Rush Limbaugh: "The Native American genocide never happened"

[WhiteWolf89]

Rush Limbaugh, "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" (Told You So, p. 68)

What do you think?

[yellowthunders mama]

The facts do not matter to him

There is absolutely no truth to this statement and he is a liar and an effin' azz hole.

[AmigoKumeyaay]

Egotistical blowhard from the Ministry of Hate

[NorthofAda]

What do you think?

That quote is from a book published in 1993 - I am wondering why you are bringing it up now.

[Paul G]

That quote is from a book published in 1993 - I am wondering why you are bringing it up now.

I know you are conservative, but you aren't going to try and defend him, are you?

I don't when it was from matters. I sometimes read books that are more than a few months old.

[AmigoKumeyaay]

That quote is from a book published in 1993 - I am wondering why you are bringing it up now.

Okay, since 1993, has Mr. Limbaugh revised his statement, or shown any improvement in his knowledge of the history of North American aboriginal nations?

The problem with El Rushbo is that he is influential upon 20 million Ditto-heads that sway to his every blathering comment.

[sltate]

It doesnt matter when it was stated, it is an ignorant and negative statement towards the Native American people...and also to those that died as a result of the battles, rape, murder, starvation, exposure, sicknesses that were put upon supplies as well as sicknesses introduced that we were not immune to...the list goes on and on....so when it was stated is irrelevant...the point is that its just another form of denial that is upheld in todays society towards the treatment of Native Americans upon coming to this land and these people. If you research the treatment of Native Americans, you will see that they were generous and kind hearted at the beginning. What is sad is nobody really knows how many died as a result? We can only estimate, and those numbers are astounding. I wonder if Mr. Limbaugh would be as insensitive to the other nations of people who suffered near genocide? Or slavery? Or is it just towards the Native Americans because these other nations are flourishing as well?

[NorthofAda]

WHOA...Paul...everybody...!!!

I was JUST CURIOUS...and wondered if this issue had been recently readdressed by him - THAT'S ALL!!!!

No, I'm not defending him. It was an ignorant statement, and having read this I was kind of hoping that maybe it had been readressed and either admitted to and apologized for or clarified as having been taken out of context.

My gripe here is the continuing double standard. Liberals can say whatever they want and get away with it, while conservatives get crucified. I want everybody held to the same yardstick.

If it is wrong for Michael Steele to say "honest injun," then it is also wrong for Dan Rather to say that Obama couldn't sell watermelons on the highway if a state trooper was stopping traffic for him. If Eric Massa's off-color comment to a male staffer is worthy of resignation, then how come Barney Frank can engage in illicit behavior or Charlie Rangel can cheat on his taxes, and both can keep their jobs? Chris Matthews of MSNBC last summer said that Indians were wild men and that the town hall protesters were "wild" like the Iroquois. Was he taken to task for that? No..but Don Imus was off the air in punishment for derogatory comments about black women athletes.

As I addressed on the thread about moccasin kits where somehow the subject of the Wizard of Oz came up, L. Frank Baum wrote very clearly in editorials that he advocated genocide of the American Indian - yet how many millions of Americans have watched the film the Wizard of Oz or have read any of his books??? That made my blood boil even though it happened over 100 years ago.

Rush made an ignorant statement. Using this logic the Holocaust wasn't genocide because there are still millions of Jews in the world.

Hopefully I've clarified this. I think in the time that I've been a member on this site I've been pretty fair in my dealings with people and even though I'm conservative I think I deserve more of a benefit of the doubt than you've extended to me today.

[Zotigh]

Good words, NorthofAda.

[Toolbox]

Why do people still listen to Rush? All he ever does is rant and cry and cry about the same things over and over again, above all he is ignorant. This has nothing to do with conservative republicans versus liberal democrats as both sides have their share evil people. Rather this is more or less a matter of ignorance, arrogance, and racism.

@NorthOfAda:
The way I see it the matter of who gets yelled at by who for saying what is a matter of the medium itself; by this I mean you are going to see and hear more liberals bashing conservatives on TV because TV is their most prominent medium where as you are more likely to hear conservatives ripping on liberals on AM talk radio and Fox because thats their prominent medium. Liberals bashing conservatives are more noticable because more people watch TV than listen to talk radio; AM stations for that matter; the only major national station that conservatives really have is Fox news.

BTW; I agree with your statement that his logic is the same as saying that the Holocaust never happened.

[Paul G]

WHOA...Paul...everybody...!!!

I was JUST CURIOUS...and wondered if this issue had been recently readdressed by him - THAT'S ALL!!!!

