Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

A "Politically Correct" Conquest of North America

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Great points!

    I'd add that the largest decline in numbers of Natives occurred due to introduction of European diseases for which the locals had no immunities (part of the reason for reference to the book "1491" in earlier post). Initially this was not intentional on the part of the earlier explorers, truly one of the great accidents of contact in history. By the time major colonizing efforts on the mainland continent had started, most of the infections had done their damage.
    The Indians returned the favor-tuberculosis was 'introduced' to the first settlers and went back to Europe. Maybe 'Montezuma's Revenge' has a bit more to it.

    Sincerely,
    M
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Massena View Post
      The Indians returned the favor-tuberculosis was 'introduced' to the first settlers and went back to Europe. Maybe 'Montezuma's Revenge' has a bit more to it.

      Sincerely,
      M
      Certainly a gate that swings both ways. One of the technical glitches in shows like Star Trek where they were always beaming down to new worlds but rarely if ever brought a new and lethal disease back to the Enterprise.
      Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
      Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by marktwain View Post

        The West is more complex, and a little darker.
        Let me try, the difference between the American West and the Canadian West was law and order. The American West was wild and lawless. The Canadian West was Peace Order and good government enforced by the North West Mounted Police. They were commissioned by the crown (Queen Victoria) to maintain law and order. Neither they or judges had to be nice to the population for they were not elected like local sheriffs and local judges.

        "If there be shooting in Kamloops tonight, there be hanging in Kamloops in the morning". There were not the same sort of fights between the cowboys and Indians in Canada because law and order and treaties were enforced in our west. If there was trouble some where then a mountie who had jurisdiction anywhere in British North America was sent out on a horse.

        In the US a local sheriff only had local authority in the US and always had an eye to the next election. The cowboy and indian thing in the wild west was due to lawlessness then and there, something which Canada's West never had.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
          Let me try, the difference between the American West and the Canadian West was law and order. The American West was wild and lawless. The Canadian West was Peace Order and good government enforced by the North West Mounted Police. They were commissioned by the crown (Queen Victoria) to maintain law and order. Neither they or judges had to be nice to the population for they were not elected like local sheriffs and local judges.

          "If there be shooting in Kamloops tonight, there be hanging in Kamloops in the morning". There were not the same sort of fights between the cowboys and Indians in Canada because law and order and treaties were enforced in our west. If there was trouble some where then a mountie who had jurisdiction anywhere in British North America was sent out on a horse.

          In the US a local sheriff only had local authority in the US and always had an eye to the next election. The cowboy and indian thing in the wild west was due to lawlessness then and there, something which Canada's West never had.
          There were also Texas Rangers and US Marshals in the American West, which greatly aided in the development of law and order.

          It is interesting as both Canada and the US law and traditions came from Great Britain, but both countries developed quite differently.

          Sincerely,
          M
          We are not now that strength which in old days
          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

          Comment


          • #65
            There are over 500 American Indian tribes recognized by the US government. I have cultural heritage from 3 of the 5 Civilized Tribes. A minority of Indians are hostile to Whites and want everyone sent back where they came from. The successful tribes have assimilated to modern society, while still keeping their heritage, and are prospering. If you want to see communism in action just go visit a western Indian reservation, terrible.
            Though it was unjustly done the treaties "paid" the tribes for their lands. Basically, the US took over possession of historical Indian lands for promises to take care of the Indians. So, if you want to do away with the BIA, grants, Indian hospitals, food relief, etc. then just give the Tribes back their lands, but I bet you don't want to do that.
            "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Massena View Post
              There were also Texas Rangers and US Marshals in the American West, which greatly aided in the development of law and order.

              It is interesting as both Canada and the US law and traditions came from Great Britain, but both countries developed quite differently.

              Sincerely,
              M
              Hi Massena, there is a fundamental difference. The American style was that authority has to come bottom-up from the people so a sheriff in a town had to be elected and maintain good relations so he could be reelected, and he didn't have authority outside of the town or county that elected him. In contrast, the Mountie got his authority top-down from the Crown and after that he could be a total prick, and often was. Moreover, his authority ran everywhere that a British flag flew over, and his resources to control order were whatever it took to maintain order.

