vpFREE2 Forums

Political Correctness

#1

I imagine I may well find myself in a minority in this, but I find the
subject heading and a comment or two in this post incredibly racist
and inappropriate.

I see Harry's point and I don't have any standardized solution to offer
for vpFREE. I suspect that if you were to have a secret ballot on
whether or not this was a racist or a humorous comment, there would be mixed
opinions. Personally, I try to avoid making comments that I feel will
offend anyone, but this involves a very non-exact science, and it
sometimes seems that any comment can offend someone, somewhere.

I've changed the subject line to remove the offending phrase, and I'm
interested in other's opinions on Political Correctness, and how it
should be handled on vpFREE.

Tom, I don't know exactly how you view your role as moderator in light
of a couple of repeated comments by you in the last few days, but even
though I expect there was no ill-intent here the phrasing doesn't belong.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but if you have any specific
questions, please fire away.

But, basically I'm doing my best to keep vpFREE civil and polite, while
trying to avoid personal attacks, demeaning comments and disruptive behavior.
In a semi-moderated forum, this is often difficult to do, as any message can
have offensive content which isn't seen by a moderator until after it is posted.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 10 Feb 2003 at 1:00, Harry Porter harry.porter@verizon.net wrote:

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

#2

My personal opinion is that political correctness is one step short of
thought control. Alas, the most effective way of fighting it, at this
juncture, is through humor, the kind of humor that allows people to perceive
the hypocrisy of it without scaring them.

That said, most of us could use a course in plain old fashioned good
manners.

Courtesy is the key, not PC.

lb

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "vpFREE" <vpfreevp@yahoo.com>
To: "vpFREE" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 6:41 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Political Correctness

On 10 Feb 2003 at 1:00, Harry Porter harry.porter@verizon.net wrote:

> I imagine I may well find myself in a minority in this, but I find the
> subject heading and a comment or two in this post incredibly racist
> and inappropriate.

I see Harry's point and I don't have any standardized solution to offer
for vpFREE. I suspect that if you were to have a secret ballot on
whether or not this was a racist or a humorous comment, there would be

mixed

opinions. Personally, I try to avoid making comments that I feel will
offend anyone, but this involves a very non-exact science, and it
sometimes seems that any comment can offend someone, somewhere.

I've changed the subject line to remove the offending phrase, and I'm
interested in other's opinions on Political Correctness, and how it
should be handled on vpFREE.

> Tom, I don't know exactly how you view your role as moderator in light
> of a couple of repeated comments by you in the last few days, but even
> though I expect there was no ill-intent here the phrasing doesn't

belong.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but if you have any specific
questions, please fire away.

But, basically I'm doing my best to keep vpFREE civil and polite, while
trying to avoid personal attacks, demeaning comments and disruptive

behavior.

In a semi-moderated forum, this is often difficult to do, as any message

can

have offensive content which isn't seen by a moderator until after it is

posted.

vpFREE Administrator

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

vpFREE Home Page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

vpFREE Links:
http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#3

I see Harry's point and I don't have any standardized solution to

offer

for vpFREE. I suspect that if you were to have a secret ballot on
whether or not this was a racist or a humorous comment, there

would be mixed

opinions. Personally, I try to avoid making comments that I feel

will

offend anyone, but this involves a very non-exact science, and it
sometimes seems that any comment can offend someone, somewhere.

I've changed the subject line to remove the offending phrase, and

I'm

interested in other's opinions on Political Correctness, and how

it

should be handled on vpFREE.

For the irony-proof, my intent was to backhandedly comment on the
fact that Indian tribes are being allowed a free hand in the gaming
industry that is unheard of in recent memory, and that this is no
doubt an attempt to make up for past sins by the US govt/white
people against the Indians; sort of like affirmative action was
supposed to make up for the fact that your great-great-granddaddy
was a slave. A stupid concept then, and now.
The reference to scalping was simply that this was a method of
showing that retaliatory raids had been successful, back in the good
old days. Scalping was in fact encouraged by whites when they
incited Indians to raid enemy settlements (see: French and Indian
War). So the depleted ATM and credit card is the modern-day scalp.
And by the way, I'm sure a post on fluffy white bunny rabbits would
offend SOMEONE out there. So why don't we resist the urge to leap to
the keyboard every time someone in the universe might take offense
at something? God! (oops. my apologies to committed atheists) Let's
lighten up! (My apologies to people with dark skin. In no way did I
mean to imply that "lightness" was somehow superior to "darkness".)

