Prucha has actually written several books; he tends to focus on Federal policy towards Native Americans, not so much the individual responses. And you're right, there were several instances of violence between US settlers and natives. But it makes as much sense to say that the natives attempted "genocide" on the settlers as the other way around.
I've never heard of outstanding bounties offered by anyone for native scalps, just for the sake of killing natives. If a local community felt that a crime had been committed by natives, they would often offer a reward for capturing or killing the "criminals". The scalp was indeed considered proof of death; generally, any native's scalp would be accepted. But once the "crime" had been avenged, the rewards ceased. I'm not saying this was fair, just, or humane, but it wasn't attempted genocide.
There is a whole lot to be ashamed of (or offended, or outraged, or whatever) concerning the US treatment of the natives. Deception, exploitation, condescension, aggression, etc.; it's a long list. But attempted genocide just doesn't belong on the list. The US government never killed natives just to kill them; we killed them for the same reasons people have always killed each other - we wanted what they had, we were afraid they would take what we had, we wanted them to do what we wanted them to do. Not nice, but not genocide. In fact, once it became clear that the US controlled the country (i.e., the natives were no threat) and the natives were in danger of dying completely out in the new society we created, efforts were taken at the federal level to preserve the natives as a people. The exact opposite of genocide.
I hope you don't really believe this myth about the American Indian genocide. There was never any official policy to wipe out Native Americans. There were individuals that hated them (one even became President), but their decline was more an unforeseen consequence of the rapid growth and expansion of the white man. The native's way of life was not sustainable under the new paradigm of industrialism that the early growth of the United States was founded on. In fact, if you read some history, one of the longest lasting policy problems the US government has faced is how to avoid wiping out the Native Americans. I personally recommend Francis Prucha, but there are several scholars out there worth looking into.
A-ha! You admit that your post was a deliberate attempt to deprive me of my God-given right (as an American) to happiness. I demand you give me a ski-mountain as recompense for the valuable ignorance you have deprived me of.
Man, I think I need more cold medicine; I can still feel my feet.
But only 1% of them will have a good life and the other 99% are going to live very constrained existances.
There's only so many beaches- so many ski mountains- and either only the rich or powerfull will have them- or they will be so grossly overcrowded you really won't want to be there.
These are your examples of some dystopian future? I currently do not have either a beach nor a ski mountain, and yet I don't really feel that my existence is terribly constrained. In fact, I am willing to bet that all beaches and ski mountains are currently owned only by the rich, so the future is NOW!
. Truly rare stuff is starting to rise in value.
I think you meant "Truly rare stuff is continuing to rise in value." Thing is, rare stuff has always been, well, rare. Basic economics indicates that this will increase the value.
Seriously, if you think these are the symptoms of dangerous overcrowding ("Only the rich can afford to own a mountain! Rare stuff grows more valuable by the year!"), then the earth has pretty much always been overcrowded.
Oh, I agree digital cable is better than analog. I have no need to flip channels now; I can stay right where I am, and find out what is on the other channels before changing. I was just curious if you weren't experiencing the same brief delay when changing channels; as I said, the only two providers I have ever used had that delay. Of course, Time Warner was a couple of years ago, so maybe they have improved since I had them. I am currently using Madison River, which is actually satellite, and boy do I miss TW!
Why? I can flip just as quickly through digital channels as I could with analog,
Really? The two digital cable providers I've tried, both had a noticeable pause when flipping channels. You could flip channels as quickly as analog, but you would never see anything but a black (or blue) screen, b/c you would flip away from the channel before it actually loaded an image. But, I've only seen two different providers; one of whom I know for a fact is complete shit. The other is Time-Warner.
Heh. I don't think I have ever met a Yankee that WANTED to be taken for a Southerner. I have met several that love the South, but even the ones from Jersey take a bit of pride in where they are from (I keed, I keed!).
As to calling it The South, I was responding to a fellow in Sweden. I bet you tell the secretary at work "The WRT 54g is down", and then pretend that SHE is the dumb one when you have to explain you meant "wireless internet".
does not demonstrate that the system as a whole doesn't understand Chinese.
But of course the system as a whole understands Chinese. The system as a whole includes whomever wrote out the instructions for the man in the room. That person obviously understood Chinese.
