| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 16 2005 : 10:01:27 PM
|
Pardon my indulgence when I say that I do not believe that Wild got into a "snit" over the usage of the term, "Aborigine." I belive it was the usage of that term coupled with the following: "They were just a bunch of aborigines" when describing a tragic and, indefensible condemnation againt a group of human beings that caught his attention; mine too as well. To use such terminology is to invite criticism and ire from others, regardless of your intent.
What is most ironic is that the threads appear to understand, sympathize, and denounce the contemptible treatment of other races who were subjected to immorale horrors, but, the "Red Savages" somehow, seem to have brought their own troubles upon themselves. Pushed beyond human endurance, forced to retaliate when their familes were attacked, and daring to object when their way of life was destroyed, one can only ask,what nerve!
Billy, you are quite correct when you remind us that the vast majority of Indian deaths were the direct result of diseases. When the first Europeans transported themselves to this great continent, they unknowingly harbored germs that eventually overwhelmed the indigents who resided here. As a result, Great Indian Nations were almost deminished to the point of no return. The key here, however, is that no "malice aforethought" accompanied this tragic event; it simply happened. Straddled with an immune system unable to cope with Euro-germs; Indians died.
I believe that Wild's reference to Indian deaths pertains to the systematic and inhuman attempts, by the U. S. Goverment, to remove these "aborigines" from farm lands and gold mines hungered for by Americans. You see, no "literature" on this planet will ever justify the injustice perpatrated against these people.
Wild, it has not been often that I have agreed with you but, this time I believe you to be 100% correct! |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 16 2005 10:19:23 PM |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 17 2005 : 10:40:31 AM
|
Then Wiggs, not surprisingly, you didn't know the definition either. This is Wild's first objection:
Posted - February 13 2005 : 12:52:07 PM Show Profile Reply with Quote
The Indians were just another bunch of aborigines
Would you like to elaborate on what appears to me to be a racist slur.
Explain that, Wiggs, if he knew what aborigine meant? He's contending that my saying "The Indians were just another bunch of original inhabitants" is not just a slur, but a racist slur. That's likely because he only associated the word "aborigine" with the Australian aborigines.
The problem he has at this point is that this requires a comparison to Australian aborigines to be a negative, a position I do not hold but he apparently does. Which is to say, an utterly innocent remark on my part revealed an ignorance and prejudice of Wild's, and not happy with that emerging, he accuses me of those very things of which he's just proven himself guilty. I'm used to it, but it makes it no less disquieting.
He then launches an attempt to wrap this issue up with genocide and holocaust, which he'll use interchangeably to get things confused, rather than admit error or apologize for his baseless and utterly fraudulent claim. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 17 2005 10:41:07 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 17 2005 : 7:58:12 PM
|
Assumptions are very dangerous perspectives to make as they have this uncanny ability to make one appear to be a fool at the most unexpected times. However, I must assume that every member of this forum has access to a dictionary. Couple this factor with a second assumption, that every member of the forum is capable of reading, one can only assume that all members are familiar with the term "Aborigine." To assume that Wild, myself, or any other member of the forum did not understand this term is an extremely, I believe, bizarre accusation.
Regardless of my opine, let us discuss the idea that a person could be accused of using a racial slur simply for writing the following: "they were just a bunch of aborigines." On the surface such an accusation appears to be somewhat harsh, at the least. After all the statement is only saying, "they were just a bunch of any of the first known inhabitants of a region." Surely no devious intent nor unwholesome inference can be derived from this unsinister statement.
Now let us peruse the many threads that directly preceeded this unobtrusive statement where terms and thoughts such as, The U.S. Government attempted genocide against the Native Americans, the Trail of Tears where over 4,000 Indians died in a forced march, the established American concept that the only good Indian is a dead one, had the Indians not given up they would have been annihilated as a race, the assumption that Native Americans did not understand the value of their lands, being dumped in a territory that no White man wanted (Oklahoma,)lost of their culture, dignity, and way of life, Manifest Destiny wherein it was the White man's God given right to subjugate and rule the land,etc., and so forth. Now append that safe and unassuming statement to the end of this line of thinking and rationale, "they were just a bunch of aboriginales."
