As long as Grass Grows or Water Runs (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Say to the chiefs and warriors that I am their friend, that I wish to act as their friend but they must, by removing from the limits of the States of Mississippi and Alabama and by being settled on the lands I offer them, put it in my power to be such-There, beyond the limits of any State, in possession of land of their own, which they shall possess as long as Grass grows or water runs. - Andrew Jackson

I'm currently reading A People's History of the United States by the late Howard Zinn. Although very progressive in outlook (he attacks capitalism at every opportunity) his narrative is factual, fascinating, and hideous- especially the treatment of the American Indian.

One central question which Zinn attempts to tackle, but is unable to answer satisfactorily: was the eradication of the native American inevitable? As we look at what the United States is today, would it have been possible for us to achieve our current country yet also allowed the American Indian to prosper and not steal their lands, forcibly relocate them, and make them victims of genocide? Interested to hear what the FFA thinks about this.

 

[General Malaise]

Say to the chiefs and warriors that I am their friend, that I wish to act as their friend but they must, by removing from the limits of the States of Mississippi and Alabama and by being settled on the lands I offer them, put it in my power to be such-There, beyond the limits of any State, in possession of land of their own, which they shall possess as long as Grass grows or water runs. - Andrew Jackson

I'm currently reading A People's History of the United States by the late Howard Zinn. Although very progressive in outlook (he attacks capitalism at every opportunity) his narrative is factual, fascinating, and hideous- especially the treatment of the American Indian.

One central question which Zinn attempts to tackle, but is unable to answer satisfactorily: was the eradication of the native American inevitable? As we look at what the United States is today, would it have been possible for us to achieve our current country yet also allowed the American Indian to prosper and not steal their lands, forcibly relocate them, and make them victims of genocide? Interested to hear what the FFA thinks about this.

You really need a joint.

 

[timschochet]

Say to the chiefs and warriors that I am their friend, that I wish to act as their friend but they must, by removing from the limits of the States of Mississippi and Alabama and by being settled on the lands I offer them, put it in my power to be such-There, beyond the limits of any State, in possession of land of their own, which they shall possess as long as Grass grows or water runs. - Andrew Jackson

I'm currently reading A People's History of the United States by the late Howard Zinn. Although very progressive in outlook (he attacks capitalism at every opportunity) his narrative is factual, fascinating, and hideous- especially the treatment of the American Indian.

One central question which Zinn attempts to tackle, but is unable to answer satisfactorily: was the eradication of the native American inevitable? As we look at what the United States is today, would it have been possible for us to achieve our current country yet also allowed the American Indian to prosper and not steal their lands, forcibly relocate them, and make them victims of genocide? Interested to hear what the FFA thinks about this.

You really need a joint.

Or maybe some peyote?

 

[Abraham]

I mean this as nicely as possible, but anyone with as many political opinions as you should have read that book years ago. It's amazing.

 

[eaganwildcats]

Finally watched Good Will Hunting, eh?

 

[timschochet]

I mean this as nicely as possible, but anyone with as many political opinions as you should have read that book years ago. It's amazing.

I take it as a compliment. But I haven't offered any opinion here as to the main question I asked. I'm curious to find out what others think- if they're interested in the subject, that is.

 

[timschochet]

Abraham, I misunderstood your post. I have no excuse for not reading this before. Always on my list, never got around to it. My list of nonfiction that I mean to read is quite long. Kindle has made everything easier.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Tim, you ever get down to SD? Would love to share a brew and meet the man behind the machine.

 

[timschochet]

I have read other books on the American Indian experience, like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, you ever get down to SD? Would love to share a brew and meet the man behind the machine.

Sometimes. I'll let you know.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Meh. Zinn like to bend everything to fit his worldview. A lot of stuff oversimplified, taken out of context, and just plain twisted. I think I got as far as the "Robber Barron" chapter before I gave up.

 

[Josie Maran]

Meh. Zinn like to bend everything to fit his worldview. A lot of stuff oversimplified, taken out of context, and just plain twisted. I think I got as far as the "Robber Barron" chapter before I gave up.

