Evolution ?
 

I’ve just watched the conclusion of the “Into the West” series.

It was billed, as a look at Westward expansion, from both sides.

And in the beginning, I was hopeful that it might actually portray both sides of the history of Social Interaction, between Native Cultures and early Pioneers and Settlers.

Ever since My Boy Scout days, I’ve been intrigued by Native American Culture.

Fascinated by the incongruities, of highly developed Societies, bound to Stone Age technologies and rituals.

Certainly, the philosophy of the “Circle of Life” or “Medicine Wheel” is as astute, and reasonable, as anything in Western European Culture.

And the symbolism of the “Wheel”, and its relationship to all the characters, while heavy handed, was not inappropriate.

But sadly, after getting off to a respectable start, the tale quickly deteriorated into just another Revisionist’s Historic Fantasy.

That’s no surprise, and not particularly appropriate to this board, if it wasn’t for the fact that the same thing is happening today.

I’ve pointed out before, that in the post Civil War Era, the Plains Indians fit every aspect of the designation, “Terrorist.”

And then, as now, a very few stubborn or stupid individuals, and a fundamentally dishonest news media, combine to create the illusion of substance, where nothing actually exists.

The ultra liberal movie establishment, would have you feeling sorry for the troublemakers that got themselves killed at Wounded Knee.

Just like our modern day news media, refuses to report the daily atrocities perpetrated by Moslem Terrorists, but labors tirelessly to discredit the efforts of our troops.

The Brit’s suffered suicide bombings, on 7/7/05, and immediately put officers on the street, with a “shoot to kill” mandate that bore fruit just this morning.

They quickly figured it out.

Talk wasn’t going to work, and waiting, gets You killed.

Mad Dogs need to be put down, to make the world safe for innocent people.

It was true in 1880, and it’s true today.

Assuming the Plains Indians were not "Terrorists" in the pre-Civil War era, perhaps you can explain the transition?

How would you react if someone took all your property and possessions without just compensation and killed a large number of your family and friends? Tell me that the accumulated hatred, anger and bitterness would absolutely not turn you to measures that you wouldn't ordinarily contemplate. History might call you a liar.

I know that many of the British considered some of the American Colonists terrorists, too. Some probably still do :rolleyes:

Amazing isn't it ? And the media labors under the Constitutional freedoms bought and paid for by the blood of the very warriors they defame.It sickens me to read where the terrorists' rights in Guantanomo bay are being violated when they were captured on the battlefield trying to kill Americans.And if released,they would gladly strap on a backpack or suicide belt and try to kill our families.

And look at Egypt today.The Muslim terroists care nothing about their own Muslim brethern for killing in the name of a Jihad buys a one way ticket to eternal paradise.

Negotiations ? Why haven't Osama Bin laden or Al Zawahiri proposed a meeting with anyone,especially the Saudi royal family ?

Oh yeah...That statement is simply unsupportable from a factual standpoint. Today's WP headlines the bombings in Egypt. The bombings in Britain remain on the front page. You can't just make stuff up to make a point, you know. There have been many stories about the positive efforts of our troops. If you're saying the media shouldn't have reported on Abu Ghraib and related stories, you'd probably be more comfortable in China.

Not nearly as many as there should be, my friend, and you know this as well as I do. The media would rather report violence and senseless terrorism than good news anyday, all in the name of discrediting President Bush, to say nothing of the men who have worked so hard to bring freedom and prosperity to a foreign country.
It's unfortunate that the left wing media has translated "freedom of press" to mean "freedom to push your agenda and skew the facts".

"freedom to push your agenda and skew the facts".
 

I'm always puzzled by that complaint, because I don't recall anything prohibiting the press from having an agenda, whether it be left or right. As far as skewing facts goes, if you are responsible enough to be broadly well informed, you'll recognize the skew.

How does reporting "violence and senseless terrorism" discredit Bush and the troops?

