U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-26-2010, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Portland, Maine
4,180 posts, read 13,048,491 times
Reputation: 1609

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
So, those who suffered and died for the South in the Civil War ain't worth it, huh? I love our national flag as much as you do, but your crazy if you don't think there are large numbers aren't offended by it.
There's one in every bunch. I understand that and to all of you who worship the confederate flag, that's your right as an individual to do so. I don't honor it, worship it, or even look upon it with anything other than disgust. That flag is a symbol of a divided nation. I'm not sure many were waving it on 9-11. So be it.

We have a right to agree to disagree. Let's leave it at that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2010, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC NoVA
1,105 posts, read 1,947,332 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjj View Post
There's one in every bunch. I understand that and to all of you who worship the confederate flag, that's your right as an individual to do so. I don't honor it, worship it, or even look upon it with anything other than disgust. That flag is a symbol of a divided nation. I'm not sure many were waving it on 9-11. So be it.

We have a right to agree to disagree. Let's leave it at that.
if we're going to agree to disagree, keep your friggin mouth shut. when you agree to disagree, you don't take little jabs and then say it's over. you say it's over and shut up. so no, i won't leave it at that.

the confederate flag isn't a symbol of a divided nation. they seceded under their constitutional right to do so in order to protect their rights as states. if anything, the north was wrong for trying to force themselves on states in which they had no business sticking their noses in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2010, 10:04 AM
 
288 posts, read 299,619 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjj View Post
The individual tribes that lived in the Americas had their own forms government although it hardly looked anything like the European formula.
Their customs, religious beliefs, and tribal rules and regulations were overlooked because the European newcomers looked upon them as savages in many instances. The European goal: new forms of capitol and religious conversion along with more sinister goals of genocide, enslavement, and complete removal from their land. We can not skip this part of our history.

Now, I understand QweffL's point of view: all peoples of the world regardless of race, religion, and background have dubious histories of these same practices. The European is not sole group to be mocked for this to take place. However, because we live here in North America, this has been the greatest example of genocide to take place on this land. We shouldn't overlook the fact that their were also inter-tribal wars that not much has been recorded.
Just like all the other American historians bounded by political correctness mixed with white guilt you talk about those events in an extremely one-sided manner. Natives were a peaceful bunch living in total harmony with nature and colonists were bloodthirsty murderers with genocide on their minds.

Again, there was no genocide, the colonists had never intended to fully exterminate the indigenous people. It is true that they viewed them as savages, barbarians, subhuman, and there were definitely some heinous crimes committed by colonists against the natives but those crimes were still crimes of the individuals rather than official policy of their governments. Colonists were basically given an order not to attack the natives, establish the trade, and convert them to christianity without resorting to violence. The plan worked well with some tribes but backfired with others, so after a few massacred English settlements the government simply took a leash off of their colonists. The main problem was that both the colonists and the natives had peaceful and militant factions within, and none of them could tell which one is which.

I'm not sure what you mean by inter-tribal wars were not recorded. There's plenty of evidence to support that. The fact that this part history of the indigenous people is not exactly popular and hardly ever mentioned in classrooms is another story. I remember back in college my history professor almost with tears in her eyes was telling us how the peaceful and friendly Hurons (Wyandot) were significantly reduced in numbers by coming into contact with evil French colonists who intentionally infected them with diseases they brought from Europe. She conveniently left out the part where Hurons were in the state of brutal war with Iroquis and eventually were completely wiped out by them.
Also she told us about the brave and noble Comanche tribe but forgot to mention that throughout the entire 19th century they made living on slavery, pillaging "next-door" tribes, kidnapping young girls and selling them to Mexico brothels, and fighting just about every Native American tribe that was out there yet maintaining relative peace with Texans.

None of this is intended to find excuses to the crimes of colonists just not everything was black and white as you and just about every North American historian are trying to present it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2010, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Portland, Maine
4,180 posts, read 13,048,491 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by QweffL View Post
Just like all the other American historians bounded by political correctness mixed with white guilt you talk about those events in an extremely one-sided manner. Natives were a peaceful bunch living in total harmony with nature and colonists were bloodthirsty murderers with genocide on their minds.

Again, there was no genocide, the colonists had never intended to fully exterminate the indigenous people. It is true that they viewed them as savages, barbarians, subhuman, and there were definitely some heinous crimes committed by colonists against the natives but those crimes were still crimes of the individuals rather than official policy of their governments. Colonists were basically given an order not to attack the natives, establish the trade, and convert them to christianity without resorting to violence. The plan worked well with some tribes but backfired with others, so after a few massacred English settlements the government simply took a leash off of their colonists. The main problem was that both the colonists and the natives had peaceful and militant factions within, and none of them could tell which one is which.

