Censorship of Huck Finn

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
point is, lets not pretend the native americans were these "noble savages" leaving in peaceful harmony with their neighbors and nature. they were just like every other human tribe - some aggressive, some more so than others. the Incans and Aztecs were just brutal, and if not for the disease, I'd argue the peasants were not much worse off living under the spanish. in north america the population was much less, so there was more room and less conflict, but still the iriquois and others were very warlike.

I'm not sure what your point is. Let's concede that many of the indigenous people were sometimes brutal. How does that change the fact that they were largely wiped out and had their land taken from them? It seems that you are implying that because they weren't "noble", they deserved the treatment they received.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
point is, lets not pretend the native americans were these "noble savages" leaving in peaceful harmony with their neighbors and nature. they were just like every other human tribe - some aggressive, some more so than others. the Incans and Aztecs were just brutal, and if not for the disease, I'd argue the peasants were not much worse off living under the spanish. in north america the population was much less, so there was more room and less conflict, but still the iriquois and others were very warlike.

I'm not sure what your point is. Let's concede that many of the indigenous people were sometimes brutal. How does that change the fact that they were largely wiped out and had their land taken from them? It seems that you are implying that because they weren't "noble", they deserved the treatment they received.

I'm just saying its revisionist history to assign blame. The Romans displaced the ealier tribes. Then the Francs and Saxons (as an example) took land from the people who were in that area before them. They developed in time into French and English. Similarly, the Delaware, the Sioux, Apache, Incan and Aztec, earlier the Mayan, all brutally displaced the people who were in their territory before them. Then the Europeans did the same to them. Same thing in Hawaii and every else on the planet. Human history is a history of conquest and displacement. It sucks to be the loser, but it certainly is not unique. Not really a point, just a recognition that there are no "good guys" and no "bad guys". Real life is not Avatar, but more like Apocalyptco ...

[Anonymous]

Well, it looks like I was wrong when I said Native Americans never get brought up.

I guess I should add-
About Native Americans Murderous... don't blame the Europeans... brutal

[Anonymous]

Yes, in the days of Huck Finn, the land had white, black and red people. This book does not touch on the lives of the red man, but they most certainly were not in the minority they are now

It is heartbreaking what happened to the red man. I believe they were more respectable than the whites. I do not believe they were brutal savages. You would be in a lot of trouble if you were to describe Africa as a continent where brutal savages live.

[Anonymous]

all mankind is brutal and savage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
point is, lets not pretend the native americans were these "noble savages" leaving in peaceful harmony with their neighbors and nature. they were just like every other human tribe - some aggressive, some more so than others. the Incans and Aztecs were just brutal, and if not for the disease, I'd argue the peasants were not much worse off living under the spanish. in north america the population was much less, so there was more room and less conflict, but still the iriquois and others were very warlike.

I'm not sure what your point is. Let's concede that many of the indigenous people were sometimes brutal. How does that change the fact that they were largely wiped out and had their land taken from them? It seems that you are implying that because they weren't "noble", they deserved the treatment they received.

I'm just saying its revisionist history to assign blame. The Romans displaced the ealier tribes. Then the Francs and Saxons (as an example) took land from the people who were in that area before them. They developed in time into French and English. Similarly, the Delaware, the Sioux, Apache, Incan and Aztec, earlier the Mayan, all brutally displaced the people who were in their territory before them. Then the Europeans did the same to them. Same thing in Hawaii and every else on the planet. Human history is a history of conquest and displacement. It sucks to be the loser, but it certainly is not unique. Not really a point, just a recognition that there are no "good guys" and no "bad guys". Real life is not Avatar, but more like Apocalyptco ...

Are you serious? You know that Hawaii was uninhabited until the first people arrived there? Stop your relativistic bullshit. In some places, there were people who were there first. Yes, some areas have changed hands, often violently, may times over. But in other places, we have pretty clear evidence of one group's sole "ownership" before having it violently taken away. What is most condemning for the US is the fact that we signed legal contracts with many tribes explicitly offering exclusive rights to certain lands. And then we ripped them up when we decided we wanted the land anyway. This isn't 1000 years ago; this was 100 years ago, with records in the Archives. But they weren't noble, so, who gives a shit?

