Originally Posted by annla899

You will not find a nation-state in history that doesn't have "criminal" wars. So your point is? You really do trot out the knee-jerk soundbyte view of history.

(I wrote that before I read GBs comment)

I think Lady Vagina makes some valid points in her post about presidents. As an American people, we really need to be aware of, and object to, autrositys done in our name.

If you really want to know what Vagina's point was, then I would suggest that we ask the victims of our war crimes how they feel. The Native American Indian might be a good place to start.

The annilation and oppression of others that are done in our name and with our money, makes these wars OUR wars. We best be concerned and horrified because otherwise we will have turned into numb and dumbed down citizens.

We need to be especially aware of the Orwellian concept of "groupthink," a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. This is what has been happening in our country for quite some time.

Groupthink is promoted and sold to a population, especially in regards to our violence towards other people and races. This is why our so called leaders can do as they like as long as they get us to believe the lies through spinning a web of deceit.

Just because one thinks they have the truth because they have studied this handed down American history, doesn't make us informed. We have to look to the other side of the story, those who have been oppressed, to get a balanced and honest view.

Do not feed the troll, people.

Originally Posted by Odin

Do not feed the troll, people.

Who's a troll?

Originally Posted by Deb C

We need to be especially aware of the Orwellian concept of "groupthink," a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. This is what has been happening in our country for quite some time.

Groupthink is promoted and sold to a population, especially in regards to our violence towards other people and races. This is why our so called leaders can do as they like as long as they get us to believe the lies through spinning a web of deceit.

Just because one thinks they have the truth because they have studied this handed down American history, doesn't make us informed. We have to look to the other side of the story, those who have been oppressed, to get a balanced and honest view.

I've been reading American (and other parts of the world's) history since I was a child. And received my education in the 70s when the Forward HO! America story was being debunked. Since I grew up in a small midwestern town, there was still a great deal of simplification, America good all the time, bad Indians, George Washington cherry tree crap going on. Although it's not my specialty and I am self-taught, the one thing I have learned is that there are few to no leaders of nation-states that haven't been involved in really bad policies. And there are few, if any, leaders of the US whose legacies haven't also included bad, shameful policies. The issue that I see on both sides of the current political divide is lack of nuance and an oversimplification (and anachronistic perception) of decisions made in context of the time in which the people lived. For example: the original framers of the US Constitution did not abolish slavery, did not give women the right to vote. For the most part they were well-to-do, and all white men. Did Lincoln think black people were equal to white people intellectually? No. It's pretty clear he didn't. But he did believe that everyone should be able to enjoy the rewards of their labor. Was he a lawyer for the railroad companies, which were then the equivalent of the oil companies? Yes. Did he support fighting Native Americans? Yes. Did he issue the Emancipation Proclamation? Yes. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a golden glow of perfection around every leader. Even Gandhi's getting a bad rap these days.

On the other hand, did Nixon start the EPA? Yes. Did he cover up the Watergate break-in and support it? Yes. Did he have a plan for national health care? Yes. Did Teddy Kennedy fight it? Yes. Did Robert Kennedy cover-up things for his brother? Yes. Did he speak out against Viet Nam? Yes. Did LBJ get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed? Yes. Did he vote against similar legislation in the 50s? Yes. Did he escalate the Viet Nam War? Yes. Did George W. Bush tell people not to hate on Islam after 911? Yes.

I read things from many sides and points of view. My main interests right now are the Civil War and WWI--although the War of the Roses is up there, too, as well as Russia just before and during the Revolution. I've spent much of the past year reading original documents from the antebellum and Civil War periods as well as slave narratives (from the WPA), the latter of which may be skewed depending on who was the audience for those narratives. It hasn't been "handed down." It's the words of those who lived it at the time. And it's freakin' complicated!! I have few illusions about Lincoln, for example, as a politician. He was a brilliant politician and he loved politics. Seward thought he was too cautious. Lincoln's advisors recommended that he wait for a Union victory to make the Emancipation Proclamation--politics. And he did. There was that election of 1865 which Lincoln wasn't sure he would win. I don't get this crap about a "hypocritical war." The South seceded when Lincoln got elected. South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter. Why? Because they wanted not only to keep their slaves but they wanted to expand slavery to the territories so as to keep a balance in the Senate. The South held a heck of a lot of cards in the antebellum period. Read James McPherson, read Herbert's biography of Lincoln.

