03 Jul 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSayyy! Was'nt he that thar father of the modern democrat party? That thar one what sent all those nasty injuns into slavery?
Prezdint An'rew ... goddamit.
Well... that prezdent gets no respect from this here hillbilly. Old harry reid can jes keep him in HIS closet! Ole' harrry was always a sucker fer that sort a feller. (pun intended)
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBy killing a thing indirectly, you can also remove it from its normal habitat, and force it over rough terrain with very little food and a lack of knowledge about the geography, and then make them live in an entirely different place where they don't know quite how to produce food for a couple generations. That tends to knock off a few of them. It sure is fun, especially when you're being naughty and doing it when the Supreme Court says 'No way!' GO CHECKS AND BALANCES! YOU'VE SURVIVED THE TEST!
I don't know about sargent Schwartz, but I don't let any of my slaves or indeed... any of my captive-opressed Indians out much. I keep them working in the fields so that they can't rise up against me and my children while we sip mint-julips on the porch of the plantation.
Btw... killing them "indirectly" is the funnest. For example. One can tie up tw ...[text shortened]... each a machete! You can't even imagine the fun that this type of indirect killing brings!
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by UzumakiAiSeems like a lot of work for nothing. If I want em dead, I think I'll just shoot em.
By killing a thing indirectly, you can also remove it from its normal habitat, and force it over rough terrain with very little food and a lack of knowledge about the geography, and then make them live in an entirely different place where they don't know quite how to produce food for a couple generations. That tends to knock off a few of them. It sure is f ...[text shortened]... it when the Supreme Court says 'No way!' GO CHECKS AND BALANCES! YOU'VE SURVIVED THE TEST!
Hang on.... I got some checks and balance coming coming in. Hunh! What do you know? I guess I don't want them dead. All my slaves and oppressed indians are still alive.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDon't waste your time. Andrew Jackson used political parties in the US as tools, and the party he set up was actually much different than the one now, despite the similarity in name. Well... duh! They supported him in discriminating against almost everyone, and then didn't care when he violated the ruling of the supreme court... he was the past's George W. Bush!
Interesting. Worth investigating. Hic. (The democrat part, that is. Ah know 'bout thuh other part).
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyGood. Now you've gotten it. Too bad Andrew Jackson didn't see it that way.
Seems like a lot of work for nothing. If I want em dead, I think I'll just shoot em.
Hang on.... I got some checks and balance coming coming in. Hunh! What do you know? I guess I don't want them dead. All my slaves and oppressed indians are still alive.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by UzumakiAiYou know... I'm old, but not that old. But i'll talk to old Andy next time I see him and give him a piece of my mind. All I know is that I take real good care of all my slaves and oppressed indians. I give them free health care and one-and-a-half square meals every week. And some of them STILL complain! Sheesh!
Good. Now you've gotten it. Too bad Andrew Jackson didn't see it that way.
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by HumeA>>History is what historians and others make available to us in the present day to describe what happened in the past.
And I must disagree with you. 🙂
History is what historians and others make available to us in the present day to describe what happened in the past.
This is true of some history, but certainly not all. Ever read any Tacitus, Livy, Sallust, or Cicero? (Incidentally, one of Tony Blair's speech writers clearly learnt a lot from Cicero -- the ...[text shortened]... eople search for answers in the most obvious of places does not make this any less true.
**This is true of some history, but certainly not all. Ever read any Tacitus, Livy, Sallust, or Cicero? (Incidentally, one of Tony Blair's speech writers clearly learnt a lot from Cicero -- the similarities between some of their speeches are striking.)
True, there are many historians that attempt to funnel readers into agreeing with their viewpoint through what they 'make available', but thankfully there all always others that disagree.
!!don't think you got my point there. you seem to believe I'm saying that historians, or anyone describing past or current events, are either slanting things or cherry picking what they make available to support a view. I didn't say that. Historians often lack the data or proof that only becomes available later on and make the best guess they can with respect to what the evidence available when they write means. Example: one of the works I read many years ago was an historian's view of the causes of the War of 1870. But it was written before key documents in the German archives were made available and so the earlier work of that historian could not make available the correct interpretation -- he was wrong. Of course, there were many aspects of what he wrote, "nuances" in the words of my professor, that remained valuable and so the work, while outdated, clearly reached the wrong conclusions. It isn't always a question of intentional bias, but rather of the availability of primary source material.
>>One thing we do not use history for is to learn from past mistakes.
