Columbus Day

[rcfstl]

I know Richard Slew hostages at Acre. However, as you pointed out, this was a war against people they considered subhuman.

My point was that they didn't employ the same tactics as frequently with other europpeans. Not saying they never did, only that the way they did so against the Native americans gives a lie to the statement they fought the same kind of wars in the new world.

Look at the Albiguesian Crusades of Southern France, they killed fellow Europeans without any mercy. Also try the history of the Thirty Years War it was a massacre.

 

[cantdog]

I know Richard Slew hostages at Acre. However, as you pointed out, this was a war against people they considered subhuman.

My point was that they didn't employ the same tactics as frequently with other europpeans. Not saying they never did, only that the way they did so against the Native americans gives a lie to the statement they fought the same kind of wars in the new world.

Yes, and that point needed making. Thanks. My point was quite different.

Massacres happen against those others who do not have a perceived humanity. The pracyice was taken up in the Protestant/Catholic wars, and, before, in the Albigensian pogrom. Heretics fall into the same category.

It's the fashion now, whenever a war is contemplated, to induce that sort of indiscriminate hatred in the population back home. Shock and Awe was an atrocity, but it drove home the point that it's okay to consider any random Iraqi subhuman. It was a massive attack with indiscriminate weapons against whoever happened to be on the ground in Baghdad. Endorsed gleefully and publically by our fearless leader.

It isn't necessary to dehumanize the enemy, but we currently try to do it as a matter of course. I may regret the inhumanity of the Spanish efforts in America, but it's clear that my government has taken a different lesson from history.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Look at the Albiguesian Crusades of Southern France, they killed fellow Europeans without any mercy. Also try the history of the Thirty Years War it was a massacre.

You're stepping up in time about 100 years aren't you? 30 years wars in the early to mid 1600s?

 

[rcfstl]

Syphillis was known in Europe long before the first white person set foot here.

Wars, yes...genocide, nope, wrong again.

I would like to see your source for that statement. And if you pull the irish monks from Western Ireland out of your hat, there is always the thought that Irish monks were in the new world but did not record it.

And the Spanish did not wage genocide, they wanted the Indians alive as slaves to mine their gold and silver and work the fields.


The only reason the Native Americans did not destroy thier enemies is that they lacked the technology to do it. Genocide is hard to accomplish.


And as for looking at people as sub human. Arent most of the names of indian tribes basically translated as "The humans" or "The only true people"?

 

[Jagged]

Right right......I know it isn't racism when your a minority. I just tried to present a different view of history and you couldn't except it. I know there are many views of history.......right is very relative.

 

[rcfstl]

You're stepping up in time about 100 years aren't you? 30 years wars in the early to mid 1600s?

Crusade in Albi was 1200's the Thirty Year Wars was early to mid 1600's. Both are examples of Europeans fighting without any rules, sacking towns and killing everyone, Christians all.

 

[cloudy]

I would like to see your source for that statement. And if you pull the irish monks from Western Ireland out of your hat, there is always the thought that Irish monks were in the new world but did not record it.

Charles VI, the Mad King of France, died in 1422 of Syphillis, years before any contact with natives.

And the Spanish did not wage genocide, they wanted the Indians alive as slaves to mine their gold and silver and work the fields.

No? Pray tell, what do you call it, then?

The only reason the Native Americans did not destroy thier enemies is that they lacked the technology to do it. Genocide is hard to accomplish.

But y'all managed it, didn't you? Hard working people....you should be proud.

And as for looking at people as sub human. Arent most of the names of indian tribes basically translated as "The humans" or "The only true people"?

Yep, but your conclusion that it meant others weren't human is way off. Indians (for lack of a better word) were, as a whole, extremely hospitable to the newcomers, until they were shown it didn't pay to be that way.

 

[cloudy]

Right right......I know it isn't racism when your a minority. I just tried to present a different view of history and you couldn't except it. I know there are many views of history.......right is very relative.

Nope, projecting your thoughts and feelings onto me again, I'm afraid.

I'm not a racist. Just because I fight for justice for my people, doesn't make me racist. And, just because I won't lie down and be your dog, doesn't make me a racist, either.

I hate it that we won't go silently anymore. Bothers you, doesn't it?

 

[R. Richard]

And as for looking at people as sub human. Arent most of the names of indian tribes basically translated as "The humans" or "The only true people"?

Correct! However, it is not just among Amerinds. In many primitive societies the name of the tribe translates as "the people" or something close to that. They were people, the rest of the riff-raff were just savages.

 

[cantdog]

Crusade in Albi was 1200's the Thirty Year Wars was early to mid 1600's. Both are examples of Europeans fighting without any rules, sacking towns and killing everyone, Christians all.

