Obama to Native Americans: "You will not be forgotten"

Judged:

2

wyoming wrote:

<quoted text>
You do not know history very well. Santee Sioux uprising 1862, in Minnesota, was a hot sharp, murderous affair. Yes, the Santee had a right to fight, but they also committed numerous artrocities, like swing white babies by their feet like a baseball bat against trees before their mother's eyes. They raped and murdered at will any who were in there paths. And when this war ended, the People of Minnesota rounded up over 200 Indians and sentenced them to hang. This list was sent to President Lincoln, who saw the shear ignorance of it, and with the evidence laid before him, took time out from the Civil War worries to pardon everyone on that list except 38 ruthless worriors who had piles of evidence, and eye witnesses against them. So Lincoln did not hang anybody, Lincoln actually saved over 100 Santee Sioux Indian lives.
So in your leftwing haste to discredit a good man, you are completely void of fact, and you are the perfect reason I will never vote, compromise, or surrender to a God Damned left wing liberal. You pack up lying dolts.

Robert Newell wrote:

<quoted text>
It was the British that gave small pox infected blankets to Indians.
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/smallpox.htm
"The only documented case of smallpox blankets being given to Indians was by Captain Eucyer of the British army. I challenge anyone to offer documented proof, except for the two blankets given out by Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt, of smallpox infected blankets being deliberately given to Indians as a means of spreading smallpox. Letters by General Amherst and Colonel Bouquet mentioning spreading smallpox to Indians does not mean that this was ever carried out. Assumptions derived from letters and oral traditions are not proof of anything.
In a letter (1763) to Colonel Bouquet, Lord Amherst wrote, "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them".
Bouquet replied that he would try and use infected blankets as a means of introducing the disease among the Indians, but was wary of the effects that it would have on his own men...at least twenty-five percent or more of Bouquet's soldiers would have been susceptible to the smallpox virus."

wyoming wrote:

<quoted text>
You might go read the facts sometime, the negro troops who charged Fort Wagner, asked for the assignment you stupid shit, and it was only one of 1000s of attacks into connons. Have you ever actually read a book.

Judged:

1

1

Factual wrote:

<quoted text>The Iroquois made the mistake of siding with the British in the Revolutionary War.
They also made the mistake of murdering innocent women and children and torturing settlers by skinning them alive and burning them over hot burning coals. The Iroquois lost their land just like the British did, by losing the war.
You know so little you can't even spell Iroquois!

Judged:

1

1

1

Factual wrote:

<quoted text>The Iroquois made the mistake of siding with the British in the Revolutionary War.
They also made the mistake of murdering innocent women and children and torturing settlers by skinning them alive and burning them over hot burning coals. The Iroquois lost their land just like the British did, by losing the war.
You know so little you can't even spell Iroquois!

Judged:

1

whitenot wrote:

<quoted text>
I heard what some Whites did to the Native American babies. They would get two Native American babies and smash their skulls together. Yeah, seems like there were atrocities on both sides. However, when it comes down to the nitty gritty the Native Americans were defending THEIR land .

Judged:

1

1

1

Factual wrote:

<quoted text>It was the 54th colored Massachusetts Regiment, famous for their cowardice and for losing every battle they ever fought. They ran from the battlefield in Florida, they ran from Ft. Warner and left the white troops to fight it out alone. They claimed they had 50% casualties but that included all those missing who deserted and never returned. They had only 50 killed in the whole battle while whites suffered 600 killed. The 54th had to be marched into battle at bayonet point in South Carolina to keep them from running again. The Union army finally found a use for these cowards and that was occupation duty in defeated cities of the South. There they burned innocent civilians out of their houses, stole their possessions and harassed women and children on the streets.

Judged:

1

1

1

wyoming wrote:

Workerbeedrone:
I'm mostly white, but I'm enough Klamath-Modoc to be a registered tribe member (you have to be at least 1/4).
I think I can give my 2 cents with with some small amount of credibility.
Good post, and very truthful. Although I am more apt to NOT lessen the warlike qualities of the American Indian. Yes it was a game at certain times, and this too was due the fact that many camps were nothing more than families, and who wants to lose a family member if you dont have too, especially when they are an important part, such as food provider, or defender of the camp. But there were indeed times they could be very murderous in their attack, usually when they held huge advantage. Not because they were cowardly, because they had to protect their small numbers of people, but they had enemy, and if you dont think the Sioux would kill an enemy, just let yourself, and maybe a friend, get caught stealing their horses.
Small battlefield numbers do not mean they didnt kill, it just means their fights were with clubs between, for the most part, small groups of men. The Osage completely destroyed a Kiowa camp, and cut off the heads off the dead and placed them on poles, this from the Kiowa Sat'an & Anko annual Kiowa calenders. The Iriquois marched all the way to the plains to whip the Pawnee, who had raided an Illini camp which had already been subjecated by the Iriquois.
In the east, where numbers were larger, more lives were lost in tribal warfare. Mainly because large numbers were involved than was usual on the plains. Bigger camps, permenant camps. There has been no more determained aggressors than those of the Iriquois Six nations. No, I dont think they would have wipe each other out, but maybe not so much for lack of trying in soime cases. But to say war was always a game to them is kind of, well naive at best. They were indeed fine warriors, one warrior of any tribe was worth 4 or 5 Europeans on the field, if equally matched. How do you suppose they got that way?

