| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 14 2005 : 08:15:01 AM
|
Hi Hunkpapa
Sorry about the 40 - 13 score. |
  |
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 10:31:10 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Hi Hunkpapa
Sorry about the 40 - 13 score.
Sad, very sad
But on the brighter side for those of us with Celtic genes (my mum's from Glasgow) at least Wales beat Italy - Yay!
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 10:59:33 AM
|
I'm not sure the Scots, or at least Highland Scots, are all that Celtic, although I know it's so claimed. Scotti (from Ireland) and Vikings and every other group in Europe on the run west to elude the Mongols and Huns probably found their way to the north of Scotland at some point.
This may be due to my revulsion at all things "Celtic" in music and dance and history being elevated beyond what is known or proveable and, unfortunately, acquired by white supremacists here in this country. Celtic seems to currently mean "olde European and somehow superior" and not much else. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 11:34:24 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I'm not sure the Scots, or at least Highland Scots, are all that Celtic, although I know it's so claimed. Scotti (from Ireland) and Vikings and every other group in Europe on the run west to elude the Mongols and Huns probably found their way to the north of Scotland at some point.
Well the Scotti themselves were Celtic. And lets face it - who isn't a mongrel as far as ancestry goes - unless you happen to be Han Chinese that is (sort of).
Anyway Scottish is a Celtic language, with no doubt lots of Norse influence. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 12:11:37 PM
|
unfortunately, acquired by white supremacists here in this country.
I actually thought that it was the anglo/saxon connection which was held in high regard by white supremacists no? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 1:25:10 PM
|
Most of Appalachia were settled by Scot/Irish and were "Celtic" rather than Anglo-Saxon, who were in fact their supposed oppressors except for all that French/Norman blood, insofar as any of that stuff makes sense or pure Angle Saxon mixed blood had ever existed.
But they started referring to themselves as Anglo-Saxon at some point till being Scot had status again. You apparently don't find a lot of references to "Celtic" in early KKK literature, but anglo-saxon is a big term for what has to have been a small breeding pool. Most Americans have not clue one what Anglo-Saxon refers to because of WASP, a term that could not possibly apply to the majority of people who claim it, strictly speaking. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 4:14:07 PM
|
Most of Appalachia were settled by Scot/Irish and were "Celtic" rather than Anglo-Saxon,
It was my understanding that the ScotchIrish[With apologies to Hunkpapa] were neither Scotish nor Irish but a mix of English and lowland Scot who were planted in the North of Ireland after the Cromwellian conquest. Many of whom took themselves off to the US.They are in fact the other side of the coin in the never ending turmoil of this sad land and they would find the term Celtic insulting.So I think [but I'm open to correction]that Celtic may not be the correct description. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 4:38:37 PM
|
I don't know, but I do know the camp followers and men captured at Culloden Moor, mostly Highlanders, were sent to the Virginia/Carolina colonies, and many more during the Bans, so I suspect it was anyone not utterly and supposedly British. The Angles, Jutes, Picts weren't really coherent under the Saxons of Harold who was displaced by the Conquest(French/Norman)and all this by 1066. It's a stretch to call anyone Anglo-Saxon by 1776, 1876, or now. Possible, I guess. I don't see what's so impressive, though, given they lost to the French and people bragging about descent from Saxon Kings were a joke by Thackery's time.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 7:14:52 PM
|
| Wild I is probably right, but I had not heard about the English mixture. An old history book I was just reading refers to them as "Covenanters", Scot followers of Calvin and Knox who were resettled in Ireland, then came to America. They were mostly Presbyterians. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 8:14:51 PM
|
Wild,Prolar.
thats one subject we dont want to go into[taboo]
Congratulations on a good Irish win,when and not if you beat the English you have a great chance of winning the grand slam.