One can see why anyone may have "assumed" that such a seemingly safe statement could be, in fact, a racial slur. It appears to translate into a philosphy that states, "it was just a bunch of Indians, who cares? As I get older and older, past adages long ignored by me have taken on a new life and vitality of their own. Once disregarded as antiquated, nonsensical, and stupid I now see them in a refreshing, new light: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; its a duck." My favorite, "don't pee on my shoes and tell me its raining."
Last, but certainly not least, all of us are guilty of putting our foot into our mouths at one time or another, of saying something we really didn't mean. The proper solution to such a dilemma is to cautiously remove the foot as slowly and quietly as possible and, hope no one noticed.
To defend an action that is indefensible is like "peeing in the wind", you just get wet. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 17 2005 8:30:58 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 17 2005 : 8:38:52 PM
|
" Assumptions are very dangerous perspectives..."
Good point Joe. By assumptions, I presume you meant terms like genocide and holocaust to be included as assumptions, as there is no proof that this was the intent of the US government. The accusations are nothing but assumptions at the best or twisted logic at the worst. And we both remember what Benny Hill said about the word "assume".
If you want to learn about conquerors, go to this site and read it. I just finished it and it proved even more eye-opening than I had suspected it to be.
http://www.tolatsga.org/iro.html
Now as far as Wild's reaction to the term "aborigine". It was plain as the nose on your face that he took that as an insult to the Indians. Why, I have no idea, but the evidence is there.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 17 2005 : 9:05:07 PM
|
| Billy, why do you always do that? Force me to see the other side of the coin even when I'm not prepared to do so. It is difficult to argue with the research you have presented. In life there are certain "buzz" words and phrases that ignite the raw emotion in some of us. I did find the "aforementioned" statement offensive although, perhaps, it was not intended that way. While I remain steadfast in my beliefs of the injustices perpatrated against the Native American, I concede the reality that it was, at times, a vicious two way street. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 18 2005 : 09:25:57 AM
|
quote:
While I remain steadfast in my beliefs of the injustices perpatrated against the Native American, I concede the reality that it was, at times, a vicious two way street.
Joe, in my opinion, you expressed within that one statement the history of two hundred years of European/American Indian conflict.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 19 2005 : 9:22:27 PM
|
An interesting afterthought, following a much heated debate regarding the treatment of the Native American people, on this thread, how do you think Custer felt their reaction should have been?
"If I were an Indian, I would prefer to cast my lot among those of my people who adhered to the free open plains rather than submit to the confined limits of a reservation" George Armstrong Custer.
Now my interpretation of those comments is that Custer would have chosen a life with Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse rather than submit to the demands of the U.S. Government. As such, under the policy of that era, he would have been declared a "hostile" and subject to being shot on sight. Interesting thought is it not? |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 07:26:27 AM
|
Joseph...I must tell you: please, don't use the General...
You know, the General was a fair man, and he was a soldier. Sometimes, he found himself against the Government. Don't confuse his fairness with a sided statement. He respected indians, and knew very well them. This did'nt mean that he shared their opinion. With a brave enemy I'm fighting I can easily state that I understand their reason of fighting, but this don't imply my agreement.
Nobody knows what Custer would have done if he was an indian, because simply he was not. However, the statement quoted must to be seen in his contest that is this: It is to be regretted that the character of the Indian as described in Cooper's interesting novels is not the true one. But as, in emerging from childhood into the years of a maturer age we are often compelled to cast aside many of our earlier illusions and replace them by beliefs less inviting but more real, so we, as a people, with opportunities enlarged and facilities for obtaining knowledge increased, have been forced by a multiplicity of causes to study and endeavor to comprehend thoroughly the character of the red man. So intimately has he become associated with the Government as ward of the nation, and so prominent a place among the questions of national policy does the much mooted Indian question occupy, that it behooves us no longer to study this problem from works of fiction, but to deal with it as it exists in reality.
Stripped of the beautiful romance with which we have been so long willing to envelop him, transferred from the inviting pages of the novelist to the localities where we are compelled to meet with him, in his native village, on the war path, and when raiding upon our frontier settlements and lines of travel, the Indian forfeits his claim to the appellation of the noble red man. We see him as he is, and, so far as all knowledge goes, as he ever has been, a savage in every sense of the word; not worse, perhaps, than his white brother would be, similarly born and bred, but one whose cruel and ferocious nature far exceeds that of any wild beast of the desert.
