|
|
Post by alfuso on Mar 5, 2006 13:34:53 GMT -6
Scout
I didn't even look at the site. I found the paragraph on a Delphi forum and copied it and pasted it here. It has created quite a thoughtful discussion on the Garry Owen board. 30 and 40 posts worth. And I didn't have to explain it or myself there.
I thought I was working with the alike minds here.
alfuso
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 5, 2006 14:05:33 GMT -6
alfuso--
Why don't we just bury this hatchet & start over. If I offended you, I sincerely apologize. I will re-read your original post & try to respond. All I ask is that you meet me half-way. Deal?
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Mar 5, 2006 15:45:51 GMT -6
It is a legit subject and one that has been brought up on the History Channel and many other places, although this might not be the place for it. Still, it is an interesting subject. Agreed, Scout! It's a shame that this academically established research cannot be discussed here reasonably due to the thread having been hijacked by a small coterie of bully-boys, some of whom use capital letters (the internet equivalent of shouting), in order to browbeat any opposition, and then - seemingly with no sense of irony - proceed to accuse others of destroying the spirit of the forum! I'd intended to steer well clear of this nonsense, but a gratuitous personal attack, when I've not even been on the thread, requires some response - which will be my final one on the subject: Today at 16:25 fred wrote: fred then went on to write: I rest my case. Ciao, GAC |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 5, 2006 16:35:35 GMT -6
(Sorry alfuso, but it seems your threads become a playground for trouble.)
GAC—
“I rest my case.” Indeed. As far as I am concerned you never presented your case. All you did was misconstrue something I had written, starting the name-calling contest without even asking me or giving me a chance to explain myself & my comments. You continue to do so, couching your lack of argument with the typical bromides I would expect from a fatuous fool, shrugging the facts off your back like a waterfowl in heat. Your bombastic stupidity is mind-numbing & if you knew as much about this subject as you knew of posting pictures or starting threads that border on the ludicrous, we would indeed be involved with something both entertaining & challenging. Instead, all we get is this rodomontade sniveling that permeates everything you put on these boards. Your insipid arrogance is as enthralling as a child with a runny nose shaking his head too close to my dinner.
In the future, stay away from my comments & stay away from me. Nothing I put up here is meant for fools and I am tired of wasting my time with people who are so insecure they have to hide behind asinine little caricatures and names they haven’t the guts or the intelligence to even barely resemble. Like I said, get off my back & stay away from my comments. You won’t be in them, that is for certain.
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Mar 5, 2006 17:07:28 GMT -6
Folks--
This is supposed to be fun! So check your egos at the door and kindly, stop discussing each other and get back to the subject. We are all, from time to time, going to run into posters we may not agree with or folks we, frankly, just don't like, but let's leave these personal battles to the forums that embrace this kind of behavior, rather than ruin this one with vitriolic spew.
Everybody has something to contribute here ... let's allow them to do so.
Leyton McLean
|
|
jjm
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by jjm on Mar 5, 2006 17:27:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 5, 2006 18:25:51 GMT -6
Leyton--
I agree, but I don't turn cheeks very easily. The best way to avoid the spew is not to embark on it in the first place. You should know about that. And I will desist.
jjm--
I guess that says it all, doesn't it?
Best wishes,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Mar 5, 2006 23:29:59 GMT -6
What in the hell is going on here?
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 6, 2006 8:14:08 GMT -6
Shades of West & CSS seems to be part of this thread . . . I thought we were over racism and what race is better than the other.
But since this has started . . . why do people have to "prove" that it is entirely out of the question that "Indians" could have possibly done anything intelligent or construction to advance humanity?
That stinks of racism to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 6, 2006 9:00:47 GMT -6
Horse--
I agree w/ you & in the spirit of honesty I offer a public apology to both alfuso & GAC. No strings attached.
Best wishes,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 6, 2006 9:57:14 GMT -6
In a TIME article to be soon released on whether Kennwick Man was Caucasian here's a nutshell:
". . . One of the big unanswered questions was whether Kennewick Man was Caucasian. The answer, it turns out, is probably no. He's more likely Polynesian or closer to Ainu, an ethnic group that is now found only in northern Japan but in prehistoric times lived throughout coastal areas of eastern Asia, say researchers. . ."
|
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Mar 6, 2006 11:26:17 GMT -6
He's more likely Polynesian or closer to Ainu, an ethnic group that is now found only in northern Japan but in prehistoric times lived throughout coastal areas of eastern Asia, say researchers. . ." Crzhrs, the fascinating thing is that, either way - Caucasian, Polynesian or Ainu - there's an emerging an compelling anthropological case for reassessing and expanding what exactly we mean by the phrase 'Native American'. Regards, George |
|
|
|
Post by markland on Mar 6, 2006 15:42:25 GMT -6
What in the hell is going on here? Amen! Billy |
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Mar 6, 2006 16:07:40 GMT -6
In a TIME article to be soon released on whether Kennwick Man was Caucasian here's a nutshell: ". . . One of the big unanswered questions was whether Kennewick Man was Caucasian. The answer, it turns out, is probably no. He's more likely Polynesian or closer to Ainu, an ethnic group that is now found only in northern Japan but in prehistoric times lived throughout coastal areas of eastern Asia, say researchers. . ." Crzhrs-- I look forward to getting my copy in the mail--probably tomorrow. This whole subject makes me think about some stereotypes in the NA community--not only those Anglo-manifested, but also those found within the tribes. Like the African American community, there seems to be this skin-color classification tendency, where the darker you are means something and the lighter you are means something else, when it really shouldn't. I know members of my family who were in tribal politics in the 1930s and 1940s were harassed by more than a few about their "light" skin ... assuming that all Indians must have dark skin, black hair and brown eyes! And wasn't Crazy Horse's complexion lighter than the norm? Didn't that set him apart? Perhaps this article will open peoples' eyes to the errors in accepting sterotypes. Regards, Leyton McLean |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 6, 2006 17:44:16 GMT -6
I doubt you can find any race that is 100% pure. Throughout the long march of time humans have been inter-marrying for all kinds of reasons: political and economical mostly. Marry off a child with an enemy's child and maybe there will be better relations, better hunting, better trading, better land to raise crops, peace, etc.
That is not to say that Blacks are not mostly Black, Whites are not mostly Whites, Indians are not mostly Indians, and so on. But again 100% pure would be virtually impossible to find.
|
|
