Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 08/16/2004 View Sun 08/15/2004 View Sat 08/14/2004 View Fri 08/13/2004 View Thu 08/12/2004 View Wed 08/11/2004 View Tue 08/10/2004
1
2004-08-16 -Short Attention Span Theater-
Dawn Hightree: America's Arrogance RESPONSE
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 4:12:57 PM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [950 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Hmmmmmmmmm.... me think loco white bitch smokem too much peace pipe, keemosabe.
Posted by tu3031 2004-08-16 4:28:36 PM||   2004-08-16 4:28:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Google her. She appears to be one of Pravda's regulars and about 80 cents short of a buck if you read some more of her "wisdom".
Posted by tu3031 2004-08-16 4:35:51 PM||   2004-08-16 4:35:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 The future of the future used to be better in the past of the past... sorta
Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-16 4:38:27 PM||   2004-08-16 4:38:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Her brain could fit on the head of a pin and still have room for the dancing angels...
Posted by Raj  2004-08-16 4:38:51 PM||   2004-08-16 4:38:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Her brain could fit on the head of a pin and still have room for the dancing angels...

Of course, Raj, but how many dancing angels? That's what we need to fight a war over the real thing we need to argue about.
Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 4:44:37 PM||   2004-08-16 4:44:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 The statement of saying that we have/Indians have so much to thank the white man for, I think is possibly a tunnel vision approach and doesn’t grasp the full spectrum of the lessons to be learned from each other.

North American indians lost their war. I won't demand indians thank the United States for a military victory, I dont even want them to be grateful if white folks did anything for them.

The United States won, the Indians lost and that is the fortunes of war.
Posted by badanov  2004-08-16 4:45:05 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2004-08-16 4:45:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 badanov: North American indians lost their war. I won't demand indians thank the United States for a military victory, I dont even want them to be grateful if white folks did anything for them.

I find it pretty funny that Indian radicals are always complaining about being conquered. For Pete's sake, they were a Stone Age society. The choice they had was becoming part of the US of A or becoming part of the Spanish empire or Mexico. There are no independent Indian states in the Americas - none. There were too few Indians to fight off the European settlers, and their lack of a strong intellectual tradition prevented them from absorbing the Western sciences necessary to repel the invaders, anyway. And there's nothing unique about European settlers overwhelming the Indian natives - the Chinese (and any number of civilizations) have been crushing and driving out the numerically- and technologically-inferior "barbarians" on their borders for millenia. Moreover, do Indians really think they would be better off under some form of Spanish rule? Are Indios better off in Bolivia or Mexico?
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-16 5:15:41 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com]  2004-08-16 5:15:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Did honest peace loving native Americans (I know it is a racist term but I have never heard just what the Natives called the major landmasses of the "New World") ever once protest to their chiefs and elders "No blood for buffalo". Face it ladies and gentlemen, the native americans displayed just about every good and bad trait that every other racial/ethnic group on Earth has displayed.
Posted by cheaderhead 2004-08-16 5:16:17 PM||   2004-08-16 5:16:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I bet Kerry quotes her at his next speech.
Posted by Cyber Sarge  2004-08-16 5:19:42 PM||   2004-08-16 5:19:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Okay everybody, get in the Time Machine - we're going back to the trees...
Posted by .com 2004-08-16 5:32:44 PM||   2004-08-16 5:32:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Are Indios better off in Bolivia or Mexico?

Bingo, Zhang Fei. I managed to find an incredible old book about this guy who walked the length of South America's Andes on foot. He did this on purpose to avoid being regarded as a caballero and therefore end up getting treated like a person of wealth who would never get a chance to mingle with the locals. While talking with a haciendero host one evening, the host mentioned how he wished that South America had been conquered by Northern Europeans because they more frequently left an industrialized base in their wake. Spain has consistently looted their colonies and left repressive, racist regimes as a relic of their domination. Merely examine South America, Mexico or the Philippines, all of them are sterling examples of this.
Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 5:34:03 PM||   2004-08-16 5:34:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 (aside) I told you guys we never shoulda stopped playing the old "push the white-eyes into the fire" game. That was a good 'un...
Posted by mojo  2004-08-16 5:38:38 PM||   2004-08-16 5:38:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 ima start build em tepee.

good coments fred! :)
Posted by muck4doo 2004-08-16 5:41:09 PM|| [http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]  2004-08-16 5:41:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Honestly, the Indians were damn lucky the Europeans came over to settle as late as they did. Look at how bad they did when the settlers were using match and flintlocks. I think the Indians would have suffered far worse if the Vikings visits here had lead to colonization by Europeans during the Middle/High Ages. Settlers in wool armed with a matchlock are quite easy to kill. Settlers wearing hardened leather/chain/brigandine armor and armed with Medieval weapons are a whole other ball game for people with flint arrows and axes.
Posted by Silentbrick  2004-08-16 5:58:59 PM||   2004-08-16 5:58:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I honestly cannot see any Indian walking up to a white man who has put chemicals into the soil and the air and the water and Thanking them for their wonderful gifts that they bring to the people.