That this is true no one who has been brought into intimate contact with the wild tribes will deny. Perhaps there are some who as members of peace commissions or as wandering agents of some benevolent society may have visited these tribes or attended with them at councils held for some pacific purpose, and who, by passing through the villages of the Indian while at peace, may imagine their opportunities for judging of the Indian nature all that could be desired. But the Indian, while he can seldom be accused of indulging in a great variety of wardrobe, can be said to have a character capable of adapting itself to almost every occasion. He has one character, perhaps his most serviceable one, which he preserves carefully, and only airs it when making his appeal to the Government or its agents for arms, ammunition, and license to employ them. This character is invariably paraded, and often with telling effect, when the motive is a peaceful one. Prominent chiefs invited to visit Washington invariably don this character, and in their talks with the Great Father and other less prominent personages they successfully contrive to exhibit but this one phase. Seeing them under these or similar circumstances only, it is not surprising that by many the Indian is looked upon as a simple-minded son of nature, desiring nothing beyond the privilege of roaming and hunting over the vast unsettled wilds of the West, inheriting and asserting but few native rights, and never trespassing upon the rights of others.
This view is equally erroneous with that which regards the Indian as a creature possessing the human form but divested of all other attributes of humanity, and whose traits of character, habits, modes of life, disposition, and savage customs disqualify him from the exercise of all rights and privileges, even those pertaining to life itself. Taking him as we find him, at peace or at war, at home or abroad, waiving all prejudices, and laying aside all partiality, we will discover in the Indian a subject for thoughtful study and investigation. In him we will find the representative of a race whose origin is, and promises to be, a subject forever wrapped in mystery; a race incapable of being judged by the rules or laws applicable to any other known race of men; one between which and civilization there seems to have existed from time immemorial a determined and unceasing warfare-a hostility so deep-seated and inbred with the Indian character that in the exceptional instances where the modes and habits of civilization have been reluctantly adopted, it has been at the sacrifice of power and influence as a tribe, and the more serious loss of health, vigor, and courage as individuals.
Custer, that had a warrior/soldier soul can't see quietly that war. As nobody see it when respect his enemy. He felt the same feelings when he was retained in Washington, while his fellows were starting for the field. This Custer's words above are completely shared by me. At least for what isconcerning indians of that lost time. |
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 |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 07:33:06 AM
|
PART TWO:
this too needin as an appendix:
Being in command of the cavalry connected with the expedition, I had ample and frequent opportunities for learning the true purposes and objects of the march into the heart of the Indian country. I know no better mode of explaining these than by quoting the following extract from letters written by General Hancock to the agents of the various tribes with which we expected to be brought in contact: "I have the honor to state for your information that I am at present preparing an expedition to the Plains, which will soon be ready to move. My object in doing so at this time is to convince the Indians within the limits of this department that we are able to punish any of them who may molest travellers across the Plains, or who may commit other hostilities against the whites. We desire to avoid if possible any troubles with the Indians, and to treat them with justice, and according to the requirements of our treaties with them; and I wish especially in my dealings with them to act through the agents of the Indian Department as far as it is possible so to do. . . . If you as their agent can arrange these matters satisfactorily with them, we will be pleased to defer the whole subject to you. In case of your inability to do so, I would be pleased to have you accompany me when I visit the country of your tribes, to show that the officers of the Government are acting in harmony. I will be pleased to talk with any of the chiefs whom we may meet."
Surely there was no hostile intent here expressed. In another communication to the agents of different tribes, General Hancock, in referring to certain murders which had been recently committed, and which had been traced to the tribes in question, said: "These cases will now be left entirely in the hands of the Indian Department, and I do not expect to make war against any of the Indians of your agency unless they commence war against us."