I know the US has dirty hands. Our involvement in Central America has and remains horrendous. If the Middle East didn't have oil, the US would totally ignore it. But I look at the long history of the world. It is some ugly stuff. Read Tuchman's "The Proud Tower" which describes the US' painful slide into imperialism. It will break your heart.

This doesn't mean that I don't think one should accept everything that any country or leader (esp of the US does), nor should anyone rubber stamp everything their government does. God no. But a little context, a little less constant outrage because it becomes just a dark mirror image of American Exceptionalism--America All Bad vs. America All Good. Neither is wise nor helpful.

Originally Posted by annla899

I know the US has dirty hands. Our involvement in Central America has and remains horrendous. If the Middle East didn't have oil, the US would totally ignore it. But I look at the long history of the world. It is some ugly stuff. Read Tuchman's "The Proud Tower" which describes the US' painful slide into imperialism. It will break your heart.

This doesn't mean that I don't think one should accept everything that any country or leader (esp of the US does), nor should anyone rubber stamp everything their government does. God no. But a little context, a little less constant outrage because it becomes just a dark mirror image of American Exceptionalism--America All Bad vs. America All Good. Neither is wise nor helpful.

I agree with you 100%. This is why I love to read other historians who give us a view from a different angle. Without that balance, we will continue to think that God is always on our side.`Therefore, the paradigm of violence will continue to escalate.

Now, as you know, the most vulnerable of our country are in the crosshairs of many in our political party. And sadly, because of the Orwellian framing, the wool has been pulled over many of our eyes. This is why we need to hear the stories of those who are suffering from our government's policies and decisions.

If we are are to have balance, we must, as you and I agree, see the entire picture.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Who's a troll?

LadyV. She's either a troll or a really nasty person.

Haha..this poster and post wins the troll of the year award.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

Jackson: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Harrison: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Taylor: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Lincoln: hypocritical Civil War and numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Grant: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Hayes: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Harrison: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
McKinnley: imperialistic Spanish American War
and crimianal war against Chinese and Filipinos
Roosevelt: crimianl war against Filipinos
Truman: hyopocritical atomic war against Japanese and criminal war against Korean people
Bush: criminal war against Panamanian and Iraqi people

(most of these were against people of color, of course)

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Haha..this poster and post wins the troll of the year award.

Remember Phil???

Originally Posted by Deb C

We need to be especially aware of the Orwellian concept of "groupthink," a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. This is what has been happening in our country for quite some time.

That is a human norm. Group solidarity is a necessity, especially if one's community faces the Nazis or the 7th Cavalry. Pathological groupthink implies solidarity within a powerful clique in command of an organization when that clique proves exploitative, reckless, or destructive. Such groupthink tends to divide humanity into 'insiders' with special privileges to be defended against all challenges and the rest of humanity whose attempts at organization to resist tyranny, exploitation, and pointless wars, are to be thwarted, but organization of the rest of humanity into subordinate stewards responsible for enriching, obeying, and defending that clique is offered as the highest objective of human existence. (If that is the 'highest objective of human existence, than that clique has fully debased life).

Groupthink is promoted and sold to a population, especially in regards to our violence towards other people and races. This is why our so called leaders can do as they like as long as they get us to believe the lies through spinning a web of deceit.

Although racism and religious prejudice remain as residues of the discreditable past, both are far weaker than they used to be. More of a hazard are front groups with pseudo-populist garb (as with a group called "Energy Citizens of America", a front group for the American Petroleum Institute that has set up demonstrations "for jobs and economic progress" whose cornerstone is policies that enhance the profitability of oil companies) that can even play left-wing ideology. Just wait until the hedge-fund managers start pushing their front group.

Just because one thinks they have the truth because they have studied this handed down American history, doesn't make us informed. We have to look to the other side of the story, those who have been oppressed, to get a balanced and honest view.

History is a vile and obscene tale whose ink is the blood of innocent people slaughtered in conquest with the bones of dead soldiers as the pens. We would never teach it to our youth were it not for the necessity of warning people of the horrors of conquests, repressions, exploitation, and revolutions. Unfortunately our history is often infused with national chauvinism with exciting tales of conquest and heroism. Maybe the heroic defenses of besieged Corregidor (even if it failed) Bastogne merit as much attention that it gets -- but the Trail of Tears gets far too little attention.

