Posted on 10/12/2009 8:30:59 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
An exchange Sunday with my eldest son got me to thinking (a rare feat, indeed).
He asked if tomorrow was a holiday. I responded that it’s Columbus Day. Sensitive and bright guy that he is, he came back – half joking -- with “Don’t you mean Oppression of Indigenous Peoples Day?”
He and I have debated the matter of the government’s treatment of the American Indian many times. He takes the position that we badly mistreated these original and mostly warrior inhabitants of what we now call America. I agree with him that, sadly, by violating treaties, marching them off to barren reservations, etc. we have done that, but I also reminded him that throughout history, with precious few exceptions, when two cultures have clashed, the one with the superior and more advanced technology usually prevailed.
That brought to mind a warning Mr. Jefferson issued over 2 centuries ago that “Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
And THAT brought to my alleged mind Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.
“Peace” has several definitions:
1. The absence of war or conflict and the necessary presence of justive. (A desirable but, according to Scripture, an unattainable goal.)
2. The absence of RESISTANCE to efforts by utopian elitists to destroy traditional national sovereignty and blend all the nations of the world into some bizarre socialistic New World Order where all will be equal – but SOME will be more equal than others. (Can you guess who "THEY" would be?) Obama received the nomination after less than two weeks in office. The Nobel socialists apparently listened to his campaign speeches more intently than the American electorate. It seems they understood what he was well before the election.
I’m 100% convinced that the Nobel was his reward for promoting a “peace” meeting not the first definition -- but the second.
Obama’s constant apologies, his repeated remarks about our unexceptionalism coupled with his rapid moves to weaken – indeed, CRIPPLE – the United States in an increasingly dangerous and envious world more than confirmed the Nobel socialists’ fond hopes. And if anyone still thinks he’s simply a naïve fool, you’ve not been paying attention. He – and his global elitist handlers – know PRECISELY what they are doing.
Which brings me back to the clash between native Americans and the technologically superior Europeans who ultimately overwhelmed them.
At what point will WE assume the role of those early natives when some technologically superior culture – made so by endless streams of “foreign aid,” technology transfers and outright theft of that technology from the global corporations who site plants in those would-be foes for the cheap labor -- determines that we are ripe for conquest?
What’s even sadder is the probability that America’s obituary – if anyone who cares is around then to even write one -- will declare the death of our culture a suicide.
“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” Daniel Webster
Get ready, folks, because that’s where we’re headed.
Who is "we"? He needs to know the difference between things that happened over a hundred years ago and now. Also, if he feels so guilty he should turn over all of his belongings to the nearest Indian.
Has he seen Mel Gibson's movie Apocalypto? It might just open his eyes to those 'indigenous peoples'.
I would like to ask the foolish liberals ( and those
who acquiesces to this stupid sentiment) if it is ok
to also imply that the “ we “ collective sentiment applies
to , oh, say, all black men as some of them commit an inordinate
percentage of domestic violent crime. “ No, oh wait that
would be decried as racism, a vile hate crime."
Think about your arguments, do not just allow and agree
with such propositions.
In particular, I think Daniel would have referred to the failure of the Constitution leading to the end of freedom throughout the world, not to anarchy. In a world still dominated by more or less absolute monarchies, anarchy wasn't the problem to be concerned about.
www.thequietconservative.com new article “Happy Columbus Day” had a different perspective.
No one, anywhere, mentions WHY Columbus wanted to sail West to find a sea route to Asia. It is because Constantinople fell to the Turks and Europe was cut off from all trade routes by Muslims. The known paths now meant slavery or death. 1492 was the year of the final expulsion of the Berbers from Spain.
Liberal revisionist European/American hating history is all that is taught now.
I wonder about your characterization here. If you read about the Lewis and Clark expedition, you can get sort of a random picture of what these inhabitants were like. My recollection is that they only had trouble once; which isn't too bad considering they were a large group of funny looking strangers.
As for Oppression of Indigenous Peoples Day, I would think it would be more appropriately celebrated on February 12th.
ML/NJ
Wow!
And he's free to go back to Europe. That is if the Muzzies now taking over there will let him.
It’s entirely possible — indeed, probable — that the Jefferson quote is a compilation of thoughts he did put to paper over his long life. I’ve spent a lot of time in the UVa Jefferson papers site and those thoughts are — and that concern is — everywhere.
And the Webster quote doesn’t sound like him?
Then I suppose these also don’t sound like him:
“A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.”
