| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 21 2006 : 12:07:45 PM
This picks up from Wild grasping at a way out offered by another poster on the Springfield Carbine thread.
I ask again: how does calling someone an aborigine - especially someone who is - a racist slur?
" SREBRENICA, WOUNDED KNEE ,9/11, BELSEN, RWANDA.What have these crimes got in common?" So Wild inquired.
Well, in each Irish like Wild tried to bleed off compassion to themselves by pretending they had suffered as people in those tragedies had suffered, but I don't see how aborigine issues appends to several of them at all, or relates to Ireland. Wild, you'll remember, accused the US of failure to nuke the Soviets, so don't think he hates violence. He just wants to eliminate any good intentions from others so that he can take satisfaction that they're no better than the Irish fratricides that almost entirely compose their history.
I have all sorts to contribute to this discussion, Wild, and I enjoy it. If you want to stomp your feet and go away - so predictable, I must say - you may, but I still ask: How does calling an aborigine an aborigine become a racist slur? Or a slur at all?
As far as the general Custer topic, this has all sorts of relevance, both in the way people use it to justify or condemn or mentally work through current issues. Or simply to play act. |
| 12 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - March 25 2006 : 11:49:20 AM
Apologiges AZ.A brave document by brave men.An inspiration to our own patriots of '98.
It was cheap of me to use it to score a debating point.
Thank you Sir. Apology accepted. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 24 2006 : 11:55:06 AM
Apologiges AZ.A brave document by brave men.An inspiration to our own patriots of '98.
It was cheap of me to use it to score a debating point. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 10:40:10 PM
Does this principal have a sell by date?Did it end with the conquest of the Sioux or is it still part of Uncles Sam's foreign policy?
And oh how does it effect this little fairy tale---We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
We have had a lot of growing pains as a country but our own civil rights movement would prove that not everyone believed that everyone was equal. Statements to be used as goals such as those you call a fairy tale are what makes us great. Achieving it may take a long time but we have continued to improve over time.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 7:43:18 PM
1.We'll leave that to readers. I back away from nothing I've said, and I direct readers to Wild's comments about England and the US in the Benteen's Orders and Ireland threads. In short: Ireland is always a victim, and England and the US are responsible for all evil, and should have nuked the Soviets.
Also? His baseless claims on behalf of Ireland, among which you will find his contention that the Irish are the backbone of African education, and the wetnurse to US troops today. As well, his fear of Ireland's recent immigrants of different races.
2. It is evil, which is why you shouldn't, as you have, ascribed it to others without basis beyond being hammered in argument. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 3:58:47 PM
I'm afraid DC you must take responsibility for what you post.
You have advocated a supremacist position here in relation to the Native Americans and you have supported this by attacking the Irish at every opportunity.
Your stance is so far to the right of Hitler it's off the radar.
Those aren't my opinions.
I hope not DC because the philosophy is evil.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 3:24:08 PM
You don't find such, you insert it. Those aren't my opinions. Also, the worst thing I've ever said about the Irish is they're no better than anyone else and sometimes worse than others, and in any case being the mere loser in coflicts doesn't entitle them to a moral superiority.
Nothing I've said about the Irish is worse than what you've posted about the English with far less justification.
Learn the difference between affect and effect.
|
| wILD I |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 12:27:34 PM
Having with some difficulty waded through your display of unvarnished bigotry and pathological hatered of all things Irish and distilled down your piosonous rhetoric I find this proposition.The US if in conflict with what it perceives to be savage aborigines is entitled to use savage barbaric methods to destroy that race.Further these aborigines because they do not recognise what more advanced civilizations would term human rights forfeit these rights themselves.In other words because he is savage and primitive he is not entitled to exist.If there are no rights there is no crime and therefore no victim.Clobbering without tears![Nice ,I like it DC]
You expound on the "more advanced civilisation".Would you not think that this more advanced condition places an obligation to maintain civilized standards.That for an advanced civilization to resort to barbaric methods is a far greater crime than any a stone age tribe might commit?
Does this principal have a sell by date?Did it end with the conquest of the Sioux or is it still part of Uncles Sam's foreign policy?
And oh how does it effect this little fairy tale---We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 22 2006 : 4:21:53 PM
Perfect. You expose yourself by fabricating a position you want everyone to hold. You need to phrase it this way to excuse Irish incompetence through the centuries.
Your four elements....
1. What victims? The losers, you mean? In the battle of civilizations, the Native Americans lost. They were savage aborigines, hunter-gatherers (with exceptions), just like the Highlanders to the English.
2. I describe nothing as a crime. You want it to be because you have to portray the Irish as victims of a crime, as opposed to victims of their own selfish, parochial greed and inability to unite or agree on lunch. Why is it a crime for a tribe of whites, say, to attack and destroy a village of Hurons or Seminoles and keep some for slaves but it's not a crime for Pawnee to do exactly the same thing to Sioux or Cheyenne, and for the same reasons? Or vice versa? The losing warriors did not describe such losses as a 'crime', they viewed it solely as an insult to their manhood and prestige and lived perpetual revenge cycles. Just like the Scots and Irish for years, by the way....
3. The winners, not "perpetrators" since the values of might makes right was shared by all parties, were a superior civilization. They united against common foes, elevated their educational and comfort level each generation, pursued philisophical questions of right and wrong and law and order and good and evil beyond the tribal level. Also, they were successful by aggregate means, could recover from disaster, could expand their knowledge greatly by interest beyond themselves. The South, the Sioux, the Irish, they wanted things to be the same only with THEIR traditional thugocracy on top.
