-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
Chief Wahoo Discussion
- Thread starter Steve_424
- Start date
- Status
gourimoko
Fighting the good fight!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,845
- Reaction score
- 53,645
- Points
- 148
The way you've quoted me is hard to respond to since quotes are stripped from replies.. I'll try to break this down here:
Me: I've asked you to clarify your point, you've refused.. Who are you referring to with "people who think like me?" Are you talking about a specific race of people? Who are you referring to?
You: My point is that i, personally, think that the logo is not racist (you must learn to read?)
Again, you've dodged the question who are "people like me?"
Moreover, my argument here has nothing to do with the Indians logo.
---------------
You: I agree, the point is that the logo is appropiate or not for the Cleveland Ind... Native Americans or not
I'm not talking about the fucking logo.
---------------
You: and i don´t know all about Native Americans slave traders and slave hunters because i am not God. Exactly, if you say that you know all about it you must be optimus et maximus but that is nor relevant, i agree. They are human beings, sometimes good and sometimes bad human beings like we. They were before but they haven´t got more or less legitimacy for that reason. And obviously this is not relevant for the logo discussion
"all about" a thing is a colloquialism you're obviously not familiar with. It does not imply universal or complete knowledge down to what a person did at 4:06 PM on December 14th, 1506. Lastly, you've now brought this back to the logo; my argument here has nothing to do about the logo and as I told Tornicade; I don't give a shit what someone thinks about the logo. We can discuss it rationally, but, I really don't care...
---------------
You: I think that none of us has cleansing anybody. But they fought, they were defeated, and the native americans fought and defeated other native americans. And cleaned tribes of native americans because they were human beings in certain age and with certain moral codes. And obviously this is not relevant for the logo discussion
This is false, and is also irrational (false equivalence). The Native Americans did not wipe each other out en masse; the Native Americans did not act in a way that brought about their own destruction. They were systematically wiped out.
----------------
Wrt/genocide:
You: No, the native americans fought and defeated other native americans.
This is borderline stupid, and that's not a word I use very often. The Native Americans did not wipe themselves out.
----------------
From this point on I got confused... You quoted verbatim this website: http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Keeley/War-Before-Civilization.html
And from here, this is a press release talking about a book that has nothing to do with the point being made either by myself or Tornicade. It simply talks about war among Native American tribes. Again, this is a strawman. No one has asserted the Natives were a peaceful people prior to the arrival of European colonists. No one has argued they were without violence or war. Again, what you are doing is the legal equivalent to an attorney who paints a rape victim as being promiscuous.
Furthermore, the rest of your Keeley text has nothing to do with Native Americans at all (about 2/3rds of your citation from Oxford is completely irrelevant to Native Americans); why did you post this? Just for length? Did you not think I would read what you posted?
The second verbatim quote you posted, without citation, comes from this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_Account_of_the_Destruction_of_the_Indies
Nothing here supports your argument at all...... I'm not even sure as to why you would post this as a premise to any previous claims made by you or Tornicade, as this account does not help your case in any way.
Me: I've asked you to clarify your point, you've refused.. Who are you referring to with "people who think like me?" Are you talking about a specific race of people? Who are you referring to?
You: My point is that i, personally, think that the logo is not racist (you must learn to read?)
Again, you've dodged the question who are "people like me?"
Moreover, my argument here has nothing to do with the Indians logo.
---------------
You: I agree, the point is that the logo is appropiate or not for the Cleveland Ind... Native Americans or not
I'm not talking about the fucking logo.
---------------
You: and i don´t know all about Native Americans slave traders and slave hunters because i am not God. Exactly, if you say that you know all about it you must be optimus et maximus but that is nor relevant, i agree. They are human beings, sometimes good and sometimes bad human beings like we. They were before but they haven´t got more or less legitimacy for that reason. And obviously this is not relevant for the logo discussion
"all about" a thing is a colloquialism you're obviously not familiar with. It does not imply universal or complete knowledge down to what a person did at 4:06 PM on December 14th, 1506. Lastly, you've now brought this back to the logo; my argument here has nothing to do about the logo and as I told Tornicade; I don't give a shit what someone thinks about the logo. We can discuss it rationally, but, I really don't care...
---------------
You: I think that none of us has cleansing anybody. But they fought, they were defeated, and the native americans fought and defeated other native americans. And cleaned tribes of native americans because they were human beings in certain age and with certain moral codes. And obviously this is not relevant for the logo discussion
This is false, and is also irrational (false equivalence). The Native Americans did not wipe each other out en masse; the Native Americans did not act in a way that brought about their own destruction. They were systematically wiped out.
----------------
Wrt/genocide:
You: No, the native americans fought and defeated other native americans.
This is borderline stupid, and that's not a word I use very often. The Native Americans did not wipe themselves out.