Beware Texas 'education' these days. Do you really want your kids learning that country music is 'greater than Mozart' because it is more commercially successful and in line with American right-wing cultural values, that the Constitution is tailor-made for right-leaning Christians with any others falling short of the morality necessary for it, that Ronald Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents, and that blacks and Hispanics have made only trivial contributions to American culture? That's what the Right wants for America.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Remember Phil???

I remember some of Phils posts and wouldn't consider him a troll. First he had a normal user handle, second some of his posts were well thought out even if you disagreed. An ass a number of times granted, but not a troll.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Remember Phil???

I missed him, and for my blood pressure it is a good thing. He sounds like a disgruntled government employee surrounded by people with lesser enthusiasm than he for some project. He sounded like one of those Nietzschian Superman types who feels under-appreciated. Tsk, tsk, tsk. He's one of those personalities who can't recognize the humanity of his subordinates who have other concerns, like the welfare of their children and finding meaning in life. "This project is everything" isn't much different from "Nothing matters except for profits". The former is more common in a perverse "socialist" system such as the Soviet Union in which the State is everything and the latter is commonplace in our bureaucratic-capitalist order. In a plantation order he is the planter whose slaves don't appreciate how much a benefactor he is to them by working them harshly to early deaths and 'giving' them food, cast-off rags, and minimal shelter.

When America abandons these types, America will be better for it.

"Lady Genitalia" is a flippant left-wing version of a troll. Give us some credit for outlawing American participation in the Holocaust that was the Atlantic slave trade (that is not hyperbole), for occasionally having wholesome relationships with the Indians, for establishing what may have been the most benign manifestation of capitalism (even if that is coming to an apparent end), abolishing slavery, never having any equivalent of the Inquisition, the Gestapo, or the NKVD, and (if belatedly) putting an end to formal segregation. We might not be making quite the progress on gay rights, but we are making it. Above all, let us remember that we did our share in smashing two demonic political orders (Hitlerland and Tojoland) that would have established slavery as horrible as any that ever existed upon conquered peoples without imposing a cruel subjection of Germans or Japanese in the wake of our conquests.

As a nation we are no better than the moral values that we show in our actions. We have usually elected political leaders who present moral values that we cherish (sure, Dubya was an exception, and a blatant one). If we become swine, then we will end up with rulers similar to Napoleon (not the French leader for whom I have ambiguous attitudes), the literal pig who becomes the absolute ruler of Animal Farm (George Orwell) with enforcers resembling the ferocious dogs of the same story, the dogs answerable only to the pigs close to Napoleon (the pig).

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That is a human norm. Group solidarity is a necessity, especially if one's community faces the Nazis or the 7th Cavalry. Pathological groupthink implies solidarity within a powerful clique in command of an organization when that clique proves exploitative, reckless, or destructive. Such groupthink tends to divide humanity into 'insiders' with special privileges to be defended against all challenges and the rest of humanity whose attempts at organization to resist tyranny, exploitation, and pointless wars, are to be thwarted, but organization of the rest of humanity into subordinate stewards responsible for enriching, obeying, and defending that clique is offered as the highest objective of human existence. (If that is the 'highest objective of human existence, than that clique has fully debased life).



Although racism and religious prejudice remain as residues of the discreditable past, both are far weaker than they used to be. More of a hazard are front groups with pseudo-populist garb (as with a group called "Energy Citizens of America", a front group for the American Petroleum Institute that has set up demonstrations "for jobs and economic progress" whose cornerstone is policies that enhance the profitability of oil companies) that can even play left-wing ideology. Just wait until the hedge-fund managers start pushing their front group.



History is a vile and obscene tale whose ink is the blood of innocent people slaughtered in conquest with the bones of dead soldiers as the pens. We would never teach it to our youth were it not for the necessity of warning people of the horrors of conquests, repressions, exploitation, and revolutions. Unfortunately our history is often infused with national chauvinism with exciting tales of conquest and heroism. Maybe the heroic defenses of besieged Corregidor (even if it failed) Bastogne merit as much attention that it gets -- but the Trail of Tears gets far too little attention.

