The collective geographical area of all reservations is 56.2 million acres, representing 2.3% of the United States' 3.794 million square miles.
Comrade Harris takes time out of her busy Border Czar schedule to hate on Euro-American history
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
The collective geographical area of all reservations is 56.2 million acres, representing 2.3% of the United States' 3.794 million square miles.
Yeah simpleton, that’s why you think Ukraine should give up their lands. Hey Seminole why don’t you give up half of your property and wealth? I am sure you have enough and are willing to share.
You’re the one who thinks killing native Americans and stealing their land is ok. That’s what this thread is about. You right winged lunatics went after the VP version of history. The thing is you know you are wrong it’s why you have deflected the entire thread.
No. What we take issue with is her selective outrage/selective recollection of historical events.
So what is her selective outrage/ recollection in this instance of historical events? What did she get wrong?
The title of the twitter says: Kamala Harris condemns American History. That is the title. I can condemn Hitler, I can condemn 9/11, I can condemn killing Indians. There is nothing wrong with that. The fact you and others want to go after truth is bizarre. Now I am not for appropriations, or other credits. Thats not what this about, but you need to recognize and understand history.
Last edited:
Why did she fail to mention native tribes attacking, enslaving, raping, murdering and stealing the land of others?
I was being facetious, which I thought was obvious enough from the tone of the post, but apparently not.
In the end, you had stone age societies collide with more advanced ones, and what happened here was no different than what happened everywhere else on the globe such where such societies collided, or even when those stone age societies collided with one another.
Tough spot for ol' Kamalamadingdong, what she needs is the thing she hates the most, the white vote.
Why is it that I believe OP posted different thoughts on this subject before Elon told him to change his tune.
Because that wasn't the base case of the indians, yes there were some outliers, just like americans, steal, beat up, hurt and kill other Americans. The Indians for the most part lived peacefully. You are effectively stating it is ok they were effectively wiped out because there were a few bad actors. Get a grip on reality dude.
the Indians were in a state of constant warfare with one another. Granted no Indian group had anywhere near the strength of the European militaries they were going up against. So in the end wars between Indians did not have the decisive outcomes as wars against the Europeans. But to say "the Indians for the most part lived peacefully" is detached from reality.
Wrong
"No, while warfare was a significant part of many Native American cultures before European contact, it's not accurate to say they were "constantly" in wars; the frequency and intensity of conflict varied greatly between tribes and regions, and periods of peace often existed between battles."
The most noteworthy war clans, were the Iroqois, fighting themselves for control until merged together and then fought the Cherokee. The majority of the deaths though were nomadic tribes in the midwest who followed the buffalo herds. These tribes were not known for battling each other.
Trump: described our brave deceased service members in Europe as " losers and suckers". Total irony coming from someone called "Bonespurs ". So sad he feels that way.
Straight from Chief of Staff John Kelly's mouth. It's okay you're ashamed of that statement, I would be too if the guy I supported said it. It's okay to be embarrassed. We feel for you.
No, that part of it wasn't hearsay. It was just his total lie. Chichenshitting out of his military obligation you know.
It's 8:30, you gonna make it?
1 person has said the suckers ans losers thing, nobody else has confirmed it and dozens have denied it. Everybody linked to the original axios article and then when it was questioned John Kelly came out and said it was he who said it. 1 guy has said it was true, dozens said it was bullshit.
I'm fine today, having a big old breakfast. Laughing at Bonespurs dancing at some rally for 39 minutes in some stroke induced state. So sad. But yep, doing good. Appreciate you asking.
LOL, it was sarcasm, I was just going after Phenomenal. He wasn't clear in what he was calling hearsay, so decided to give him shit, like he has this entire thread.
Last edited:
No, the other part. Another individual at that gathering denied Trump ever said that.
The allegation is hearsay and no one disputes that it is hearsay. There is no recording.
Someone else dispute’s Kelly’s claim. It is hearsay.
Egg skillet, English muffins, big glass of milk.
Small skirmishes are not wars. The majority of the wars again, were isolated to the Iroquois and Cherokee, or tribes in South America. When your battle tools are battle axes, and bows arrows, it required close contact, so ultimately high fatality rates for those involved. So yes, when a skirmish occurred, there was a high probability with primitive healthcare. The majority of the nomadic tribes were quite peaceful. Yes a few tribes did use scalping. As did some early settlers. If these tribes were as violent and killing as you said, there wouldn't be 4 million Indians in the continental US.