Why wouldn't you want to learn more about Snoopy?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Here is what appears to be a PDF of the book.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Meh. Zinn like to bend everything to fit his worldview. A lot of stuff oversimplified, taken out of context, and just plain twisted. I think I got as far as the "Robber Barron" chapter before I gave up.

Why wouldn't you want to learn more about Snoopy?

Zinn would paint Snoopy as being an imperialist, capitalist, jackbooted thug.

 

[John Bender]

Meh. Zinn like to bend everything to fit his worldview. A lot of stuff oversimplified, taken out of context, and just plain twisted. I think I got as far as the "Robber Barron" chapter before I gave up.

This.

 

[Freelove]

Meh. Zinn like to bend everything to fit his worldview. A lot of stuff oversimplified, taken out of context, and just plain twisted.

Making it unique among history books.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Say to the chiefs and warriors that I am their friend, that I wish to act as their friend but they must, by removing from the limits of the States of Mississippi and Alabama and by being settled on the lands I offer them, put it in my power to be such-There, beyond the limits of any State, in possession of land of their own, which they shall possess as long as Grass grows or water runs. - Andrew Jackson

I'm currently reading A People's History of the United States by the late Howard Zinn. Although very progressive in outlook (he attacks capitalism at every opportunity) his narrative is factual, fascinating, and hideous- especially the treatment of the American Indian.

One central question which Zinn attempts to tackle, but is unable to answer satisfactorily: was the eradication of the native American inevitable? As we look at what the United States is today, would it have been possible for us to achieve our current country yet also allowed the American Indian to prosper and not steal their lands, forcibly relocate them, and make them victims of genocide? Interested to hear what the FFA thinks about this.

You really need a joint.

Or maybe some peyote?

Nope, just a joint. Save the real drugs for the professionals.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Meh. Zinn like to bend everything to fit his worldview. A lot of stuff oversimplified, taken out of context, and just plain twisted.

Making it unique among history books.

But that doesn't mean it is good.

 

[timschochet]

My question wasn't about Zinn's book, though- that's just my current source material. It's whether or not the eradication of native Americans was inevitable. Anyone have an opinion on this?

 

[eaganwildcats]

My question wasn't about Zinn's book, though- that's just my current source material. It's whether or not the eradication of native Americans was inevitable. Anyone have an opinion on this?

Yes. My opinion is that the eradication of Native Americans was absolutely not 'inevitable'. Option 1 was to take all their land and slaughter them. Option 2 was to not do those things. Choosing option 1 was not an inevitability.

 

[bostonfred]

Finally watched Good Will Hunting, eh?

as a matter of fact, I didn't, because wood drastically underestimates the effect of

 

[timschochet]

My question wasn't about Zinn's book, though- that's just my current source material. It's whether or not the eradication of native Americans was inevitable. Anyone have an opinion on this?

Yes. My opinion is that the eradication of Native Americans was absolutely not 'inevitable'. Option 1 was to take all their land and slaughter them. Option 2 was to not do those things. Choosing option 1 was not an inevitability.

OK. But what then? Would we not have moved west of the Mississippi river? Was there some way that Americans could have continued to move all the way to the west coast, yet lived with the Indians in peace? Could we have peacefully assimilated them into our culture, or vice versa?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

My question wasn't about Zinn's book, though- that's just my current source material. It's whether or not the eradication of native Americans was inevitable. Anyone have an opinion on this?

Yes. Yes it was.

 

[strykerpks]

My question wasn't about Zinn's book, though- that's just my current source material. It's whether or not the eradication of native Americans was inevitable. Anyone have an opinion on this?

Yes. My opinion is that the eradication of Native Americans was absolutely not 'inevitable'. Option 1 was to take all their land and slaughter them. Option 2 was to not do those things. Choosing option 1 was not an inevitability.

OK. But what then? Would we not have moved west of the Mississippi river? Was there some way that Americans could have continued to move all the way to the west coast, yet lived with the Indians in peace? Could we have peacefully assimilated them into our culture, or vice versa?

This is dumb. I am not very learned but even I know white people hate(d) brown people. It was inevitable. What's the next question, the sky is sky blue or light blue?