You know, this whole PC stupidity reminds me of when Victorians used
to put little dresses on table and piano legs.

#4

For the irony-proof, my intent was to backhandedly comment on the
fact that Indian tribes are being allowed a free hand in the gaming
industry that is unheard of in recent memory, and that this is no
doubt an attempt to make up for past sins by the US govt/white
people against the Indians; sort of like affirmative action was
supposed to make up for the fact that your great-great-granddaddy
was a slave.

I'm not aware of any case where the tribes managed to build a casino with lawsuits, referendums, determined lobbying by Vegas/AC, hysteria, wailing, kicking and screaming. They had to fight for this. And for what? The right to build and run a business on their own #*&$*@ land? Gee, thanks heap plenty, O Great White Father.

As they say on the rez:

Indians who don't build casinos are called lazy.
Indians who do build casinos are called greedy.
Indians who move off the rez are called "Mexicans".

john, on the warpath

#5

OOPS, meant to say WITHOUT lawsuits, etc.

Anyway, my point is, Indian reservations are supposed to be sovereign states. That's the way the peace treaties were written. This has cheerfully been ignored by the Feds for hundreds of years, and continues to be ignored even today. Indians just finally got around to getting law degrees and pointing all this out.

Yes, I know that they get millions of dollars in aid and care from Uncle Sam, but hey, that was part of the treaties too - it was much cheaper to feed the Indians, and tell them to sit still and do nothing, than it was to chase them down and fight them.

Would it be better for all concerned if Indian casinos had agreed to outside oversight? Sure. But do they have reason to be sick and tired of outside oversight? You betcha.

john

John Kelly wrote:

···

> For the irony-proof, my intent was to backhandedly comment on the
> fact that Indian tribes are being allowed a free hand in the gaming
> industry that is unheard of in recent memory, and that this is no
> doubt an attempt to make up for past sins by the US govt/white
> people against the Indians; sort of like affirmative action was
> supposed to make up for the fact that your great-great-granddaddy
> was a slave.

I'm not aware of any case where the tribes managed to build a casino
with lawsuits, referendums, determined lobbying by Vegas/AC, hysteria,
wailing, kicking and screaming. They had to fight for this. And for
what? The right to build and run a business on their own #*&$*@ land?
Gee, thanks heap plenty, O Great White Father.

As they say on the rez:

Indians who don't build casinos are called lazy.
Indians who do build casinos are called greedy.
Indians who move off the rez are called "Mexicans".

john, on the warpath

vpFREE Home Page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

vpFREE Links:
http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

#6

I'm not aware of any case where the tribes managed to build a

casino

with lawsuits, referendums, determined lobbying by Vegas/AC,

hysteria,

wailing, kicking and screaming. They had to fight for this. And

for

what? The right to build and run a business on their own #*&$*@

land?

Gee, thanks heap plenty, O Great White Father.