I can be absolutely correct in saying most tribes were peaceful, but they would defend and attack back if they were attacked. You had a few tribes that tended to be more willing to fight. You know the 20/80 rule right. I would venture 20% of the indians tribes instigated or were involved with 80% of any battles or skirmishes. This is no different than any other primitive culture.
These skirmishes still do not justify effectively exterminating them Seminole. You still haven't responded to that. You want to go after small pieces of factual information but ignore the big picture. That is par for the course with you.
Last edited:
You know how I know you didn't look at the link?
Keeley says peaceful societies are an exception. About 90–95% of known societies engage in war. Those that did not are almost universally either isolated nomadic groups (for whom flight is an option), groups of defeated refugees, or small enclaves under the protection of a larger modern state. The attrition rate of numerous close-quarter clashes, which characterize warfare in tribal warrior society, produces casualty rates of up to 60%, compared to 1% of the combatants as is typical in modern warfare. Despite the undeniable carnage and effectiveness of modern warfare, the evidence shows that tribal warfare is on average 20 times more deadly than 20th-century warfare, whether calculated as a percentage of total deaths due to war or as average deaths per year from war as a percentage of the total population.[3] "Had the same casualty rate been suffered by the population of the twentieth century," writes Nicholas Wade, "its war deaths would have totaled two billion people."[4] In modern tribal societies, death rates from war are four to six times the highest death rates in 20th-century Germany or Russia.[5]
...
The Yellowknives tribe in Canada was effectively obliterated by massacres committed by Dogrib Indians, and disappeared from history shortly thereafter.[8] Similar massacres occurred among the Eskimos, the Crow Indians, and countless others. These mass killings occurred well before any contact with the West. In Arnhem Land in northern Australia, a study of warfare among the Australian Aboriginal Murngin people in the late-19th century found that over a 20-year period no less than 200 out of 800 men, or 25% of all adult males, had been killed in intertribal warfare.[9] The accounts of missionaries to the area in the borderlands between Brazil and Venezuela have recounted constant infighting in the Yanomami tribes for women or prestige, and evidence of continuous warfare for the enslavement of neighboring tribes such as the Macu before the arrival of European settlers and government. More than a third of the Yanomamo males, on average, died from warfare.
According to Keeley, among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, only 13% did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year. The natives' pre-Columbian ancient practice of using human scalps as trophies is well documented. Iroquois routinely slowly tortured to death captured enemy warriors (see Captives in American Indian Wars for details). In some regions of the American Southwest, the violent destruction of prehistoric settlements is well documented and during some periods was even common. For example, the large pueblo at Sand Canyon in Colorado, although protected by a defensive wall, was almost entirely burned, artifacts in the rooms had been deliberately smashed, and bodies of some victims were left lying on the floors. After this catastrophe in the late thirteenth century, the pueblo was never reoccupied.
These societies were 'mostly' peaceful in the CNN sense of the word.
You are a freaking dipshit. How does that go against what I said. Majority of tribes were peaceful, not looking for trouble but would defend and attack back, if attacked first. Casualty rates were high because of close combat and primitive healthcare. What is your IQ, because nothing in there, is counter to what I have stated. European and early colonial life was pretty violent as well. Yes, overall life was much more violent in the 12th through 18th centuries. Still does not disprove that most tribes base motivation was peace, but that they would defend themselves. Yes you had a few instigating clans that bullied all clans, and there would be the off chance battle between 2 relatively peaceful tribes. The biggest cause of high death rate was the primitive healthcare. If the battle wounds didn't kill you, the infection, or inability to keep up with your tribe would.
Now answer the question, did this justify exterminating the majority of the Indians? Let me guess you will ignore it for the 4th time.
among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, only 13% did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year.
So despite 87% participating in war annually, your assertion is that the majority were peaceful, and just defending themselves?
Any research to back that up?
132 according to the test I took in 3rd grade, 133 according to the test I took at FSU.
How you doin?
Justified? No.
European settlers exercised the same 'right of conquest' against the natives that the Lakota and Cheyenne exercised against the Crow, etc.
Yeah, his dedication to his beliefs is however long Eloon tweets about it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Olympic Spotlight: Johnson Breaks Iowa Weight Throw Record for 3rd Time
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-
-