It may be asked, what had the Indians done to make this incursion necessary? They had been guilty of numerous thefts and murders during the preceding summer and fall, for none of which had they been called to account. They had attacked the stations of the overland mail route, killed the employees, burned the stations, and captured the stock. Citizens had been murdered in their homes on the frontier of Kansas; murders had been committed on the Arkansas route. The principal perpetrators of these acts were the Cheyennes and Sioux. The agent of the former, if not a party to the murder on the Arkansas, knew who the guilty persons were, yet took no steps to bring the murderers to punishment. Such a course would have interfered with his trade and profits. It was not to punish for these sins of the past that the expedition was set on foot, but rather by its imposing appearance and its early presence in the Indian country to check or intimidate the Indians from a repetition of their late conduct. This was deemed particularly necessary from the fact that the various tribes from which we had greatest cause to anticipate trouble had during the winter, through their leading chiefs and warriors, threatened that as soon as the grass was up in the spring a combined outbreak would take place along our entire frontier, and especially against the main routes of travel. To assemble the tribes for the desired council, word was sent early in March to the agents of those tribes whom it was desirable to meet. The agents sent runners to the villages inviting them to meet us at some point near the Arkansas River.
All this I think tragically explain the "two vicious ways", Joseph. |
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 |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 10:43:34 AM
|
| The thread was designed to illustrate the fair and open approach the General held regarding the Native American's human desire to be treated with dignity. His subsequent battle at the Little Big Horn was at the behest of order's received from his superiors. He followed his orders faithfully and sacrificed his life while doing so. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 12:15:54 PM
|
Your thread started as a poll to discuss whether Benteen obeyed orders, and had nothing whatsoever to do with a "fair and open approach the General held regarding the Native American's human desire to be treated with dignity," something they did not extend to each other and is to be doubted Custer held. In any case, what would such an "approach" consist of?
You started off with incorrect chronology, a desire to slander Benteen (incompetently executed) to get petted by the Custerphiles, and biodegraded into a series of arguments generally based upon your own inability to know what you yourself had said (several times the opposite of what you thought), who actually wrote what you pretended to have written, incomprehension of others' statements and what they meant, and ended up with you summarizing this thread and your intent and actions falsely, probably based on the hope that most people read as poorly as you do.
You revert to type for a chuck under the chin by Custerphiles by presenting Custer in full heroic mode in this summation. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 1:07:30 PM
|
This "Poll" has meandered from topic to topic by many forum participants, to include you, and that is fine. Thought and creativity should never be confined to stringent barriers. The one consistant action on this forum has been your indisputable, incomprehensible, and delusional fixation on, what you perceive to be, my inability to speak the truth about anything. Were I such the unscrupulous cad as you have perceived me to be, would I not be in politics? At the very least a guest on your talk show.
Secondly, you statement referring to dignity among the Indians, "something they did not extend to each other" is quite a retort when one considers that you have spoken for every Indian who ever existed. I don't mean to speak sacrilege, but it appears that you have endowed yourself with an attribute of supreme knowledge, heretofore, only utilized by God!
Last but, certainly not least, I am sure that every member of this forum has the ability to read well. I know you do not agree and think that the majority of us could never achieve your lofty state of reading comprehension. Your statement "Probably based on the hope that most people read as poorly as you do" pretty much says it all.
P.S., Perhaps I have been to harsh in my critique of your thread. My reading comprehesion skills may be as poor as you have indicated because, I have absolutely no idea what your last line means.
p.p.s. It's always so nice to hear from you! |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 20 2005 2:43:31 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 2:26:13 PM
|
I was away for a few days so sorry for the delay in replying to the opinions posted on the issue of "they were just another bunch of aborigines"
First my thanks to Joe he stated my position admirably.
I have no problem with the term "aborigine".I asked DC would he would he describe Jewish victims of the holocaust as "just another bunch of Jews"and he said he would not because of what they had suffered.DC knows full well that "they were just another bunch"is inappropriate and disrespectful.
I presume you meant terms like genocide and holocaust to be included as assumptions, as there is no proof that this was the intent of the US government. The accusations are nothing but assumptions at the best or twisted logic at the worst.
BJ and some others seem to think that when I use the terms "annihlate" and "holocaust" in relation to the policy of the US towards the Indians I mean the extermination of each individual Indian.I am in fact refering to the Indians as a functioning dynamic social entity.If the US had simply rounded up every Indian without the loss of a single life and had confined them in idleness and dependency on a reservation,broke their social structure and cohesion it would none the less have been tantamount to a holocaust.
Either way, by the definition of "nation", none of the Western tribes qualify as such
Let's have your definition of "nation" and why it does not apply to the Indians.
