Rebranding to Consider Red Men/Indian if We Rise Again

Not bad and humorous as expected.  Start the blog again, it is missed

Not bad and humorous as expected.  Start the blog again, it is missed

Bump.

I am a skeptic. What occurs and what is reported to have occurred can be to different things. Who was responsible for recording the cause of deaths of these communities? How can you be certain disease was the main cause of the demise? Having spoke with people who are descendants of native North and South America, some may have a different take as to what lead to their deaths and it wasn’t disease.

It’s odd how things are reported. We hear more of Moses parting the Red Sea than him leading the Israelites in murdering entire communities. Which most likely happened?

If a col. has an entire community murdered how would that most likely be reported? That they died by the soldiers boots, because why waste bullets on the soft skulls of children/babies, or that they all died of disease? Talk about bad PR.

If you look at the Slave trade from an economic perspective. If you consider and studied the business behind Slavery, and noticed the amount of ships that were made (10’s of thousands) for the use of transporting slaves. Over the course of 2 centuries, to think the number was as little as 5 million is lunacy. This was a big business.

There were not tens of thousands of slave ships. You can’t possibly believe that. A little perspective here:  the Spanish Armada had 130 ships. The modern US Navy has around 400. It could take years to build a single ship.

As for recorded history, were sub-Saharan Africans or Native Americans going to do it with no written language?

Interesting fact for the Carmines of the world that want all whites to share the responsibility for all prior acts even if their families didn’t come to America until after the Civil War...the group with the highest % of DNA from actual slave owners is...African American. It’s not Irish, Italians, Russians, Polish, Jewish, etc. who all came to the US much later. So be careful when you use “we” to describe slavery. The average African American whose family has resided in the US prior to the civil war is 21% white.

The thread was a thing of beauty

the best I've seen this year

rewriting facts to suit your views is ignorant.

I’m rewriting facts?

According to historian David Stannard, over the course of more than four centuries from the 1490s into the 1900s, Europeans and white Americans "engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas." The indigenous peoples of the Americas experienced massacres, torture, terror, sexual abuse, systematic military occupations, removals of indigenous peoples from their ancestral land, allotment, and a policy of termination.

You want want to focus on diseases being the cause of the Native Americans demise?

In the 1700s, British militia like William Trent and Simeon Ecuyer gave smallpox-exposed blankets to Native American emissaries as gifts at Fort Pitt, "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians", in one of the most famously documented cases of germ warfare. Historians have noted that, "history records numerous instances of the French, the Spanish, the British, and later on the American, using smallpox as an ignoble means to an end. For smallpox was more feared by the Indian than the bullet: he could be exterminated and subjugated more easily and quickly by the death-bringing virus than by the weapons of the white man." The British High Commander Jeffery Amherst authorized the intentional use of disease as a biological weapon against indigenous populations during the Pontiac's Rebellion, saying, "You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race". So to suggest that the majority of Native deaths that occurred was via disease means what exactly? Mission accomplished? Seems about right.

Native American Studies professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz says, "Proponents of the default position emphasize attrition by disease despite other causes equally deadly, if not more so. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease. In the case of the Jewish Holocaust, no one denies that more Jews died of starvation, overwork, and disease under Nazi incarceration than died in gas ovens, yet the acts of creating and maintaining the conditions that led to those deaths clearly constitute genocide."

Historian David Stannard writes that by the year 1769, the destruction of the American aboriginal population down to just one-third of one percent of the total American population of 76 million was the most massive genocide in world history.

Stannard also estimated that up to 65 million Africans died due to Slavery.

I’m not attempting to re-write history, we have governments for that. There are two sides to every story, I’m just trying to bring to light the different perspective of written history, not just His-story. I’ve heard of selective hearing, but selective historians?

Interesting fact for the Carmines of the world that want all whites to share the responsibility for all prior acts even if their families didn’t come to America until after the Civil War.

Don't mess with my uniquely personal version of "white man's burden".