Judged:

1

1

1

Wyoming wrote:

<quoted text>
Sergeant William H. Carney of the 54th Mass. won the Medal of Honor at Fort Wagner, the 54th was forced back, not because of cowardice, but because of overwhelming fire, but with reenforcements from the 6th Connecticut and the 48th New York, they made the top of the redoubt where they engaged in hand-to hand combat. A total of 1515 Federal soldiers fell before withering fire, including Col. Robert G. Shaw, commander of the 54th, the man who eagerly accepted lead attack formation, eager to display the fighting ability of his command. The Confederates in the fort lost 174 men. it was a one-sided, ill fated assault upon a southern fort which does not fall throughout the entire war. There was no cowardice display on the field that day. In fact, it was HQ Command who was unable to re-enforce the gains at the fort which were made with the determined charge, so they could not be cashed in on, or hold the gains made, and eventually the Federal forces had to withdraw.

workerbeedrone wrote:

<quoted text>Wyoming - "Game" might have been a bad choice of wording to describe battles between tribes. Maybe "contest" would be better. Certainly some Indians were man-killers and were very good at it. But I wanted to contrast Indian wars with tactics like biological warfare that whites were using at the time.
One thing for sure. It was extremely rare in Indian, or I think any other "primitive" culture, to kill anyone but the warriors in battle. There might have been some attacks where women and children were killed, but extermination was not the goal. That was a concept Indians learned the hard way from the Europeans.

Factual wrote:

<quoted text>Carney was given the Medal of Honor as a desperate attempt by the federal government to turn around a bad situation that Union commanders were acutely aware of. black soldiers were cowards on the battlefield and the 54th colored Regiment was one of the worst. The Government plot was to create a manufactured hero to inspire northern blacks who were avoiding military service en masse. Carney did nothing but pick up the Guidon and then left the battlefield with the rest of the 54th. He was no hero but the government needed some publicity that blacks were on the job. Most of the Confederates didn't even have rifles. They used pikes to defeat the yankees who came over the berm. It was a resounding Confederate victory. The Confederates were the heroes.

Factual wrote:

<quoted text>Carney was given the Medal of Honor as a desperate attempt by the federal government to turn around a bad situation that Union commanders were acutely aware of. black soldiers were cowards on the battlefield and the 54th colored Regiment was one of the worst. The Government plot was to create a manufactured hero to inspire northern blacks who were avoiding military service en masse. Carney did nothing but pick up the Guidon and then left the battlefield with the rest of the 54th. He was no hero but the government needed some publicity that blacks were on the job. Most of the Confederates didn't even have rifles. They used pikes to defeat the yankees who came over the berm. It was a resounding Confederate victory. The Confederates were the heroes.

whitenot wrote:

<quoted text>
I heard what some Whites did to the Native American babies. They would get two Native American babies and smash their skulls together. Yeah, seems like there were atrocities on both sides. However, when it comes down to the nitty gritty the Native Americans were defending THEIR land .

Factual wrote:

<quoted text>Carney was given the Medal of Honor as a desperate attempt by the federal government to turn around a bad situation that Union commanders were acutely aware of. black soldiers were cowards on the battlefield and the 54th colored Regiment was one of the worst. The Government plot was to create a manufactured hero to inspire northern blacks who were avoiding military service en masse. Carney did nothing but pick up the Guidon and then left the battlefield with the rest of the 54th. He was no hero but the government needed some publicity that blacks were on the job. Most of the Confederates didn't even have rifles. They used pikes to defeat the yankees who came over the berm. It was a resounding Confederate victory. The Confederates were the heroes.

Auroranorth wrote:

<quoted text>so why arent you down on the Mexican border bashing in heads ? you talk like a man with a paper azz

Coolmind wrote:

Oh yes they are! We committed genocide, then scraped them off into the desert and forced them to live in poverty. Treated much worse than any other minority ... and they were the ones here first! The USA raids Iraq and kills Hussein for doing the same thing to his people.
sick irony

workerbeedrone wrote:

<quoted text>Wyoming - "Game" might have been a bad choice of wording to describe battles between tribes. Maybe "contest" would be better. Certainly some Indians were man-killers and were very good at it. But I wanted to contrast Indian wars with tactics like biological warfare that whites were using at the time.
One thing for sure. It was extremely rare in Indian, or I think any other "primitive" culture, to kill anyone but the warriors in battle. There might have been some attacks where women and children were killed, but extermination was not the goal. That was a concept Indians learned the hard way from the Europeans.

Coolmind wrote:

Oh yes they are! We committed genocide, then scraped them off into the desert and forced them to live in poverty. Treated much worse than any other minority ... and they were the ones here first! The USA raids Iraq and kills Hussein for doing the same thing to his people.
sick irony

GBA wrote:

<quoted text>
And our political system panders to blacks and hispanics while writing native americans off like they never existed. Yet liberals will tell you they pander to blacks and hispanics for rights and equality. BS; they pander to blacks and hispanics because they need them as a voting bloc to get elected. Which in turn has created a cycle of give and take between croonies and lobbyists of under the table shady dealings. Which in turn has created a cycle of corruption in black and hispanic neighborhoods. Now the liberals are starting to bring gays into this voting bloc group of crooked dealings.
Native Americans never had a chance. First it was the Dems who launched the war to rid our nation of the indigenous. Then because the indigenous have never been able to recover their population enough to create a voting bloc they have no clout. No clout, they get zip, zero, nada in return.
What we have really created is a system in which some minorities are favored over others for votes and money.
But the media will never tell you this.
Supposedly we have a free press.
Sure we do!