Beware Texas 'education' these days. Do you really want your kids learning that country music is 'greater than Mozart' because it is more commercially successful and in line with American right-wing cultural values, that the Constitution is tailor-made for right-leaning Christians with any others falling short of the morality necessary for it, that Ronald Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents, and that blacks and Hispanics have made only trivial contributions to American culture? That's what the Right wants for America.

Groupthink can work in various ways. It was also groupthink that enabled Hitler to do what he did. Some people would rather be sheep than to think for themselves or question. In the Nuremberg trials the main reason the soldiers said they did what they did was because they were told too.

Racism and religious predjudices are not a thing of the past. Racism is still there and so are religious predjudices. We have merely switched our blatant bigotry to the Hispanics and religious zealotry to gays and Muslims.

I live in a state where the Native Americans were herded like animals on the Trail of Tears. As you indicate, we need to be reminded of that inhumane treatment at the hands of our government.

Whether it be the cruelty and abuse to the Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, Irish or whoever, the catalyst for that treatment is a feeling of superiority that comes through groupthink. And much of that comes from puritan religion.

Originally Posted by TnT

Heather Wilson

Thanks for providing us non- New Mexicans with a link, TNT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Wilson

Heather A. Wilson (born December 30, 1960), is a former Republican member of the United States House of Representatives representing New Mexico's 1st congressional district from 1998 to 2009. She is the first woman veteran elected to Congress...

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

...Besides, where did she serve? Was she a REM?

-That's usually "REMF." I never thought about it before, but I guess it counts as two words.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

According to Wikipedia, she served in the Airforce from 1977 - 1989.

...Wilson joined the United States Air Force at the age of seventeen, graduating four years later as a Distinguished Graduate (magna cum laude equivalent) from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1982.^[2] The first female Rhodes Scholar, she continued her education at Jesus College, Oxford University, earning a D.Phil.. in International Relations.^[2] Upon leaving the Air Force in 1989, Wilson became Director for European Defense Policy and Arms Control on the National Security Council. After leaving government, she founded Keystone International, Inc. in 1991 to promote business development in the United States and Russia...

-I don't know what her ostensible job was, but it looks like she joined the USAF, finished basic, then attended the USAFA (Class of '86?) and then got a PhD. Most of her studies in International Studies would have been defense related, I suspect (i.e. she got her PhD while doing twofer studies for Uncle Sam). International studies is a popular subject for officers to earn a Masters in iot qualify for promotion to O-4 or O-5. I have a friend who did it in lieu of history, to his regret. His bad.

But anyway, unless she stayed in the Guard or Reserve (apparently not), it looks like she got out as a 1LT (o-2) or CPT (O-3), so she's not likley to suddenly end up as a 4 or 5-star general. This rules her out as a Washington/Grant/Ike successor. She could still be in the Hayes, Garfield, Harrison or Truman model of a veteran who eventually becomes president.

I've posted this before, but if someone would give me 10:1 odds, I'd say this is a likely candidate:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._McMaster

...he's already had a ton of press, and he's already a BG...

Originally Posted by Deb C

I think Lady Vagina makes some valid points in her post about presidents. As an American people, we really need to be aware of, and object to, autrositys done in our name...

-Oh goody. It looks like Deb C has a new friend.

Originally Posted by Deb C

...I live in a state where the Native Americans were herded like animals on the Trail of Tears...

-Deb, the leaders of so-called 5 civilized tribes signed treaties with the US government saying they would vacate that land. Period.

Originally Posted by Deb C

...Whether it be the cruelty and abuse to the Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, Irish or whoever, the catalyst for that treatment is a feeling of superiority that comes through groupthink. And much of that comes from puritan religion.

-Puritan religion, Gracie?

I've noticed your anti-Christian bigotry before. You seem to be willing to grant a cop-out for everything on the planet except Christianity, from this to your "Hitler was a Christian" nonsense...

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

Kaiser claims that warmongers do not become warmongering presidents. I showed him he was wrong.

I forgot Washington criminal wars against Native Americans, Eisenhower's planning of war against Cuba, kennedy's execution of war against Cuba, his "Cuba Missle Crisis" and his war against Viet Nam.

You didn't show him he was wrong, you posted some very opinionated lines designed to elicit a visceral response amongst people who rightfully see you as a loon.