[Anonymous]

every place on earth was first occupied by somewhere else. Hawaii was probably a bad example, but the various Hawaii tribes had many brutal battles - hell I saw the cliffs on Oahu where many were killed. I'm native american, and I certainly recognize that the hunting and gathering lifestyle of my ancestors involved a lot of warfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
point is, lets not pretend the native americans were these "noble savages" leaving in peaceful harmony with their neighbors and nature. they were just like every other human tribe - some aggressive, some more so than others. the Incans and Aztecs were just brutal, and if not for the disease, I'd argue the peasants were not much worse off living under the spanish. in north america the population was much less, so there was more room and less conflict, but still the iriquois and others were very warlike.

I'm not sure what your point is. Let's concede that many of the indigenous people were sometimes brutal. How does that change the fact that they were largely wiped out and had their land taken from them? It seems that you are implying that because they weren't "noble", they deserved the treatment they received.

I'm just saying its revisionist history to assign blame. The Romans displaced the ealier tribes. Then the Francs and Saxons (as an example) took land from the people who were in that area before them. They developed in time into French and English. Similarly, the Delaware, the Sioux, Apache, Incan and Aztec, earlier the Mayan, all brutally displaced the people who were in their territory before them. Then the Europeans did the same to them. Same thing in Hawaii and every else on the planet. Human history is a history of conquest and displacement. It sucks to be the loser, but it certainly is not unique. Not really a point, just a recognition that there are no "good guys" and no "bad guys". Real life is not Avatar, but more like Apocalyptco ...

It's not revisionist history to assign blame. Every conquered people was absolutely blaming their conquerer, and unless they initiated the war they have a hell of a moral argument. The fact that a 21st century American looks at those conquests in a history book and shrugs their shoulders does not make these conquests moral. It merely means the conquered people are generally no longer around for us to know or sympathize with.

[Anonymous]

And another thing. How exactly did the Apache brutally displace the people who came before them? Are you aware that the Apache are largely nomadic and did not consider land to be owned by anyone, that they did not stay on one patch of land for long?

Are you aware that "Apache" is not a distinct political entity, but a grouping of dozens of different peoples who were bonded by Apachean language? Yes, Apache is a language. And they traded with each other?

As far as I can see, the Apache reputation is entirely due to the conflict with Spanish and Americans.

This should be a wakeup call for your historical biases.

[Anonymous]

Historical biases will not go away. I am quite familiar with African history, and have lived in one African country. I am still astounded by what the civilized western nations did to Africa, the extend to which they try and wash away their own responsibility for the problems that they caused that still affect African nations.
The thought of white American people thinking this land belongs to them because they are the best and most deserving is bizarre.
The native american is still waiting to be declared president of the USA. Until then, only the colonialists rule. I cannot help but wonder why nobody could care less that obviously there is more to the story and the red man did not deserve what they got.
White man just know how to swindle, lie and kill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Historical biases will not go away. I am quite familiar with African history, and have lived in one African country. I am still astounded by what the civilized western nations did to Africa, the extend to which they try and wash away their own responsibility for the problems that they caused that still affect African nations.
The thought of white American people thinking this land belongs to them because they are the best and most deserving is bizarre.
The native american is still waiting to be declared president of the USA. Until then, only the colonialists rule. I cannot help but wonder why nobody could care less that obviously there is more to the story and the red man did not deserve what they got.
White man just know how to swindle, lie and kill

Or worse yet, like that earlier poster kept insisting, that conquest was an inevitable historical process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Historical biases will not go away. I am quite familiar with African history, and have lived in one African country. I am still astounded by what the civilized western nations did to Africa, the extend to which they try and wash away their own responsibility for the problems that they caused that still affect African nations.
The thought of white American people thinking this land belongs to them because they are the best and most deserving is bizarre.
The native american is still waiting to be declared president of the USA. Until then, only the colonialists rule. I cannot help but wonder why nobody could care less that obviously there is more to the story and the red man did not deserve what they got.
White man just know how to swindle, lie and kill

You are ridiculous and outrageous. Humans have a very dark side, and a very dark past. I agree that white people created, for example, the cultural problems between the Hutus and the Tutsis. But those Africans are the ones who actually chose to murder each other in such horrible ways.

No race or nationality has perfected depravity. They are ALL capable of such outrage. Just because the particular chip on your shoulder is against white people doesn't change history.