No, I'm not defending him. It was an ignorant statement, and having read this I was kind of hoping that maybe it had been readressed and either admitted to and apologized for or clarified as having been taken out of context.

My gripe here is the continuing double standard. Liberals can say whatever they want and get away with it, while conservatives get crucified. I want everybody held to the same yardstick.

If it is wrong for Michael Steele to say "honest injun," then it is also wrong for Dan Rather to say that Obama couldn't sell watermelons on the highway if a state trooper was stopping traffic for him. If Eric Massa's off-color comment to a male staffer is worthy of resignation, then how come Barney Frank can engage in illicit behavior or Charlie Rangel can cheat on his taxes, and both can keep their jobs? Chris Matthews of MSNBC last summer said that Indians were wild men and that the town hall protesters were "wild" like the Iroquois. Was he taken to task for that? No..but Don Imus was off the air in punishment for derogatory comments about black women athletes.

As I addressed on the thread about moccasin kits where somehow the subject of the Wizard of Oz came up, L. Frank Baum wrote very clearly in editorials that he advocated genocide of the American Indian - yet how many millions of Americans have watched the film the Wizard of Oz or have read any of his books??? That made my blood boil even though it happened over 100 years ago.

Rush made an ignorant statement. Using this logic the Holocaust wasn't genocide because there are still millions of Jews in the world.

Hopefully I've clarified this. I think in the time that I've been a member on this site I've been pretty fair in my dealings with people and even though I'm conservative I think I deserve more of a benefit of the doubt than you've extended to me today.

That's why I asked! I didn't think you would be defending him or the statement. But the way your post came across to me begged the question.

[Paul G]

Liberals bashing conservatives are more noticable because more people watch TV than listen to talk radio; AM stations for that matter; the only major national station that conservatives really have is Fox news.

I think that depends on where you are. Here in SC all we see and hear is conservatives beating up on liberals. It is tough to be liberal in this state!

[NorthofAda]

Thanks, Paul. I was hoping that you weren't being harsh with me. I think it was an ignorant remark by Rush in the first place, but being that Merriam-Webster defines racism as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," I wouldn't characterize him as a racist, nor would I say the same of Dan Rather, either. David Duke, Louis Farrakhan - yes, those guys fit the definition.

Actually I did some googling and found that Rush's call screener, Bo Snerdley, who is African-American, also claims to have Native American blood. Wonder what he thinks about the statement in question?

I also found an article which had an excerpt from a transcript of a program in 2003 where he seems to make a distinction between Natives dying in the course of warfare or "incidental" effects of disease (as opposed to deliberate, i.e., smallpox on the blankets). Now maybe Natives weren't led to the gas chambers and incinerators in Hitleresque scenario, but you can't make the case that what happened at Wounded Knee was "warfare." It was slaughter of civilians, plain and simple. Thousands of people dying on the Trail of Tears from hunger and exposure is no less a massacre than if you'd lined them up and put a bullet in their heads.

Getting back to Toolbox's point I think he makes a good one - different viewpoints do seem to be skewed to one medium or another. Why do so many people listen to Rush? Many do because they agree with him. Some probably do for entertainment value. Other news outlets listen so they can catch him saying something inflammatory. Bottom line is - he is a commentator and an entertainer. He makes a lot of money doing what he does - and as long as what he says rallies the right wing and infuriates the left - and he conitinues to bring in advertising money for the stations that carry his program - he's gonna keep doing what he is doing.

[Toolbox]

...
Getting back to Toolbox's point I think he makes a good one - different viewpoints do seem to be skewed to one medium or another. Why do so many people listen to Rush? Many do because they agree with him. Some probably do for entertainment value. Other news outlets listen so they can catch him saying something inflammatory. Bottom line is - he is a commentator and an entertainer. He makes a lot of money doing what he does - and as long as what he says rallies the right wing and infuriates the left - and he conitinues to bring in advertising money for the stations that carry his program - he's gonna keep doing what he is doing.

This is very true. I believe that both sides, do however, need to be a bit more responsible in what they say and how they report on news and events, because the masses that rely on them for information will take it for truth given that there are a lot of people who are well "zombies" they believe whatever the media throws at them, they will dress as someone on tv (ex. Style channel) tells them to, they will decorate their homes and cars as they are told to, they will listen to only the "top 40" music and their artists and not seek out more music to broaden their pallet. This statement of course is coming from someone who works in the media, and yes, I acknowledge the need for some changes and some responsibility, but it is ultimately up to the viewer to decide.

[WhoMe]

Limbaugh is a commentator. He is not a historian, anthropologist, ethnographer.

"Just because it is written, doesn't mean it is truth."

Whome (2010)