Sooooooo by the split vote and thread. It is pretty obvious that bringing back the name Redmen (even for a retro night), is just not worth the effort for the University. 

There would be mayhem in the stands as lectures and lecturers break out in the stands. Nobody would know who won the game because the outcome of whose fault it is for world events hasn’t been decided yet.

My conclusion is that humans can/are a rear of a donkeys, especially to each other.

But...

We are getting a little better...right?

There were not tens of thousands of slave ships. You can’t possibly believe that. A little perspective here:  the Spanish Armada had 130 ships. The modern US Navy has around 400.

I said think of it from a business perspective and your telling me how many ships are in the modern US Navy. Not much financial incentive in the military. I read it somewhere but can’t recall where. That being said if we look at the business side and consider the size of fleets today you will find from 2017:

General cargo ships-16,957
Bulk cargo ships - 11139
Oil tankers - 7244
Chemical tankers- 5418
Containers ships - 5147
Passenger ships - 4428

Slave trade was a big business. After it’s abolishment in the early 1800’s. The Royal Navy seized over 1,600 slave or pirate ships over the next 50 years transporting captured slaves.

This thread came just in time for Warren or is it Pocahontas to chime in:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-says-native-americans-should-be-part-of-the-conversation-on-reparations

This thread came just in time for Warren or is it Pocahontas to chime in:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-says-native-americans-should-be-part-of-the-conversation-on-reparations

Thanks for sharing.

Are you still a climate change denier?

According to historian David Stannard, over the course of more than four centuries from the 1490s into the 1900s, Europeans and white Americans "engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas." The indigenous peoples of the Americas experienced massacres, torture, terror, sexual abuse, systematic military occupations, removals of indigenous peoples from their ancestral land, allotment, and a policy of termination.

According to historian David Stannard the principle causes of depopulation in the new world were disease, starvation and the birth rate, which "were a blueprint for extinction. And that is precisely what happened." I supplied the quotes where he said just that. Fortunately for you your skepticism allows you to ignore what he said when it fails to support your arguments.

You want want to focus on diseases being the cause of the Native Americans demise?

In the 1700s, British militia like William Trent and Simeon Ecuyer gave smallpox-exposed blankets to Native American emissaries as gifts at Fort Pitt, "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians", in one of the most famously documented cases of germ warfare. Historians have noted that, "history records numerous instances of the French, the Spanish, the British, and later on the American, using smallpox as an ignoble means to an end."

What you quote here is from an article from 1945. It was not written by historians, it was written by a husband and wife team, "professors of bacteriology and chemistry respectively" as part of their attempt "to answer their personal question as to vaccination of their own child." So what we have here is 75 year old speculation by two vaccine quacks.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/286308


I'd think that a self-described "skeptic" would be leery of the conclusions they came to, especially conclusions that are loosely paraphrased in a crowd sourced encylopedia, which crowd sourced encylopedia according to Wikipedia's article about Wikipedia has been accused of factual unreliability and "systemic, gender, and racial biases among the editorial community." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

For smallpox was more feared by the Indian than the bullet: he could be exterminated and subjugated more easily and quickly by the death-bringing virus than by the weapons of the white man." The British High Commander Jeffery Amherst authorized the intentional use of disease as a biological weapon against indigenous populations during the Pontiac's Rebellion, saying, "You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race". So to suggest that the majority of Native deaths that occurred was via disease means what exactly? Mission accomplished? Seems about right.

Thank you for copying and pasting from Wikipedia an account of the single documented occurence of weaponization of small pox in the new world. One that I already cited. Should you be able to come up with a second documented account I'd be delighted to read it.

Native American Studies professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

Native American stupidities studies professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz who was spawned from "a mother that Dunbar believes to have been partially Native American." Oddly, first she claimed her mother was Cheyenne and then when that claim was debunked she started claiming to be Cherokee. She does have pretty high cheek bones, so my guess is that her mother is Elizabeth Warren and her father is Ward Churchill.

says, "Proponents of the default position emphasize attrition by disease despite other causes equally deadly, if not more so. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease. In the case of the Jewish Holocaust, no one denies that more Jews died of starvation, overwork, and disease under Nazi incarceration than died in gas ovens, yet the acts of creating and maintaining the conditions that led to those deaths clearly constitute genocide."