              Not saying that either system is better, just different.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                Hi Massena, there is a fundamental difference. The American style was that authority has to come bottom-up from the people so a sheriff in a town had to be elected and maintain good relations so he could be reelected, and he didn't have authority outside of the town or county that elected him. In contrast, the Mountie got his authority top-down from the Crown and after that he could be a total prick, and often was. Moreover, his authority ran everywhere that a British flag flew over, and his resources to control order were whatever it took to maintain order.

                Not saying that either system is better, just different.
                But the Texas Rangers worked for the Texas state government, and the US Marshals were federal. So, it seems the US worked both ways on the law enforcement issue.

                Agree on different and each did what seemed to suit them at the time. We still elect local sheriffs. We finally got rid of the idiot we had as county sheriff for the last 25 years. He was a moron; worse than that, a corrupt moron.

                Thank heavens our city police department was efficient or we would have been screwed.

                Sincerely,
                M
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Massena View Post
                  But the Texas Rangers worked for the Texas state government, and the US Marshals were federal. So, it seems the US worked both ways on the law enforcement issue.

                  Agree on different and each did what seemed to suit them at the time. We still elect local sheriffs. We finally got rid of the idiot we had as county sheriff for the last 25 years. He was a moron; worse than that, a corrupt moron.

                  Thank heavens our city police department was efficient or we would have been screwed.

                  Sincerely,
                  M
                  I agree, the solution to the problems of local elected law enforcement was ultimately state police enforcement and ultimately national police enforcement.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't it be more correct to say Indian-pioneer/settler conflicts rather than cowboys verse Indians? I think that perhaps outside of West Texas, Arizona, New Mexico that "cowboys" did not come into their heyday until after most North American Indian tribes in the west were already forced on reservations. I know that was the case in Wyoming.

                    As for politically correct expansion. I have two thoughts.

                    One you have the "politically correct" "solution" of the 1800's which ironically was the reservation system. This was considered the humane way at that time. Indians that want to assimilate, assimilate but you keep the culture alive on the reservation (there is more to it, and more tug-of-war on what reservations should be, but as I don't want to write a full book I will leave it at that). Not saying this was right, but that was the "progressive" thought of the time.

                    Two is the Americas are not settled until 21st century with 21st century political correctness. Then I think you only get illegal settlements or settlements in non-inhabited areas.

                    I will say that I don't like the term "Native Americans". I was born in Montana, I am a native of the American Continent. Why in the the year 2014 does it matter where our great grandparents were born? That is why I use the term North American Indian when discussing history.

                    Finally, I will say that it wasn't just the U.S. gov't and U.S. settlers that ignored the treaty of Fort Laramie. The Bozeman Trail was built on land granted to the Crow per the treaty while the Sioux were given hunting rights. The trail was placed with permission of the Crow, the Sioux had no rights under the treaty to protest that trail. After the Red Cloud War, that land was taken from the Crow and given to the Sioux until the aftermath of the Sioux War in the mid-late 1870's. Come to think of it this is probably at least part of the reason why the northern Bighorns of Wyoming are not part of the Crow reservation.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Massena View Post
                      The Indians returned the favor-tuberculosis was 'introduced' to the first settlers and went back to Europe. Maybe 'Montezuma's Revenge' has a bit more to it.

                      Sincerely,
                      M

                      Yes, if the natives can't win one way .....

                      Those unlucky enough to suffer from the condition in Asia might hear it called:

                      Gandhi's Revenge, Delhi Belly, The Rangoon Runs, Bombay Belly (India)
                      Gyppy Tummy, The Cairo Two-step, Pharaoh's Revenge, Mummy's Tummy (Egypt), Bali Belly (Indonesia)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Jimmy_Bob View Post
                        Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't it be more correct to say Indian-pioneer/settler conflicts rather than cowboys verse Indians? I think that perhaps outside of West Texas, Arizona, New Mexico that "cowboys" did not come into their heyday until after most North American Indian tribes in the west were already forced on reservations. I know that was the case in Wyoming.

                        As for politically correct expansion. I have two thoughts.

                        One you have the "politically correct" "solution" of the 1800's which ironically was the reservation system. This was considered the humane way at that time. Indians that want to assimilate, assimilate but you keep the culture alive on the reservation (there is more to it, and more tug-of-war on what reservations should be, but as I don't want to write a full book I will leave it at that). Not saying this was right, but that was the "progressive" thought of the time.