Daniel Webster
“God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it.”
Daniel Webster
“I was born an American; I will live an American; I shall die an American.”
Daniel Webster
Both these men would fit right in here at FR.
My son is a solid conservative/libertarian who believes in live and let live and that was the basis of his comment.
When the balloon goes up here, I’ll wager that he’ll beat you to the barricades.
Would hope you’d join him.
One of the earlier historians wrote that trade for iron conquered the Indian. Better arrow and spear heads, better knives, and something I hadn't considered - iron pots. The squaws no longer had to heat stones and drop them into a gourd full of water. (I can just see some hapless brave coming home and facing "Running Deer, how come I have to put up with heating rocks while all the others have iron pots. Until you get me one, I have a headache.")
For all those claiming victimhood, look at how your brethren are still treated even today in South and Central America. Especially, ask the folks in the Mexican state of Chiapas.
*PBS has a short series called "Frontier House". One episode had the white guys eating venison shot by the Indians, who could hunt out of season. One of the Indians was a prof at a local college and was an expert on applying guilt trips. He said something like, "I find it ironic that we hunt on land that is no longer ours while you can settle on it." I would have asked him how many Indian tribes would still let their enemies hunt on land that they stole from them? What I found ironic was that the white man, who won, couldn't hunt on that same land but the Indians, who lost, could.
There's a neat movie clip on YouTube where General Miles speaks my thoughts.
When I say a quote may not be genuine, I’m not saying the gentleman in question wouldn’t have agreed with it, just that there is no proof he actually said it.
I’m perfectly willing to believe the Webster quote is genuine, I’d just like a reference to where it’s found in his speeches or writings. Among other things, this allows a review of the context so we don’t accidentally misrepresent what he was trying to say.
Same thing for the Jefferson quote. Although I did some research on it a year or so ago, and nobody can find a reference any earlier than the 90s. The 1990s.
There is a LONG history of manufactured quotes being attributed to long-dead famous people in order to push a particular political POV in today’s world. Unfortunately, a perfectly valid statement, when shown to be inaccurately attributed to Famous Guy, is then somewhat discredited.
A true statement is truth whether T. Jefferson, D. Webster or F. Flintstone said it first.
Sorry, I may have misunderstood your comment.
When I said it didn’t sound like Webster, I was referring to the wording, not to the sentiment. I’m sure he would have agreed with the content, although as stated I suspect he would be more concerned with the death of liberty than the spread of anarchy.
Until the white eyes showed up, they had to content themselves with making tribal war on one another.
Gee, that’s still going on in Africa, India, China, etc.
Anyone besides moi see a pattern here?
And, thanks to Obozo and his race-baiting, Marxist handlers, it’s coming to a neighborhood near you (if it hasn’t already) so be ready.
Most of the Indian tribes had pottery. They didn’t need to use gourds or leather bags to cook.
The big advantage of metal pots is they are really hard to break as compared to pottery. Especially if you’re nomadic.
BTW, many of the Indian peoples, especially in Central and South America, were well past Stone Age and were civilized by any reasonable standard.
Jared Diamond is a famous author in this area. He discusses the results in several areas around the world where more advanced agricultural peoples move into areas previously inhabited only by hunter-gatherers.
The result is invariably that the HGs lose, not surprisingly when the farmers have a population density perhaps thousands of times greater.
When JD discusses the Bantu displacement of the San or pygmies, or of early hunter-gatherers in Indonesia or Caribbean, he uses neutral verbs like "settle" or "displace."
When we get to more modern times and he discusses European movement into America or Australia, the verbs change to judgmental ones: conquer, invade, even genocide.
Was there any real difference for the people in the losing cultures? Probably not.
You are correct. We ought not make s**t up lest we become indistinguishable from the loopy left.
But there is the old Biblical remark that “There is nothing new under the sun.”
And since you mentioned Fred Flintstone, I’m a lover of classical music — especially Beethoven — and was shocked, SHOCKED I tell you — one day while listening to a new CD of his piano sonatas (don’t recall the number) to hear the initial 6 note theme from The Flintstones!
And, it’s highly possible that some composer in the 1600s noodled it out before Ludwig but never put it to paper.
Everything old is new again.
Oh Great One, do you have some source for this? Did we learn it from the savages themselves? Did Lewis report having to skirt Indian Wars on the Expedition in his Journal? My guess is that the Indians had no more propensity for war than other humans, and where it existed it may have had more to do with the propensity for thievery among others living nearby.
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.