Re: Retooling the Vision for Space Exploration

On Feb 29, 9:08 pm, simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:50:42 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:





On Feb 29, 11:36 am, simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:12:38 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Good white Christian soldiers rousted people from their homes for
which they had a deed for, and had organized a government to protect,
that was recognized in documents signed by the Federal government.
This was done in the dead of winter, putting them on a forced march
through a blizzard with laggards being shot, and then those same good
Christians gave smallpox infected blankets to those who made it.

That's a myth.

Got references?

http://www.bradley.edu/las/eng/lotm/TrailofTears/trailparent.htm
http://www.cherokeebyblood.com/trailtears.htm

Without reading the links, is there anything in there about giving
them smallpox-infected blankets?

Actually reading factual stuff is harder than repeating canards? lol.

Smallpox followed trade routes. These trade routes had been operating
for a long period of time, distributing valued goods to native
Americans in return for bufallo skins, animal furs, and so forth.

These had always been a source of communicating European diseases into
the Indian nations. Nothing unusual with that. The germ theory of
disease had just been proposed. Jennings had just developed
vacinnation. Groups were going around innoculating Indians, expert
opinion was that a slow infiltration of Europeans into the West
combined with an innoculation program would end the decimation of the
Americnan Indians that were ongoing since 1492.

One season, preceding the changes in law, and policy that led
eventually to the Mexican American war, and US movement West, there
was a tremendous increase in the Small Pox - following shipments of
blankets and other goods of the Yellow Stone.

So, all elements were in place. The germ theory of disease was well
known, the American Indians were going to survive in large numbers if
they could be innoculated against the diseases they had no natural
resistance to, if our expansion was gradual.

Jackson decided to push quickly westward, and trade routes that had
carried diseases at rates that were tolerable, and in fact actually
increased resistance over time - became deadly sources of plague -
traceable to single shipments handled by specific trading companies
that were recently established with no long term involvement in the
trade..

Unless there is a confession of insiders, no secret operation leaves
evidence to indict those who organized it. You know this, hence your
insistence on 'evidence' that you know cannot exist. So, you call it
myth. The evidence however is clear. Having lost about half their
number,due to european diseases for which they were ill prepared, the
native Americans were forced to re-locate into the Westward frontiers
and remain isolated as their numbers declined. When the germ theory
of disease was discovered, do-gooders went West to innoculate native
Americans. Other experts estimated that one half to one third of the
original population of native Americans would ultimately survive. In
response, the US government reversed its decisions related to
isolating native Americans,signed legislation to attract the poor and
destitute to the frontier (at the time they were thought to be
harbingers of disease) and trade goods that were innocuoous for
generations (people in European style settlements - in close proximity
with poor public hygiene transmit disease) - turned strangely toxic.

That's what I was referring to.

Yeah, I know, and I know that the 'myth' as you call it was the result
of a secret operation - and that such operations leave no evidence you
would not call myth. Obviously the statistics speak for themselves.

That isn't the soul of Christian kindness. It was done in the name
of racial purity.

What's your point? I never said anything about Christian kindness.

By implication you did - repeating myths of your own about supposed
Indian savagery as if that prove their culture had nothing of
substance to contribute to Americna culture.

The point wasn't that their culture had nothing to contribute.

That is a prejudice based on ignorance.

My
point was that their culture was bloody,

The lies told by Europeans about native American culture, the lies you
repeat here, seemed bloody.

and the notion that adopting
it would have somehow precluded wars was lunacy,

No it isn't. The defeat of Switzerland in the Swabian war in the 16th
century led to a situation where there was a national decision to not
engage in warfare ever again. In that age, because of that defeat
Switzerland enunciated a vision for itself that did not involve
warfare. Defense yes. Warfare no. It has lived in peace ever since
- despite wars throughout the Swiss Empire prior to that time.

By the same token, defeat at the hands of the Europeans, the Europeans
being white, and the White Maiden/White Buffalo as the bringer of
mystical power, and the corruption of those warriors who looked upon
the White Maiden with lust, combined with the pandemics caused by
European diseases in native American communities - all led to a
similar sort of insight in native American culture. Despite the
breast beating of wannabe American heroes, native Americans pretty
much did what they were told. This too was used to indict them. When
they stood up for themselves and their culture, they savages. When
they did what they were told, they were worthless ignorant excuses for
men. When they explained their reasoning, they were supertitious
primitives.

Had American culture embraced native American culture and saw the
value in it, and in the people - as some intellectuals of the time did
- our culture would be quite different indeed. Just as Switzerlands
history is quite different than that of the rest of Europe.

absent any actual
arguments as to why it would have done so.

Well, I've given you the facts above.