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 pride yourself on your research[and indeed you have provided us with many good links]so why not apply your undoubted skill to finding where I used the or words "eradication of the Indian population"
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,
Really BJ your whole contention is based on the assumption that I am refering to the Indian as an individual.I am not.
Now did you make some reference to Benny Hill? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 3:10:10 PM
|
"You revert to type for a chuck under the chin by Custerphiles by presenting Custer in full heroic mode in this summation."
I went out and got an interpreter (Bartholomew Snodgrass, University of Knowledge of Incomplete Languages.) His translation is thus:
You (Joseph Wiggs) revert (go back to a time in history when eveyone by the name of Joseph Lied, lied, lied and then lied) to type for a chuck (derivative of Chip munk which means to chatter excessively while all the time lying coupled with the need to purchase typewriters to print additional lies) by Custerphiles (honorable people who have a devout admiration for one of the greatest Generals in the annals of U.S. History-not to be confused with those liars who falsly belive this term has a negative connotation) in full heroic mode ( a type of sandwhich "hero" eaten by liars as a source of inspiration to tell more lies) in this summation (argument for the admission of liars to the Oklahoma Cowboy Hall of Fame.)
Now that I think about it, this translation is almost as bizarre as the original statement. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 20 2005 3:34:00 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 3:42:33 PM
|
| Paul, there is a fascinating tale from "D.c.'s Tales of the Crypt" which refers to an allegation of Weir having a tryst with Mrs. Custer. He never shared his evidence for this unsubstantiated but, typical, D.c. remark with the forum. Perhaps he would be so kind as to enlighten you; an ardent admirer. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 8:16:33 PM
|
| Paul, I stand humbled. So much has become clear to me now. This "schmuck" spends an exorbitant amount of time slamming me with devious accusations while he, the Godfather of unsubstantiated claimes, calls me a liar. This man who clandestinely refers to a source of information that he, subsequently, publicly condemns as worthless. If he were not so pathetic, the situation would almost be comical. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 20 2005 8:34:00 PM |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 9:40:08 PM
|
I take it Weir got the point |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 08:27:28 AM
|
“I have no problem with the term "aborigine".I asked DC would he would he describe Jewish victims of the holocaust as "just another bunch of Jews"and he said he would not because of what they had suffered.DC knows full well that "they were just another bunch"is inappropriate and disrespectful.”
Hmmm, I see you did on 2/13. However, reading through the rasher of mail following the original statement, I only see you attacking it initially as “rascist” and then only modifying it to include disrespect while still coupling it with “slaughter” and indirectly to “holocaust”.
From DC’s original post 2/13 (p. 44):
“Americans have always insisted The West was different and for over a century Europe and the world agreed, but history and fact are winning out. The Indians were just another bunch of aborigines and as different from each other as they were from the whites.”
Your responses, same day, same page:
“The Indians were just another bunch of aborigines
Would you like to elaborate on what appears to me to be a racist slur.”
“Sure. You don't know the meaning of the word "aborigine." It just means the original inhabitants.
Do you know the meaning of the word facetious DC?
We are discussing a people who suffered a holocaust.If we were discussing another race who suffered a holocaust would you refer to them in such disparaging terms "just another bunch of Jews"”
You finally do approach your current contention in this (2/13 1:37:30 p.m.):
“You DC were being facetious in suggesting that I did not understand the word aborigine
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?”
So that I can understand your mindset; if I, DC or another use the phrase, “another small band of aborigines”, would that be classified as rascist, disrespectful or inappropriate?
OK, on to “holocaust”.
First, you are using the term incorrectly to my way of understanding the term. A simple Google search (use keyword Holocaust, then search within results for keyword Definition) finds no mention of destroying a people’s way of life as a holocaust. Most results use the phrases “destruction of masses of human beings” or “…slaughter on a grand scale.” The following link gives one of the simplest and most comprehensive definitions:
http://www.answers.com/topic/holocaust
OK, now as far as “eradicate”. You did not mention that word specifically, however my contention is that you used every other metaphor to describe the same effect, such as this post from 2/13 14:44:53:
“The Indians were a people who suffered loss of life and destruction on a scale to rival the slaughter of the Jews.To use the terminology you have shows disrespect and indifference to an American tragedy.It is on a par with saying that it was just another bunch of Yanks were killed in the twin towers.”