Frankly, if you cannot see that a goodly portion of the world has no desire to move forward, then you're purposely blind. Fanatic Islam wishes to drag everyone back to 900AD.
Nope. Fanatic Islam wishes to drag everyone into their version of Islam. I bet they want flying cars just as much as the rest of us. And even if they don't, the other 99.99% of the world does. Well, right after they get clean water, health care, etc. Where do you get the idea that "a goodly portion of the world has no desire to move forward"? Or did you simply mean that a goodly portion of the world doesn't want to move in the direction you perceive as forward?
Your marijuana analogy is flawed. Possessing marijuana is illegal here (US), regardless of where you bought it. Possessing mp3s is legal here, depending on how you obtained them. So, I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask "Is this method of obtaining mp3s legal/illegal?".
And I am gonna have to agree w/ russ1337 here: a lawyer specializing in RIAA suits that hasn't heard of AllofMP3.com is woefully unaware of his field.
The argument is that the low pay attracts people who really WANT to be teachers. I do not wholly buy that argument.
While I don't buy that argument at all. Name one other field where this mentality rules. "Oh, we don't pay doctors/lawyers/CEOs high salaries b/c that way, we only get people who REALLY REALLY want to practice law/medicine/busines." Bullshit. The people that REALLY REALLY want to teach are not suddenly going to do something else b/c the salary is raised. Those people will still teach. What might happen is the people that would like to teach, but would also like to have an income commensurate with the amount of work they do, might decide to teach.
j-turkey: Imagine getting into a bar fight and by way of a freak accident, you kill a man with a single punch. Do you think that you deserve to get locked up for life? What about for a consentual sex act and your partner changes their mind about it after the fact and presses charges?
neonprimetime: What if, what if, what if. Don't put yourself in those positions and you wouldn't have to worry about it.
Let's see, your advice is to NOT get into the position where you are drinking at bars and having sex with women. j-turkey is worried about "accidentally" killing a man with a single punch when shit goes down. Yeah, I think I'm gonna go hang out with j-turkey.
Mind you, I'm not complaining about the fantastic FREE entertainment they provide me, but I think "consistently on time, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, for over 7 years." is a bit of a stretch. I seem to recall many a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday that did not have a new comic up "on time". In fact, I have seen the dark days where I could not read a new Penny Arcade until the following Tuesday, Thursday, or even Saturday. Thank God for the archive! That always calms the jitters right down...
Good point. I do think they are more of an exception (especially Judas Priest - good god, those dudes have been around forever!), but obviously it is possible to make a long career out of metal.
And yeah, I am in no way defending Metallica's attack on filesharing. That is completely lame, not to mention hypocritical. I can still remember when my buddy gave me this cassette tape with "Garage Days" written on a piece of Scotch tape. I definitely would not have gone out and bought Kill 'em All if it weren't for old-school "file sharing". I doubt I am the only one.
Yeah, Metallica's downhill slide started with the Black album, and went straight down from there, but I can't hate them for it. How can you hate the creators of Master of Puppets?? Their problem is basically age + success. Their old-school music revolved entirely around rage. I can understand why after 20 years and massive amounts of wealth and fame, you might run out of anger to fuel your music. So they tried something else. Unfortunatey for them, they suck at "something else", and no longer have the energy or motivation to continue screaming at the world. Heavy metal is a young man's sport.
The only thing I can find online is this (scroll down to #233). The relevant quote is "These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness."
In light of your representation of it as flimflamming, I am especially amused by his assertion that this will "deaden your acuteness". I had forgotten that particular phrase:-)
Actually, if you read Pascal's wager, he addresses the very idea that belief in a higher being, even if false, tends to bring about a greater sense of happiness and satisfaction in this life. Whether this is true or not is fairly subjective, but he does touch on the subject. He also addresses the idea that behaving as if you believe this (i.e., participating in the ceremonies and outward trappings) will, in time, slowly but surely convince you that you actually believe this (which the linked article claims is missing from his argument).
It's akin to saying date rape is OK if you get the other person so drunk they cannot say no.