 

[timschochet]

My question wasn't about Zinn's book, though- that's just my current source material. It's whether or not the eradication of native Americans was inevitable. Anyone have an opinion on this?

Yes. My opinion is that the eradication of Native Americans was absolutely not 'inevitable'. Option 1 was to take all their land and slaughter them. Option 2 was to not do those things. Choosing option 1 was not an inevitability.

OK. But what then? Would we not have moved west of the Mississippi river? Was there some way that Americans could have continued to move all the way to the west coast, yet lived with the Indians in peace? Could we have peacefully assimilated them into our culture, or vice versa?

This is dumb. I am not very learned but even I know white people hate(d) brown people. It was inevitable. What's the next question, the sky is sky blue or light blue?

Obviously racism played a big role. Suppos the native Americans looked just like white Europeans? Would that have made any difference?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Say to the chiefs and warriors that I am their friend, that I wish to act as their friend but they must, by removing from the limits of the States of Mississippi and Alabama and by being settled on the lands I offer them, put it in my power to be such-There, beyond the limits of any State, in possession of land of their own, which they shall possess as long as Grass grows or water runs. - Andrew Jackson

I'm currently reading A People's History of the United States by the late Howard Zinn. Although very progressive in outlook (he attacks capitalism at every opportunity) his narrative is factual, fascinating, and hideous- especially the treatment of the American Indian.

One central question which Zinn attempts to tackle, but is unable to answer satisfactorily: was the eradication of the native American inevitable? As we look at what the United States is today, would it have been possible for us to achieve our current country yet also allowed the American Indian to prosper and not steal their lands, forcibly relocate them, and make them victims of genocide? Interested to hear what the FFA thinks about this.

No, it wasn't. Couple examples.

For one thing Pres. Andrew Jackson did a dirty deed - the Cherokee of the Carolinas, GA, TN, played by the book, developed a written language, wrote their own constitution, established property lines and rights, even won their case in the USSC.... and Jackson absolutely jack-wagonned them. If people want to bring up a disgraceful moment in USA Indian history, bring up that one.

One other example: Central TX, where largely German immigrants reached a settlement and peace treaty with local tribes (maybe Apache). Supposedly Texas tribes were among the fiercest anywhere but the German farmers made perhaps the sole lasting treaty that was ever 100% kept in this country (at least by those who made the deal).

 

[NCCommish]

Meh. Zinn like to bend everything to fit his worldview. A lot of stuff oversimplified, taken out of context, and just plain twisted. I think I got as far as the "Robber Barron" chapter before I gave up.

Are you a fan of the robber barons or the gilded age? I mean the gilded age is where we are headed again might have been good to be prepared.

 

[NCCommish]

Well I have made my opinion on the subject very clear many times. No eradication wasn't neccesary. What we did to the American Indian is a national disgrace which many still refuse to recognize.

 

[McGarnicle]

It's difficult for me to think about what became of the Indians and not feel ashamed. It's easy to enjoy all the opportunities this country has to offer, and easy to forget that it was purchased with the blood of a lot of innocent people who lived in peace and harmony with the land until we came along. I don't know how we reconcile that now, but at the very least we should start teaching kids an honest history of Columbus and the colonial era instead of the bull#### propaganda most of us were taught.

 

[The Commish]

Well I have made my opinion on the subject very clear many times. No eradication wasn't neccesary. What we did to the American Indian is a national disgrace which many still refuse to recognize.

 

[Abraham]

Abraham, I misunderstood your post. I have no excuse for not reading this before. Always on my list, never got around to it. My list of nonfiction that I mean to read is quite long. Kindle has made everything easier.

Yeah, I was just giving you guff.

I agree that the book oversimplifies some things and has a twisted perspective on others...but that's what makes it worth reading. "History js written by the victors" is nowhere more true than in this country.

To the question at hand, I think that European colonialism shows that the eradication and/or enslavement of the native Americans was inevitable. The Euros were REALLY bad to the people they found on their journeys. And I agree that the lack of acknowledgment of this part of the nation's history is troubling.