4. I'm a partial descendent of the winners in that conflict just as I am partial descendent of losers in other conflicts. So is everyone. I'm no more a criminal perpetrator than you are for your forebears' fratricides, betrayals, and failures. But you can't admit that. You have to be a victim and anything that doesn't fit into that must be wrong.
The view isn't distorted; it's factual. In the long run, the winners always come from the more flexible encompassing culture of growth. For all its prejudice and ignorances and, sometimes, actual crimes against others by the winners' own laws, superior cultures are superior because they can protect themselves and grow. Native Americans couldn't do that; they hated each other as much or more than the whites. The South lost partially because it couldn't really unite. The Irish never got to the conversation. My Scots were hammered pretty good, militarily and culturally, and rallied only in the service of a once despised crown by becoming more Empire Red than the Brits, and ended up running the military. Ireland?
Well, in the Atlantic Magazine this month is a heartwarming story of IRA hitmen torturing each other at different times, neither knowing each was selling out the IRA to the Brits for different reasons, although to financial benefit to themselves. Touching. In the 80's, this was. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 22 2006 : 12:56:37 PM
The case is very simply stated.
This is DCs position-----The Sioux were just another bunch of savage aborigines who got clobbered by a superior civilization.
There are 4 elements here.
1 The victims described as savage aborigines.
2 The crime described as clobbering.
3 The perpetrators described as a superior civilization.
4 The commentator-a member of the perpetrators.
It is patential obvious that this view is so distorted and onesided as to be at least worthless and at worst to be racist.
DC was requested to elaborate.Instead of modifying his position he launched into a fierce polemic in defence of it adding to his lexicon of derogatory terms.
The entire thrust of his arguement is directed at dismissing the victims.Who would identify with aborigines let alone savages?The crime is reduced to no more than a pantomime frivolity and the criminals elevated to superior.
His approach is so simplistic I'm surprised he did not describe the Sioux as a bunch of evil doers.
It may be comic strip history but the terrible thing about it is that he trys to make racist crimes acceptable,an everyday occurance. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 21 2006 : 4:30:07 PM
"The flatening as you describe it was racist based.Your comments belittle the victims." No it isn't. That wouldn't even be true if I'd applied it to one race, a term science has given up on, but I've applied it to everyone. How could that be true since I've clearly included the Irish and Scots, My People, as just as savage and just as hammered by superior civilizations? You attempted syllogism between Jews and aborigines doesn't equate.
The nauseating way you try to protect yourself by posing as a defender of our war dead is enough to gag a maggot. That's worthy of our chickenhawk neo-cons. You were the one condemning the US for not nuking the Soviets before they had the bomb. Everybody's ancestors were aborigines somewhere, at some time, and they all got hammered by superior civilizations sooner than later. The Native American Holocaust was by inadvertant disease, and no more compares to the Holocaust of the Jews - an attempted genocide by state decree and state industry - than the Black Death. As I've previously, and repeatedly, said, the York Jews murdered by Richard the Lionheart were just another bunch of Jews slaughtered by 'Christians' in the sorry history of Europe. That's because there were so many such occurances they run together, just as the story of the Indians here, despite American attempts to make it different, was almost exactly the same as what happened in Africa and South America.
Also? The Hebrews were just another small and utterly unimpressive Semitic tribe in the Levant who may not have been aboriginal to it, but came from southern Egypt (new theories). No problem saying that, and it ain't derogatory. The people that became my family, and probably yours, were on a first name basis with harbor seals, sand flies, and sea gulls and viewed the high water mark denoted by seaweed as the buffet line. That ain't derogatory either, because it's true.
The Irish have never suffered a Holocaust in any real sense; mass murder, starvation, disease, and still their population grew, overall. Nobody tried to kill them all off; if they had, there was nothing to stop them, and a good many Irish would have volunteered to help kill their neighbors before they figured out they would be next. The failure of Ireland is just that: Ireland's failure. You can't blame it on the British or capitalism, which is the basis of your argument and of which you cannot let go. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 21 2006 : 1:42:45 PM
I ask again: how does calling someone an aborigine - especially someone who is - a racist slur?
I posted this on the day this discussion began---I have no trouble with that name .It is your description of a people who suffered a holocaust as "just another bunch of".So I ask again in the context of the holocaust would you describe the victims as just another bunch of Jews?Having said that you might take the matter up with Collins Dictionaries who say the term is offensive.
Well, in each Irish like Wild tried to bleed off compassion to themselves by pretending they had suffered as people in those tragedies had suffered,
That is a different issue.We are addressing your racist slurs and disrespectful remarks here.And we must take into account that you are a member of a more advanced civilization commenting on the suffering of the Indians.Your use of baby talk is interesting.Or is it baby talk?Maybe I'm doing you an injustice here .Maybe that's the
colloquial style in Samland.Just another bunch of GIs got clobbered in Iraqi.Just another bunch of New Yorkers got flattened in the towers.Is that actually the way you speak of your dead and those who gave their lives in the service of their country?
But you are anxious for me to point out the racist content of your remarks.The flatening as you describe it was racist based.Your comments belittle the victims.You suggest that their lives were of lesser value than those of the more advanced race.You differentiate between the races thus your comments are racist.
I have all sorts to contribute to this discussion, Wild, and I enjoy it.
I believe you do a good Pop Eye but stick to the issue.
|
| BJMarkland |
Posted - March 21 2006 : 1:21:49 PM
quote:
You weren't called a racist, Mr. Markland, and you agreed with me on the Benteen's Order thread. But I will start a new thread and keep it updated.
Actually, I think Wild at some point also called me a racist or implied something along the same lines. And I agree that Wild's use of United Nations criteria do not justify the accusation he makes.
But, it was getting somewhat irritating to have it pop up all over the place!
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
