Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Outrageous slander to make indians look "victimized"

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Have you ever studied Custer FM? It was his policy to kill women and children.We never gave the Indians a chance.And just to get to the point,I would have done the same yhing the Indians did if I were in there place.
They were never shown a lot of kindness.We decimated them.When was the last time you saw two Indians walking down the street?

[Edited on 01/9/03 by nyeff]




posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Yes neyff, and like-wise we never really got much quarter by the indians either...even back before a time of their "systematic" destruction, in the 1700s, they would not show quarter, they simply didn't know of it, they weren't used to "surrender" "prisoners of war" and all that other "european mumbojumbo" ...

Custer probably was insane in a way, or at the least to fanatical, the problem there was Congress didn't care to stop him.

By that year though Nyeff...the Indians were being "victimized" but the cause of that relentless type of assualts, were not because of the recent actions of the Indians but because of their actions to the Early US government, which founded the policy, and to settlers before, giving all Indians a bad name they didn't truly deserve, but none-the-less were partly responsible for.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 01:25 PM
link   


from FreeMason
' the cause of that relentless type of assualts, were not because of the recent actions of the Indians but because of their actions to the Early US government, which founded the policy, and to settlers before, giving all Indians a bad name they didn't truly deserve'


Elaborate please.



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Does having your head up your @$$ hurt or just give you pleasure? FM, the Indians could have used nukes after all the $h*t that was done to them by the Europeans. They could have done what the whites did and gone to Florida and slaughtered old retired people who were no threat. They could have gone into a school and killed innocent kids without mercy. Gone into hospitals and killed sick people who again posed no threat. Did they? No, Europeans and Americans? Yes. Well, not schools and hospitals, but still killed any Indian they came across.

Guess what? After the first decade, the Indians could have done what they wanted and be right. Did they? No. Did they go and kill women and children? No. Euros? Yes. Euros killed and slaughtered any Indian they came across because they had land they wanted.

FM, what if a stinking evil vile Canuck came and made a shed in your backyard. Would you try to make him leave or make peace. Say you made peace, then he killed your family, would you still stay peaceful? Or would you fight! Then he pulled out Anthrax. Who is right? The disgusting vile evil stinkin Canuck, or you?(I was using the words to describe Canucks the way Europeans actually were, they didn't bath((stinking, disgusting)), they killed without mercy((evil, vile)), and drank tea, they were not used to actually describe real Canucks)



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 08:41 PM
link   
If a Cannuk built a shed, I'd say "come sit in my yard, and watch the birds in the trees."

You speak, as if the Indians owned their land, when they themselves, felt you could not own it.

You speak, as if the indians cared that 10 miles dow the road, were farmers, producing food...

...No, you have your head up your posterior, not I. I simply say they should recieve no sympathy, not that they should not have fought.

They fought, they lost, that is it, no tears, not from us, or them...that is life and time and history, I dislike the tears for the past, as if we have done any wrong, that is spouted by political correct activists.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Your kidding. I know you are FreeMason.

The Europeans were an outside entity that arrive with no intentions but to explore.
When finding the America's there intent was to claim the land for whomever there leader was.

One day they met the first tribe/indian.

"Oh look. Someone else is here to."

Whether or not the Indians or Europens through the first punch has no merit in deciding who pissed who off first.

Now, what IS a fact is that Native American culture says that anyland that Native Americans came across, or explored was theirs. UNLESSS, if when exploring they came across another tribe it is a cultural rule (so to speak,) that the land belonged to the residing tribe.

Now, the Europeans, which was stated earlier, lived by the rule of ownership through currency.
The Europeans more powerful than the Native Americans knew or found out along the way that they would not join the ways of ownership. (Like it would have mattered anyhow.)
So what do you do?
Remove the Indians anyway possible.

So what happened?
Just that.

The complete dismantling of their culture and way of life.
No sympathy.

I know you, FreeMason, wouldn't want any sympathy if anyone or anything attempted to destroy your culture or lifestyle.

DCarter



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 10:26 PM
link   
You didn't answer the question Mr. Head up his @$$. Say you made peace with the Canuck. Then he killed your family. Do you have the right to fight him? To go to war with him to defend your land? The best defense is a good offense.



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 10:42 PM
link   
But now James you are sadly slandering history. History (Except in the case of filthy Spaniards whom I regaurd as dirt) doesn't really show the slaughter of innocent indians until much later, still wrongfully so, but to the people, they were inspired by past aggressions which were based on the more civil land disputes.

I think your question of how I'd treat the Canuk is irrelevant, in the 1700s English//French did not just go, "LOOK THERE A TEE PEE....Let us kill all who dwell with in, because as good christians, we like blood!!"

sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I'll stop now

All context of the debate has been destroyed.

Props to you Mr. Mason.
You keep twisting until you choke don't you.



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I don't twist anything drakke, but you were close to getting it right, than ruined it in the end by saying that the Europeans started it because of Culture Clash.

Spaniards did a lot of nazi things to the indians under the basis of god, but what we are currently discussing is not the Spaniards (whom took a totally different road) but the Europeans, who coincided with the Indians peacefully even up during the beginnings of America, though not all shared that peace, quakers and such did.

I don't know where you get this crap of "If a tribe was already there, leave it be" perhaps you've not heard of the constant wars the Indians fought with eachother, over land and resources. Or do you think that didn't happen until the white man came?