While I agree its pretty sleazy, I don't think having sex w/ a drunk girl should be illegal. Why am I all of a sudden responsible for her decisions? Drunk drivers are held responsible for any damage they do, I couldn't plead innocent on account of drunkeness to burglary charges, why in this one particular area is being drunk considered a pass on personal responsibility? And why is the guy responsible for rape if he is also drunk? If she is too drunk to be held responsible for her decision to have sex, why is the guy held responsible regardless of his intoxication level? IMO, rape should only be "s/he forced this other person into sexual intercourse". Having consensual sex with someone who later decides it was a bad idea is not at all the same, regardless of whatever mental state that person CHOSE to put themselves in beforehand.
Well, there are actually other reasons besides direct democracy idealism to support the 17th ammendment (both 16 - income tax and 17 - direct election of Senators were ratified in 1913). There were a lot of problems with the state legislatures choosing Senators. Often, they simply couldn't. Late 19th, early 20th century saw several cases where various states did not have representation in the Senate due to inability to actually agree on two Senators. In fact, many states had already moved to allowing the citizens to vote directly on the Senators; the state legislature would then just ratify whomever the citizens chose.
Ironically, the other big problem that direct elections were supposed to solve were corruption. Bribery scandals were rampant, a lot of people felt that Senators were selling themselves to influential industrialists in order that the industrialist would use his influence with the legislature to get his candidate chosen. The idea was that if it was the entire population of the state, it would be impossible to bribe your way into position, and the influence of the powerful over the process would be diluted. Of course, what actually happened was that Senators now campaign, which requires vast amounts of money, giving special interest groups an opportunity to exert influence over BOTH Congressional bodies.
So, I wouldn't call it entirely negative. It solved the deadlock problem that was preventing states from having any representation; it merely shifted the corruption problem. But I'm pretty cynical; I doubt there is any way to weed corruption out of the political process in a democracy. This way, it is at least spread around more.
Slashdot Mirror
Prucha has actually written several books; he tends to focus on Federal policy towards Native Americans, not so much the individual responses. And you're right, there were several instances of violence between US settlers and natives. But it makes as much sense to say that the natives attempted "genocide" on the settlers as the other way around.
I've never heard of outstanding bounties offered by anyone for native scalps, just for the sake of killing natives. If a local community felt that a crime had been committed by natives, they would often offer a reward for capturing or killing the "criminals". The scalp was indeed considered proof of death; generally, any native's scalp would be accepted. But once the "crime" had been avenged, the rewards ceased. I'm not saying this was fair, just, or humane, but it wasn't attempted genocide.
There is a whole lot to be ashamed of (or offended, or outraged, or whatever) concerning the US treatment of the natives. Deception, exploitation, condescension, aggression, etc.; it's a long list. But attempted genocide just doesn't belong on the list. The US government never killed natives just to kill them; we killed them for the same reasons people have always killed each other - we wanted what they had, we were afraid they would take what we had, we wanted them to do what we wanted them to do. Not nice, but not genocide. In fact, once it became clear that the US controlled the country (i.e., the natives were no threat) and the natives were in danger of dying completely out in the new society we created, efforts were taken at the federal level to preserve the natives as a people. The exact opposite of genocide.
I hope you don't really believe this myth about the American Indian genocide. There was never any official policy to wipe out Native Americans. There were individuals that hated them (one even became President), but their decline was more an unforeseen consequence of the rapid growth and expansion of the white man. The native's way of life was not sustainable under the new paradigm of industrialism that the early growth of the United States was founded on. In fact, if you read some history, one of the longest lasting policy problems the US government has faced is how to avoid wiping out the Native Americans. I personally recommend Francis Prucha, but there are several scholars out there worth looking into.
A-ha! You admit that your post was a deliberate attempt to deprive me of my God-given right (as an American) to happiness. I demand you give me a ski-mountain as recompense for the valuable ignorance you have deprived me of.
Man, I think I need more cold medicine; I can still feel my feet.
But only 1% of them will have a good life and the other 99% are going to live very constrained existances. There's only so many beaches- so many ski mountains- and either only the rich or powerfull will have them- or they will be so grossly overcrowded you really won't want to be there.
These are your examples of some dystopian future? I currently do not have either a beach nor a ski mountain, and yet I don't really feel that my existence is terribly constrained. In fact, I am willing to bet that all beaches and ski mountains are currently owned only by the rich, so the future is NOW!