No. The Albigensians were treated that way because they were false Christians, not fellow Christians.

Protestants and Catholics felt the same way about one another. They never did that same sort of ferocious all-out attack on everyone when the enemy was a fellow Christian, or perceived to be.

And a false Christian is in some ways worse than someone who is not in the fold at all, if you are concerned about Christianity. That's why I applaud the restraint of true Christians in the face of the fundamentalists' provocations and claim of true access to the faith. For some reason they aren't slaughtering them. Hell, they're barely even confronting them about it. Might be a race thing?

 

[cloudy]

Correct! However, it is not just among Amerinds. In many primitive societies the name of the tribe translates as "the people" or something close to that. They were people, the rest of the riff-raff were just savages.

Not really, R. Richard. Gotta correct you there.

It was just a way of differentiating themselves, since there were no distinguishing features. We didn't look on others as savages....just different than ourselves. But don't read into that a superiority thing. Of course, they would rather be among their own people, but intermarriage and trading were much more common than most assume.

 

[yui]

Nope, projecting your thoughts and feelings onto me again, I'm afraid.

I'm not a racist. Just because I fight for justice for my people, doesn't make me racist. And, just because I won't lie down and be your dog, doesn't make me a racist, either.

I hate it that we won't go silently anymore. Bothers you, doesn't it?

Brothers and sisters under the skin, neh? I don't know where to start; everything it so skewed. I want to toss out "White Man's Burden" and Manifest Destiny, but I need you guys to move forward a few hundred years.

 

[R. Richard]

And the Spanish did not wage genocide, they wanted the Indians alive as slaves to mine their gold and silver and work the fields.

Again, I must gently disagree. The Spaniards did commit genocide. They kept alive slaves to work the miones and fields. HOWEVER, they destroyed the culture and the religion of the slaves, transforming them into sort of subhuman Spanish and effectively destroying the Amerinds as separate civilizations.

 

[Jagged]

Nope, projecting your thoughts and feelings onto me again, I'm afraid.

I'm not a racist. Just because I fight for justice for my people, doesn't make me racist. And, just because I won't lie down and be your dog, doesn't make me a racist, either.

I hate it that we won't go silently anymore. Bothers you, doesn't it?


Ah no......I have heard it before.....I don't hate you I just love my people. I am cool with that.....lie down and be a dog no I respect fighting back just the idea that you have the one and only truth is what I have a problem with.......

Silent? when did this happen....at least your ancestors fought. You just complain.

 

[rcfstl]

Charles VI, the Mad King of France, died in 1422 of Syphillis, years before any contact with natives.


Hey the Vikings got a little and brought it back with them. As had been said Columbus wasnt the first one here.


No? Pray tell, what do you call it, then?

It is called getting conquered. Horrible things were done but history is full of people losing and dying. War sucks, it was not like the Spanish brought the Small Pox here on purpose. They were capitalists they wanted workers.



But y'all managed it, didn't you? Hard working people....you should be proud.

Sorry I have not killed any indians that I know of, fought some Salish once but they kicked my ass. I have no cultural guilt over the Conquest of the New World, my ancestors were not here until 1847. So you are lumping all Europeans together



Yep, but your conclusion that it meant others weren't human is way off. Indians (for lack of a better word) were, as a whole, extremely hospitable to the newcomers, until they were shown it didn't pay to be that way.

Yes the Lakota and the Dakota and the Apache and the Blackfeet and the Huron were all touchy feely. Another generalization the cultural diversity of the Native Americans was so great you cant lump them together as being that way. That would be like putting a Bella Bella with a Seminole and saying "Well hell you are Native Americans so you must get along"

 

[cloudy]

Yes the Lakota and the Dakota and the Apache and the Blackfeet and the Huron were all touchy feely. Another generalization the cultural diversity of the Native Americans was so great you cant lump them together as being that way. That would be like putting a Bella Bella with a Seminole and saying "Well hell you are Native Americans so you must get along"

Yep, skip right over where I proved you wrong. Typical.

 

[cloudy]

Nope, projecting your thoughts and feelings onto me again, I'm afraid.

I'm not a racist. Just because I fight for justice for my people, doesn't make me racist. And, just because I won't lie down and be your dog, doesn't make me a racist, either.

I hate it that we won't go silently anymore. Bothers you, doesn't it?


Ah no......I have heard it before.....I don't hate you I just love my people. I am cool with that.....lie down and be a dog no I respect fighting back just the idea that you have the one and only truth is what I have a problem with.......

Silent? when did this happen....at least your ancestors fought. You just complain.

You've got massive balls to even ASSume you know the first thing about me. I do tons of work for the people, those not even of my tribe, and I'm the state contact/go to person for the LPDC.