I'm not sure what you mean by inter-tribal wars were not recorded. There's plenty of evidence to support that. The fact that this part history of the indigenous people is not exactly popular and hardly ever mentioned in classrooms is another story. I remember back in college my history professor almost with tears in her eyes was telling us how the peaceful and friendly Hurons (Wyandot) were significantly reduced in numbers by coming into contact with evil French colonists who intentionally infected them with diseases they brought from Europe. She conveniently left out the part where Hurons were in the state of brutal war with Iroquis and eventually were completely wiped out by them.
Also she told us about the brave and noble Comanche tribe but forgot to mention that throughout the entire 19th century they made living on slavery, pillaging "next-door" tribes, kidnapping young girls and selling them to Mexico brothels, and fighting just about every Native American tribe that was out there yet maintaining relative peace with Texans.

None of this is intended to find excuses to the crimes of colonists just not everything was black and white as you and just about every North American historian are trying to present it.


Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear.
1. Yes, there is plenty of evidence of inter-tribal war. My point was that there was plenty more that probably went unrecorded.
2. I have no white guilt as I am half Menominee Indian. The Caucasion side originated in Quebec.
3. Be objective with your debate. You placed words in my mouth that were never written.
4. There was the practice of genocide. The Trail of Tears was quite similar to the Jews being sent off on trains.
5. I agree with you. Heinous acts were committed by all parties involved.
6. You seem to forget that in my earlier post, I agreed with you that Europeans are not the only group of people to inflict harm on others. I am not berating Europeans as the only group of people to be involved with destruction. Again, all races and peoples have been guilty of this throughout history.
7. You have labeled me as "PC". Yes, I try to be correct in my analysis of history although I am not sure that always involves politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2010, 11:00 AM
 
288 posts, read 299,619 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjj View Post
Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear.
1. Yes, there is plenty of evidence of inter-tribal war. My point was that there was plenty more that probably went unrecorded.
...
3. Be objective with your debate. You placed words in my mouth that were never written.
For that I apologize. I misread your post and placed the accents in the wrong places.
Quote:
4. There was the practice of genocide. The Trail of Tears was quite similar to the Jews being sent off on trains.
I guess it could be. The definition of genocide has gotten so vague in the recent years. Yet still, Jews were loaded up on the trains with the intention of exterminating them in concentration camps, US government wanted Indians out of the Eastern territories and forced them to go West, they didn't care what would happened to them along the way they just wanted them gone from the East. Indian Removal Act was cynical and immoral act but hardly comparable to the Holocaust.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2010, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Portland, Maine
4,180 posts, read 13,048,491 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by QweffL View Post
For that I apologize. I misread your post and placed the accents in the wrong places.

I guess it could be. The definition of genocide has gotten so vague in the recent years. Yet still, Jews were loaded up on the trains with the intention of exterminating them in concentration camps, US government wanted Indians out of the Eastern territories and forced them to go West, they didn't care what would happened to them along the way they just wanted them gone from the East. Indian Removal Act was cynical and immoral act but hardly comparable to the Holocaust.

It's important to remember in this issue that the native peoples of America consisted of many cultures, languages, systems of government, traditions, etc. throughout the Americas. When we discuss the European discovery of these continents we need to consider all of the modern-day nations and all of the tribes that at one time lived on that land. There was the practice of genocide that occured in many of these places. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough and you thought I was only thinking of present-day USA.
I enjoy this debate with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2010, 12:12 PM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
15,504 posts, read 17,724,856 times
Reputation: 30796
Forced relocation like the Trail of Tears could be called ethnic cleansing but only the systematic murder of an ethnic group can be called genocide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2010, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Portland, Maine
4,180 posts, read 13,048,491 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict View Post
Forced relocation like the Trail of Tears could be called ethnic cleansing but only the systematic murder of an ethnic group can be called genocide.
Genocide did occur against Native Americans regardless of motive. Anyone who denies that fact is in fact in denial.

Genocide of Natives in the Western Hemisphere, starting 1492 CE

A non-PC reference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2010, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Austin, Texas
3,093 posts, read 4,134,637 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjj View Post
That American flag represents the future to me: the ideals of this land-not the reality. I also lost a brother in a war and look upon that flag as something that represents his untimely death. He wasn't defending this land for me or my family or for Caucasions. He was fighting to support this country and ALL the people who live here. I imagine everyone can find a gripe or reason to make a joke of the flag. I am one of them. But, it is a uniter, not a divider--it represents one nation with all people. I can't overlook that. That is the big difference between our national flag and that rag that is a reminder of all that was bad-not good about this land.
You views, while commendable, are naive and idealistic. The Confederate flag and the U.S. flag are two sides of the same coin in my opinion. The only difference is that the winners get to write the history, and that's what happened. Like I said, if a few idiots want to fly the flag, I say go ahead and let them. They can live in their racist world all by themselves.

Last edited by UTHORNS96; 12-26-2010 at 01:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2010, 01:42 PM
 
1,645 posts, read 3,191,107 times
Reputation: 1381
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride View Post
if we're going to agree to disagree, keep your friggin mouth shut. when you agree to disagree, you don't take little jabs and then say it's over. you say it's over and shut up. so no, i won't leave it at that.

the confederate flag isn't a symbol of a divided nation. they seceded under their constitutional right to do so in order to protect their rights as states. if anything, the north was wrong for trying to force themselves on states in which they had no business sticking their noses in.
"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to CelticGermanicPride again"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top