The Gaming Den

Lich-Loved wrote:These Sioux weren't too many generations from the ones that kicked Custer's ass and they wanted everyone there to know it. Showing up where they were at or running into a band of them on those long, empty roads meant a stomping might well be on the way. Given this, you can see why I might have avoided deeper cultural interaction with the natives near my hometown.

Considering the shape that, for example, the Sitting Bull memorial is in, I can't really blame them. The white hicks around there can be pretty scary.

Well, I got out of school to go to events, and still got a Presidential Attendance Award.

Ohwell.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Well, I got out of school to go to events, and still got a Presidential Attendance Award.

Ohwell.

-Crissa

If it was under the Bush administration, then that means you could have missed half the term and still been eligible....he did.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Considering the shape that, for example, the Sitting Bull memorial is in, I can't really blame them. The white hicks around there can be pretty scary.

Fuck off with the hick stuff. It shows your ignorance. Perhaps it is lost on you, but there are people in the US who believe they are still at war with the White Man. [Aside: I would love to see your ass on one of those nice little border towns just outside the reservation. Pass on that you are a liberal, so they know you aren't armed. At least you won't be a thought a hick when they carve your ass.]

I can recall , even though I was 6 at the time, when news broke out about the Wounded Knee Incident. You basically have Indians and Federal Marshals killing each other over a period of 60 or so days. Tensions were very high and Whites and Indians were walking around armed. We lived on an air base and the base was locked down to prevent incidents. And this was in 1973 which is a mere hundred years or so since the White Man broke his promises made at the Treaty of Fort Laramie. When I left in the late 70's, Indians killing whites was a regular occurrence. There is a deep hatred for whites among some Sioux to this day, and this hatred is rightly earned. I also have no doubt this hatred is reciprocated in the form of memorial trashing and the dry-gulching of a lone Indian or what have you, , but that does not make everyone in the West a hick any more than the rioting blacks in LA dry-gultching that lost trucker make all black men into frothing criminals that should be shot on site.

Neither the White Man nor the Indian has acted honorably throughout history - unlike, apparently, those civilized white folk on the coasts, which are and always have been the very picture of rationality, fairness, openness and equality and came by their cities, land, and water rights by sprinkling the magical fairy dust they brought with them from the Old Country upon the vacant coastal landscape, creating the well-mannered and well-ordered cities we have today.

It was signed by Reagan, if that tells you anything Though I didn't get to vote for the elder Bush, my first election was actually Clinton's win.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:It was signed by Reagan, if that tells you anything Though I didn't get to vote for the elder Bush, my first election was actually Clinton's win.

-Crissa

Oh that one...well even Reagan would tel you what he knows about that one, with Olli backing him up. "I don't recall", just like nothing else the two of them remembered.

So you are one of the reasons the economy failed since Clinton repealed the law preventing banks from doing what they did?

Well, I won't blame you personally, since everyone voted for him to be done with Reagan's leftovers since we had 12 years of Bush....then we voted for another 8!

20 years of Bush, and I cannot get the taste out of my mouth! Damn America, shave that thang!

My Senator voted against that and my Representative voted for it, but I didn't vote for her. Clinton signed it into law because the Republicans could have overturned his veto.

And he signed it in 1998, when he was a lame duck anyhow.

-Crissa

I said I wouldn't hold your personally responsible for it.

I am thinking in lieu of another civil war is why we are having higher crime rates.

The civil war that is brewing in this country, is one of "The People" vs Government and Big Business (I know they are the same thing, but wanted to represent both halves of the group as individuals).

I think we have had lame ducks in office since Carter....but that is a different story.


People are just not happy with how the government lets business run the country, and are tired of it, because the people cannot throw around as much money as businesses can, but the people are the ones that vote officials into office.

Look at the postal worker shootings, disgruntled employees pissed off at the people they are working with, hell any shooting is because people are pissed of at someone else.

Since you cannot really shoot the offender when they are a public official, then people are taking that frustration out other places.

Since Vietnam the whole country has been pissed off, and NOTHING has turned it around to make anything better.

If anything it has only been getting worse...death penalty is not a deterrent. Even a timid rabbit when back into a corner will fight back.

Lich-Loved wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Considering the shape that, for example, the Sitting Bull memorial is in, I can't really blame them. The white hicks around there can be pretty scary.

Fuck off with the hick stuff. It shows your ignorance. Perhaps it is lost on you, but there are people in the US who believe they are still at war with the White Man. [Aside: I would love to see your ass on one of those nice little border towns just outside the reservation. Pass on that you are a liberal, so they know you aren't armed. At least you won't be a thought a hick when they carve your ass.]

I can recall , even though I was 6 at the time, when news broke out about the Wounded Knee Incident. You basically have Indians and Federal Marshals killing each other over a period of 60 or so days. Tensions were very high and Whites and Indians were walking around armed. We lived on an air base and the base was locked down to prevent incidents. And this was in 1973 which is a mere hundred years or so since the White Man broke his promises made at the Treaty of Fort Laramie. When I left in the late 70's, Indians killing whites was a regular occurrence. There is a deep hatred for whites among some Sioux to this day, and this hatred is rightly earned. I also have no doubt this hatred is reciprocated in the form of memorial trashing and the dry-gulching of a lone Indian or what have you, , but that does not make everyone in the West a hick any more than the rioting blacks in LA dry-gultching that lost trucker make all black men into frothing criminals that should be shot on site.