I think Custer stood a better chance than we did  |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2005 : 03:27:38 AM
|
| Thanks Hunkpapa. Murrayfield had been such a graveyard for Irish teams but we are way off thread here and the natives might get a bit restless. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2005 : 09:49:07 AM
|
Hunkpapa, do you want to teach me italian history? Well. Very good. I'm anxious to hear what you know about Rome - adding also that I have nothing to share with Rome as you have nothing to share with a Washington DC resident. Of course, what I have better believe to, it's my own problem and right. Is'nt? I yet add that if americans are considered moved from greed, tribal nations must be too and they had to be too when they robbed and killed through themselves, stealing lands and stuffs to each other tribes and they have to be today with the casinos business and other fairy activities. Of course, this don't acquit a fault, but it's usefull to clarify that indians were not saints and had the same faults to be condemned. In short, if I steal an house, can I cry out to whom is coming there to live in with me that he is a robber?
Most indians died fighting and, much also from indirect white "faults", as epidemyes of cholera, that whites brought to the indians without willing to do so. To say they died fighting, it's not to say they died in battle, I would want to clarify, but in a period of war. The indian history and their assimilitation to the new world is full of painfull notes and tragedy, of course. The death of 4000 Cherokee have not justifiations, but also the death of white children have not. If you cry for indians children death, you have to cry for white children death too. If you cry for indians massacre, you have to cry for white too. If you notice white treatyes not respected, you have to notice also that indians gave always to whites a chance to broke them and, they did'nt always respected treaties too. What for exemple if England signed a peace treaty with France, and in the meantime they let their young people going killing burning raping etc? Do you think the treaty would'nt be broken? Would it be enough to say to France "oh, but we have not control over them, they are hot headed..." Of course it would be broken.
I still think of this story that it is a problem with no solutions and that there are faults and lies in both sides.
Joseph: don't be disturbed. I just remarked that you looked at indians losses but not at whites ones, in this case - just this was. It's not necessary to say always the other side of the medal, but this it is necessary when you make a reproach of a part guilts toward the other one. In your message you did not. I hope you know enough how much I am friendly to you to understand that in this there is no personal anger or other bad feeling towards you. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2005 : 3:32:12 PM
|
Lorenzo you justify the actions of the US government by accusing the Indians of brutality.The reaction of the Indians to the invasion of their lands in no way excuses the systematic destruction of their culture ,tribal system and way of life.
In short, if I steal an house, can I cry out to whom is coming there to live in with me that he is a robber?
This is a "brilliant" arguement.Last used to justify Benito's invasion of Abasinia and Albania.These two nations were primitive and warlike so let's invade. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2005 : 4:10:32 PM
|
Wild, I don't know which sort of idiot use this statement of mine to justify Benito. Abissinia and Indian wars and USA and Italy, are as far as Italy from Australia. Also, you show to know better american history of the italian one. Benito Mussolini was never justified, if not with the fact that he had to get a revenge of Italy's lost battle of 1896. He never tryed to justified himself, he just had gone into his madness saying that HE was right; for this reason too he was called Dictator. You are still trying to manipulate my words that are not in fact giving a justifiation to faults (my previous post:"Of course, this don't acquit a fault") , but a way to underline a simple matter of fact. They was both guilty.
I could not tell the same to you then, that you justify the indian killing of innocent people.
|
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2005 : 7:32:49 PM
|
| Warlord,nae problem,and agree ! |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2005 : 04:17:18 AM
|
In short, if I steal an house, can I cry out to whom is coming there to live in with me that he is a robber?
Lorenzo
I was just using Benito to illustrate a point rather sarcastically.I think you may have missed my meaning.
You are saying that if I steal a house I cannot complain if someone else steals that house from me.
This seems to indicate that you believe that because the Indians stole the land from other Indians they had no reason to complain if the land was taken from them by the Europeans.This of course is the law of the jungle.The Europeans came from advanced Christian socities.The Indians posed no threat to their existance yet they systematically annilated the survivors of the diseases they had brought with them.
They was both guilty.
Because the Indians [plains]were nomadic their way of life could not support groupings larger than a tribe approx 500 [guessing].To lose a war [the death of 70-80 warriors]could mean total annilation for that group.Thus all wars to them were for survival and were total.The Europeans would have seen this as savage.So to apply the same standards to the Indians as you would to Europeans is to misunderstand the conflict.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2005 : 10:18:43 AM
|
| Wild, they did not "systematically" annihilate the survivors of disease. That would have been genocide. That's not hyperbole on your part, that's totally inaccurate and wrong and you have not a shred of evidence for systematic annihilation. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2005 : 10:19:06 AM
|
Well, for me, to misunderstood the conflict is to allege all the faluts to white as you do. The europeans, the settlers did'nt came for kill the indians, At least the americans, they just came for an hope. While mondial economy was grieving . .