That's because of the imbalanced way you phrase your argument, dearie. How about "white men" creating life-saving pharmaceuticals like the polio vaccine, or pain-killing anaesthetics, or any number of other medical miracles that have reduced or eliminated human suffering? Oh, sorry, can't be thankful for those things-white men created them. Bigot.
Posted by jules 187 2004-08-16 6:07:48 PM||   2004-08-16 6:07:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 As a member of the Cherokee nation and an American Indian, I say you are full of crap Dawn Hightree. You are a disgrace to your ancestors and make another mockery of the Indian culture. Your comments are nothing more than a stoned, liberal trying to find some way of realizing that the pitiful thing you call a life may actually has value if you do something else. The whites conquered America. Atrocities were committed on each side. However, if the positions were switched, the Indian would have conquered you just as rapidly and brutally as you did to us. This is the way of the world and it cannot be changed. The only thing to do is to live the best you can and to the best you are able in this wonderful world that not only the whites have created, but the blacks, asians and every other culture and creed that has graced these shores. In short Dawn Hightree, stick it up your stoned ass and leave us the fuck alone.
Posted by mmurray821 2004-08-16 6:07:54 PM||   2004-08-16 6:07:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I think I lost brain cells reading this. I feel so much dumber, you know, dumber than dumb. Or is it dumberer than dumber? I dont know, Im going back to the past of the past and warn myself not to read this.
Posted by 2% 2004-08-16 6:09:16 PM||   2004-08-16 6:09:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 I was born Shipman
But my Apalachee Name Is
He Who F*cks Up The Loom
AKA ThreadKiller

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-16 6:17:05 PM||   2004-08-16 6:17:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Killing threads? How cruel... I can't watch.
Posted by .com 2004-08-16 6:23:04 PM||   2004-08-16 6:23:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 LOL .com
Actually He Who F*uck Up The Loom is a very
loose translation, like everything else it's a matter of LOL friction management! I never did dacron.
Posted by Shipman 2004-08-16 6:28:24 PM||   2004-08-16 6:28:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Ah, Friction Management - a topic near and dear to my heart, lol!
Posted by .com 2004-08-16 6:32:14 PM||   2004-08-16 6:32:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Duh.
Posted by .com 2004-08-16 6:33:22 PM||   2004-08-16 6:33:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Dawn, I think you've lost your individual war on drugs...

Best crack (pun intended) that I've heard in ages, Fred.

I think I lost brain cells reading this.

Yeah, reading this sort of poppycock does tend to lower your IQ faster than sniffing glue, 2%. I suppose I should make a collective apology for inflicting this on everyone but it's hard to resist sharing work of this depth (as in that which requires hipwaders). Where do loons like Highas-a-kitetree come from and shouldn't there be a no-bag-limit season on them? It'd be pretty easy to draw a bead on one of these comatose vegetative morons.

mmurray821, your appropriate comments remind me very little of those who protest dumping lobsters into boiling water. A Maine lobsterman summed it up perfectly when he mentioned how if the tables were turned, lobsters would chow us down in a New York minute.
Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 6:33:42 PM||   2004-08-16 6:33:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 LOL, Shipman, I guess that makes you the Fright Of The Loom.

Thank you, I'm here all week! Try the veal!
Posted by BH 2004-08-16 6:34:04 PM||   2004-08-16 6:34:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Silentbrick: Settlers in wool armed with a matchlock are quite easy to kill.

Actually, there's that little matter of ease-of-use, skill and range. Firearms trumped the compound bow for various reasons. But key among them was the substitution of chemical power for muscle power, meaning that you can use a firearm all day long without getting tired, but can't do the same with a compound bow. The shot from a firearm also transmits a lot more force than an arrow from a compound bow. And then there's the matter of skill. Anyone can shoot a firearm, by just pointing and pulling the trigger. Shooting an arrow requires a significant amount of muscle power, as well as the ability to figure out the trajectory of the arrow. Finally, there's the matter of range and power. Bullets from a firearm will go further than arrows, which means that a guy with a gun can shoot a bow-armed Indian before the latter can hit the former with an arrow. Bullets can go through wood - arrows cannot. These, ultimately, are some of the reasons that firearms replaced the compound bow. Note that the Vikings who reached North America in the 11th century were driven off by the Indians. Ultimately, it was firearms (and railroads) that helped win the west.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-16 6:46:11 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com]  2004-08-16 6:46:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 BH LoL. Where's the ladies room?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-08-16 6:53:39 PM||   2004-08-16 6:53:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 "I suppose I should make a collective apology for inflicting this on everyone but it's hard to resist sharing work of this depth"

