Whoops sorry. I looove Jesus so much. At 1st I resisted his great loving but it only hurt more. When I finally opened my self up fully to his enormous love did the pain stop.
Better?
Well, that shows what I remember of GGS.
Huzur, I’ll re-read it, but I remember an awful lot of special pleading.
Much, thanks. It’s just wrong for you to post in P&R without bringing Jesus into it somehow.
To be sure he loves western culture a whole lot so I can understand why you would remember it that way. I don’t know how he meant for it to be read it’s possible he’s a horrible racist but I tried to read it with an open mind.
EDIT: Whoops I thought you were talking about Wealth and Poverty. There is no way that GGS can be considered racist. I mean it says the root cause of everything is geography and the scattering of resources ( biological, mineral, and climate ).
BTW: the homo-erotic Jesus thing and the anal-Jesus thing is getting old to me. I have to admit I’m not very good at this kind of stuff, anyone want to give me any new angles?
BTW: the homo-erotic Jesus thing and the anal-Jesus thing is getting old to me. I have to admit I’m not very good at this kind of stuff, anyone want to give me any new angles?[/quote]
As my sarcastic previous posts should indicate, it’s gotten old for me as well. In fact, it started old. How about doing us a favor and just dropping the whole shtick?
It was wealth & poverty I was bagging on.
They day they stop mixing their spiritual beliefs with my secular interests is the day that I stop.
Even though I’m an atheist, I don’t talk bad about Jesus, just his so-called representatives.
Back on point, Jason, this is not the first time you’ve posted something along these lines. Where in God’s name did you go to high school? I suspect your “horrific” HS education is your all purpose strawman to springboard into links like this. Either that or you went to highschool in 1890.
In the 7th grade history I got taught disease was a major element by a mediocre suburban school district.
Anyway, that article is crap. The headline is completely unsupported by the text, and it has that annoying noble savage racism where the Native Americans were superhuman soldiers/sailors/farmers compared to lumbering and brutish Europeans.
Henrietta, Texas. Quite the shithole.
Anyway, in popular culture, it’s always seems to be “we defeated them withour superior technology”, unless I’m missing something. I’d be surprised if the average person polled on the street said disease over guns.
The average person polled on the streets wouldn’t know much about anything from the colonial period. Most people forget everything they learn in high school history pretty quickly.
Most probably think that the Declaration of Independence was signed by a bunch of people in one day and that all the Pilgrims had buckles on their shoes.
Troy
The popular misconception is that there wasn’t much violence at all, that we gave the Indians(who had no sense of ownership) beads and firewater and they gave us their land.
I’ve never heard one person say that. Ever. Of course, I was born post-1920.
You have a link citing this as a popular belief?
Which part?
Of course I have no cite. I’ve heard variations on it from more than a few.
I’d have to agree with that, but it’s a tricky business to sit around and guess the opinions of the uneducated.
The part where we gave them stuff and they gave us land. I’m not meaning to challenge you, BTW, but honestly curious.
There’s the well-known story of an American tribe selling Manhattan Island for a pittance, isn’t there?
Yes, I remember that “indians with no concept of land ownership” angle played in my school textbooks. Can’t remember if it was in my elementary or highschool textbooks, though. Perhaps both.
It was both if I remember correctly.