Well I want to hear your tears because of the innocent white people murdered by indians, as you seem to indicate that when somebody conquer something then it's his propriety. Well, the whites had their lands conquered on the frontier, and indians killed them on their land. Let me hear please your lament.
I think, seriously, Wild, that the problem is just to see indians for what they are: human being with faults. For exemple with the lost colony they was not so fair, no?. They had faults. They knew also the bad faith and they used a great deal of. In this, man is master, white or red.
|
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2005 : 10:48:17 AM
|
DC
There was a system and as a result of that system the Indian "nation"ceased to function.It was for all practical purposes annihilated.I don't think you know the meaning of the word "annihlate".
Lorenzo
How the Indians resisted the Europeans does not justify the European invasion.It does not matter that they wiped out whole families regardless of age or sex.The invasion of the Americas was a military conquest which had no justification whatsoever.If we take your view then Africa should have been colonised with the aborigines being rounded up and placed on reservations. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2005 : 10:57:27 AM
|
Not at all wild. Africans are different from indians. The story, the lands, etc. And, finally,european was not invading. I don't have a perfect mastery of english, but even for me it's not difficult to see the confusion you made between terms as colonization, genocide, holocaust, invasion.
Indians they could steal lands and kill people, stealing horses and violing women of that people living there before them. And you say that had not importance if they wiped out entire families, regardless of age or sex...mmh, I'm fascinated. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2005 : 12:23:54 PM
|
Lorenzo
Africans are different from indians.
Explain please
Indians they could steal lands and kill people, stealing horses and violing women of that people living there before themExactly the same as christian Europeans behave.But I think you keep missing the point.The life style of the Indian was not a justification for invasion/annihilation/genocide.
If what the US did to the plains Indian occured today it would be regarded as a crime against humanity.
Multi anni fa sono stato a Firenza.Ho provato imparare Italiano ma purtroppo ho fato la dolche vita e non ho riusito.Devo dire che la cita era bellisimo e le gente eranno multo gentile.
|
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2005 : 1:01:42 PM
|
It's all another contest with africans. In Africa, there are States, other political conditions. I never talk about justifiation. I talk about faults of both. The process of assimilation lasted 400 years and in the meantime much things happened in both sides. It was not a nazi invasion of one year. And first, was a settlement. Justifiation is what they was suffering, that plains balance all the world economy. Justified are not, in my point of view, the crimes of one or another party. But there were people searching for a future, a land they did'nt had, a future of work and good for their families that was dying in Europe. The West, bring to the world a new lung.
I think by now you have well understood that I am not justifying the crimes of whites. By, in the other hand, I don't justify the indians ones. I think our principal problem is that we start from a different point and vision: I see the move on West as a movement for saveness, you see that moving as an invasion with the intent to annihilate the red race. This last is highly untrue. You just have to read what those men sayd. There are plenty of letters that shows how disinterested they was. Of course if you read Chivington messages you will see hate, but you can't take as a specimen a crazy criminal, as you could'nt judge Germans from what Goering thought. You have to read the common officier's letter, the common man, and you will see a good fire burning, the american spirit that still lives today. They were not always honest, americans, but, they were'nt moved from killing intent, just from the will to build a possibility for future generations,and in this possibilities there were place for indians too, that they were'nt all killed and are now a great community on the States.
Told this, my congratulations for your italian. Florence it's a nice town. I hope that you'll have the time one day to visit Verona, where I was born (there is a Verona also in the States )It is town of Romeo and Juliet. Very fine and romantic. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2005 : 3:15:13 PM
|
Lorenzo
you see that moving as an invasion with the intent to annihilate the red race. This last is highly untrue.
