O.o

[RestlessN8iv]

As many of you probably know, I am a student in his second year of college. One of my credit requirements is a history course where from day one, we began discussing pre-Columbian America.


There, I got a good earful of such historic gyms as:

-Just as the settlers "used" Indians, the Indans also used settlers for their own ends.

- The main reason the Indians helped the settlers was so that they could get guns, to use to wage war on other tribes.

- "Do you really think they (Indians) were peaceful, and happy-go-lucky.

(and My personal favorite)

"It's my belief that with so many differences between two peoples, Conflict was inevitable. Whoever won was whoever had the bigger gun"



If you'll all excuse me, I am going to go vomit now.

[Fang]

Reminds me of a while back when I took "Native American History" to fulfill my history requirement for my degree. Heard so many things that semester that I think for a while, my head had a bright red mark on it from all the times I banged my head against my desk.

"What does it matter? Indians don't exist anymore anyway" (heard multiple times)

"They all had it coming"

"Well if they were smarter, they would have... "

"Well maybe if they stopped dancing and yelling so much... if you can even call that dancing"

"Those pictures of indian girls are hot. I'd tap that"

"Is that why your hair looks like that?"

"What are you anyway?"

"You talk really fast for an indian"

"So do we get peyote in this class?"

"Can one of you tell me what my animal guide is?"

"You and [other classmate's name withheld] are too happy to be indians"

"Being an indian sounds a lot like being black... except you guys have better hair"

"WTF is a Lakota?"

"But that's not how it happened in Pocahontas!"

"Being on a reservation sounds awesome!"

"Wait, there's natives in here? Where?"

"I gave money to a homeless indian dude once... oh wait, he was black"

"Why do you get to be here? You'll totally ruin the grading curve!" (I reminded that particular student of that when I did some student teaching for the American History classes and ran into them)

[in response to a question on how many tribes there are.. most of the students guessed under 10]

"Let's take a field trip to a casino!"



Ughhhhh

[docat]

As many of you probably know, I am a student in his second year of college. One of my credit requirements is a history course where from day one, we began discussing pre-Columbian America.


There, I got a good earful of such historic gyms as:

-Just as the settlers "used" Indians, the Indans also used settlers for their own ends.

- The main reason the Indians helped the settlers was so that they could get guns, to use to wage war on other tribes.

- "Do you really think they (Indians) were peaceful, and happy-go-lucky.

(and My personal favorite)

"It's my belief that with so many differences between two peoples, Conflict was inevitable. Whoever won was whoever had the bigger gun"



If you'll all excuse me, I am going to go vomit now.

Oh man, you are reminding me of why I got out of academia. I know exactly what you are talking about. Not only that but you are paying to be exposed to it, let alone investing your time.

The good way that makes everyone happy (especially your family) is to let it slide. The thing is, a tiny part of you dies when you do that. And sometimes there is just a limit to how much you can take before you have to set things straight. So you pretty much have to balance it to the best of your abilities and choose your battles wisely.

I feel for you. I have 2 in college now and a 3rd to start soon and I hear the same things from them, and having been there, you do just want to go vomit.

Good luck, and hang in there!

[muskrat_skull]

As many of you probably know, I am a student in his second year of college. One of my credit requirements is a history course where from day one, we began discussing pre-Columbian America.


There, I got a good earful of such historic gyms as:

-Just as the settlers "used" Indians, the Indans also used settlers for their own ends.

- The main reason the Indians helped the settlers was so that they could get guns, to use to wage war on other tribes.

- "Do you really think they (Indians) were peaceful, and happy-go-lucky.

(and My personal favorite)

"It's my belief that with so many differences between two peoples, Conflict was inevitable. Whoever won was whoever had the bigger gun"



If you'll all excuse me, I am going to go vomit now.

Survival of the fittest, what an argument in a college classroom. Tell your prof not to preach the politics of oppression! Well maybe save it for your survey after you get your grade. I would write a letter though. Colleges have a responsibility to be culturally sensitive, and even if its coming from fellow students, to deal with such racist remarks appropriately. I wouldn't have stood for it in my class, they'd be muttering it behind my back maybe, but not in class. You know these bums whether grad a**es or profs have no life experience usually. They get out of high school and go straight into college, then straight into teaching. I had one male tell me that I shouldn't have divorced my husband and I had no right teaching as a single parent. He was a real bozo.