We don't have to look further than the Spanish inquisition to find
people being flayed alive in the name of Christ and put to the torch
in the name of Christ.

I missed the part where I was defending the Spanish Inquisition. Can
you provide a citation?

You recounted myths about supposed Indian savagery as fact and called
it charming - ina way that suggested Indian culture had nothing to
contribute to the obviously more civilized American culture. So, it
is quite reasonable to point out that American culture draws heavily
on European history, and the Spanish Inqisition and other episodes of
violence and terror are part of that history.

American, if you mean US, has drawn almost nothing from the Spanish
Inquisition, or European history.

I should have used the term Medieval Inquisition! lol. I used the
term Spanish Inquisition to mean that. Sorry.

The Medieval Inquisition is a series of Inquisitions carried out by
the Roman Catholic Church by special bodies charged with suppressing
heresy. The Spanish Inqquisition was particularly vile, due to the
money that was made by the torturers, and particularly noteworthy
because the Spaniards didn't disband it until the 1820s!!.

Yet all European nations underwent Inquisitions from around 1184,
including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s) and later the Papal
Inquisition (1230s). Much of our legal terminology and procedures
derive from these procedures (defendant evidence, testimony, etc.)

It was in response to large popular movements throughout Europe
considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular
Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy. These
were the first inquisition movements of many that would follow.

The Medieval Inquisitions were in response to growing religious
movements, in particular the Cathars first noted in the 1140s and the
Waldensians starting around 1170, in southern France and northern
Italy. Individual "Heretics", for example Peter of Bruis, had often
challenged the Church. However, the Cathars were the first mass
heretical organization in the second millennium that posed a serious
threat to the authority of the Church.

Ultimately, popular disgust of the excesses of the inquisitions gave
rise to protestantism that opposed the Catholic Church and gave rise
to the modern secular state throughout Europe.

If you want to see cultures that
have done that, you have to look south of the border.

You're a racist fool. You see the word Spanish and you think it has
some racial connotation. I merely called it Spanish Inquisition
because Medievval Inquisition isn't as often used. haha.. I guess
the Monty Python sketch had an impact on me! lol.

US culture is
largely Anglo Saxon.

The Peterborough Chronicle contains information about the history of
England after the Norman Conquest.

it relates the events of The Anarchy in England. It is a highly
moving account of torture, fear, confusion, and starvation.

Henry I died in 1135, and Stephen and Matilda both had a claim to the
throne. The barons rebelled against Stephen, and Matilda escapes. The
soldiers of the baronial powers inflicte torture upon the people. King
Stephen is blamed for the Anarchy for being "soft and good" when
firmness and harshness were needed.

Stephen would capture rebellious barons who would then be released by
merely pledging allegience to Stephen.

The barons were robbing everyone they could to build great castles for
themselves, which led to public unrest..

"æuric rice man his castles makede and agænes him heolden; and fylden
þe land ful of castles. Hi suencten suyðe þe uurecce men of þe land
mid castelweorces; þa þe castles uuaren maked, þa fylden hi mid
deoules and yuele men. Þa namen hi þa men þe hi wendan ðat ani god
hefden, bathe be nihtes and be dæies, carlmen and wimmen, and diden
heom in prisun and pined heom efter gold and syluer untellendlice
pining; for ne uuaeren naeure nan martyrs swa pined alse hi waeron."

("Every chieftain made castles and held them against the king; and
they filled the land full of castles. They viciously oppressed the
poor men of the land with castle-building work; when the castles were
made, then they filled the land with devils and evil men. Then they
seized those who had any goods, both by night and day, working men and
women, and threw them into prison and tortured them for gold and
silver with uncountable tortures, for never was there a martyr so
tortured as these men were.")

The monastic author of the Chronicles sympathises with the average
farmer and artisan and talks about the devastation suffered by the
countryside. He is outraged by the accounts of torture he relates and
laments,

"Me henged up bi the fet and smoked heom mid ful smoke. Me henged bi
the þumbes other bi the hefed and hengen bryniges on her fet. Me dide
cnotted strenges abuton here hæued and uurythen it ðat it gæde to þe
haernes... I ne can ne I ne mai tellen alle þe wunder ne all þe pines
ðat he diden wrecce men on þis land."
("One they hung by his feet and filled his lungs with smoke. One was
hung up by the thumbs and another by the head and had coats of mail
hung on his feet. One they put a knotted cord about his head and
twisted it so that it went into the brains... I neither can nor may
recount all the atrocities nor all the tortures that they did on the
wretched men of this land.")
Death and famine followed, as the farms were depleted and farmers
murdered. If two or three riders came to a village, the monk said,
everyone fled, for fear that they were robbers. Trade therefore came
to a standstill, and those in want had no way to get supplies. Those
travelling with money to purchase food would be robbed or killed along
the way. The barons said that there was no God. The chronicler records
that people said openly that Christ slept, along with His saints; he
states that "this -- and more than we can say -- we suffered 19 winters
for our sins."

