements infringing on groups that were occupying the land. Just so I spell it out, that was not a good thing. Ethnic cleansing bad. There I did my lefty virtue signal for the day. Am I now allowed to say that even groups that were violently murdering each other (due to one group being bad and starting it) can eventually come together and have peace with each other?
Because you were 'equivocating about a seemingly condemnable action saying that people on both sides were equally responsible,' when only one side was the aggressive invader seizing the other side's lands.
It’s funny because you’re the one that chimed in about how Irish and British don’t feel animosity towards each other anymore. This despite the fact that the Irish literally tried to assassinate the British PM during the 1980’s. Which again, me describing acts that Irish terrorists groups committed isn’t a moral equivalence and saying that the Irish are responsible. Describing history accurately does not amount to a moral equivalence.
We don't mostly. You may be confusing the actual Irish with the Plastic Paddies in the US.
“We don’t mostly [have animosity anymore]”
Oh but you didn’t condemn the British for systematically ethnically cleansing, reducing the population of Ireland by half, and creating a state out of half of it that is still not Irish land to this day. So you must be saying that both sides are responsible because you didn’t include every possible caveat!
Europeans are probably the nut low when it comes to admitting how vile and disgusting their past is but you want to virtue signal dunk on me because I said that there was animosity between two groups. lol
JFC. I'm in awe here. They hated each other. Sure, in the same way a robber and a home tenant hate each other. One of them has a damn good reason to hate the other, though, don't you think?
You’re taking descriptive statements as normative statements. But I’ll bite. I’d say that kidnapping, torturing, and murdering children for money is a little bit more than “unappreciative”. I’d almost call it indications if animosity, wouldn’t you?
in our grade school level understanding of early relations between settlers and natives - we tend to focus on the end results
trail of tears, wounded knee, manhattan for beads, forced to reservations etc
in doing so we gloss over that there was constant violent conflict for centuries and that violent conflict only came to an end due largely in part to those final solutions that today in a vacuum appear so oppressive
not a single town in new england, not a single town at all, has avoided being raided by indians - violence was so common and widespread that you can not find a single town of the thousand or more of them in new england that was never hit by a raid
and it wasn't always just small scale raiding, it was sometimes in the form of outright war - you can see the exhaustive list of outright wars which employed armies throughout american history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_I...
this is not to say that the indians were treated fairly etc etc - just to say that it is not nearly as black and white as the oversimplified version we're told in school of one sided aggression and regardless of "who started it" and "who is at fault" the response of moving them off to distant and remote reservations and stationing military units to herd them back if they left
JFC. I'm in awe here. They hated each other. Sure, in the same way a robber and a home tenant hate each other. One of them has a damn good reason to hate the other, though, don't you think?
Re-read my posts and realize I literally said that.
No, see that's a logical fallacy because um *trails off*
Also, now four people are wrong...
You said “three people saying you’re wrong means you should consider that you’re wrong”
That’s the easiest logical fallacy to detect ever. If I was on stormfront saying that black people and white people are both humans, and Jews don’t control the media, I’m sure I’d have dozens, hundreds of posters telling me I’m wrong. Does that mean I should reconsider my opinion just on the basis of the number of people disagreeing?
Apparently you have the thought process of a child with a learning disability and have to have everything spelled out for you.
if you can't maximize it is because you cannot claim a specific arrangement is better than another, for the population (unless it's pareto efficient I guess).you basically can't aggregate individual preferences into social preferences. you cannot "weight" how much improving things for someone makes up for the decreasing in utility of someone else.utilities aren't quantities tha
So you believe in utility monsters?
Re-read my posts and realize I literally said that.You said “three people saying you’re wrong means you should consider that you’re wrong”That’s the easiest logical fallacy to detect ever. If I was on stormfront saying that black people and white people are both humans, and Jews don’t control the media, I’m sure I’d have dozens, hundreds of posters telling me I’m wrong. Does th
At the very very least it should be a heads up that you're either:
A) Most likely wrong.
B) Need to articulate yourself more effectively. That way you won't be misconstrued.... by several people. Who coincidentally have all misconstrued the exact same thing.
But yet again I'm sure everyone else is wrong and you're right. Thanks for spelling it out for me. 😀
in our grade school level understanding of early relations between settlers and natives - we tend to focus on the end resultstrail of tears, wounded knee, manhattan for beads, forced to reservations etcin doing so we gloss over that there was constant violent conflict for centuries and that violent conflict only came to an end due largely in part to those final solutions that t
Yes and apparently mundane statements about how both groups hated each other somehow is excusing the horrors of colonialism.
That’s the problem with wokism, you can’t even discuss simple historical facts without being pulled into the broader oppressor-oppressed narrative.
I mean I’m sure their minds would be blown if we talked about how the Aztecs were defeated by the Spanish in large part due to the Spanish banding together a bunch of the tribes the Aztecs were oppressing with their insane religion of human sacrifice and conquest. Like let’s not even talk about intertribal relations. Let’s just flatten them all down to “oppressed natives” lol
