Not that I saw.

btw, was the nonsensical rant about ‘no injuns were harmed in the making of this movie’ Frank’s way of helping his bud out of a jam?..good one Frank :-0

Right. And if you believe that, I have some smallpox infested blankets to sell you.

Because…? Any historian would be embarrassed for you for not supporting your statement with an iota of documentation.

In the end they were in the way of expansion and systamatically defeated. They became wards of the Federal government and received citizenship in the 20’s without having to give up seperate soveriegnty. They became in essence the first super citizens for whom certain Constitutional rules do not apply.

Re-read those three sentences in their original order. Let them sink in. That’s how Amused Observer thinks. Really.

One can’t help but wonder if Amused Observer can explain Indian sovereignty any better than this this fine adherent of the [U.S.] Constitution. (That guy was, technically, President of the United States. Really. No kidding.)

My, aren’t they lucky!

LOL,
Howard Zinn doesn’t actually give you a good grounding in history. We were always taught about the reality of what happened to the indians in this country. There were mixed feelings in this nation about the right way to deal with indians. In the end they were in the way of expansion and systamatically defeated. They became wards of the Federal government and received citizenship in the 20’s without having to give up seperate soveriegnty. They became in essence the first super citizens for whom certain Constitutional rules do not apply.

It is not surprising that you favor FDR. He was instrumental in creating the welfare state and tried to build political coalitions using the redistribution of wealth. He had little respect for the Constitution, you have much in common.

If? How many cites do you need to actually admit you were wrong, Frank? Give me a number.

No, here in California their nations are wealthy. So who cares, as Obama would say, “Spoils to the victor”, or at least, “I won, so I am going to trump you on that”.

Oliver , this is your blog. If you can’t find where I said “that there was something wrong with increased hispanic and muslim populations, especially in the US”, why should I hunt all over proving what I already know to be true: that there never was a national policy to exterminate the Indian. Just because certain leftist historiographers bandy the term “holocaust” about, doesn’t make it so.

And, let me add, that whatever problems have been either generated by, or caused by, either the large influx of Hispanic and Muslim immigrants, or the unwitting support of do gooders who think that accelerating their absorption into our culture is a mistake, that still doesn’t indicate that I believe Muslims or Hispanics are inferior human beings.

I think perhaps it is you that harbor insecurities about your racial identity which you then project onto every one around you, but I wouldn’t assert that as a fact, like you call anyone a racist, whenever it suits you.

This has all grown tiresome,

As near as I can tell, the so – called evidence that the protesters are racist is that when Pres Bush had deficits , these same people were not protesting. So the only detectable difference that YOU (meaning you lefties) can discern between Pres Obama and Pres Bush is that Pres Bush is white and Pres Obama is not, therefore, the protesters must be racists who are protesting ONLY because Pres Obama is black.

I suspect that there is some faulty logic there, which I will leave for others to unravel, as I ask this question: If that formula above is correct, then can there be any protesting of Pres Obama’s policies that could be considered non – racist: After all, Pres Bush will always be white, and Pres Obama will always be non – white?

I am left wondering: Did each person who voted for Pres Obama vote for him because he was either notBush or black, or because he was both notBush and black?

You had said “Did we at anytime deliberately plan on killing all the Indians in the Americas ? No, never.” Biological attack is only one way to eradicate a people and, as shown in the links already provided, was planned or at least contemplated by some military leaders.

But let’s see what the politcal leaders and US government advocated and did.

May 31, 1779. Shortly after the start of America.
“Total Destruction“

Sir: The expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the six nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents. The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible…I would recommd. … whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner; that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed …It should be previously impressed upon the minds of the men when ever they have an opportunity, to rush on with the warhoop and fixed bayonet. Nothing will disconcert and terrify the Indians more than this… But you will not by any means, listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected…

- George Washington’s instructions to Major General John Sullivan

1873, nearly 100 years later.
Destroy the culture

“…we are assuming, and I think with propriety, that our civilization ought to take the place of their barbarous habits. We therefore claim the right to control the soil they occupy, and we assume that it is
our duty to coerce them, if necessary, into the adoption and practice of our habits and customs…

- Columbus Delano, Secretary of the Interior

1876. Only good Indian is a dead Indian

I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the Western view of the Indian. I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.

- future President Theodore Roosevelt

See also actions of the US military such as Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, et al. Official policies for mass slaughter of the buffalo, scalp bounties offered by Governors, the Indian Termination Policy (which brings us up to the 1980,s by the way) and numerous other official gov’t actions and policies designed to eliminate native tribes or their cultures.

And what of your other claim, Frank. That “there are more Indians in America , than there were when Columbus landed.” I notice you’re no longer trying to defend that one. Ready to admit you had it wrong?

You went to school in an era where the mythology told about wonderful Columbus crossing the ocean blue and nary a mention about the genocide and slavery that was also a part of this legacy.

You went to school in an era where they glossed over the disconnect required by our founders – and this does not deny their genius or the greatness of what they did – to write a declaration of independence declaring all men to be equal while owning slaves and relegating women and non-landowners to subservience.

I went to school in an era where they told us what actually happened and taught us to fucking learn by always adding new information to what we know.

RADICAL IDEA.

History is about the whole picture, why is your mind so freaking closed?

To further illustrate my point: I happen to believe FDR was our greatest president (though its close with Lincoln). I also believe that FDR was batshit fucking wrong to intern Japanese Americans (just like Lincoln was wrong to silence the press). I am able to keep both of these things in my head at the same time. Why? BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED. Not the fairytale version.

I said no such thing, at any time, in any place.
You’ve repeatedly said on this site that there was something wrong with increased hispanic and muslim populations, especially in the US.

To sum up, European settlers came to the New World for a variety of reasons, but the thought of infecting the Indians with deadly pathogens was not one of them. As for the charge that the U.S. government should itself be held responsible for the demographic disaster that overtook the American-Indian population, it is unsupported by evidence or legitimate argument. The United States did not wage biological warfare against the Indians; neither can the large number of deaths as a result of disease be considered the result of a genocidal design.

[emphasis added]

Oliver, I went to school before the “America sucks” revisionists took over. And before PBS attempted to rewrite American history.

I’m directing your own words at you about crying for the so-called purity of America.

I said no such thing, at any time, in any place. You are a bald-faced liar.

As if that’d have any effect on Frank.

Pretending that there wasn’t a policy of ethnic cleansing vs American Indians is the kind of BS you traffic in constantly Frank.

Just open a history book, watch a documentary, something, for once.

the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a “vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record.”

Did we at anytime deliberately plan on killing all the Indians in the Americas ? No, never .

I repeat – N – E – V – E – R .

You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race

I’ll say I’m right because I actually look these things up. Frank is sure he’s proven himself right because he R – E – P – E – A – T – S things.

Martin, there are more Indians in America , than there were when Columbus landed. If that’s genocide, we suck at it. But it wasn’t genocide. It was more like a massive outpouring of Europeans into the Americas in less than 400 years — I’m sure to the Indians it seemed frightening, sudden, and awesome (in its original meaning).

Did we at anytime deliberately plan on killing all the Indians in the Americas ? No, never .

I repeat – N – E – V – E – R .