He certainly offended mine.
I’d have to agree with elf6c…is this guy ban-proof because he’s of a more-persecuted-than-thou lineage?
-Tomcat
Well, he’s certainly entertaining.
Curses and naughty words! I splorked up the second part of my post! Ahem:
Anyone that gets offended and decides we’re all racists cause of Simpsons quotes(!) has got more than a few screws loose.
Well, Coldfire got upset at me for calling my ancestors “Cheese eating surrender monkeys.” So there is precedent…
This comment rises out of the turd pile like a glistening peanut or a bishiny bit of corn:
The irony is astounding.
I invented a word!
You know here I was, sitting behind the glow of the computer screen thinking to myself, geez, does Puma have a problem or do I have the problem?
Then I finally checked the BBQ grounds.
I still maintain the position that their could be hope for Puma if the anger was drawn back some and that the blanket stereotyping was reeled in a bit. To be honest, I did want to see a good exchange about Native Americans. My father was an ardent supporter of the Native American movement, back in the 70’s. His mother and him even met with Russell Means (sp?) and he has always expounded the virtues of our Indian blood.
Do I claim to be Indian? I used to. However I no longer do, for some of the reasons mentioned by Puma. I don’t culturally identify with Native Americans, sure others in my family do. Some have even lived on reservations, but that doesn’t apply to me.
Does that mean I am unsypathetic? Part of the problem? Not IMHO.
I guess PumaClaw would dismiss me as an applae or a twinkie or some other snack food. My dad was Choctaw, raised in Tahlequah, OK, where his ancestors ended up after Andy Jackson kicked them out of Mississippi. My mom is white. Although genetically, I’m half-Bering Sea pedestrian, I have no connection to my Indian relations, so that must mean that my dad never existed and I should shut up about being who I am.
:mad: ( a smilie expressing genuine emotion along with chromatic irony)
Pythagras wrote:
Gold was discovered in Georgia in 1828. Plans to remove the Cherokee (and other Southern tribes) to the west of the Mississipi River were under discussion long before that. (In fact, I believe Jefferson was one of the first to broach the idea.)
While the discovery of gold may have accelerated the process, it was not the original motivation. The most-often-stated justifications for Indian removal were:
-
Elimination of the threat of Indian uprisings along the frontier. Most recently, the Red Stick faction of Creek Indians had attacked white settlers at the urging of the British and of the Shawnee Tecumseh. The Cherokee were peaceful at the time of removal, but it had not always been so. Andrew Jackson had a long memory, which included many run-ins with the Cherokee.
-
Procurement of land for settlers. This also ties in with the security issue. Jackson wanted to populate the Southeast with white settlers to render it immune to threats from foreign powers (the British and the Spanish in particular).
-
Preservation of tribes. It may have been (heck, probably was) disingenuous, but one of Jackson’s most common justifications for the removals was the preservation of the tribes as distinct entities. He argued (not without evidence) that the Southeastern tribes were being overrun with white squatters (a situation exacerbated by the gold rush in Georgia), that this would lead to inevitable conflict, and that the ensuing conflicts would result in the eradication of the Southeastern tribes. He pointed to the disappearance of the Mohegans in the Northeast as an example of what would happen to the tribes in the South if they did not remove.
That last justification would have been more credible if Jackson (and Van Buren, under whom the Trail of Tears actually occurred) had shown any concern for the well-being of the Indians being removed. But of course, the removal was bungled so badly that some 4,000 Cherokee died along the way.
I’m guessing that would make you a deep fried pumpkin pie glazed with pashka sauce, gobear.
Hmm, that sounds pretty tasty actually.
I think that PumaClaw would be glad that you are finally realizing that. You obviously should have figured it out sooner though. :rolleyes:
Looks like this guy has a major foot in the mouth dieases. he should just slink off into the sunset.
Demise, I trust that smiley is meant for Puma Claw and not me. My dad died when I was three, and his family turned its back on him and my mother for A) marrying and B)going to college (second-hand info from my mom–I have no idea what their side is and I don’t care. They made no effort to contact us, which speaks volumes), so I never knew anyone on that side of the family. There’s this great, big hole where my father ought to be and for someone like PumaClaw to tell me that I have no heritage from my father, that I’m nothing, is grossly insulting.
I’m sorry for the misunderstanding gobear. I was being sarcastic and thought that the roll eyes smiley would be a good indication of such.
Hell, as someone who has family that is part Native American, and whose best friend is Native American (what? he is, really), I was also insulted. However, any insult I feel is vastly outweighed by what you must feel. I am sorry.
A little lesson in how my mind works:
gobear refers to himself as a snack food in a thread about PumaClaw.
And suddenly I want a Bear Claw.
[sub]Bering Sea pedestrian, 'bear? Was that truly necessary? I’m dyyyyin here . . .[/sub]
I think he’s a major philosopher, but its all relative. In terms of influence, westerner’s might not consider Lao Tzu a major philosopher (or have even heard of him). Nobody in China or India or Africa or Native America could care less about Socrates. So to Pumaclaw, Socrates is alien to him, and not major to his modes of thinking. Assuming he’s Native American…
::: envisions Gobear (whom Poly has met in person) as a Moses figure parting the Bering Sea :::: 
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a Westerner who knew anything about philosophy who didn’t consider Lao Tzu to be a major figure in the field, even if they don’t personally embrace his philosophy. Lao Tzu had a major impact in Eastern cultures. Eastern cultures have had a major impact on the world in general. Therefore, Lao Tzu is a major philosopher. The same is true in the West of Socrates. Like you said, it is all relative. And in relation to other philosophers, there are very few who have affected as many people as Socrates.