Neither the White Man nor the Indian has acted honorably throughout history - unlike, apparently, those civilized white folk on the coasts, which are and always have been the very picture of rationality, fairness, openness and equality and came by their cities, land, and water rights by sprinkling the magical fairy dust they brought with them from the Old Country upon the vacant coastal landscape, creating the well-mannered and well-ordered cities we have today.

Before you attack me as being ignorant you should calm down and think about what you're saying.
None of the American Indians I've met expressed an irrational hated of Whites. Every one of them was an individual with individual opinions and biases, but when you can generalize Sioux living in South Dakota as 'violently hateful of Whites', I think it's fair to say that there's probably a social reason. Gun-toting, Indian-hating hicks is a good place to start, as is the shit they have to put up with from the BIA.

My step-father was instrumental in creating Self Governance, which allowed Indian nations to manage the Dept. of Interior funds to their advantage and create local industries and schools.

Very proud of him ^-^ Tho we didn't get along well.

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot wrote:None of the American Indians I've met expressed an irrational hated of Whites. Every one of them was an individual with individual opinions and biases, but when you can generalize Sioux living in South Dakota as 'violently hateful of Whites', I think it's fair to say that there's probably a social reason. Gun-toting, Indian-hating hicks is a good place to start, as is the shit they have to put up with from the BIA.

Maybe you need to take a trip to Cherokee, and NOT just watch Unto These Hills, but actually talk to some of the people. You will find a few that are not beaten down completely by the hillbillies of NC, that will still defend themselves form the dumb hicks on both sides of the NC-TN border and their "South should have won" attitudes. It isn't Indian-hating, but non-white hating along the lines of Nazi-ism.

Or visit the Chickasaw in TN, and you will be able to find the same mistreatment by whites going on because they are non-white, nnot just because they are Indian.

Native superiority was really big among tribes east of the Cascades, too. It's alot like the stuff you see in the inner city - kids trying really hard to hold onto an identity despite that the identity is attached to a depressing ghetto. It lead to a large number of kinds in our highschool committing suicide via alcohol or cars and dropping out of school and just being relentlessly, and violently depressive.

Depression does strange, and sad things to populations caught in corners, their race or origin is irrelevant to the effects, yet it has huge differences in how to combat it.

-Crissa

That is why we need to get rid of the corners in the middle.

IF this is the great chamber melting pot, then things need to be allowed to melt together. Not to the extent that you cannot taste the chocolate or peanut butter anymore, but so they are a part of each others existence, and one can no longer exist thinking the other doesn't/shouldn't.

Get rid of the fucking ghetto's That will cut the unemployment rate. Spend money to fix the fucking homes and housing up to where it ISN'T a ghetto anymore, but a place ANYBODY would be happy/content to live in

Yes, well, we live in a country where a solid 30% don't want to spend the money to make the place nice, where these portion does not believe that social good exists.

-Crissa

It is a vanity country. They want nice things, but want it at the expense of anyone but themselves. The mowing laws where grass cannot exceed 6 inches, and the way the "ghettos" even exist. They exist because they are wanted. They are made for "those" people that don't deserve nice thngs, and then "those" people can be blamed for bringing down everything else, while "the other" people don't lift a finger to do anything about it but bitch about "those" people that live in the "ghettos".

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Before you attack me as being ignorant you should calm down and think about what you're saying.
None of the American Indians I've met expressed an irrational hated of Whites. Every one of them was an individual with individual opinions and biases, but when you can generalize Sioux living in South Dakota as 'violently hateful of Whites', I think it's fair to say that there's probably a social reason. Gun-toting, Indian-hating hicks is a good place to start, as is the shit they have to put up with from the BIA.

Fair point. And to be clear, I am not saying all Indians hate whites, I am saying that when I lived there, racial tensions were very high and violence against whites occurred all the time. This is why I think calling whites in SD "hicks" in general is wrong. Both the whites and the Indians have their share of asshats.

I know very well two things: Indians got severely fucked over by the white man and not every Indian is bitter about this, but a few definitely were. If I have by accident implied something other than this, than I apologize.

I'm pretty sure aside from a few zen indians, they're all bitter about it. It just is whether they act irrationally on that bitterness or not.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:I'm pretty sure aside from a few zen indians, they're all bitter about it. It just is whether they act irrationally on that bitterness or not.

-Crissa

You mean like the "I want my 40 acres and a mule" T-shirts from the early 90's?

By "act", do you mean speak out, or go postal on people?

Did your text to speech function skip the word, 'irrational'?

-Crissa

Some consider only physical actions to be irrational, and others consider words to be.

Just asking what extent you consider it to be rather than assigning a view to you that you may not hold.

Irrational is irrational. Artistic and political expression need not be. They could be, but they're usually fairly rational, constructive outgrowths of negative emotions.

Heck, I even think AIM (American Indian Movement), which is called a terrorist organization, is a fairly rational outcome.

Bigotry and assaults of people unrelated to the feelings would be irrational. Perhaps predictable, but still irrational.

-Crissa