Nah. This is good shit, right up there on a par with Jane Fonda's "flow of soft, hot, empathic, breathing, authentic, vagina-friendly, relational lava that will encircle patriarchy and smother it." (see Rantburg article from last December 5th, or do a Rantburg search on "relational lava").
Posted by Dave D. 2004-08-16 6:56:54 PM||   2004-08-16 6:56:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Zhang Fei, you may find this post by Stephen Deb Beste of interest. He maintains that the bow was unequaled as an infantry weapon until the U. S. civil war. For him the big difference was the years of training required to become proficient. Not something a Napoleanic army had time for. So the firearm prevailed.

What I find interesting is that the effective range of the bow SDB cites, 100 yards, is the same the Marines saw as the maximum range of shooting for most riflemen in combat (snipers a special case.). Probably has to do more with the maximum distance at which the human eye can do target acxquisition.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-08-16 7:03:29 PM||   2004-08-16 7:03:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Mrs. Davis, down the hall to your right. Just past the chick with the dreads and Visine. But don't thank me for this information. You see, I am a white man.
Posted by BH 2004-08-16 7:10:50 PM||   2004-08-16 7:10:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Yes, it's all in how you look at it. You must think outside the, uh, um, thingy.
Posted by .com 2004-08-16 7:20:31 PM||   2004-08-16 7:20:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Youse have to stand up to use a long bow, and human people like to hide under rocks and such and shoot from ambush.

We were young once and smelled like arabs.
Posted by Shipman 2004-08-16 7:36:17 PM||   2004-08-16 7:36:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 BTW .com I've seen a song sparrow look at me that way.... when I kicked over the chess board.
Posted by Shipman 2004-08-16 7:37:47 PM||   2004-08-16 7:37:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 You prolly made her laugh too hard... upset her breathing control...

(NSFW)
Posted by .com 2004-08-16 7:47:39 PM||   2004-08-16 7:47:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Rantburgers, being proficient with many types of weapon, are undoubtedly familiar with the fact that your shoulder muscles get tired very quickly when using a bow. That's got to count against bows vs early firearms.
Posted by virginian 2004-08-16 7:51:01 PM||   2004-08-16 7:51:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 I am in no way tired.
Fetch me up some infidels to fly
my fletchers aT!
Posted by The Right Reverend J Cleveland 2004-08-16 7:56:39 PM||   2004-08-16 7:56:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Grain Liquor ZF, and all. It was like giving doulble shots with a beer chaser to a ten year old.
Posted by Lucky 2004-08-16 7:56:54 PM||   2004-08-16 7:56:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Hell, in that case Lucky, let crack open the arms chest and get the blunderBuss!
Posted by The Right Reverend J Cleveland 2004-08-16 8:00:32 PM||   2004-08-16 8:00:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Some, call them determined, are perpetually armed.
Posted by .com 2004-08-16 8:06:42 PM||   2004-08-16 8:06:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 I don't mean to be contentious, but firing a gun all day isn't exactly pain free. And the Indians didn't seem to have too much trouble firing their bows for long periods of time against the settlers. And given that the bow was used in Europe for warfare for oh, the better part of a thousand years, I'm sure they could have managed just fine. The point is however, that the Indians would have found fighting against men wearing steel armor and using medieval weapons a far nastier proposition.
Posted by Silentbrick  2004-08-16 8:07:21 PM||   2004-08-16 8:07:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 I've seen a song sparrow look at me that way.... when I kicked over the chess board.

One must assume that the sparrow was winning ... again.
Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 8:15:13 PM||   2004-08-16 8:15:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 The Red man should thank the white man for the introduction of the horse and the booze to North America, both of which were readily adapted and enjoyed to this day.
Posted by Yank 2004-08-16 8:18:01 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com]  2004-08-16 8:18:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 A little whiskey and you could of had Manhattan for a few trinkets, a couple of shiny buttons, an empty glass bottle.

A lot of whiskey and you could have an empire and all the beaver you could lay your hands on. You could just beat'm with a stick.
Posted by Lucky 2004-08-16 8:23:20 PM||   2004-08-16 8:23:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 It's all over, methinks.
Posted by .com 2004-08-16 8:26:09 PM||   2004-08-16 8:26:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 .com...question???..if it was a self-inflicted wound, would that mean that Cupid is now a narcicissist?
Posted by B 2004-08-16 9:32:19 PM||   2004-08-16 9:32:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 B - Hmmmm. How about a reformed (and thus Ex) narcissist...
Posted by .com 2004-08-16 9:42:12 PM||   2004-08-16 9:42:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 A lot of whiskey and you could have an empire and all the beaver you could lay your hands on.