----------------
From this point on I got confused... You quoted verbatim this website: http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Keeley/War-Before-Civilization.html
And from here, this is a press release talking about a book that has nothing to do with the point being made either by myself or Tornicade. It simply talks about war among Native American tribes. Again, this is a strawman. No one has asserted the Natives were a peaceful people prior to the arrival of European colonists. No one has argued they were without violence or war. Again, what you are doing is the legal equivalent to an attorney who paints a rape victim as being promiscuous.
Furthermore, the rest of your Keeley text has nothing to do with Native Americans at all (about 2/3rds of your citation from Oxford is completely irrelevant to Native Americans); why did you post this? Just for length? Did you not think I would read what you posted?
The second verbatim quote you posted, without citation, comes from this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_Account_of_the_Destruction_of_the_Indies
Nothing here supports your argument at all...... I'm not even sure as to why you would post this as a premise to any previous claims made by you or Tornicade, as this account does not help your case in any way.
gourimoko
Fighting the good fight!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,845
- Reaction score
- 53,645
- Points
- 148
I read your post but I must say, it's incoherent.
If you have an argument, why not present it concisely?
Tornicade
2018 RBF League Champion
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 17,542
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Points
- 123
An Indian reservation is a legal designation for an area of land managed by a Native American tribe under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs, rather than the state governments of the United States in which they are physically located. Each of the 326[1] Indian reservations in the United States are associated with a particular Nation. Not all of the country's 567[3][4] recognized tribes have a reservation—some tribes have more than one reservation, some share reservations, while others have none. In addition, because of past land allotments, leading to some sales to non-Native Americans, some reservations are severely fragmented, with each piece of tribal, individual, and privately held land being a separate enclave. This jumble of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political, and legal difficulties.[5]
The collective geographical area of all reservations is 56,200,000 acres (22,700,000 ha; 87,800 sq mi; 227,000 km2),[1] approximately the size of Idaho. While most reservations are small compared to US states, there are 12 Indian reservations larger than the state of Rhode Island. The largest reservation, the Navajo Nation Reservation, is similar in size to West Virginia. Reservations are unevenly distributed throughout the country; the majority are west of the Mississippi River and occupy lands that were first reserved by treaty or 'granted' from the public domain.[6]
Because tribes possess tribal sovereignty, even though it is limited, laws on tribal lands vary from the surrounding area.[7] These laws can permit legal casinos on reservations, for example, which attract tourists. The tribal council, not the local or federal government, generally has jurisdiction over reservations. Different reservations have different systems of government, which may or may not replicate the forms of government found outside the reservation. Most Native American reservations were established by the federal government; a limited number, mainly in the East, owe their origin to state recognition.[8]
The name "reservation" comes from the conception of the Native American tribes as independent sovereigns at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Thus, the early peace treaties (often signed under duress) in which Native American tribes surrendered large portions of land to the U.S. also designated parcels which the tribes, as sovereigns, "reserved" to themselves, and those parcels came to be called "reservations."[9] The term remained in use even after the federal government began to forcibly relocate tribes to parcels of land to which they had no historical connection.
A majority of Native Americans and Alaska Natives live somewhere other than the reservations, often in big western cities such as Phoenix and Los Angeles.[10][11] In 2012, there were over 2.5 million Native
Auchwitz the largest Jewish concentration camp was 15 square miles and there was no autonomy amongst its people.
You can also look at why there was relocation.. Relocation was forced ecuase Native Tribes were actively killing Americans. Wheres the Jews were being round up and thrown in ovens just for their religious beliefs.
Very few incidents in the 500 year period would qualify as genocide outside of a few incidents in California where there was major public outcry.
In fact most government or Private Atrocities against the Native Americans was met with huge public resistance.
Racism against Native Americans was a product of war and constant fighting. it was a symptom of the problem and not the cause of the problem.
the term genocide itself was coined in 1944 and by its own definition isn't applicable to the plight of Native American tribes and their bloody history that predates the arrival of European immigrants.
The Us government much to protest of Native Americans launched a largely successful smallpox immunization program . this is not the Action of a country wanting to eradicate a race from existence.
The US government made all Native Americans Citizens and set up programs for integration into American society as an option to lving in the federally designation reservations.
This too is not an action a government intent on eradicating a specific race would take.
Sure you have a few individuals who sold smallpox infected blankets to Native American but these were acts of individuals not of American leadership, And there were groups of citizens who retaliated on native American communities in California but there was large public outcry against these actions and American citizens were punished for these actions.