 

[MikeIke]

It was inevitable just because of all the diseases that Eurpoeans brought to the New World. Something like 90% of the native population was wiped out not by our guns, but by our germs.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

It was inevitable just because of all the diseases that Eurpoeans brought to the New World. Something like 90% of the native population was wiped out not by our guns, but by our germs.

Virgin Soil Epidemic

 

[timschochet]

It was inevitable just because of all the diseases that Eurpoeans brought to the New World. Something like 90% of the native population was wiped out not by our guns, but by our germs.

While this is true, it doesn't deal with the question of the survivors. Even with 90% dying of diseases, we still forcibly relocated and massacred hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[timschochet]

My question wasn't about Zinn's book, though- that's just my current source material. It's whether or not the eradication of native Americans was inevitable. Anyone have an opinion on this?

Yes. My opinion is that the eradication of Native Americans was absolutely not 'inevitable'. Option 1 was to take all their land and slaughter them. Option 2 was to not do those things. Choosing option 1 was not an inevitability.

OK. But what then? Would we not have moved west of the Mississippi river? Was there some way that Americans could have continued to move all the way to the west coast, yet lived with the Indians in peace? Could we have peacefully assimilated them into our culture, or vice versa?

Bunp. Those of you who have stated it was not inevitable, how would you answer these questions?

 

[NCCommish]

My question wasn't about Zinn's book, though- that's just my current source material. It's whether or not the eradication of native Americans was inevitable. Anyone have an opinion on this?

Yes. My opinion is that the eradication of Native Americans was absolutely not 'inevitable'. Option 1 was to take all their land and slaughter them. Option 2 was to not do those things. Choosing option 1 was not an inevitability.

OK. But what then? Would we not have moved west of the Mississippi river? Was there some way that Americans could have continued to move all the way to the west coast, yet lived with the Indians in peace? Could we have peacefully assimilated them into our culture, or vice versa?

Bunp. Those of you who have stated it was not inevitable, how would you answer these questions?

It's called working with the people you find. We certainly would have continued to expand. The Indians didn't hold every acre between the Smokeys and the Pacific. Nor could they. Simply didn't have the numbers. So there was plenty of open space. In fact there still is. There are millions of acres that no one is living on here and that aren't in crappy areas.

 

[timschochet]

I get what you're saying, NC, and it sounds great, but it's hard for me to reconcile the idea of sharing the land with the history of our movement westward, our mass immigration, and the development of technology like railroads and industrialization.

 

[NCCommish]

I get what you're saying, NC, and it sounds great, but it's hard for me to reconcile the idea of sharing the land with the history of our movement westward, our mass immigration, and the development of technology like railroads and industrialization.

Oh yeah we are much better at murdering than talking so it's hard to see it happening but it could have and it isn't really a stretch. Many of these tribes were willing to live with us in peace as long as we would share. We didn't want to share with no stinkin' savages so we killed them or stole their children or whatever other number of heinous crimes you want to list.

 

[glock]

I get what you're saying, NC, and it sounds great, but it's hard for me to reconcile the idea of sharing the land with the history of our movement westward, our mass immigration, and the development of technology like railroads and industrialization.

...especially given that the native Americans didn't share/understand our views on land ownership.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Meh. Zinn like to bend everything to fit his worldview. A lot of stuff oversimplified, taken out of context, and just plain twisted.

Making it unique among history books.

But that doesn't mean it is good.

But is it factual? I'd like to read it but if it conjecture and theory I won't

 

[timschochet]

Meh. Zinn like to bend everything to fit his worldview. A lot of stuff oversimplified, taken out of context, and just plain twisted.

Making it unique among history books.

But that doesn't mean it is good.

But is it factual? I'd like to read it but if it conjecture and theory I won't

He cites sources for all of his facts, and when he makes an argument or offers an opinion it's very clear that he's doing so. The charge of "taking out of context" may be true, but I can't see it.

 

[timschochet]

Apparently there is a counter to this book called "A Patriots History of the United States". It's been promoted by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. I can only imagine...

 

[John Bender]

Meh. Zinn like to bend everything to fit his worldview. A lot of stuff oversimplified, taken out of context, and just plain twisted.

Making it unique among history books.

But that doesn't mean it is good.