. Truly rare stuff is starting to rise in value.
I think you meant "Truly rare stuff is continuing to rise in value." Thing is, rare stuff has always been, well, rare. Basic economics indicates that this will increase the value.
Seriously, if you think these are the symptoms of dangerous overcrowding ("Only the rich can afford to own a mountain! Rare stuff grows more valuable by the year!"), then the earth has pretty much always been overcrowded.
Actually, look into Scientology vs. IRS. As Scientology is now a tax-exempt church, I'd say they won...
No no, I really AM Jahudabudy. Freakin' hippy parents...
Oh, I agree digital cable is better than analog. I have no need to flip channels now; I can stay right where I am, and find out what is on the other channels before changing. I was just curious if you weren't experiencing the same brief delay when changing channels; as I said, the only two providers I have ever used had that delay. Of course, Time Warner was a couple of years ago, so maybe they have improved since I had them. I am currently using Madison River, which is actually satellite, and boy do I miss TW!
Why? I can flip just as quickly through digital channels as I could with analog,
Really? The two digital cable providers I've tried, both had a noticeable pause when flipping channels. You could flip channels as quickly as analog, but you would never see anything but a black (or blue) screen, b/c you would flip away from the channel before it actually loaded an image. But, I've only seen two different providers; one of whom I know for a fact is complete shit. The other is Time-Warner.
Whats your secret?
The secret's in the sauce.
Yankee poser.
Heh. I don't think I have ever met a Yankee that WANTED to be taken for a Southerner. I have met several that love the South, but even the ones from Jersey take a bit of pride in where they are from (I keed, I keed!).
As to calling it The South, I was responding to a fellow in Sweden. I bet you tell the secretary at work "The WRT 54g is down", and then pretend that SHE is the dumb one when you have to explain you meant "wireless internet".
you don't mind weird grammar and funny accents
:-)
Ooh, I was all ready to move until you threw that in there. Coming from the southeastern US, that is just a deal breaker
does not demonstrate that the system as a whole doesn't understand Chinese.
But of course the system as a whole understands Chinese. The system as a whole includes whomever wrote out the instructions for the man in the room. That person obviously understood Chinese.
Frankly, if you cannot see that a goodly portion of the world has no desire to move forward, then you're purposely blind. Fanatic Islam wishes to drag everyone back to 900AD.
Nope. Fanatic Islam wishes to drag everyone into their version of Islam. I bet they want flying cars just as much as the rest of us. And even if they don't, the other 99.99% of the world does. Well, right after they get clean water, health care, etc. Where do you get the idea that "a goodly portion of the world has no desire to move forward"? Or did you simply mean that a goodly portion of the world doesn't want to move in the direction you perceive as forward?
Your marijuana analogy is flawed. Possessing marijuana is illegal here (US), regardless of where you bought it. Possessing mp3s is legal here, depending on how you obtained them. So, I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask "Is this method of obtaining mp3s legal/illegal?".
And I am gonna have to agree w/ russ1337 here: a lawyer specializing in RIAA suits that hasn't heard of AllofMP3.com is woefully unaware of his field.
I'm neither prejudiced, bitter nor negative...I have tremendous hope in life ...
You definitely picked an appropriate slashnick.
The argument is that the low pay attracts people who really WANT to be teachers. I do not wholly buy that argument.
While I don't buy that argument at all. Name one other field where this mentality rules. "Oh, we don't pay doctors/lawyers/CEOs high salaries b/c that way, we only get people who REALLY REALLY want to practice law/medicine/busines." Bullshit. The people that REALLY REALLY want to teach are not suddenly going to do something else b/c the salary is raised. Those people will still teach. What might happen is the people that would like to teach, but would also like to have an income commensurate with the amount of work they do, might decide to teach.
Tough, but fair. Hopefully, it will be for the sex thing, not the "death with a single blow" thing. That just sounds unpleasant for everyone.
j-turkey: Imagine getting into a bar fight and by way of a freak accident, you kill a man with a single punch. Do you think that you deserve to get locked up for life? What about for a consentual sex act and your partner changes their mind about it after the fact and presses charges?
neonprimetime: What if, what if, what if. Don't put yourself in those positions and you wouldn't have to worry about it.