You pay dearly for your education, even if you have a full scholarship, you work hard for that, its the same. I would speak with the dean because they don't monitor these people and they need to know if stupid stuff like this is going on. People can be replaced pretty fast at that level. It does no one any good to let someone slip through and end up a tenured professor that cannot conduct a classroom or who worse engages in such remarks.

I'm sorry you had to deal with that. College is hard enough without that mess. I really would say something to the dean of the college or at least the head of the history department. Or at least seek the advice of a trusted professor, in any department. This is an opportunity for them to for once learn and to really help others learn, not to perpetuate stereotypes and racist mythologies. Wow, this got me mad.

[lbgood]

(and My personal favorite)

"It's my belief that with so many differences between two peoples, Conflict was inevitable. Whoever won was whoever had the bigger gun"

If you'll all excuse me, I am going to go vomit now.

I thought all the braves in each tribe engaged in this challenge, with winner who had the uhh umm "Bigger gun" getting the Chiefs/Chairman's daughter. J/K

[docat]

I thought all the braves in each tribe engaged in this challenge, with winner who had the uhh umm "Bigger gun" getting the Chiefs/Chairman's daughter. J/K

LBGOOD, you are GOOOOOOD. LOL

[RestlessN8iv]

Survival of the fittest, what an argument in a college classroom. Tell your prof not to preach the politics of oppression! Well maybe save it for your survey after you get your grade. I would write a letter though. Colleges have a responsibility to be culturally sensitive, and even if its coming from fellow students, to deal with such racist remarks appropriately.

I especially loved the "inevitability" argument. By his logic the only reason he has never been penetrated anally must be because he's never run into anyone big enough or bad enough to make him thier bch.

[Zeke]

As many of you probably know, I am a student in his second year of college. One of my credit requirements is a history course where from day one, we began discussing pre-Columbian America.

There, I got a good earful of such historic gyms as:

-Just as the settlers "used" Indians, the Indans also used settlers for their own ends.

If you believe we were intelligent, this was undoubtedly true in many cases.

- The main reason the Indians helped the settlers was so that they could get guns, to use to wage war on other tribes.

Once we determined what guns were, this is entirely plausible.

- "Do you really think they (Indians) were peaceful, and happy-go-lucky.

Uh, no. Not a chance in Hell. Rough country makes rough men.

(and My personal favorite)

"It's my belief that with so many differences between two peoples, Conflict was inevitable. Whoever won was whoever had the bigger gun"

That's 100% historically accurate.

If you'll all excuse me, I am going to go vomit now.

Truth bothers you?

Romanticism of pre-Columbian existence is embarrassing...

If the White Man had never set foot on this continent do you know what the biggest current difference would be?

McDonald's would have a different name...

[Toolbox]

I agree with [MENTION=11084]Zeke[/MENTION] on this

-Just as the settlers "used" Indians, the Indans also used settlers for their own ends.

Nothing wrong with that. When you need to move heavy or large objects do you not call people you know that own pickup truck(s)? Countries do this today. I know I'm going to take flack for this BUT why do you think Israel and the US are allies. We just use each other for our own agendas.

- The main reason the Indians helped the settlers was so that they could get guns, to use to wage war on other tribes.

While probably not accurate in the very beginning, it certainly become true as time went on. If you were in war wouldn't you want the most powerful and efficient weapons you can get your hands on?

- "Do you really think they (Indians) were peaceful, and happy-go-lucky.

They made weapons and waged war on each other.

(and My personal favorite)

"It's my belief that with so many differences between two peoples, Conflict was inevitable. Whoever won was whoever had the bigger gun"



If you'll all excuse me, I am going to go vomit now.

True no matter how you slice it.

[Spiritflight]

The truth about something lets you see a clear path ahead.
The lies about something keeps you guessing as you cannot see that clear path but confusion.
When lies are sold well enough then you believe in a false picture.
Truth you sense with all your senses as true.
Lies stay a picture in the head or maybe if they are good lies, wishful thinking.
Dissapointments happen when you believe good lies being sold as truth.
Real truth cannot dissapoint.
Wishful thinking is when you daydream about something you want to have happen. Those dreams can become true as long as they are your own dreams and not any lies people want you to believe. Then it would be just implanted pictures you see and may view as wishful thinking.
Some things happen based on lies people believe.
Truth always is present everywhere without necessarily having to think.
Lies are just a product of peoples thinking - Truth also is - can be in the mind. Truth always is simple - as is. Lies may also appear - as is - but just for a time being. Truth is true, always.