Next.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

You didn't show him he was wrong, you posted some very opinionated lines designed to elicit a visceral response amongst people who rightfully see you as a loon.

Next.

Kaiser climed that these warmongers were not, so a list was provided to him. If that creates a visceral response in you, that may be a good. First feel, then act!

Originally Posted by Deb C

Groupthink can work in various ways. It was also groupthink that enabled Hitler to do what he did. Some people would rather be sheep than to think for themselves or question. In the Nuremberg trials the main reason the soldiers said they did what they did was because they were told too.

The Nazi Party was best described as a syndicate of organized crime, as were such subsidiary organizations as its militias (the SS and SA), the Secret Police (Gestapo) and state entities taken over, especially the High Command of the Wehrmacht. Tellingly the Roosevelt Administration and Sir Winston Churchill both compared the Nazi Party to American crime syndicates such as the Mafia and the Purple Gang and Hitler to a murderous thug like Al Capone.

No organization more fosters groupthink than a crime syndicate. The people in such an organization have close links and are almost invariably of the same ethnic group. Prime example: the thug Henry Hill could never quite 'make' the Mafia because he was only "half" Sicilian. The people with whom Mobsters associate are largely the same people. Their wives are usually Mafia groupies to begin with. They are involved in the same social activities, legal or otherwise. If one leading member wants to get involved in high-risk activities such as hijacking or drug dealing, then every member gets involved.

Racism and religious predjudices are not a thing of the past. Racism is still there and so are religious predjudices. We have merely switched our blatant bigotry to the Hispanics and religious zealotry to gays and Muslims.

Of course it is there. Anti-gay bigotry is as virulent as ever, but it is on clearly the decline. This is a 4T, and economic distress often turns into hostility against ethnic groups or religious sects seeming to do well. If I were a Muslim I would have my bags packed and have my passport ready. Because hatred of Muslims is much like old-fashioned Jew-hating in its dynamics a Jew could be queasy about Islam-bashing.

Do we come together or do we fall for people who first divide and rule and then find ready scapegoats for their failures?

I live in a state where the Native Americans were herded like animals on the Trail of Tears. As you indicate, we need to be reminded of that inhumane treatment at the hands of our government.

Whether it be the cruelty and abuse to the Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, Irish or whoever, the catalyst for that treatment is a feeling of superiority that comes through groupthink. And much of that comes from puritan religion.

I can't blame only the Puritan heritage. Until King Philip's war, the Puritans usually avoided trouble with First Peoples. The nastiest Indian-fighters were of Scots-Irish origin who settled the backwoods; Andrew Jackson was from those parts.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

Jackson: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Harrison: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Taylor: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Lincoln: hypocritical Civil War and numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Grant: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Hayes: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Harrison: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
McKinnley: imperialistic Spanish American War
and crimianal war against Chinese and Filipinos
Roosevelt: crimianl war against Filipinos
Truman: hyopocritical atomic war against Japanese and criminal war against Korean people
Bush: criminal war against Panamanian and Iraqi people

(most of these were against people of color, of course)

Well, there are a number of rather simple factual errors in this list. To start with, William Henry Harrison must have had an awfully busy month in office (he died 30 days after his swearing in) to have fought numerous criminal wars against native Americans as President. The same, roughly, holds true of Zachary Taylor, who was in office for only a little more than a year. I suppose she thinks the civil war was "hypocritical" because the North wasn't composed of politically correct saints like herself. . .well, that's life.

And indeed, that is my real point.

Oh, those poor, innocent "people of color" who lived in a pacifist paradise before white men arrived! To coin a phrase, bullshit. Native American civilization was brutal and violent. There probably was not a tribe in America that had not secured the land it was living on when white people arrived in any way but by taking it from another tribe. Are you familiar with the mound builders? They were an Indian civilization that had disappeared before white people arrived. I wonder how? Could it be that they were wiped out? The Indians of Central America practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism. And by the way, who invented modern slavery? White people? No. The Spanish, Portuguese and English took advantage of a thriving slave trade in Africa, run by Africans. Kunta Kinte was surely rounded up by a black slave trader and sold to whites.