The real devils if you ask me? MALES. The ones who do the raping, killing, and enslaving. So unless you don't have a penis you can keep your condemnation to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historical biases will not go away. I am quite familiar with African history, and have lived in one African country. I am still astounded by what the civilized western nations did to Africa, the extend to which they try and wash away their own responsibility for the problems that they caused that still affect African nations.
The thought of white American people thinking this land belongs to them because they are the best and most deserving is bizarre.
The native american is still waiting to be declared president of the USA. Until then, only the colonialists rule. I cannot help but wonder why nobody could care less that obviously there is more to the story and the red man did not deserve what they got.
White man just know how to swindle, lie and kill

You are ridiculous and outrageous. Humans have a very dark side, and a very dark past. I agree that white people created, for example, the cultural problems between the Hutus and the Tutsis. But those Africans are the ones who actually chose to murder each other in such horrible ways.

No race or nationality has perfected depravity. They are ALL capable of such outrage. Just because the particular chip on your shoulder is against white people doesn't change history.

The real devils if you ask me? MALES. The ones who do the raping, killing, and enslaving. So unless you don't have a penis you can keep your condemnation to yourself.

Actually, even this may be wrong. Females are using sexual selection to pick males with aggressive traits. Timid, less aggressive males get fewer opportunities to mate and therefore do not dominate the gene pool. If women rewarded less aggression, there would be fewer high testosterone males.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historical biases will not go away. I am quite familiar with African history, and have lived in one African country. I am still astounded by what the civilized western nations did to Africa, the extend to which they try and wash away their own responsibility for the problems that they caused that still affect African nations.
The thought of white American people thinking this land belongs to them because they are the best and most deserving is bizarre.
The native american is still waiting to be declared president of the USA. Until then, only the colonialists rule. I cannot help but wonder why nobody could care less that obviously there is more to the story and the red man did not deserve what they got.
White man just know how to swindle, lie and kill

You are ridiculous and outrageous. Humans have a very dark side, and a very dark past. I agree that white people created, for example, the cultural problems between the Hutus and the Tutsis. But those Africans are the ones who actually chose to murder each other in such horrible ways.

No race or nationality has perfected depravity. They are ALL capable of such outrage. Just because the particular chip on your shoulder is against white people doesn't change history.

The real devils if you ask me? MALES. The ones who do the raping, killing, and enslaving. So unless you don't have a penis you can keep your condemnation to yourself.

Actually, even this may be wrong. Females are using sexual selection to pick males with aggressive traits. Timid, less aggressive males get fewer opportunities to mate and therefore do not dominate the gene pool. If women rewarded less aggression, there would be fewer high testosterone males.

Women probably need high testosterone males to protect them from the rest of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historical biases will not go away. I am quite familiar with African history, and have lived in one African country. I am still astounded by what the civilized western nations did to Africa, the extend to which they try and wash away their own responsibility for the problems that they caused that still affect African nations.
The thought of white American people thinking this land belongs to them because they are the best and most deserving is bizarre.
The native american is still waiting to be declared president of the USA. Until then, only the colonialists rule. I cannot help but wonder why nobody could care less that obviously there is more to the story and the red man did not deserve what they got.
White man just know how to swindle, lie and kill

You are ridiculous and outrageous. Humans have a very dark side, and a very dark past. I agree that white people created, for example, the cultural problems between the Hutus and the Tutsis. But those Africans are the ones who actually chose to murder each other in such horrible ways..

did you know:
America would not have the blacks if it was not for the English who broght them over for the White Americans to buy
America would have the red nations, if they had not been killed by the white man, their history is not taught in schools. The schools do not even teach Africas history. For some reason a part of Europes history is taught. Dumb nation to not know its roots.
The folks stolen from Africa did not leave mothers and fathers and children and wiwes behind without them ever mourning their loss.
Africa named Lake Victoria and Victoria Falls after the English Monarch
The English Monarch (Queen Victoria) started the last 'gentlemans war', that ended up being the first war that was photographed (year 1900), and the first a war, and the first war criminal in the true sense of the word was an English Lord.
Queen Victorias grand daughter was the wife of Tsar Nicholas and got shot with her children, English royals cancelled their plans of safe refuge. Some royal jewels belonged to the Romanovs. The biggest diamond in the world was found in South Africa, and made part of the royal jewels. Sacrelidge
So the concentration camps where invented by the Brittish, perfected by the Natzies, and despite that, the annihilation of the red man is never mentioned.