John,
Obviously I've touched a nerve here. Just let me say, I'm not aware
of any case where ANYONE managed to build a casino without lawsuits,
referenda, etc., ANYWHERE. Why? Because a casino has a significant
social and economic impact--usually negative--upon its surrounding
area, and that impact has to be weighed against the prospective
casino-builders' "right" to build a casino. We determined long ago
that it was utterly impractical to treat Indian "nations" as masters
of sovereign territory when that meant having dozens of little
islands where US law (and, therefore, law) did not exist. Now, you
may think this abrogates treaties made with Indian tribes in the
past. In some cases, certainly, yes. But how should we react when
the Indians want to use their "autonomy" to create something that is
harmful to the public good of the surrounding area? It's not unlike
the Navajo building a power plant that spews coal dust and ash over
a large portion of the Four Corners, causing visibility and health
problems for hundreds of miles.
The simple fact is that, unfair as it may seem, the eviction of the
Plains tribes from the American Midwest means that roughly fifty
times as many people now live on and are supported by that land as
at the height of the Plains hunter-gatherer culture. The Anasazi,
the Hohokam, the Chaco culture, all wouldn't fill a decent-sized
suburb of Phoenix or Albuquerque. The reservation system was a
flawed attempt to accomodate this inevitability.
The fact of the matter is, we should simply treat the various
members of Indian tribes as American citizens--no more, no less--
subject to the same laws, with exactly the same rights. The
existence of unworkable pseudo-nations within our own boundaries is
stupid and doomed to failure in the long run.
Getting back to the original subject, I can't see how it does any
good, beyond a few moments of smug self-satisfaction, for so much
money to be flowing out of the wallets of the gullible into tribal
coffers. The eventual social impact of Indian casinos on the
surrounding communities has to be felt in the long run, and
resentment will build.
In the early days of rezcasinos, I saw video poker machines that
would make you laugh, they were so obviously non-random. In fact, my
father owned a restaurant in Montana on a rez that had a few such
machines, although he sold them back to the original owner
immediately. There was no compunction on the part of the original
owner (full-blooded Blackfoot) that these were gaffed machines. He
felt justified, using the same arguments I've heard a zillion times,
about the white man's oppression blah blah blah. So, I have to
conclude that the people running Indian casinos, in at least SOME
part, share the same resentments and the same lack of compunction.
It's enough to make me VERY suspicious, and I reiterate that no one
should gamble in an Indian casino.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <jwkelly@f...> wrote:

#7

But how should we react when
the Indians want to use their "autonomy" to create something that is
harmful to the public good of the surrounding area?

Is this relevant. Suppose Mexico or Canada does something we don't
like. Why not just treat them in the same fashion. If their
behavior is really bad, we could impose a trade embargo.

It's not unlike the Navajo building a power plant that spews coal
dust and ash over a large portion of the Four Corners, causing
visibility and health problems for hundreds of miles.

This would be an excellent example of an act that would justify
a trade embargo. The only problem with this is that we would be
tempted to abuse this power.

The fact of the matter is, we should simply treat the various
members of Indian tribes as American citizens--no more, no less--
subject to the same laws, with exactly the same rights. The
existence of unworkable pseudo-nations within our own boundaries is
stupid and doomed to failure in the long run.

It may be stupid, but the US signed these treaties and the Indians
certainly should have the right to hold the US to its word.

The eventual social impact of Indian casinos on the
surrounding communities has to be felt in the long run, and
resentment will build.

I agree, but the solution is not to stop indian gaming. The
solution is to legalize gaming in all places. Now the Indians
will lose their market advantage. As long as we are stupid
enough to give them this advantage, they deserve all they can
get.

QZ

#8

John,
Obviously I've touched a nerve here.

The wife is full-blooded Cheyenne. So, I'm (literally) an Injun-lover.
On the other hand, having met plenty of in-laws and friends and colleges, I have no illusions about Indians being exceptionally "noble" or honest or anything else. They're just people, good and bad, like everybody else.

I'm in agreement with you on most of your post, will quibble on a few points...

   We determined long ago

that it was utterly impractical to treat Indian "nations" as masters
of sovereign territory when that meant having dozens of little
islands where US law (and, therefore, law) did not exist.

Not really. Indians have always had laws and, thanks to our influence, they now have lawyers as well <G>. But agreed in principle, in that most reservations were never viable as independent enitities. Many do just fine by themselves, but most are on land that is too isolated and worthless to make it without interacting (and getting aid from) with the non-rez world.

Getting back to the original subject, I can't see how it does any
good, beyond a few moments of smug self-satisfaction, for so much
money to be flowing out of the wallets of the gullible into tribal
coffers. The eventual social impact of Indian casinos on the
surrounding communities has to be felt in the long run, and
resentment will build.

They are aware, but will take the cash, thank you very much <G>. But resentment will abound, yes. Especially in the case of certain eastern tribes, who barely have any Indian blood anymore and are on their way to becoming millionaires. The ones who need the money the most are numerous pathetically impoverished rural western tribes, and most of them are so remote that casinos are either not viable or will never bring in any real money.

The key thing that has always been absent from the more impoverished reservations is CAPITAL. There is generally enough government food, and some form of medical care, and shelter. But no money - I mean NONE, and no means of getting any, save for meager things like making jewelry and such. It's not like in the city, where you can catch a bus out of the ghetto and "get a job". There IS no "job". With casinos money and jobs, hopefully, they will invest and build and get off the government's dole once and for all.