**That's quite a stark generalisation. We learn an awful lot through history -- for example, the governmental elements of the United States took a proverbial leaf from the Roman Republic when it was formed.
!!You may wish to think so, and our founding fathers would no doubt feel flattered that their gentlemanly educations were given credit -- but in fact our form of government owes more to the Iroquois confederation than it does to Rome. You might want to consult Fred Anderson's works on that point.
**Another example: much can be learnt about modern conflicts through the study of history (recent or distant). Just look at the middle east and what happens when you ignore the history of a region before pumping money and guns into it.
!!Again, you are not addressing what I said. I did not say you cannot learn from history. I said that in my experience we do not do so. There have been previous attempts, one might say, to set up shop and dominate the Middle East, what was Mesopotamia, and the rest of south central Asia. Somehow not much of what could have been learned from those previous attempts seeped into the brains of the no doubt brilliant folks who so masterfully engineered the current series of conflicts in those parts of the world. Even those who carried out the first Gulf War knew better than to charge into Baghdad without a clear and solid plan for managing the sectarian strife that was sure to follow -- not to mention how clever it was of our great military minds not to have anticipated that the Iraqi army had had a taste of the USA's military capability before, and was more likely to resort to insurgency than stand and fight and die once more.
So, while not denying we could learn from history, I'm saying we tend not to do so.
**And then there's that thing called democracy...
!!show me please the historical precedent for the electoral college as well as our system of congressional districting.
>>Where you stand on the past depends entirely on where you now sit.
**Unfortunately this is often true, but it certainly does not 'depend entirely' as you suggest. There are cold hard facts in history, you know. It's not all historiography. Yes, the way that we view and interpret those facts is often coloured by our experiences, but opinions often change in historical circles -- historians often change their opinions based on new evidence, new arguments. It is not as black and white as you suggest.
!!There really are no such things as "cold hard facts." There are only facts that change depending on the viewpoints of those who use them in arguments, and facts that change depending on the number of people among whom there is agreement as to the veracity and "truth" of those so-called cold hard facts. Almost everything, including the most trivial of things are often in dispute.
**The past and, yes, history, has plenty to teach us. That too few people search for answers in the most obvious of places does not make this any less true.
!!Finally, and once again, it is good to address the points another has actually raised. It is logically fallacious to address points the other party has not raised.
You are hereby charged with committing the logical fallacies of the Strawman Argument, and I'd also throw in the False Appeal to Authority -- merely listing the names of old dead Romans, etc. doesn't prove anything.
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by uzlesswe learned both from the british
I don't think calling the genocide of an entire group of people (native indians) a "blemish" does it justice.
Nor would I call the enslavement of millions of Africans a "blemish" either.
The US has indeed become a very powerful nation, but let's not gloss over history here.
04 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessOh I'm so tired of hearing about the dammed Indians and the slaves issues. Are you going to continue to beat on a dead horse. I'm sure Canada's history concerning the Red man isn't so "blemish" free neither. We wouldn't have gotten the slaves if it wasn't for their own people selling them to the Europeans and then to us. Why don't you bash England for their ownership of slaves on the Islands in the Carribean. Friggin Canucks always pissing down the backs of the Americans. Jealous little prick. I can't believe me and deucer are in agreement.
I don't think calling the genocide of an entire group of people (native indians) a "blemish" does it justice.
Nor would I call the enslavement of millions of Africans a "blemish" either.
The US has indeed become a very powerful nation, but let's not gloss over history here.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94150
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by Scriabin"Historians often lack the data or proof that only becomes available later on and make the best guess they can with respect to what the evidence available when they write means."
>>History is what historians and others make available to us in the present day to describe what happened in the past.
**This is true of some history, but certainly not all. Ever read any Tacitus, Livy, Sallust, or Cicero? (Incidentally, one of Tony Blair's speech writers clearly learnt a lot from Cicero -- the similarities between some of their speeches ...[text shortened]... erely listing the names of old dead Romans, etc. doesn't prove anything.
Yes, and as I said, Historian are often wrong, but there are almost always others to give us another view. It would be ridiculous to try to learn the truth behind a bar-fight by only talking to one drunk, would it not?
And if there is a case where the important information is simply not there, and an historian formulates a fallacious argument with there being no grounds for others to disagree, that's a problem. But who's to say one cannot learn from fiction too? Have you ever gained useful information from reading a novel?
What you did not understand was that I was challenging your definition of history. Old, dead Romans? Sounds like history to me... and we have their thoughts, quibbles, questions and answers in print today.
The same goes for any primary source.
Oops, I need to go now... to be continued.