After the account of The Anarchy, the chronicler goes on to church
matters. He speaks of the abbot Martin, who replaced the illegitimate
Henry, as a good abbot. Martin had a new roof put on the monastery and
moved the monks into a new building. He also, according to the author,
recovered certain monastic lands that had been previously held "by
force" by noblemen. Which lands these are is unclear, but they had
probably been claimed by the nobles through the practice of placing
younger sons in monasteries, making and revoking gifts of land, and by
some early form of chantry. The Chronicle ends with a new abbot
entering upon the death of Martin, an abbot named William. This abbot
presumably halted the writing of the Chronicle.


The US is part of, and the leading member of,
the Anglosphere. It is very different from the culture of Europe.

No its not! We have clear connections to Rome! England was part of
the Roman Empire at one time, and England pledged allegience to the
Catholic Church until Henry the 8th wanted a divorce! lol.

You fail to see the point now, but seemed to be making one when you
recounted horror myths surrounding the Indian culture.
.
None of this makes Christianity itself evil.

I didn't say it did.

You implied that Indian culture was evil by your statement

Again, I implied that it was silly to claim that by incorporating it,
we would have avoided wars or violence,

This is a statement made from the depths of your ignorance and
prejudices. Look at the result of the Swabian defeats for Swiss
history. Look at the insights of the religious leaders of native
American culture following the decimation of native American peoples
and their warnings of the excesses of 'white' culture.. Had we taken
the path outlined by some intellectuals at that time we may have well
come into the 20th century with the spiritual qualities necessary to
assume peaceful leadership of the world.

which seemed to be your nutty
claim.

It only seems nutty because you cannot see past your prejudices which
are informing you wrongly about culture and history.

The fact remains it is an historical fact that the US did not honor
the agreements we hed with the Native Americans, told lies about them
to justify our treatment of them, and treated them miserably to the
point of war without cause and isolated outselves from them out of
fear and was thus denied the very real contributions to our culture
they could have made.

And what contributions woulld those have been?

See? You know nothing about the culture except horror myths every
bit as questionable as the fact that US soldiers purposely spread
smallpox throughout native American tribes to reduce their numbers.
You presume they're a bunch of ignorant savages having nothing of
substance to contribute to modern culture or life.

I know many things about them,

Nothing factual unfortunately. That's the trouble with prejudice.
You think you know all you need to know about a people - and in fact
you know less than nothing.

but we still await your substantiation
of your nutty claim.

Read a damn book on the subject! haha.. I don't have time to write
the whole damn thing here for your lazy ***! lol.


There is no multi-culturalism implicit in our founding documents.

I suggest you read this from the United States Declaration of
Independence

I've done so, many times.

Without understanding obviously. So, was Jackson within his legal
rights to force the Sioux (in the dead of winter, when he could've
waited for Spring) out of Georgia?

Or did he exceed his power?

Did the Sioux have any rights in that day and age? Legally speaking?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

How in the world does that support multi-culturalism?

How does it give President Jackson the right to send troops into
Geogria and take land away from a duly constituted authority who has a
valid deed for that land and put them on a forced march in the dead of
winter?

It certainly
doesn't support (just as one example) Islam.

It prohibits the government -among other things- to make any law with
respect to religion. That's supportive of religious diversity
wouldn't you say?

Multi-culturalism is currently destroying Europe.

That's because there's no real solution - which would have been
created in America had the Sioux claims in Georgia been honored by
Jackson.

I submit that it is the western reaction to the challenges of multi-
culturaism that is destroying Europe. That fear of multiculturism is
destroying Europe. That lack of understanding and a valid model is
destroying Europe.

The lack of understanding that Europe must embrace sharia law is
destroying Europe?

haha.. you think that by speaking at cross purposes and throwing in a
few red herrings you can win an argument you don't even understand.
lol.

People cannot escape their character. A people's character is molded
by the deep insights their culture allows them. The defeat of the
Swiss during the Swabian war led to an insight about warfare that
molded the character of the Swiss people ever since. The decimation
of the native American tribes at the hands of European settlers
(Britain is part of Europe friend! lol) led to similar insights in
that culture that changed the character native Americans in the 18th
century in ways that could have led the US to a greatness in the 20th
century for all Americans - had we embraced those insights.

You're nuts

No I'm not. You are, and don't want to see it, so you make judgments
against me.
.