In the early days of rezcasinos, I saw video poker machines that
would make you laugh, they were so obviously non-random.

No disagreement in priciple; I would not recommend playing in Indian casinos either. Of course, I would advise against playing about 90% of the games in Vegas Strip casinos, too (They are short-pay!), as well as all slots, and most table games. They are "rigged" by crappy odds. The dilemna comes when you see a great FPVP opportunity on a rez. Could the machines be gaffed? Yup. But, although Indians have made great strides in education lately, most reservations aren't exactly crawling with software engineers. I believe that most tribes are too mortified of the public backlash to even consider rigging games, but people don't always do the right thing, or even the smartest thing.

John, who will smoke'm peace pipe now.

#9

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mkl54321 <mkl54321@y...>"
<mkl54321@y...> wrote:

The simple fact is that, unfair as it may seem, the eviction of the
Plains tribes from the American Midwest means that roughly fifty
times as many people now live on and are supported by that land as
at the height of the Plains hunter-gatherer culture. The Anasazi,
the Hohokam, the Chaco culture, all wouldn't fill a decent-sized
suburb of Phoenix or Albuquerque. The reservation system was a
flawed attempt to accomodate this inevitability.
The fact of the matter is, we should simply treat the various
members of Indian tribes as American citizens--no more, no less--
subject to the same laws, with exactly the same rights. The
existence of unworkable pseudo-nations within our own boundaries is
stupid and doomed to failure in the long run.

Mr. MK154321,

Regardless of the Indian/Gambling debate the fact is that the above
statement is wrong and has been used to remove and destroy Native
Americans since Europeans have arrived to the New World.

I graduated with Masters degree in history and my emphasis of study
was Native American history. Due to diseases that Europeans carried
the Native American population was reduced by 99% from pre European
contact. The fact is that millions of Native Americans used lands in
North America and not all Native Americans were nomadic hunters and
gathers. Many such as the Navajo were herders and farmers.

The theory that Native Americans took up too much land has been a
long time unjustifed arguement to remove and relocate Native
Americans. It is unjustified argument because Native Americans did
not need European culture or European farming practices. They
survived just fine on their own. And Native American susbistence
systems supported vast populations.

The Reservation system was designed to exploit Native Americans and
their land. Your argument that Native Americans needed to be removed
to make way for a better subsistence system is racist. It is no
better than the Nazis executing whole populations to make way for a
more superior race. Your arguement is racism and ethnocentricism at
its height.

Native Americans are no angels. They fought among each other just
like Europeans but they didn't deserve genocide which is what they
got. Whatever your Indian/Gambling arguments sir don't make any more
ignorant references to the benefits of the Indian reservation system.

#10

<<I graduated with Masters degree in history and my emphasis of study was Native American history.>>

While you are to be congratulated on completing your studys this does not speak to the accuracy of the curriculum. In a day and age when science and medicine are subject to the whims of PC, history doesn't stand a chance. I am amazed at some of the ridiculous thing my daughter is taught in college for which I am priveleged to pay in excess of 30K a year.

<< Due to diseases that Europeans carried the Native American population was reduced by 99% from pre European contact.>>

I hope you not blameing Europeans for
Indians who died of disease. If not wouldn't land requirements be calculated on how many were left not how many there once were.

George Connor
I graduated high school with an emphasis on common sence

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: hansjurgent <hansjurgent16@hotmail.com>
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:31 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Political Correctness, ad nauseum

  --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mkl54321 <mkl54321@y...>"
  <mkl54321@y...> wrote:

  > The simple fact is that, unfair as it may seem, the eviction of the
  > Plains tribes from the American Midwest means that roughly fifty
  > times as many people now live on and are supported by that land as
  > at the height of the Plains hunter-gatherer culture. The Anasazi,
  > the Hohokam, the Chaco culture, all wouldn't fill a decent-sized
  > suburb of Phoenix or Albuquerque. The reservation system was a
  > flawed attempt to accomodate this inevitability.
  > The fact of the matter is, we should simply treat the various
  > members of Indian tribes as American citizens--no more, no less--
  > subject to the same laws, with exactly the same rights. The
  > existence of unworkable pseudo-nations within our own boundaries is
  > stupid and doomed to failure in the long run.
  >

  Mr. MK154321,

  Regardless of the Indian/Gambling debate the fact is that the above
  statement is wrong and has been used to remove and destroy Native
  Americans since Europeans have arrived to the New World.