So if people pick up lies, believe them as being true, teaching them lies to others as being true, then all ends up in a big confusion. Conflicts happen when another person opposes. Hm...

Why did I write all this? Excuse me - I felt like it and I hope it's not confusing.

[muskrat_skull]

I especially loved the "inevitability" argument. By his logic the only reason he has never been penetrated anally must be because he's never run into anyone big enough or bad enough to make him thier bch.

Unless perhaps he likes it. Who knows. A professor at my university died in a dress and makeup wrapped in industrial cellophane, because he lived alone and liked to dress up that way and wrap himself in that giant cellophane, he had it mounted to the wall, only problem was, the holes he made for his mouth and nose got stuck together. They didn't find him for several days. You never know who is teaching you. Academic types can be really strange, did I say that?

I would ask him why the American government paid for human scalps, less for children's than adults. What was that all about? Where is that in the textbooks? Oh, wait, that might horrify the kiddies. What really makes me sick is the "nation of immigrants" crap. Every president says it. Its so disgusting and untrue for large segments of the population. I don't think Africans "immigrated" to America chained up in the belly of a slave ship, and heck, it's only an immigrant nation to someone who only sees immigrant people and kills off the native population. Its been dispelled in many books as an "American myth" but no one cares or they are too dumb to be teaching. Darwin lied.

[muskrat_skull]

There, I got a good earful of such historic gyms as:

-Just as the settlers "used" Indians, the Indans also used settlers for their own ends.

These statements imply fair's fair, everything was equal, both sides were equally exploitative, is a common tactic for denying or trivializing oppression, or justifying oppressive acts. It rewards the oppressor and further victimizing the victims. And it is condescending and irresponsible, since you can't be bothered to learn the truth about things, you just blindly say everyone is to blame. Bad parenting and bad logic in general. Good way to blow off your kids though, when you are too tired to deal.;)

And while the nations of first contact are trying to figure out who these white people are and what they want and what are all these new things, the whites had planned to steal resources from the new country, regardless of who lived there, which, upon first sight were deemed "demons" and "devils" and savage beings to be destroyed. You can't argue that the Europeans weren't the aggressors.

Europeans exploited native spirituality and their own for material gain.

There was not the same drive to materially gain from the whites as their was on the part of the whites because the first nations had more resources. If they had come to Europe, perhaps they would have viewed Europe as a conquest.

- The main reason the Indians helped the settlers was so that they could get guns, to use to wage war on other tribes.

The biggest problem with all these statements is that there really is no such thing as "Indians", especially back then. There were many nations of idigenous people, some allies and some enemies. Some nations, or even just groups of individuals, or individuals, used settlers to displace and attack other nations, by claiming authority to lands that weren't theirs. The US govt. aided in the perpetration of fraud to say the least and later more.
Did most or all Indians "help" settlers? Untrue.
Alot of exchange seemed to be for knives and pots or other domestic items. The early guns were lousy.

- "Do you really think they (Indians) were peaceful, and happy-go-lucky.

Hollywood myth. There was cannibalism, killing, torture, starving, wretchedness at times, wars. But there were shared hunting grounds and neutral territories, too. Peaceable and functional things are not recorded as much because horrors and dysfunction, whether real or exaggerated, stick in the memory and sell papers. Deeds in war are memorialized, but not great acts of kindness. Unless by whites to show the Indians gave everything away to them and wanted them there.

"It's my belief that with so many differences between two peoples, Conflict was inevitable.

Untrue, generalization.
Differences are relative to your perspective, there may be as many similarities, individuals differ but may be very similar across cultures, implies stereotypes. Surprised [MENTION=11084]Zeke[/MENTION] didn't catch that. Conflict is when two parties on equal ground clash. In this case, Europeans were clearly the aggressors and trespassers, in the wrong, implies equal fault for conflict.

In this case you are saying that if someone from another culture comes into your yard, shoots you and your family and takes your home, that this is fine and dandy, nice and legal, and they should be issued a deed for their fine service in extinguishing you. And if they send you and your family's scalps in, they will get $200 bucks a piece for the grown-ups and 100 for the kids, which you can use to buy some new carpet and paint because, Lord knows, you'll need it.

