It's no surprise that Stoked sees a request to justify one's opinions as a ""gotcha" thread'.
Hantlers explains why things are the way they are on reservations
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
It's no surprise that Stoked sees a request to justify one's opinions as a ""gotcha" thread'.
It's no surprise you made one.
Doesn't that answer itself?
I haven't read the whole thread here, but it looks like a wide-open opportunity to demonstrate alternative forms of elitism. . . . lol
intellectual elitism not excluded. . . .
OB, some of us are actually very long-suffering souls when it comes to just enduring the way other people are. Did it never occur to you that it might seem to some that starting a thread on another person might make them feel like they are being hounded, stalked, ridiculed, and mocked, however subtly? Can you take a suggestion to rename the thread and take Hantlers out of the title? But who knows, maybe he likes the attention or something. . . . so don't do it just on my say-so. . . .and maybe you have already make some fine appropriate acknowledgement of your sensitivity to the concern. . .
And who am I to criticize you, I could see where you could feel much the same, if not more "hounded, stalked, ridiculed, and mocked" by me, even for just saying this.
One of the roots to my generally adverse reaction to progressivism, particularly when the methodology includes empowering government force to advance the causes, is just that air of superiority. As you may have already noted, I consider the high ideals behind governmental do-gooderism to mean, essentially, that us less-enlightened folk are being rounded up and put on some form of reservation where we can be efficiently rendered dependent and subservient.
In regard to Potlatch, it's similar to many cultural symbolisms. Amazing to me that the feudal Lords of Canadian progress objected to it in any way, except that it constituted a competitive power system that effectively undercut their own Lordly ways of maintaining power.
I have lived near reservations and been able to observe how the Reservation system works, and I adamantly insist that is what "The Great Society" did to the black folk who were sucked in to welfare dependency.
And it does the exact same thing for all other people, which is why I see the need for a restoration of American principles of self-determination economically, which is linked to the need for people to have more access to the land and the resources that can be drawn from it, to the exclusion of cartelists who are using environmentalism to strengthen their monopoly positions on supplies of everything.
you might notice how in some aspects I do have a common idea with "marxism": I just know people need property rights, and I know socialism is an attack on actual property rights. . . and that our particular set of very wealthy "robber barons" have co-opted socialism as a tool for exerting their own control, tax-exept, of our government as well as all of the natural resources on planet earth. The answer is not their little "false flag of social justice", but a return to the roots of American principles......freedom and actual equal rights for people who are in fact the managers of their own government.
Cliven Bundy is not such a moron as some may suppose. Simple and naive to the ways of sophisticated folks perhaps, but just bedrock right about his vision of what the Constitution originally meant, at least for the settlers. He knew how they could settle and claim any land they could put to use. He knows that all people need access to the resources of the land, and he knows even the blacks would be better off if they could have land to work with, instead of living on the government dole, which is their only option when they have no land that is theirs.
In his view, people who work for corporations are more accurately described as 'wage-slaves' working on a modern form of plantation which does not even have the same care for the worker that slave ownership once implied to a few "good" slaveholders. A cattleman like Bundy wouldn't beat his livestock, and would see that they are cared for, perhaps. Pretty sure he had no idea how bad some slaveholders were, particularly the British oligarchs who owned the slave ships before the religious principled folk of England made the "No Sugar in My Tea" campaign to publicly hold slavers in contempt and undercut their profits.
Pretty clear to me that in Bundy's view, the BLM moving him off his grazing land and cattle business is a lot like the way the native Americans were moved out of their hunting/gathering way of life so others could use the land that was once theirs. . . .
Another interesting point of view would be the Cherokee nation circa 1820-30. People who had been recognized as holding their territorial claims by early American leaders, who insisted that the American government had no jurisdiction over Cherokee lands until formally ceded by treaty. A fraudulent treaty was quickly made up, though. The Cherokee were also prospering slaveholders and plantation agriculturalists at that time, but when Andrew Jackson held the Supreme Court in contempt and sent federal troops in to round up and move the Cherokee out, the ensuing horror and inhumanity of the Trail of Tears decimated the Cherokee population. The Cherokee took their slaves with them and basically merged as a people. Most American Indians today, in fact, have some black ancestry. . .. because both were excluded by the white majority socially and economically. . . .
A side-note
intellectual elitism not excluded. . . .
OB, some of us are actually very long-suffering souls when it comes to just enduring the way other people are. Did it never occur to you that it might seem to some that starting a thread on another person might make them feel like they are being hounded, stalked, ridiculed, and mocked, however subtly? Can you take a suggestion to rename the thread and take Hantlers out of the title? But who knows, maybe he likes the attention or something. . . . so don't do it just on my say-so. . . .and maybe you have already make some fine appropriate acknowledgement of your sensitivity to the concern. . .
And who am I to criticize you, I could see where you could feel much the same, if not more "hounded, stalked, ridiculed, and mocked" by me, even for just saying this.