                        Two is the Americas are not settled until 21st century with 21st century political correctness. Then I think you only get illegal settlements or settlements in non-inhabited areas.

                        I will say that I don't like the term "Native Americans". I was born in Montana, I am a native of the American Continent. Why in the the year 2014 does it matter where our great grandparents were born? That is why I use the term North American Indian when discussing history.

                        Finally, I will say that it wasn't just the U.S. gov't and U.S. settlers that ignored the treaty of Fort Laramie. The Bozeman Trail was built on land granted to the Crow per the treaty while the Sioux were given hunting rights. The trail was placed with permission of the Crow, the Sioux had no rights under the treaty to protest that trail. After the Red Cloud War, that land was taken from the Crow and given to the Sioux until the aftermath of the Sioux War in the mid-late 1870's. Come to think of it this is probably at least part of the reason why the northern Bighorns of Wyoming are not part of the Crow reservation.
                        Several valid points. Conflict between "cowboys and Indians" was tame compared to what happened in the 18th and early part of the 19th centuries east of the Mississippi. Movies have made the "Westerns" more popular.

                        Of course the Federal government went back numerous times in giving its word to Indians and ignoring treaties then making up new ones when it was convenient. The US Supreme Court ruled twice in 1830 and 1832 that it was illegal to move the Cherokees from their traditional lands (which they had title to in court). Old Hickory ignored the SCOTUS and sent the cavalry in to create the infamous Trail of Tears. By the by, the US government is still ignoring most of the treaties and not living up to their promises "as long as the water flows downhill, the sun shies, the sky is blue & the grass is green."
                        "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Trailboss49 View Post
                          Several valid points. Conflict between "cowboys and Indians" was tame compared to what happened in the 18th and early part of the 19th centuries east of the Mississippi. Movies have made the "Westerns" more popular.

                          Of course the Federal government went back numerous times in giving its word to Indians and ignoring treaties then making up new ones when it was convenient. The US Supreme Court ruled twice in 1830 and 1832 that it was illegal to move the Cherokees from their traditional lands (which they had title to in court). Old Hickory ignored the SCOTUS and sent the cavalry in to create the infamous Trail of Tears. By the by, the US government is still ignoring most of the treaties and not living up to their promises "as long as the water flows downhill, the sun shies, the sky is blue & the grass is green."
                          Agreed that the Cherokees got railroaded. I acknowledged in my post that the U.S. Gov't ignored or broke treaties. I was simply pointing out that they weren't the only ones to do that and used an example from the area I grew up in.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            They seem to like ...

                            ... the term "First Nations", collectively, and "John Doe, Member of the Mohawk First Nation", singular. It's usage is entrenched in Canada, and gaining acceptance in parts of the US. That said, the powerful "Indian Act", enacted by the Gov't of Canada back in the mid-19th century is still in effect.



                            Originally posted by Massena View Post
                            PC is actually worse than that. It is the desire not to offend anyone, which is a ludicrous object.

                            And as for using either 'Indians' or 'American Indians' I would really like to know what the Indians prefer to be called. I've never seen a definitive answer to that one.

                            Sincerely,
                            M
                            "I am Groot"
                            - Groot

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by jonny87kz View Post
                              I personally agree with you. It's just that to be PC you have to use Native American.
                              DNA studies since the turn of the century indicate (pretty conclusively) that the first humans in America were from W. Europe not Asia - therefore the people we refer to as "Native Americans", or in Canada "First Nation", aren't.

                              Theory is that there were not many of these W. Europeans and the later coming Asian's absorbed them - so the generally accepted premise that the evil Whiteman destroyed the "noble Redman" is probably the reverse.

                              BTW, I’m a member of the Muscogee Nation of Oklahoma, I am Creek (re: the Trail of Tears, Andrew Jackson and Davy Crockett) and one of those “Indians“.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                the Ten lost tribes are hard to Classify

                                Originally posted by HMS Jr. View Post
                                Or specific tribal name as the occasion suits. One guy's PC might be another guy's matter of preference of ID reference. Manners and respecting what another person or people like to be addressed as predates conceptions and notions of PC a very, very long time.
                                Swartzers, Neh?

                                Hedley Lamarr: I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, ****-kickers and Methodists
                                Attached Files
                                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X