  I graduated with Masters degree in history and my emphasis of study
  was Native American history. Due to diseases that Europeans carried
  the Native American population was reduced by 99% from pre European
  contact. The fact is that millions of Native Americans used lands in
  North America and not all Native Americans were nomadic hunters and
  gathers. Many such as the Navajo were herders and farmers.

  The theory that Native Americans took up too much land has been a
  long time unjustifed arguement to remove and relocate Native
  Americans. It is unjustified argument because Native Americans did
  not need European culture or European farming practices. They
  survived just fine on their own. And Native American susbistence
  systems supported vast populations.

  The Reservation system was designed to exploit Native Americans and
  their land. Your argument that Native Americans needed to be removed
  to make way for a better subsistence system is racist. It is no
  better than the Nazis executing whole populations to make way for a
  more superior race. Your arguement is racism and ethnocentricism at
  its height.

  Native Americans are no angels. They fought among each other just
  like Europeans but they didn't deserve genocide which is what they
  got. Whatever your Indian/Gambling arguments sir don't make any more
  ignorant references to the benefits of the Indian reservation system.

  vpFREE Home Page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

  vpFREE Links:
  http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#11

George Connor wrote:

<<I graduated with Masters degree in history and my emphasis of study was Native American history.>>

While you are to be congratulated on completing your studys this does not speak to the accuracy of the curriculum. In a day and age when science and medicine are subject to the whims of PC, history doesn't stand a chance. I am amazed at some of the ridiculous thing my daughter is taught in college for which I am priveleged to pay in excess of 30K a year.

<< Due to diseases that Europeans carried the Native American population was reduced by 99% from pre European contact.>>

I hope you not blameing Europeans for
Indians who died of disease. If not wouldn't land requirements be calculated on how many were left not how many there once were.

Study your American History again. The tribes were often infected
directly by giving them blankets that had been recently used by
smallpox victims. The tribes had little or no immunity. I learned
about this years ago before "PC" was rampant.

···

--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

#12

Pat

I do remember that story. Thanks for reminding me.
I stand corrected.

George Connor

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Pat O'Connell
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Political Correctness, ad nauseum

  George Connor wrote:
  >
  > <<I graduated with Masters degree in history and my emphasis of study was Native American history.>>
  >
  > While you are to be congratulated on completing your studys this does not speak to the accuracy of the curriculum. In a day and age when science and medicine are subject to the whims of PC, history doesn't stand a chance. I am amazed at some of the ridiculous thing my daughter is taught in college for which I am priveleged to pay in excess of 30K a year.
  >
  > << Due to diseases that Europeans carried the Native American population was reduced by 99% from pre European contact.>>
  >
  > I hope you not blameing Europeans for
  > Indians who died of disease. If not wouldn't land requirements be calculated on how many were left not how many there once were.

  Study your American History again. The tribes were often infected
  directly by giving them blankets that had been recently used by
  smallpox victims. The tribes had little or no immunity. I learned
  about this years ago before "PC" was rampant.

  --
  Pat O'Connell
  Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
  Kill nothing but vandals...

  vpFREE Home Page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

  vpFREE Links:
  http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#13

This appears to be an urban legend. Via snopes.com (search
"smallpox"):

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?ts=1&display=rednews/2003/01/25/build/local/65-epidemic.inc

     In pre-European invasion days some of the many disparate tribes got
along fine, whereas others fought among themselves just as fiercely as
their human brothers across the Atlantic. Later some took a cue from
Euro-American slaveowners and acted with notable brutality towards slaves
of African descent, as did the small number of African slaveholders at
times.

     Of course, that the US government behaved barbarically against the
tribes is beyond dispute, having left a long chain of broken treaties,
lies and deceit along the historical trail. This fact of itself
shouldn't be surprising given its historical tendency to deceive its own
citizens over the years--witness the hysterias around the
Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War, the well-documented
lies of 5 administrations over the course of the Vietnam War, and indeed
today, pace the Bush Administration's laughable "intelligence" about
devious Iraqi doings that turns out to be cribbed from a biased grad
student's old writings and his depiction of a "secret" rocket facility
that the inspectors themselves acknowledge is in violation of absolutely
nothing.