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Well, FM - let me ask you this (and I feel like this topic is getting out of control a wee bit)

Who was here first?

Indians were - their land. You give one instance of Native American wrongdoing and that means Indians bad? Europeans good? Sorry. Did the Native Americans go over to Europe and attack? America (from North to South) was one big European imperialistic orgy.

Ever gone out and seen a Native American family taking the kids out to dinner? Going to an amusement park? At the beach? Have any Native friends? You dont and its sad.

My ancestors were (slightly) Indian and European but where are we now? Are we scalping each other no? Weve all grown. This is history - let us learn from the past.



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
(Except in the case of filthy Spaniards whom I regaurd as dirt)


Let's see, that's: Gays, Blacks, Indians and the Spanish so far on you Bigotry World Tour. Add to that a revisonist perspective to history and current events, splash with jingoism boardering on fascist fevor for the State, and we have Free Mason.........does the Grand Puba down at the Temple know about you?



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 07:49 AM
link   
To all who "participate" in discussions with Free Mason:

You may as well stop any pretense that this is actually a discussion. Mr. Free Mason is not open to discussion or debate, but dispute with any and all who may show up. He is certain that his view is the only appropriate view, and will argue his point ad-nasueum.

The "online discussion forum" phenomenon has seen his ilk time and time again. Experience has shown that the best strategy is to ignore the posts of these people with internalized grandeur intent on disruption, not discussion. (Free Mason, it may be entirely possible you do not even realize this aspect of your personality.) In time, he will either move on or learn to participate in a discussion whereby his own opinion is open to change.

Ignoring such people is far better than sinking to their level.



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason

And in case you haven't heard, archaeology is beginning to find signs that the native americans were not first here, but were second, to the white man...most reliable evidence so far (aside from possible actual caucasian remains here in N. A.) is the fact that whites were settled in Japan before any "asian skinned" peoples were. And Japan is thought to be one of the very feeder places of this continent.

Meaning that Asians would have followed whites into Japan, and consequently across the baring strait into north america.

The question of if Indians were here first or not, is not truly answered.

Sincerely,
no signature


You don't go making claims on ATS without any base...
Where did you read this??? What are your sources???



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 02:30 PM
link   
That since you have trouble reading, is hear-say and not presented as factual evidence, but as a possibility that has been on the rise in this nation. The link between Japan is my own, unless someone else has thought of it.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 02:39 PM
link   
May I point out that the Native Americans weren't a bunch of peace-niks as current legend would have you believe. They may recognize another tribe's land, but that didn't stop them from warring with other tribes. Better check all the history before singling out the European side of it.
And don't give me any condescending yankee lip[ about it was just my backwoods Muskogee kinfolk who were the violent bunch alone!



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Bob88


Ever gone out and seen a Native American family taking the kids out to dinner? Going to an amusement park? At the beach? Have any Native friends? You dont and its sad.

Yes I see indians most of the time I'm out and about, they aren't the bow using loin cloth wearing people of their ancestors, but they claim their heritage and they live amongst their Tribe, most at Pyramid Lake.

B-T, Winston, it is amazing how people usually liberals, act like you two, when someone presents an idea that is contradictory to your facists evil political correctness. You all become very aggressive and insultive of the person presenting the idea.

You all know what I say, and that what I have said holds historical merrit, and everyone else here knows that what I have asked is very reasonable, that we should not show sympathy to those whom "suffered" in the past, they didn't suffer as innocents, but under the pretence that they were at war with us the US and all europeans. Though now looking back it seems a bit unfair and that the Europeans were more the aggressors, at the time the Europeans thought they were protecting themselves, something you can't understand.

And this "sympathy for the Native American" is annoying, they should be shown respect as anyone else today, but not paid or given anything for what happend in the past.

This is a reasonable request.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 03:34 PM
link   
But, you do agree that the U.S. should honor any treaty or agreement into which they entered with any tribe, correct? You certainly do not suggest that we break a treaty and our word (again), in regard to the Native Americans?



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Nah the US I think, I'm not sure what treaties the Congress approved of that dealt with the Natives...because if I'm right (and maybe I'm not on this) Governors were usually the ones making any actual Treaties with the Indians weren't they?

I think if a Treaty is made it should be honored, and this is where unfairness really begins to creep into the whole thing.

My basic statement, is that the constant fighting between settlers and indians, is what caused an eventual distrust between the U.S. public and native americans, which is what allowed corrupt individuals to toy with policies and treaties in order to steal land that was "given" to indians, for themselves and the country.

Recognizing this fact however, of foul play, does not mean though that indians were "victimized" in the sense of slaughter, people do not join the Cavalry do to kill people just because they can.

The foul play involving treaties, are not what really signed the death warrant of many indians, but rather the history of treament of settlers by indians, and the treatment of indians by settlers.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Well, never said Indians didn't fight with each other. Just that they wronged by Europeans first, so they had right to fight. And they not here first? Before Columbus, Vikings here. Indians were there. Vikings attacked them, Indians fought, Indians won. They won their first battles against white invaders. Second time? They lost. Well, may have won first and second, then lost third. For some claims say Romans made it here and the Carthagians(sp?) made it in South America. Anyways, no proof of whites first. Also, whites first in Japan? Uh, no. Japanese there first. The ones who ate rice and were ninjas, not white ones.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join