Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Mr Scorpio wrote:Abraham Lincoln was a fascist. He shut down newspapers which criticized him, imprisoned his political enemies without trial, and fought a war the deny self government to the south. Why anybody would consider him a great president is beyond me.

I don't think wartime actions compare with peacetimes.

Still, his suspension of Habeas corpus was still pretty fucking hardcore.

That doesn't mean he didn't have a good reason, but it does tarnish his reputation as best president evar.

MaleAlphaThree wrote:William. Henry. Harrison.


Who else can boast having three first names?

Why would anyone want to?

You wouldn't. Because you're NOT William Henry Harrison.

Most Welsh people with a middle name have three first names. That's because the surnames are things like Griffith, John, David, etc.

no sorry the civil war was not about the south fighting for self government it was about the south fighting to keep their house negroes

The South may have been fighting to protect slavery but the post is about Lincoln, not southern leaders. What was the point of his war against the South? America today would never invade Sudan or Nigeria to free the slaves there.

Mr Scorpio wrote:

no sorry the civil war was not about the south fighting for self government it was about the south fighting to keep their house negroes

The South may have been fighting to protect slavery but the post is about Lincoln, not southern leaders. What was the point of his war against the South? America today would never invade Sudan or Nigeria to free the slaves there.

But, even today, we would invade and retake any state that tried to secede. Do you think that, minus Lincoln, the North would have just let the South go? No chance.

Do you think that, minus Lincoln, the North would have just let the South go?

It's possible. There was a large political faction in the North called the "Copperheads" which wanted to let the South go.

Wolffystyle wrote:This is easy. Andrew Jackson. He had keggers on the White House lawn. I mean, what's not to like? (except for maybe that whole blankets drenched in diseases thing...)

Wolffystyle's two pence.

He killed thousands of Indians on the trail of tears.

Mr Scorpio wrote: America today would never invade Sudan or Nigeria to free the slaves there.

you're absolutely right, we would only invade them if there was a natural resource to exploit or a public to rile up

Mr Scorpio wrote:

Do you think that, minus Lincoln, the North would have just let the South go?

It's possible. There was a large political faction in the North called the "Copperheads" which wanted to let the South go.

Give me a break

InkL0sed wrote:

Mr Scorpio wrote:

Do you think that, minus Lincoln, the North would have just let the South go?

It's possible. There was a large political faction in the North called the "Copperheads" which wanted to let the South go.

Give me a break

I hate agreeing with Mr. Scorpio, but George McClellan ran for president against Lincoln in 1864 and he almost one. And he ran on a platform of placating the south. So... Scorpio is pretty much right.

JJM wrote:

Wolffystyle wrote:This is easy. Andrew Jackson. He had keggers on the White House lawn. I mean, what's not to like? (except for maybe that whole blankets drenched in diseases thing...)

Wolffystyle's two pence.

He killed thousands of Indians on the trail of tears.

and some of their ancestors, the ones that got away, are still crying

notyou2 wrote:

JJM wrote:

Wolffystyle wrote:This is easy. Andrew Jackson. He had keggers on the White House lawn. I mean, what's not to like? (except for maybe that whole blankets drenched in diseases thing...)

Wolffystyle's two pence.

He killed thousands of Indians on the trail of tears.

and some of their ancestors, the ones that got away, are still crying

The British started the whole smallpox in the blanket but by the standards of their day, they were right. The same policy was applied to the Koori in Australia. Its history which we shouldn't try to judge by our standards today.

...but it's alright to judge the taliban by our standards? Or Saddam Hussein?

Captain_Scarlet wrote:The British started the whole smallpox in the blanket but by the standards of their day, they were right. The same policy was applied to the Koori in Australia. Its history which we shouldn't try to judge by our standards today.

Tell that to my NA brothers still suffering on the reservations. Highest suicide/depression rates in the US.

By any standard, genocide is not something that you just brush off.

I did not mean to make light of genocide or any of the other evil things that various peoples have inflicted on other peoples over the past several thousands of years of human history, but I do feel that at some point we have to stop dwelling on the past and look to the future.
I am not saying forget the past either, as we do not want to make those mistakes again. In the case of Native Americans, some were completely wiped out suh as the Beothuk of Newfoundland. But we must stop the finger pointing and lamenting the past and look to the future.
I am of Scottish heritage and England stole the rock that symbolizes the Scottish throne 500 years ago. Should it go back? Yes. Should we blame all of the English today for that........well perhaps we should. Give us back our rock you Limey Heathens!!!!

I am just saying that forgiveness is a virtue. Learn from the past, never forget it, but move on.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Captain_Scarlet wrote:The British started the whole smallpox in the blanket but by the standards of their day, they were right. The same policy was applied to the Koori in Australia. Its history which we shouldn't try to judge by our standards today.

Tell that to my NA brothers still suffering on the reservations.

Unless their Pequot or Mohegans from Connecticut in which case their casino profits continue to pour in.

Yeah, some of those tribes lucked out with their casinos. Some just got taken advantage of. My grandmother's tribe fought with another tribe to get a casino built. My grandmother's tribe lost, and they ended up with just a crummy ol' college.

notyou2 wrote:I did not mean to make light of genocide or any of the other evil things that various peoples have inflicted on other peoples over the past several thousands of years of human history, but I do feel that at some point we have to stop dwelling on the past and look to the future.