I'm not talking about individuals or their crimes but of a system,a policy put in place to destroy the Indians as a nation.This policy was inforced by military might.Indians who were not in the concentration camps were considered outlaws and could be killed.The system of reservations was violence perpretrated against a nation with the explicit intention of destroying that nation.
as you could'nt judge Germans from what Goering thought.What Goering thought was implimented by Germans.What Uncle Sam thought was implimented by Americans.What both thought was criminal.
You have to read the common officier's letter, the common man, and you will see a good fire burning, the american spirit that still lives today.
The common man just does what he is told.
They were not always honest, americans, but, they were'nt moved from killing intent, just from the will to build a possibility for future generations
Come on Lorenzo who is ever motivated by thinking of future generations.All individuals all Governments never think further than this generation.
and in this possibilities there were place for indians too, that they were'nt all killed and are now a great community on the States.They were all killed Lorenzo not physically but in every other conceivable way.
Pensi che Io parlo Italiano multo bene? Grazie tanto.
Penso che DC e unpo pazzo |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2005 : 4:12:58 PM
|
WILD, I don't even understand why I am going to make an effort as it is fairly obvious that you are fixated on the idea that the conquest of the West was a sinister mechanism to cause the holocaust of "Lo, the noble savage" who was prancing merrily through the wilderness with nothing but love, mercy and benevolent fellowship towards his fellow man.
First, as has been ambly argued by many and to which you have not responded all that creditably, the major killer of the native or aborigine population was disease.
And before you get into a snit over the term "aborigine", please consult a dictionary. It is a valid anthropological term. Here is a definition from www.reference.com :
"A member of the indigenous or earliest known population of a region; a native."
While not a legal scholar by any means, isn't one of the defining characteristics of a crime the word "intent"? Where was the intent by the American government to commit the crime you acuse them of desiring, i.e. eradication of the Indian population? You have individual comments by Sherman and perhaps Sheridan (he said he did not say that) of eradicating them all. If memory serves me, Sherman made his statement in early 1867. Yet, he served on a peace commission later in the year. Congress, if you would bother reading rather than spouting off half-baked preconceptions, was more "pro-Indian" than homicidally inclined towards the Indian peoples.
As far as the diseases go, the chances are that an Irishman could have transmitted something to some of the native population. Didn't many Irish sail on Spanish ships? If so, would that make the Irish culpable or even *gasp* co-conspirators in the "plan" to eradicate the American native population?
I am not doubting that things could, perhaps, have been handled differently but in the words of the old phrase, "it takes two to tango." And from what I have read of factually researched books rather than the twisted truths of revisionist writers (I will not even honor them with the term historian) such as Ward Churchill, not many Indians wanted to dance the peace dance. Sure there were some, Kicking Bird, Black Kettle to name the better known who foresaw what would happen, but their influence was small compared to the Santanas and Tall Bulls of their respective tribes. There were also those such as Cochise who did seem to stand a chance to live a peaceful life until some idiot provoked him beyond tolerance.
If the American government had wanted to have a holocaust and invite the Indians as special guests, do you think for one minute that there would be a single Indian left in America? No, I daresay that you do not (or you will reply with some belittling remark about American's not getting anything right).
Rather than regurgitating suspect "truths", why don't you read the literature? Go to the Making of America sites I reference over on Research and search for keyword Indian. You will find enough official literature by the US Government to put paid once and for all your obvious desire to put Americans at the same level as the savages of the IRA.
When I have time, perhaps tomorrow, I will browse through some books and get casualty figures of whites killed by Indians. I will reference my sources. If you want to do the same for the Indians, I expect sources, not fervent wishing it to be so.
With respect, if not patience,
Billy
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 16 2005 : 4:22:37 PM
|
WILD wrote:
quote:
I'm not talking about individuals or their crimes but of a system,a policy put in place to destroy the Indians as a nation.This policy was inforced by military might.Indians who were not in the concentration camps were considered outlaws and could be killed.The system of reservations was violence perpretrated against a nation with the explicit intention of destroying that nation.
So, the different tribes of Indians constituted a nation? Or are you speaking of the different branches of the tribe, i.e., Sioux had 7 branches.
Either way, by the definition of "nation", none of the Western tribes qualify as such.
You are trying to shoehorn wishes into facts again.
Billy |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