From Dictionary.com’s synonym list for eradicate:
Main Entry: eradicate Part of Speech: verb Definition: destroy Synonyms: abate, abolish, adios, annihilate, ax, blot out, deep six, demolish, deracinate, efface, eighty-six, eliminate, erase, expunge, exterminate, extinguish, extirpate, kibosh, knock out, KO, liquidate, mow down, obliterate, off, purge, raze, remove, root out, rub out, scratch, scrub, shoot down, squash, stamp out, take out, torpedo, total, trash, unroot, uproot, wash out, waste, weed out, wipe out ;
Notice “slaughter” is not among the above. However, word “annihiliate” is as well as “exterminate.”
Main Entry: annihilate Part of Speech: verb Definition: destroy Synonyms: abate, abolish, abrogate, annul, blot out, crush, decimate, demolish, do in, eradicate, erase, expunge, exterminate, extinguish, extirpate, finish off, invalidate, liquidate, massacre, murder, negate, nullify, obliterate, quash, quell, raze, rub out, ruin, slaughter, take out, undo, vitiate, wipe out, wrack, wreck
Underline is by me.
Sources for the above are from Roget’s New Milenium Thesaurus, First Edition, copyright © 2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC.
Enough for now as I imagine people’s eyes are beginning to glaze over.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 10:33:31 AM
|
So that I can understand your mindset; if I, DC or another use the phrase, “another small band of aborigines”, would that be classified as rascist, disrespectful or inappropriate?
Certainly not BJ.[but note you did leave out the word "just"].Do you not see the problem?It would be insulting in the extreme if I posted "just another bunch of Yanks died in the twin towers,just another bunch of Jews died in Belsen,just another bunch of Indonesians died in the tsunami.It is an appalling insult to the victims of natural or manmade desasters.
I only see you attacking it initially as “rascist” and then only modifying it to include disrespect while still coupling it with “slaughter” and indirectly to “holocaust”.
I drew DC's attention to it by posting that it appeared to me to be a racist slur and asking him to elaborate.That is not an attack.
I have to say that I find it very disappointing that some on this board would defend that description of one of the many races who make up the present day US.
There are many ways to inflict a holocaust on a people.Death is just one.A living death is another.My dictionary defines it as destruction on a massive scale.
Where was the intent by the American government to commit the crime you acuse them of desiring, i.e. eradication of the Indian population?
I note that your research has not unearthed the above accusation.
And good wishes to you too Billy.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 11:43:28 AM
|
No, Wild, I do not know "just another bunch" is disrespectful. In the long history of pogroms against European Jews, I have no trouble writing and meaning, say, that Richard the Lionhearted's slaughter of the York Jewish community - which shockingly and coincidently contained people to whom he owed a great deal of money - was just another slaughter of Jews by hypocritical Christian thugs. Whenever things went bad for Europe they turned on The Other, which were often Jews, and slaughtered them. They run together in mind and memory. Yet another here, just another there.
The Nazis were different in that they weren't primarily interested in killing people for their land or money or women, they were primarily interested in simply killing them because they existed, and this was by government action. And not just the ones handy or in the way, but seeking them out to accomplish the goal of complete genetic eradication. There is nothing to compare this to.
Warlord's discovery of stories in recent books (although he gives no evidence he's actually read more than the index to needed pages)leads him to conclude they're breaking topics. Sklenar's discussions of Libby's attractions to Weir and Custer's gambling did not originate with Sklenar. Utley has both issues in books in past decades and, of course, the original letters between the spouses, court records of Custer's scams, and many other vehicles engage these aspects. He simply is new to the Custer topic, high school vocabulary levels (he had to look up Francophile???), much history and ignorant of that which has been hammered on this very board, never mind in books still considered essential reading. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 11:56:04 AM
|
Wild, you stated:
quote:
Where was the intent by the American government to commit the crime you acuse them of desiring, i.e. eradication of the Indian population?
I note that your research has not unearthed the above accusation.