One of the roots to my generally adverse reaction to progressivism, particularly when the methodology includes empowering government force to advance the causes, is just that air of superiority. As you may have already noted, I consider the high ideals behind governmental do-gooderism to mean, essentially, that us less-enlightened folk are being rounded up and put on some form of reservation where we can be efficiently rendered dependent and subservient.
In regard to Potlatch, it's similar to many cultural symbolisms. Amazing to me that the feudal Lords of Canadian progress objected to it in any way, except that it constituted a competitive power system that effectively undercut their own Lordly ways of maintaining power.
I have lived near reservations and been able to observe how the Reservation system works, and I adamantly insist that is what "The Great Society" did to the black folk who were sucked in to welfare dependency.
And it does the exact same thing for all other people, which is why I see the need for a restoration of American principles of self-determination economically, which is linked to the need for people to have more access to the land and the resources that can be drawn from it, to the exclusion of cartelists who are using environmentalism to strengthen their monopoly positions on supplies of everything.
you might notice how in some aspects I do have a common idea with "marxism": I just know people need property rights, and I know socialism is an attack on actual property rights. . . and that our particular set of very wealthy "robber barons" have co-opted socialism as a tool for exerting their own control, tax-exept, of our government as well as all of the natural resources on planet earth. The answer is not their little "false flag of social justice", but a return to the roots of American principles......freedom and actual equal rights for people who are in fact the managers of their own government.
Cliven Bundy is not such a moron as some may suppose. Simple and naive to the ways of sophisticated folks perhaps, but just bedrock right about his vision of what the Constitution originally meant, at least for the settlers. He knew how they could settle and claim any land they could put to use. He knows that all people need access to the resources of the land, and he knows even the blacks would be better off if they could have land to work with, instead of living on the government dole, which is their only option when they have no land that is theirs.
In his view, people who work for corporations are more accurately described as 'wage-slaves' working on a modern form of plantation which does not even have the same care for the worker that slave ownership once implied to a few "good" slaveholders. A cattleman like Bundy wouldn't beat his livestock, and would see that they are cared for, perhaps. Pretty sure he had no idea how bad some slaveholders were, particularly the British oligarchs who owned the slave ships before the religious principled folk of England made the "No Sugar in My Tea" campaign to publicly hold slavers in contempt and undercut their profits.
Pretty clear to me that in Bundy's view, the BLM moving him off his grazing land and cattle business is a lot like the way the native Americans were moved out of their hunting/gathering way of life so others could use the land that was once theirs. . . .
Another interesting point of view would be the Cherokee nation circa 1820-30. People who had been recognized as holding their territorial claims by early American leaders, who insisted that the American government had no jurisdiction over Cherokee lands until formally ceded by treaty. A fraudulent treaty was quickly made up, though. The Cherokee were also prospering slaveholders and plantation agriculturalists at that time, but when Andrew Jackson held the Supreme Court in contempt and sent federal troops in to round up and move the Cherokee out, the ensuing horror and inhumanity of the Trail of Tears decimated the Cherokee population. The Cherokee took their slaves with them and basically merged as a people. Most American Indians today, in fact, have some black ancestry. . .. because both were excluded by the white majority socially and economically. . . .
A side-note
Last edited:
What of hermits, mountain men, old farmers who live dirt poor even though they're sitting on millions in developable land, rich misers who grew up in the great depression and can't stand the thought of parting ways with their money, Amish communities...
That wasn't the original point anyway. It was you denying a moral hazard of a welfare state by claiming that NOBODY wants to live that way if there is a better life through hard work, etc. You steered off course of your message by framing in such a fanatical way.
Do you have to bring your paranoid, everyone is out to get me so I'm going to pick yet another e-fight into every single thread on this forum? Why don't you chill the **** out, get over yourself, and learn to have an adult conversation that does not include your defensive/offensive ********.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Oh really? Wouldn't that contradict the entire idea of basic human nature?
Spin, spin, spin.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
No, I gave an explanation, including a quote from a respected member of his tribe. You just chose to ignore/disagree with it. I'll quote it again, just in case you forgot…
""Successful entrepreneurs are considered sell-outs, they’re ostracized. We have to promote the dignity of self-sufficiency among Indians. Instead we have a culture of malaise: ‘The tribe will take care of us.’ We accept the myth of communalism. And we don’t value education. We resist it.”"
They accept that the tribe will take care of them. How does the tribe take care of them? Through the myth of communalism, which is essentially handouts. Because they accept that the tribe will take care of them, they do not have to work, further their education, further themselves, which then leads to their current situation, poverty.
You provide one source and yet request that I provide a few? Where's the intellectual honesty in that?
For now, I'll just quote another passage from that same source:
I did not make one, but again, it's no surprise you think being asked to justify or explain your opinion is some sort of trap.
You mean, you think most humans are content to live in poverty? Is that the case with you?