The collective geographical area of all reservations is 56,200,000 acres (22,700,000 ha; 87,800 sq mi; 227,000 km2),[1] approximately the size of Idaho. While most reservations are small compared to US states, there are 12 Indian reservations larger than the state of Rhode Island. The largest reservation, the Navajo Nation Reservation, is similar in size to West Virginia. Reservations are unevenly distributed throughout the country; the majority are west of the Mississippi River and occupy lands that were first reserved by treaty or 'granted' from the public domain.[6]
Because tribes possess tribal sovereignty, even though it is limited, laws on tribal lands vary from the surrounding area.[7] These laws can permit legal casinos on reservations, for example, which attract tourists. The tribal council, not the local or federal government, generally has jurisdiction over reservations. Different reservations have different systems of government, which may or may not replicate the forms of government found outside the reservation. Most Native American reservations were established by the federal government; a limited number, mainly in the East, owe their origin to state recognition.[8]
The name "reservation" comes from the conception of the Native American tribes as independent sovereigns at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Thus, the early peace treaties (often signed under duress) in which Native American tribes surrendered large portions of land to the U.S. also designated parcels which the tribes, as sovereigns, "reserved" to themselves, and those parcels came to be called "reservations."[9] The term remained in use even after the federal government began to forcibly relocate tribes to parcels of land to which they had no historical connection.
A majority of Native Americans and Alaska Natives live somewhere other than the reservations, often in big western cities such as Phoenix and Los Angeles.[10][11] In 2012, there were over 2.5 million Native
Auchwitz the largest Jewish concentration camp was 15 square miles and there was no autonomy amongst its people.
You can also look at why there was relocation.. Relocation was forced ecuase Native Tribes were actively killing Americans. Wheres the Jews were being round up and thrown in ovens just for their religious beliefs.
Very few incidents in the 500 year period would qualify as genocide outside of a few incidents in California where there was major public outcry.
In fact most government or Private Atrocities against the Native Americans was met with huge public resistance.
Racism against Native Americans was a product of war and constant fighting. it was a symptom of the problem and not the cause of the problem.
the term genocide itself was coined in 1944 and by its own definition isn't applicable to the plight of Native American tribes and their bloody history that predates the arrival of European immigrants.
The Us government much to protest of Native Americans launched a largely successful smallpox immunization program . this is not the Action of a country wanting to eradicate a race from existence.
The US government made all Native Americans Citizens and set up programs for integration into American society as an option to lving in the federally designation reservations.
This too is not an action a government intent on eradicating a specific race would take.
Sure you have a few individuals who sold smallpox infected blankets to Native American but these were acts of individuals not of American leadership, And there were groups of citizens who retaliated on native American communities in California but there was large public outcry against these actions and American citizens were punished for these actions.
Athaloc
Situational Stopper
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2015
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 210
- Points
- 43
Tornicade
2018 RBF League Champion
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 17,542
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Points
- 123
who said the Native americans deserved it? that's quite a bit of twisting and removing the conversation out of context. Just because Gouri chose in and decided to defend someone hating on whites by promoting the idea of some sort of Native American genocide perpetuated by white people which has been soundly disproven in academic circles .
Ignoring historical facts and contexts is absurdly ignorant and racist against whites. not sure why I get called borderline and racist and ignorants because I don't buy into history revisionism by those with an Agenda. who prefer to insult and attack people who disagree with them with generic labels ..kinda of hypocritical for those who champion against racial profiling in the streets while engaging in the same practice when it comes to history.
I might be a bit too liberal for Akronite and Gouri.
Ignoring historical facts and contexts is absurdly ignorant and racist against whites. not sure why I get called borderline and racist and ignorants because I don't buy into history revisionism by those with an Agenda. who prefer to insult and attack people who disagree with them with generic labels ..kinda of hypocritical for those who champion against racial profiling in the streets while engaging in the same practice when it comes to history.
I might be a bit too liberal for Akronite and Gouri.
gourimoko
Fighting the good fight!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,845
- Reaction score
- 53,645
- Points
- 148
I'm neither stubborn or sectarian... I'm willing to debate anyone on these topics.
The problem you and I have had is that I've come into this thread to about 10 disagrees, without an coherent argument from you as to why...
I've addressed your "argument" point by point, but you're simply not willing to engage thoughtfully. And now you're calling me "stubborn and sectarian."
AZ_
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,728
- Reaction score
- 51,466
- Points
- 148
Been away from this thread for a while. Everyone still have their panties in a bunch over a cartoon caricature?
Pussification of America
When America was great, you had racist cartoons and nobody said a damn thing out of respect.
Now? You've got women fighting for suffrage, and the black man thinking he's better than the 3/5ths the US Constitution says he is.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,215
- Reaction score
- 64,815
- Points
- 148
Been away from this thread for a while. Everyone still have their panties in a bunch over a cartoon caricature?
Yup. Bending over for every special interest group that starts whining....
It's a freaking cartoon caricature that some people are using to attract attention to their cause. Get rid of it, and they'll start whining about something else.
Tornicade
2018 RBF League Champion
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 17,542
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Points
- 123
cowboys baseball or ghost rider theme
or show a bit more humility
or how bout a more festive theme
more patriotic
or this cougar could be converted to a bulldog
or baseball on baseball
or how bout a cartoon version of this to show the teams progressiveness into the modern era
- Status