Your eyes must have began to glaze over to miss it. For your benefit, I will repost it below:
quote:
OK, now as far as “eradicate”. You did not mention that word specifically, however my contention is that you used every other metaphor to describe the same effect, such as this post from 2/13 14:44:53:
“The Indians were a people who suffered loss of life and destruction on a scale to rival the slaughter of the Jews.To use the terminology you have shows disrespect and indifference to an American tragedy.It is on a par with saying that it was just another bunch of Yanks were killed in the twin towers.”
From Dictionary.com’s synonym list for eradicate:
Main Entry: eradicate Part of Speech: verb Definition: destroy Synonyms: abate, abolish, adios, annihilate, ax, blot out, deep six, demolish, deracinate, efface, eighty-six, eliminate, erase, expunge, exterminate, extinguish, extirpate, kibosh, knock out, KO, liquidate, mow down, obliterate, off, purge, raze, remove, root out, rub out, scratch, scrub, shoot down, squash, stamp out, take out, torpedo, total, trash, unroot, uproot, wash out, waste, weed out, wipe out ;
Notice “slaughter” is not among the above. However, word “annihiliate” is as well as “exterminate.”
Main Entry: annihilate Part of Speech: verb Definition: destroy Synonyms: abate, abolish, abrogate, annul, blot out, crush, decimate, demolish, do in, eradicate, erase, expunge, exterminate, extinguish, extirpate, finish off, invalidate, liquidate, massacre, murder, negate, nullify, obliterate, quash, quell, raze, rub out, ruin, slaughter, take out, undo, vitiate, wipe out, wrack, wreck
Underline is by me.
Sources for the above are from Roget’s New Milenium Thesaurus, First Edition, copyright © 2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC.
Later on I will address something else I noticed but don't have time to think it over now.
Billy |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 12:57:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Warlord's discovery of stories in recent books (although he gives no evidence he's actually read more than the index to needed pages)leads him to conclude they're breaking topics. Sklenar's discussions of Libby's attractions to Weir and Custer's gambling did not originate with Sklenar. Utley has both issues in books in past decades and, of course, the original letters between the spouses, court records of Custer's scams, and many other vehicles engage these aspects.
On the Weir issue, I would have to agree that Utley is a great source. In "Cavalier in Buckskin," pg. 108, in a letter from GAC to Libbie, 1869: "The more I see of him [Weir], Little one, the more I am surprised that a woman of your perceptive faculties and moral training could have entertained the opinion of him you have."
And of course, there was Libbie's attraction to Wild Bill.
These issues aren't new, nor are meant as insults to the dearly departed Hero of the Plains or his Wife--it's all just life stuff of any marriage. Good and bad periods, but mostly good. Period.
Happy President's Day! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 1:14:19 PM
|
BJ you do me an injustice.I did not use the word eridicate or the word population.Nor did I use any other word in connection with "population".You see you can wipe out a nation without wiping out the population.And it was the intention of the US to wipe out the Indians as tribes/groups/nations
No, Wild, I do not know "just another bunch" is disrespectful.
Well DC you said that you would not use it to describe the Jewish victims of the holocaust
To me the word "just" indicates something of little significance.Bunch to describe grapes or bananas.Do you think your Press would have headlines reading "JUST ANOTHER BUNCH OF DEAD GI'S ARRIVE HOME FROM IRAQ"?
but seeking them out to accomplish the goal of complete genetic eradication. There is nothing to compare this to.
The US and the nazis both committed crimes against humanity.The nazis failed while the US succeeded.Both crimes really are beyond quantifying so you are right they cannot be compared. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 2:41:05 PM
|
I don't think you can actually "libel" someone who is ... well, dead. And nothing that DC--or anyone else for that matter--says in regards to GAC's personal life comes as a shock or something even close to insulting the general or his wife to me. Wasn't GAC responsible for the "gold grows through the grass" remarks about the otherwise tiny find made in the Black Hills? Didn't GAC go on some editorial tear about Belknap with practically no evidence? Didn't he boink one female hostage? How abouts lewdly kissing/fondling the daughter of Spotted Tail during the Great Buffalo Hunt of 1872? Does any of this make GAC a devil incarnate--no, it makes him a man of his TIMES. And if this stuff still surprises, there is a lot more research for you ahead.
All power to the Soviets! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Frank Spencer
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 2:47:50 PM
|
Poll - Would Frank Spencer have handled the Little Big Horn better than Custer?
A. YES
B. NO |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