Let's see, your advice is to NOT get into the position where you are drinking at bars and having sex with women. j-turkey is worried about "accidentally" killing a man with a single punch when shit goes down. Yeah, I think I'm gonna go hang out with j-turkey.
Mind you, I'm not complaining about the fantastic FREE entertainment they provide me, but I think "consistently on time, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, for over 7 years." is a bit of a stretch. I seem to recall many a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday that did not have a new comic up "on time". In fact, I have seen the dark days where I could not read a new Penny Arcade until the following Tuesday, Thursday, or even Saturday. Thank God for the archive! That always calms the jitters right down...
Tell that to Cannibal Corpse or Judas Priest. =)
Good point. I do think they are more of an exception (especially Judas Priest - good god, those dudes have been around forever!), but obviously it is possible to make a long career out of metal.
And yeah, I am in no way defending Metallica's attack on filesharing. That is completely lame, not to mention hypocritical. I can still remember when my buddy gave me this cassette tape with "Garage Days" written on a piece of Scotch tape. I definitely would not have gone out and bought Kill 'em All if it weren't for old-school "file sharing". I doubt I am the only one.
Yeah, Metallica's downhill slide started with the Black album, and went straight down from there, but I can't hate them for it. How can you hate the creators of Master of Puppets?? Their problem is basically age + success. Their old-school music revolved entirely around rage. I can understand why after 20 years and massive amounts of wealth and fame, you might run out of anger to fuel your music. So they tried something else. Unfortunatey for them, they suck at "something else", and no longer have the energy or motivation to continue screaming at the world. Heavy metal is a young man's sport.
The only thing I can find online is this (scroll down to #233). The relevant quote is "These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness."
:-)
In light of your representation of it as flimflamming, I am especially amused by his assertion that this will "deaden your acuteness". I had forgotten that particular phrase
Actually, if you read Pascal's wager, he addresses the very idea that belief in a higher being, even if false, tends to bring about a greater sense of happiness and satisfaction in this life. Whether this is true or not is fairly subjective, but he does touch on the subject. He also addresses the idea that behaving as if you believe this (i.e., participating in the ceremonies and outward trappings) will, in time, slowly but surely convince you that you actually believe this (which the linked article claims is missing from his argument).
It's akin to saying date rape is OK if you get the other person so drunk they cannot say no.
While I agree its pretty sleazy, I don't think having sex w/ a drunk girl should be illegal. Why am I all of a sudden responsible for her decisions? Drunk drivers are held responsible for any damage they do, I couldn't plead innocent on account of drunkeness to burglary charges, why in this one particular area is being drunk considered a pass on personal responsibility? And why is the guy responsible for rape if he is also drunk? If she is too drunk to be held responsible for her decision to have sex, why is the guy held responsible regardless of his intoxication level? IMO, rape should only be "s/he forced this other person into sexual intercourse". Having consensual sex with someone who later decides it was a bad idea is not at all the same, regardless of whatever mental state that person CHOSE to put themselves in beforehand.
Well, there are actually other reasons besides direct democracy idealism to support the 17th ammendment (both 16 - income tax and 17 - direct election of Senators were ratified in 1913). There were a lot of problems with the state legislatures choosing Senators. Often, they simply couldn't. Late 19th, early 20th century saw several cases where various states did not have representation in the Senate due to inability to actually agree on two Senators. In fact, many states had already moved to allowing the citizens to vote directly on the Senators; the state legislature would then just ratify whomever the citizens chose.
Ironically, the other big problem that direct elections were supposed to solve were corruption. Bribery scandals were rampant, a lot of people felt that Senators were selling themselves to influential industrialists in order that the industrialist would use his influence with the legislature to get his candidate chosen. The idea was that if it was the entire population of the state, it would be impossible to bribe your way into position, and the influence of the powerful over the process would be diluted. Of course, what actually happened was that Senators now campaign, which requires vast amounts of money, giving special interest groups an opportunity to exert influence over BOTH Congressional bodies.
So, I wouldn't call it entirely negative. It solved the deadlock problem that was preventing states from having any representation; it merely shifted the corruption problem. But I'm pretty cynical; I doubt there is any way to weed corruption out of the political process in a democracy. This way, it is at least spread around more.