Did some people fight back and strike out aggressively against this? Yes. Is the nature of the violence back and forth the same? No. Because the people already living here had the right to be here and the newcomers did not. The first Europeans KNEW that there were nations here, they were told in many cases that they could not stay, that more could not come. They often disregarded laws and treaties and spit in the face of goodwill extended them, making themselves unwelcome. They recognized the authority of the nations here clearly, and who was in charge. Over and over you hear how they just couldn't stop the influx which was untrue, they refused to take action and did not respect the nations' rights to defend their land and stop it for them. They didn't even pick the individuals up and slap a fine on them or give them the equivalent of a notice to quit.

Whoever won was whoever had the bigger gun"

Untrue
Whoever "won" (if murdering and displacing people is winning) was the most DECEPTIVE and DISHONORABLE. Not the one with the biggest guns. Again, stereotype that all Indian removal or "conflict" was gunfights, probably on horseback. Take the Cherokee for example, no matter how much they assimilated and what they were promised, they were driven from their homes in the most horrible manner. Their mistake, they underestimated the underhandedness and racism in the government going on behind their backs (so how can you know?), and how much they were being used?
Competition doesn't exist when one culture is playing by one set of rules and another is playing by another set of rules. The Europeans could not play by their own rules. Even when it was decided that settlement should not go into Kentucky or past the Mississippi, criminally culpable white settlers trespassed and squatted on land they were forbidden to enter and occupy. Not to mention what they did to the people who were legally living there. Yet the treaties weren't enforced and nothing was done.

Defending your own land is reasonable and right, while taking someone else's is commonly viewed as wrong. Since it happened and they got away with it, is it right and legitimate, and/or natural? Yet humans are uniquely capable of "unnatural" acts. It was not "nature in action", anymore than the Salem witch trials were survival of the fittest, or the atrocities of WWII. It was premeditated and planned, not instinctual and automatic, the product of some innate natural drive, though it might have evoked the pleasure of power over others. People are capable of intentional and planned evil and despicable acts that are outside of the natural order of things, just like we can clone sheep or genetically alter crops.

By the biggest gun argument, this nation should never have been settled by Europeans, they were vastly outnumbered in the beginning. The early firearms technology was so poor that you could get off 5 arrows before a single musket shot and that would be really inaccurate and lame. They would have starved to death as well.

Cooperation was as much or more to blame than conflict. Only cooperation could let the Europeans get their foot in the door. Europeans used intermarriage and trade in a way that most people would find morally repulsive, once gaining a foothold, taking full advantage of their position. If someone married you for your bank account or property, slept with you even though they considered you inhuman, you would consider it sleazy. Indian wives were seen as a necessity for whites, for diplomacy, survival skill, and slave labor. They were not afforded human status by whites. And I realize that some nations did not revere their women so much, and some treated them bad. that does not excuse it. Indian women were predated by European men, especially young ones, and there's no romanticism here. Prostitution, treated like slaves, some just children. Remember Matoaka. And in the minds of these Europeans they were sleeping with animals. But they would sleep with "animals" to survive, to get land (and kill and steal and all), and still think God was backing them in doing all this and that THEY were the REAL victims.

If you don't like victims, stop victimizing. Nothing is worse than a whiny oppressor...

[Spiritflight]

This one professor I worked for at the University understood the opposite of what I said and got mad at me. He was not in the office for some days - having done his job somewhere else - he was younger than me and I thought he's a nice person. So when he came back to the office I was happy to see him again and said it in a friendly manner, so his reply to me was: SO YOU THINK I JUST SIT AROUND AT HOME; DOING NOTHING? He was realy mad at me and I was somewhat shocked how he could twist a friendly saying just to make a bad thing out of it. I didn't care what he did during that time, was just happy to see my boss again. So I thought when people interpret me that wrong I better not talk to them any way again except strictly about work stuff.

[Toolbox]

Let's not try to romanticize things here. There's nothing oppressive about the statements in the original post.

[Zeke]

Let's not try to romanticize things here. There's nothing oppressive about the statements in the original post.

Agreed.

This is the sort of thread that intriques me when I analyze responses: you learn a lot about folks.