Too bad you did not quote the next sentence from the wikopedia article you are citing as authoritative:

"Some historians disagree that genocide, defined as a crime of intent, should be used to describe the colonization experience. Stafford Poole, a research historian, wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century."

Question: as a self described skeptic, why is paragraph 14 of this wikipedia article a quotable authoritative and true statement and paragraph 15 so not authoritative and true that you failed to mention it?

Historian David Stannard writes that by the year 1769, the destruction of the American aboriginal population down to just one-third of one percent of the total American population of 76 million was the most massive genocide in world history.

One paragraph after the quote that you copied and pasted from wikipedia, this quote appears:

"The colonization of the Americas killed so many people it resulted in climate change and global cooling."

Question, and it might be a trick question: do you believe that the "genocide" that occurred in the New World is responsible for "global cooling." Or is global cooling something you're skeptical about?

Stannard also estimated that up to 65 million Africans died due to Slavery.

I’m not attempting to re-write history, we have governments for that. There are two sides to every story, I’m just trying to bring to light the different perspective of written history, not just His-story. I’ve heard of selective hearing, but selective historians?

What about what you're doing - cherry picking quotes that support your position - is not selective?

Are you still a climate change denier?

No one denies that the climate changes. There have been innumerable periods of cooling and warming throughout the earth's four billion year history. Which is why there are tropical reptile fossils in the arctic ice and marine fossils in the Sahara Desert. That said I'm a climate change denier, to the extent that climate change denial comprises disbelief in the idea that 5000 years of homo sapiens has adversely affected the ecology of an ancient system subject to the vagaries of an immeasurable number of unquantifiable variables. I'd be delighted to discuss it with you. Let me know.

According to historian David Stannard the principle causes of depopulation in the new world were disease, starvation and the birth rate, which "were a blueprint for extinction. And that is precisely what happened." I supplied the quotes where he said just that. Fortunately for you your skepticism allows you to ignore what he said when it fails to support your arguments.


What you quote here is from an article from 1945. It was not written by historians, it was written by a husband and wife team, "professors of bacteriology and chemistry respectively" as part of their attempt "to answer their personal question as to vaccination of their own child." So what we have here is 75 year old speculation by two vaccine quacks.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/286308


I'd think that a self-described "skeptic" would be leery of the conclusions they came to, especially conclusions that are loosely paraphrased in a crowd sourced encylopedia, which crowd sourced encylopedia according to Wikipedia's article about Wikipedia has been accused of factual unreliability and "systemic, gender, and racial biases among the editorial community." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia


Thank you for copying and pasting from Wikipedia an account of the single documented occurence of weaponization of small pox in the new world. One that I already cited. Should you be able to come up with a second documented account I'd be delighted to read it.


Native American stupidities studies professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz who was spawned from "a mother that Dunbar believes to have been partially Native American." Oddly, first she claimed her mother was Cheyenne and then when that claim was debunked she started claiming to be Cherokee. She does have pretty high cheek bones, so my guess is that her mother is Elizabeth Warren and her father is Ward Churchill.



Too bad you did not quote the next sentence from the wikopedia article you are citing as authoritative:

"Some historians disagree that genocide, defined as a crime of intent, should be used to describe the colonization experience. Stafford Poole, a research historian, wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century."

Question: as a self described skeptic, why is paragraph 14 of this wikipedia article a quotable authoritative and true statement and paragraph 15 so not authoritative and true that you failed to mention it?

One paragraph after the quote that you copied and pasted from wikipedia, this quote appears:

"The colonization of the Americas killed so many people it resulted in climate change and global cooling."

Question, and it might be a trick question: do you believe that the "genocide" that occurred in the New World is responsible for "global cooling." Or is global cooling something you're skeptical about?