     As far as "PC" is concerned, from what I gather it usually is claimed
by people who don't want their own, older myths challenged by equally
questionable newer ones. John Wayne Westerns and "Birth of a Nation" were
not, after all, documentarys.

gj

···

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Pat O'Connell wrote:

George Connor wrote:
>
> <<I graduated with Masters degree in history and my emphasis of study was Native American
history.>>
>
> While you are to be congratulated on completing your studys this does not speak to the
accuracy of the curriculum. In a day and age when science and medicine are subject to the
whims of PC, history doesn't stand a chance. I am amazed at some of the ridiculous thing my
daughter is taught in college for which I am priveleged to pay in excess of 30K a year.
>
> << Due to diseases that Europeans carried the Native American population was reduced by 99%
from pre European contact.>>
>
> I hope you not blameing Europeans for
> Indians who died of disease. If not wouldn't land requirements be calculated on how many were
left not how many there once were.

Study your American History again. The tribes were often infected
directly by giving them blankets that had been recently used by
smallpox victims. The tribes had little or no immunity. I learned
about this years ago before "PC" was rampant.

--
Pat O'Connell

#14

gj

Thanks for the link. This is why I used the word "story" in my responce to Pat:

"Men at Fort Union tried to warn the Indians to stay away, said Joseph McGeshick, a Native American studies professor at Fort Peck Community College. They ignored the warning because they related disease to bad luck rather than viruses, he said. "

This is why I usually don't let myself get sucked in to these type of posts. If people who spend the better part of their lives studying this stuff can't agree, I doubt we will.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: gj bart
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Political Correctness, ad nauseum

  On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Pat O'Connell wrote:

  > George Connor wrote:
  > >
  > > <<I graduated with Masters degree in history and my emphasis of study was Native American
  > history.>>
  > >
  > > While you are to be congratulated on completing your studys this does not speak to the
  > accuracy of the curriculum. In a day and age when science and medicine are subject to the
  > whims of PC, history doesn't stand a chance. I am amazed at some of the ridiculous thing my
  > daughter is taught in college for which I am priveleged to pay in excess of 30K a year.
  > >
  > > << Due to diseases that Europeans carried the Native American population was reduced by 99%
  > from pre European contact.>>
  > >
  > > I hope you not blameing Europeans for
  > > Indians who died of disease. If not wouldn't land requirements be calculated on how many were
  > left not how many there once were.
  >
  > Study your American History again. The tribes were often infected
  > directly by giving them blankets that had been recently used by
  > smallpox victims. The tribes had little or no immunity. I learned
  > about this years ago before "PC" was rampant.
  >
  > --
  > Pat O'Connell

       This appears to be an urban legend. Via snopes.com (search
  "smallpox"):

  http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?ts=1&display=rednews/2003/01/25/build/local/65-epidemic.inc

       In pre-European invasion days some of the many disparate tribes got
  along fine, whereas others fought among themselves just as fiercely as
  their human brothers across the Atlantic. Later some took a cue from
  Euro-American slaveowners and acted with notable brutality towards slaves
  of African descent, as did the small number of African slaveholders at
  times.

       Of course, that the US government behaved barbarically against the
  tribes is beyond dispute, having left a long chain of broken treaties,
  lies and deceit along the historical trail. This fact of itself
  shouldn't be surprising given its historical tendency to deceive its own
  citizens over the years--witness the hysterias around the
  Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War, the well-documented
  lies of 5 administrations over the course of the Vietnam War, and indeed
  today, pace the Bush Administration's laughable "intelligence" about
  devious Iraqi doings that turns out to be cribbed from a biased grad
  student's old writings and his depiction of a "secret" rocket facility
  that the inspectors themselves acknowledge is in violation of absolutely
  nothing.

       As far as "PC" is concerned, from what I gather it usually is claimed
  by people who don't want their own, older myths challenged by equally
  questionable newer ones. John Wayne Westerns and "Birth of a Nation" were
  not, after all, documentarys.

  gj

  vpFREE Home Page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

  vpFREE Links:
  http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]