You really are full of yourself, arent' you.

 

[rcfstl]

No. The Albigensians were treated that way because they were false Christians, not fellow Christians.

Protestants and Catholics felt the same way about one another. They never did that same sort of ferocious all-out attack on everyone when the enemy was a fellow Christian, or perceived to be.

And a false Christian is in some ways worse than someone who is not in the fold at all, if you are concerned about Christianity. That's why I applaud the restraint of true Christians in the face of the fundamentalists' provocations and claim of true access to the faith. For some reason they aren't slaughtering them. Hell, they're barely even confronting them about it. Might be a race thing?

The Crusaders in southern France fought the King of Navarre who was a Catholic king and the Count of Toulous was not a heretic but his cities were sacked and Catholic subjects slaughtered.

The French in the Thirty Years War paid for the King of Sweden to sack Catholic cities.

 

[rcfstl]

Yep, skip right over where I proved you wrong. Typical.

Sorry if you read the quote you will see that I posted inside of it point for point.

 

[cloudy]

Sorry if you read the quote you will see that I posted inside of it point for point.

Oh, smallpox wasn't given to the tribes on purpose????

Jeez, where ARE you getting your info?

Oh, and btw, since you wanted proof....prove it that the Vikings got it here, and not elsewhere. Gee, I think you're doing a little wishful thinking here.

 

[R. Richard]

Not really, R. Richard. Gotta correct you there.

It was just a way of differentiating themselves, since there were no distinguishing features. We didn't look on others as savages....just different than ourselves. But don't read into that a superiority thing. Of course, they would rather be among their own people, but intermarriage and trading were much more common than most assume.

True, I oversimplified. Trading was very common among the pre-Columbian Amerinds. However, trading does not mean equals. Some of my ancestors were Northmen. They would trade for what they wanted if they had to. However, they much preferred to take what they wanted, without trade, killing as many of the inferior non-Northmen as necessary to enforce their superiority. Also, the Northmen would sometimes take female captives back home with them. However, once living with/married to a Northman, they became Northman stock as slaves. Once fully assimulated, they became full fledged Northman stock. I can't assume that it was much different among the Amerinds.

The Amerind tribes, in general, did not recognize the ownership of land by individual members of the tribe. However, the tribe controlled certain lands and the Amerinds regularly fought wars to contest the ownership of tribal lands. When you fight a war, the enemy is always subhuman to a lot of the soldiers; it is easier to rationalize killing them.

JMHO.

 

[cloudy]

True, I oversimplified. Trading was very common among the pre-Columbian Amerinds. However, trading does not mean equals. Some of my ancestors were Northmen. They would trade for what they wanted if they had to. However, they much preferred to take what they wanted, without trade, killing as many of the inferior non-Northmen as necessary to enforce their superiority. Also, the Northmen would sometimes take female captives back home with them. However, once living with/married to a Northman, they became Northman stock as slaves. Once fully assimulated, they became full fledged Northman stock. I can't assume that it was much different among the Amerinds.

The Amerind tribes, in general, did not recognize the ownership of land by individual members of the tribe. However, the tribe controlled certain lands and the Amerinds regularly fought wars to contest the ownership of tribal lands. When you fight a war, the enemy is always subhuman to a lot of the soldiers; it is easier to rationalize killing them.

JMHO.

but that's a big difference, I think, between us and europeans. We WANTED our foes to be honorable, so that we would be honorable in besting them.

An old Proverb says: "Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.

 

[rcfstl]

Oh, smallpox wasn't given to the tribes on purpose????

Jeez, where ARE you getting your info?

Oh, and btw, since you wanted proof....prove it that the Vikings got it here, and not elsewhere. Gee, I think you're doing a little wishful thinking here.

I said the Spanish did not give it to them on purpose. Now if you are jumping forward to the US Govt. Sure they did it, the US government did wage genocide against the Native Americans.

 

[cantdog]

The Crusaders in southern France fought the King of Navarre who was a Catholic king and the Count of Toulous was not a heretic but his cities were sacked and Catholic subjects slaughtered.

The French in the Thirty Years War paid for the King of Sweden to sack Catholic cities.

Yep, right again. Guess you're right there. Europeans were bastards to anyone and everyone. Glad you showed me that.

Nationalisms, religionisms, racisms, all the same. Call them something else and kill the dogs. Reprehensible.

 

[R. Richard]

Oh, smallpox wasn't given to the tribes on purpose????

Of course not Cloudy! The Americans simply took blankets from smallpox victims and gave them to the Amerinds. It was the BLANKETS that gave the Amerinds smallpox. Hell, it is easy to justify genocide if you just rationalize things cleverly.