But is it factual? I'd like to read it but if it conjecture and theory I won't

He really stretches at times to make the citations and facts fit his thesis. Like anything, someone could collect another group of facts and stretch them to make the complete opposite argument.

 

[jon_mx]

Apparently there is a counter to this book called "A Patriots History of the United States". It's been promoted by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. I can only imagine...

I wish you would debate points on their merits instead of this type of wrong by association you often engage in. You seem to care more about where facts come from than you do the merits of the facts themselves.

 

[McGarnicle]

Apparently there is a counter to this book called "A Patriots History of the United States". It's been promoted by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. I can only imagine...

I wish you would debate points on their merits instead of this type of wrong by association you often engage in. You seem to care more about where facts come from than you do the merits of the facts themselves.

Yeah, because it's within the realm of possibility that any book touted by Limbaugh or Beck could be a reasoned, even-handed treatment of this subject.

 

[NCCommish]

Apparently there is a counter to this book called "A Patriots History of the United States". It's been promoted by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. I can only imagine...

I wish you would debate points on their merits instead of this type of wrong by association you often engage in. You seem to care more about where facts come from than you do the merits of the facts themselves.

Seriously? Beck has provided many examples of what he thinks the history of this country is and none of them have ever been right.

 

[Abraham]

Meh. Zinn like to bend everything to fit his worldview. A lot of stuff oversimplified, taken out of context, and just plain twisted.

Making it unique among history books.

But that doesn't mean it is good.

But is it factual? I'd like to read it but if it conjecture and theory I won't

He cites sources for all of his facts, and when he makes an argument or offers an opinion it's very clear that he's doing so. The charge of "taking out of context" may be true, but I can't see it.

This is what makes it worth reading. It's history written from the perspective of the losers/victims/working-class. Even if it's as biased that direction as "regular" history is biased towards upper-class white men, its still a worthwhile perspective.

 

[eaganwildcats]

I get what you're saying, NC, and it sounds great, but it's hard for me to reconcile the idea of sharing the land with the history of our movement westward, our mass immigration, and the development of technology like railroads and industrialization.

Oh yeah we are much better at murdering than talking so it's hard to see it happening but it could have and it isn't really a stretch. Many of these tribes were willing to live with us in peace as long as we would share. We didn't want to share with no stinkin' savages so we killed them or stole their children or whatever other number of heinous crimes you want to list.

The question itself still strikes me as peculiar.

My question wasn't about Zinn's book, though- that's just my current source material. It's whether or not the eradication of native Americans was inevitable. Anyone have an opinion on this?

Yes. My opinion is that the eradication of Native Americans was absolutely not 'inevitable'. Option 1 was to take all their land and slaughter them. Option 2 was to not do those things. Choosing option 1 was not an inevitability.

OK. But what then? Would we not have moved west of the Mississippi river? Was there some way that Americans could have continued to move all the way to the west coast, yet lived with the Indians in peace? Could we have peacefully assimilated them into our culture, or vice versa?

Bunp. Those of you who have stated it was not inevitable, how would you answer these questions?

1) Sure, there is plenty of land to go around. Maybe we could have cohabited in peace.

2) Maybe cultures could have been assimilated.

Those questions are almost impossible to answer, it certainly wouldn't have been easy. The genesis of my point, however, is that calling their slaughter 'inevitable' is a disservice - very few things are truly inevitable.

 

[timschochet]

In absolute literal terms you're correct, eaganwildcats, there is nothing in human history that is inevitable. But this question is not peculiar; historians ask it all the time, about this issue, the Civil War, the American Revolution, etc. To be exact, the question should be, "GIVEN THESE CONDITIONS, was it inevitable."

Also, I see where you're going when you call it a disservice to even ask the question, but IMO an act can be conditionally inevitable and still be evil and unjust.

 

[timschochet]

Apparently there is a counter to this book called "A Patriots History of the United States". It's been promoted by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. I can only imagine...

I wish you would debate points on their merits instead of this type of wrong by association you often engage in. You seem to care more about where facts come from than you do the merits of the facts themselves.

I think that, based on the title of the book and it's promoters, I can make some reasonable assumptions, the same way I would about a Conservapaedia article. But I could be wrong.