I don't "know" that at all. How would I know? The military must have a website with these swell stories you refer to. Point me in the right direction. Keep in mind the media can only report what they know about. A car bomb is pretty much known by everyone soon after it happens. How does the media know when some soldier commits a random act of kindness unless the soldier tells them? There's plenty of reporting about the political progress and/or the lack of it. If you don't see it, you're not looking very hard.

Your "slanted media" mantra doesn't cut it. That's nothing but whining from someone who isn't happy that the various Bush "wars" haven't turned out the way George said they would. I tune into FOX occasionally to see what mischief they're up to, and what they report about Iraq and Afghanistan isn't significantly different from CNN or CBS.

As far as skewing facts goes, if you are responsible enough to be broadly well informed, you'll recognize the skew.

AMEN. Never form your opinion off of one source, no matter which side the source is on. EVERY news outlet has a bias to one degree or another, some worse than others. Unfortunately, way too much of the general populace form their opinion off what they see on the nightly news, whether it be Fox or CBS.
A related thought...supermarket tabloids...what amazes me is not that someone prints that junk, but that enough folks buy them to make it a profitable venture...and these folks vote...

these folks vote...
 

Well, they are certainly eligible to vote, but I wonder...do they really vote?

It sure would be interesting to see an analysis (should we let Fox do it or CBS?) :) of the demographics of who votes sorted by what & how much they read.

...and who they vote for :confused:

and who they vote for
 

Let's settle for just getting them to vote for now :)

Prior to the Civil War, the Plains Indians had very little interaction with the Mountain Men and Pioneers who were mainly passing thru the Great Plains, on their way to California and Oregon.

The skirmishes that were fought, were mostly over stolen livestock.

It wasn't until after the Civil War, that large numbers of displaced Southerners, having lost their homes, sought to establish permanent settlements in the Plains States.

Relations between Settlers and Indians quickly deteriorated from "guarded" to "openly hostile."

On both sides.


I'd have been pi$$ed off, and spoiling for a fight.

No matter which side I was on.

No argument there.

But my point is, that the Settlers depredations against the Indiand, didn't happen in one day, or week, or year.

It was a cumulative process, that took place over several generations.

And the vast majority of Indians, successfully integrated themselves into the changing and evolving conditions.

No Problem, that's what intelligent people do, when faced with relentless change.

You don't have to like it, but You do have to adjust to it.

My argument, with the movie makers, is in the portrayal of the Wounded Knee Massacre, as a historically significant event.

And in their lopsided depiction of attrocities against the Indians, without ever going into the same sort of actions, by Indians, against the Settlers.

By any reasonable analysis, the Indians, a Stone Age People, were doomed, the minute the first European set foot on this Continent.

It's to their credit, that they have survived, and maintained any portion of their Culture.



I'm sure there was rhetoric along those lines, but I'm unaware of any Revolutionary War era attacks on civilian populations.

Yeah, if you take for granted the white mans' propensity for lying, cheating and stealing stuff :rolleyes:

Meaning the ones that were left resigned themselves to life on the reservation :(

Okay, but I prefer insurgents to terrorists.

Revolutionary War era attacks on civilian populations.
 

For starters, there was Tarleton:

http://jrshelby.com/kimocowp/tarlton.htm

Confiscation of crops and livestock to support the army was common on both sides. Resistance was dangerous.

and the conflicts between the Tory and rebel militias involved civilians, especially in the Carolinas and the Hudson River Valley.

I can do that, if You can take for granted the Indians propensity for stealing, burning and murdering folks.

Neither side has a claim to moral ascendancy.



Can You name any other Cultural Evolution, through out history, where the dominate Culture has provided for the needs of the displaced peoples, and subsidized them, for a period in excess of 120 years ?

Take Your Yuppie guilt trip, elsewhere. :rolleyes:



Here's Websters take on the semantics of that argument.

insurgent
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

"Not recognized as a belligerent" ? That clearly doesn't fit.


terrorism
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun

"Systematic" ? Not necessarily, but how about "frequent" ?


anarchist
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

That's probably the most accurate term.

( Webster doesn't list "Rage against the Machine" as a noun or as an intransitive verb. ) :P :p