Author Topic: Things Don't Change....... (Read 911 times)

Kieran · « **Reply #30 on:** March 25, 2007, 11:50:11 AM »

Uhh... Shuckins? I think I said it was a states' rights issue for the south.

Shuckins · « **Reply #31 on:** March 25, 2007, 11:55:56 AM »

Suave,

A Southern victory on northern soil would have dealt a tremendous blow to Lincoln's administration, which already faced a great deal of criticism from the northern population. Lee understood that perfectly, as well as he understood the fact that if the war were to be protracted, the South had little hope of victory.

So, it was to that end, to strike a mortal blow to the north's will to fight, that he commenced his second invasion of the north. With that aim in mind, retreat without giving battle was not an option. His subsequent, questionable decisions at Gettysburg are predicated upon that fact, and upon the fact that Stuart was joy-riding across the northern terrain, leaving Lee largely without the benefit of reconnaissance of the northern positions and of the strength that faced him.

Shuckins · « **Reply #32 on:** March 25, 2007, 11:57:24 AM »

Kieran, nothing personal....I was speaking in generalities.

Regards

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 25, 2007, 12:32:38 PM »

Also, don't forget that up until that point, the south had won nearly every major battle. I'd be confident myself if I had dominated the north for 2-3 years.

The same day of Gettysburg the south lost another major battle (vicksburg), and didn't do well for the rest of the war.

AWMac · « **Reply #34 on:** March 25, 2007, 12:53:22 PM »

I'm related to the "Shermantor" from "American Pie".

My Dad was his Great Grandfather...

Which goes to prove one thing...

Dad was a Navy man..28 Years..

The Shermanator claimed he "tagged" it and ended up pisssin down his leg at the end of the movie...

Moral of this story is...

wait where was I?

Oh yeah....

The Shermanator is related to me.

Dammmmm.....

john9001 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 25, 2007, 03:35:14 PM »

the indian wars were not genocidal, they were to get the indians to go to the reservations, and the reservations were no concentration camps, some reservations are bigger than some states.

and the indians do not have to stay on the reservations, they can assimilate into the general population and still keep their culture.

Kieran · « **Reply #36 on:** March 25, 2007, 04:33:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
the indian wars were not genocidal, they were to get the indians to go to the reservations, and the reservations were no concentration camps, some reservations are bigger than some states.

and the indians do not have to stay on the reservations, they can assimilate into the general population and still keep their culture.

This largely ignores history.

Ask the Cherokee. They had assimilated. Didn't do them any good.

Whites wanted nothing to do with the indian. They were pushed aside onto land that was unsuitable to any white man's needs, and correspondingly unsuitable to the indian. Concentration camp? No, but the crushing poverty that resulted made it every bit as bad. These indians were usually utterly dependent on government rations to keep them alive. Those rations often were hijacked to black markets, resulting in starvation for the indians.

john9001 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 25, 2007, 04:50:11 PM »

BS, i worked along side a lakota, he had a house, mortgage, wife, kids, car, good job, all that white man stuff and he did not live on a reservation and he still kept his indian culture. He is not the only indian that i personally know that is living in the "white mans world", how many do you know?

Shuckins · « **Reply #38 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:08:35 PM »

The hail are you talking about John? Kieran and I are discussing events that affected the lives of Indians living in the 1870s-1900s. You're talking about the prosperity of an Indian living 130 years after Custer's Last Stand.

In terms of how whites perceived the worth of the land of the reservations, they were the least valuable of all the lands in the west. It has only been in recent decades that some of the vast mineral wealth of some of these lands has been discovered. Some reservations in the east are raking in tons of money by running gambling meccas.

Despite that, many Indians living on reservations still occupy the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.

In addition, attempts to redress some of the wrongs done the Indians, such as the Dawes Act and attempts to "mainstream" them into American culture were blatant efforts to erase the culture of Indians in order to make them more palatable to whites. Their children had to attend white run schools, give up their traditional tribal styles of dress, clip their hair, and speak only English in the classrooms. If your Lakota friend managed to retain his culture it is only because some of his ancestors made a determined effort to do so in the face of government opposition.

john9001 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:17:18 PM »

i'm sorry, you can discuss things that happened 100 years ago that we had absolutely no control over, i will live in the present.

Kieran · « **Reply #40 on:** March 25, 2007, 06:27:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
BS, i worked along side a lakota, he had a house, mortgage, wife, kids, car, good job, all that white man stuff and he did not live on a reservation and he still kept his indian culture. He is not the only indian that i personally know that is living in the "white mans world", how many do you know?

LOL!

Grandma was full blooded Cherokee... good enough for ya?

That said, I agree totally with Shuckins. You need to decide what time period you're discussing and stick with it. If Shuckins was talking about the hypocrisy of Sherman in the context of history, it's more honest for you to discuss the indian situation from the same time period.

Your argument is like saying slavery wasn't so bad because you know blacks that are getting along just fine today.

john9001 · « **Reply #41 on:** March 25, 2007, 07:11:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
the indian wars were not genocidal, they were to get the indians to go to the reservations, and the reservations were no concentration camps, some reservations are bigger than some states.

white man bad, indian better off living as stone age people.