I am not dwelling on the past. I was not alive then to be offended, and none of you were alive to offend me. I am not looking to the future though either, I am looking to today. (but yes, let's not just disreguard genocide)
At some point, someone in the US government is going to have to take some additional responsabilities to help these poor people. There are federal programs to help all tribes out. But building a new $35,000 home for a family of 9 that only makes $11,000 a year isn't going to do anything proper.
Does anyone else here knw what i am even talking about?


And I am finally starting to lean towards Roosevelt. Although the "indian-respecter" Andrew Jackson naming his adopted indian son "indian boy" is pretty awesome.

thegreekdog wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

Mr Scorpio wrote:

Do you think that, minus Lincoln, the North would have just let the South go?

It's possible. There was a large political faction in the North called the "Copperheads" which wanted to let the South go.

Give me a break

I hate agreeing with Mr. Scorpio, but George McClellan ran for president against Lincoln in 1864 and he almost one. And he ran on a platform of placating the south. So... Scorpio is pretty much right.

mcclellan's appeal was at the very height of the north's war fatigue. after the victory at gettysburg though, there was an end in sight and lincoln won the election easily.

[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/17/20080625223720!1864_Electoral_Map.png[/bigimg]

I believe McClellan was from Delaware too.

RECOUNT!

Juan_Bottom wrote:RECOUNT!

Compare the California electoral votes with the Vermont electoral votes...

Also, compare the red states and the blue states...

How times have changed.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Yeah, some of those tribes lucked out with their casinos. Some just got taken advantage of. My grandmother's tribe fought with another tribe to get a casino built. My grandmother's tribe lost, and they ended up with just a crummy ol' college.

Also many of these "Indians", including many of their elders are about as Native American as Custer was.

Captain_Scarlet wrote:
The British started the whole smallpox in the blanket but by the standards of their day, they were right. The same policy was applied to the Koori in Australia. Its history which we shouldn't try to judge by our standards today.

No, they were NOT "right", even by the standards of their day. They might have acted in a manner considered understandable, but that is in no way to be considered the same as "right". Lying, deception, and stealing were not values the British or Americans purported to put forth. Many people DID object at the time.

No, we cannot judge them by today's standards, any more than we can judge Thomas Jefferson, slaveowner, but the standards of today when we just elected our first black president. However, we can judge them by more than the absolute basest of society at the time. It was only the basest that partook in intentionally infecting aborigines of all types with disease as a form of warfare.

neanderpaul14 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Yeah, some of those tribes lucked out with their casinos. Some just got taken advantage of. My grandmother's tribe fought with another tribe to get a casino built. My grandmother's tribe lost, and they ended up with just a crummy ol' college.

Also many of these "Indians", including many of their elders are about as Native American as Custer was.

That tends to happen when you take their kids away, by force, and send the youngest off to be adopted, while housing the rest in bording houses where they are beaten heavily for even speaking a word of their own languages.

The point is that the Federal government took on a paternalistic responsibility. American Indians were austentiably given lands, IF their tribe happened to be recognized, but in many cases the lands were only the excess, poorest of lands that whites did not want. Sometimes there was a historical basis (sacred grounds, etc.) sometimes the "homes" were placed far from any real homeland (The Cherokee were the most abused in this regard). Indians that were historic enemies were forced to reside together.

In many cases, tribes don't have individual ownership of lands for historic and cultural reasons. Even if they were to confer some sort of ownership, the owner would not be able to freely sell the property within a reservation. This means that they cannot simply go and get a bank loan, like you or I.

In some cases, casinos have brought in lots of money. However, many tribes are located in highly isolated areas with little potential for much real development. Getting any company interested in investing was difficult because of the various restrictions, in addition to questions of land ownership.

Even laws on reservations is exceedingly complicated. States generally do not have any juridiction on the reservation. In some cases, they might have some jurisdiction over whites, but the areas can be isolated and there is little incentive for any local law enforcement agency that does not wish to be involved.

Even today, did you know that if a woman is raped on many tribes, there is no one with the authority to investigate if the rapist is not an indian? Indian law enforcement officers don't have jurisdiction over whites. The FBI has too much to do, too few resources and is often not near enough to even investigate. Local law enforcement is, in many cases outright racist. One quote, for example, (NPR recently did a series of stories on life on the reservations) was a sherrif who told his deputies that he "did not care if they were bleeding to death in a ditch, they were NOT to call [the Indian police] for help!"

On the one hand, Indians are legally dealt with as if they were children, needing the government to make decisions for them. On the other, they are held accountable for failures of their societies. BUT, they are usually not given the tools the rest of us have to succeed. Is it any wonder alchoholism and other ills are prevalent?

notyou2 wrote:II am just saying that forgiveness is a virtue. Learn from the past, never forget it, but move on.

This is true, but the problem is that ills continue for Native Americans. They cannot "move on" because the past has not left yet.

Thanks Player. My grandmother was Chippewa.... and damned proud of it. You did not joke about race with her, or she would beat you senseless. Men and women both; I've seen it. And grandpa showed me the knife...
With a little help from the KKK, and WWII, she was one of the few lucky enough to get away from the reservation and not have to go back. The impression that she gave us all was that it was hell on earth. You had one place to work for your whole life: the plastic utensil factory. Before that it was some type of kitchen cleaning utensil factory.
Can you imagine going to school when you were 5.... and the teacher says "What do you want to be when you grow up? You can be anything! A broommaker, of fork maker, or a mop maker!"
For the most part Americans are completly ignorant of the problem. Just goes to show you that the past has not left yet.