What about what you're doing - cherry picking quotes that support your position - is not selective?

You can disagree with it, you can question its credibility, but My point remains...there are different historical perspectives to what transpired. It’s not something I came up with.

No one denies that the climate changes. There have been innumerable periods of cooling and warming throughout the earth's four billion year history. Which is why there are tropical reptile fossils in the arctic ice and marine fossils in the Sahara Desert. That said I'm a climate change denier, to the extent that climate change denial comprises disbelief in the idea that 5000 years of homo sapiens has adversely affected the ecology of an ancient system subject to the vagaries of an immeasurable number of unquantifiable variables. I'd be delighted to discuss it with you. Let me know.

I’m well read on the topic and would love to meet up to discuss. PM me

No one denies that the climate changes. There have been innumerable periods of cooling and warming throughout the earth's four billion year history. Which is why there are tropical reptile fossils in the arctic ice and marine fossils in the Sahara Desert. That said I'm a climate change denier, to the extent that climate change denial comprises disbelief in the idea that 5000 years of homo sapiens has adversely affected the ecology of an ancient system subject to the vagaries of an immeasurable number of unquantifiable variables. I'd be delighted to discuss it with you. Let me know.

Precisely. Thank you. Nuff said.

I’m well read on the topic and would love to meet up to discuss. PM me

Yeah, I don't do meet ups, as I already have a girlfriend. I'd be happy to discuss it here though.  I'll start.

Tie together 11 balls of twine. Extend them two miles from where you are now. Take a quarter and turn it on its side and lay it against the string; that represents the existence of homo sapiens as to the history of the universe. Pluck a hair from your head and lay it against the quarter; that represents the existence of the industrial revolution as to the history of the universe. Place a mat of fire crackers towards the end of the string and set it off; that represents the Chicxulub crater, which resulted from an asteroid that destroyed three quarters of life on earth. Now explain how the weight of the hair has adversely affected the integrity of the string. I'll wait.

You can disagree with it, you can question its credibility, but My point remains...there are different historical perspectives to what transpired. It’s not something I came up with.

Yes well that's not really an epiphanic observation: of course there are different perspectives as to what transpired historically - it depends on which end of history you've been subjected to. The only interesting question to me is: did what is portrayed as having happened actually happen. Consider: did Hitler set out to eradicate the Jewish population in Europe; did he succeed; did they deserve it. Those questions all reflect a perspective. Pre post modernism the answers cannot all be true and they do not all deserve equal respect. In a post modern world they can all be true and respected because truth is unknowable. If you believe that there's no such thing as truth - which is inherently oxynice personic, because you believe that that which you believe to be true is factual - that's fine, but then you contradict yourself by positing facts which you allege to be true, because you start out by saying there's no such thing as truth, there's only perspective.

What a stupid #$%^ing original post and a stupid #$%^ing resulting thread.

This is an interesting topic and no matter what side one takes I appreciate the robust discussion on it and I am sure many others do too. I find this issue one of the "elephants in the room" so to speak when reflecting on the history and tradition of the program. Obviously I favor one side over the other but the debate has been healthy and that is the purpose of what we are trying to do here. I've learned alot myself from the good points made on both sides. Sorry you do not find it interesting.

Yeah, I don't do meet ups, as I already have a girlfriend. I'd be happy to discuss it here though.  I'll start.

Tie together 11 balls of twine. Extend them two miles from where you are now. Take a quarter and turn it on its side and lay it against the string; that represents the existence of homo sapiens as to the history of the universe. Pluck a hair from your head and lay it against the quarter; that represents the existence of the industrial revolution as to the history of the universe. Place a mat of fire crackers towards the end of the string and set it off; that represents the Chicxulub crater, which resulted from an asteroid that destroyed three quarters of life on earth. Now explain how the weight of the hair has adversely affected the integrity of the string. I'll wait.

If part of that hair is a heat/greenhouse gas producer like the internal combustion engine - all bets are off.