Even to this day, copious quantities of whiskey can get a person all the beaver they want.
Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 9:49:16 PM||   2004-08-16 9:49:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Speaking of Injuns...things are not so different now in America than they were 400 years ago. My ancestors would have worried about Indians the way we worry about terrorists. Most of them are friendly, but it was difficult, if not impossible to tell the good from the bad. And even the best of the good indians were no doubt somewhat sympathetic to the "bad".

The "British-American" was fighing a warrior that was fierce and proud but stuck in a bygone era- unable to compete with the modern tactics and weaponry of his opponent. No amout of bravdo could prevail.

The attacks that we have faced so far have come from foreigners, and we still want to believe that we can distinguish between ordinary American=Muslims and Extremists of the Jihad movement.

Like the Indians, the Extremeists can't win. They are pitting bows, arrows and bravado against steel and modern marvels.

I just fear, that if like the Indians, they start multiple small attacks..here and there..random things...a train blowing up here, a plane there, just like the indian attacks were random and unpredictable.

How will it be any different today than it was yesterda? After a Jamestowne or a series of attacks, what will prevent us from acting in the same way that we did then.

If I was a Muslim American, I'd consider that fact. If they don't help us, if they don't somehow separate themselves so we can tell them apart, what will prevent history from repeating itself?

I'm not advocating that as a response to terrorism, I'm just saying that those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by B 2004-08-16 9:51:10 PM||   2004-08-16 9:51:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 in case we're talking Single Malts I prefer to keep the whiskey :-)
Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-16 9:51:30 PM||   2004-08-16 9:51:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Hah, my bottle of 14 year old Oban has now reached 17 years. Hopefully it will continue to age and taste even better as time goes by.
Posted by Silentbrick  2004-08-16 10:18:59 PM||   2004-08-16 10:18:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 chedderhead:
Face it ladies and gentlemen, the native americans displayed just about every good and bad trait that every other racial/ethnic group on Earth has displayed.

Damn straight. Google "Crow Creek Massacre". Heck, at the Cahokia sight near St. Louis a pit filled with decapitated bodies was found -- apparent human sacrifices. Then there are some of the less-publicized cultural practives, like sequestering women when they were "unclean" and, of course, slavery.

I admire what was accomplished in the pre-Columbian Americas, but it was still accomplished by people who were, at best, very lightly civilized.

Silentbrick:
The point is however, that the Indians would have found fighting against men wearing steel armor and using medieval weapons a far nastier proposition.

Not necessarily. The Vikings got chased out of the Americas, and de Soto's entrada ran into some serious problems. Also, the Natchez managed to put together a force that blocked de Soto's expedition from heading down the Mississippi.

Black powder was a nice advantage, but if it hadn't been for disease, North America would have been a MUCH harder conquest.

(And for what it's worth, I'm still not convinced there was any intent in bringing disease to North America. Europe couldn't manage to control diseases at home, and even basic epidemiology didn't start until the 1800s.)
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-08-16 10:30:31 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/]  2004-08-16 10:30:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Hah, my bottle of 14 year old Oban has now reached 17 years. Hopefully it will continue to age and taste even better as time goes by.

Unlike wine, liquor does not continue to age appreciably once it has been decanted from the barrel. More often it is damaged by inadequate sealing, exposure to light and temperature fluctuations.
Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 11:09:48 PM||   2004-08-16 11:09:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 right-o Zen, crack it, pour it.
Posted by Lucky 2004-08-16 11:23:58 PM||   2004-08-16 11:23:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 I was just recently able to see a reading/presentation by Sherman Alexie, and it was a wondrous indictment of the attitudes this Biatch holds.
The presentation was quite rousing, and he admittedly uses a lot of scatological humor, and I can't say I favor all of his viewpoints---but his point was that America is a great nation, the only one he'd ever care to live in as an Indian, and his solution to those that hated it was.... Europe.
Posted by Asedwich  2004-08-17 1:43:27 AM||   2004-08-17 1:43:27 AM|| Front Page Top

18:00 Halfass Pete
17:02 Halfass Pete
15:01 Halfass Pete
17:23 Halfass Pete
17:15 Halfass Pete
14:10 Halfass Pete
13:37 Halfass Pete
12:38 Halfass Pete
12:27 Halfass Pete
11:26 Halfass Pete
10:11 Bulldog
10:11 Bulldog
19:08 Ernest Brown
17:36 Aris Katsaris
11:36 Ernest Brown
11:26 Ernest Brown
11:11 Aris Katsaris
10:16 Ernest Brown
10:13 Ernest Brown
08:42 Howard UK
07:12 Shipman
04:51 Bryan
01:43 Asedwich
01:29 Zenster
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com