Does this excuse the things white Americans have done? No. But it should put them into some perspective. Human civilization is chronically violent, sometimes less so than others. Lady Vagina may not know it, but she enjoys freedom of speech and the security of her person thanks to the civilization created, initially, by white men. If she and her ilk ever succeed in destroying that civilization the results will not be pretty. Especially for women.

I think Strauss and Howe performed an important historical service by showing how 4Ts, often violent, provide that glue that holds our civilization together for the next three generations. It's not pretty--but that's the way it is. For the record, I have been saying for over a decade here that I hoped this 4T would not include a great war. And also for the record, at least three of my books are, in one way or another, about the futility of war. But I'm not enough of an idiot to think that wars would only disappear if everyone were as enlightened as I am.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Human civilization is chronically violent, sometimes less so than others.

I very much support this comment. No one can play victim and you highlighted some good reasons why.

-MillieX, sellout and inbred, born from a line of blacks, whites, a jewish on guy on my mom's side somewhere and many (I mean many) Native American tribes intermarrying.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I very much support this comment. No one can play victim and you highlighted some good reasons why.

-MillieX, sellout and inbred, born from a line of blacks, whites, a jewish on guy on my mom's side somewhere and many (I mean many) Native American tribes intermarrying.

(Giggling) I can see why we are friends. Being half Jewish doesn't hurt either--teaches you not to buy into any group's craziness, since you don't belong to any.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

(Giggling) I can see why we are friends. Being half Jewish doesn't hurt either--teaches you not to buy into any group's craziness, since you don't belong to any.

I know that's true!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, there are a number of rather simple factual errors in this list. To start with, William Henry Harrison must have had an awfully busy month in office (he died 30 days after his swearing in) to have fought numerous criminal wars against native Americans as President. The same, roughly, holds true of Zachary Taylor, who was in office for only a little more than a year. I suppose she thinks the civil war was "hypocritical" because the North wasn't composed of politically correct saints like herself. . .well, that's life.

And indeed, that is my real point.

Oh, those poor, innocent "people of color" who lived in a pacifist paradise before white men arrived! To coin a phrase, bullshit. Native American civilization was brutal and violent. There probably was not a tribe in America that had not secured the land it was living on when white people arrived in any way but by taking it from another tribe. Are you familiar with the mound builders? They were an Indian civilization that had disappeared before white people arrived. I wonder how? Could it be that they were wiped out? The Indians of Central America practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism. And by the way, who invented modern slavery? White people? No. The Spanish, Portuguese and English took advantage of a thriving slave trade in Africa, run by Africans. Kunta Kinte was surely rounded up by a black slave trader and sold to whites.

Does this excuse the things white Americans have done? No. But it should put them into some perspective. Human civilization is chronically violent, sometimes less so than others. Lady Vagina may not know it, but she enjoys freedom of speech and the security of her person thanks to the civilization created, initially, by white men. If she and her ilk ever succeed in destroying that civilization the results will not be pretty. Especially for women.

I think Strauss and Howe performed an important historical service by showing how 4Ts, often violent, provide that glue that holds our civilization together for the next three generations. It's not pretty--but that's the way it is. For the record, I have been saying for over a decade here that I hoped this 4T would not include a great war. And also for the record, at least three of my books are, in one way or another, about the futility of war. But I'm not enough of an idiot to think that wars would only disappear if everyone were as enlightened as I am.

Nitpick: The Mississippian Culture was still around when De Soto explored the region, but then it was destroyed by the diseases left by the explorers. Many of the survivors took to horseback riding and became the plains tribes. A few tribes, such has the Natchez, still observed the culture in a degraded form as late as 1800, the Natchez's king (who was considered a god) living atop a Mississippian mound.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I very much support this comment. No one can play victim and you highlighted some good reasons why.

-MillieX, sellout and inbred, born from a line of blacks, whites, a jewish on guy on my mom's side somewhere and many (I mean many) Native American tribes intermarrying.

LOL, I grew up near "The Rez" and have many relatives that are either married to a Ojibwe or are part-Ojibwe. No culture of victimization with them, they are intensely proud of their Native heritage. One of my cousins is even learning the Ojibwe language herself.

Originally Posted by Odin

Nitpick: The Mississippian Culture was still around when De Soto explored the region, but then it was destroyed by the diseases left by the explorers. Many of the survivors took to horseback riding and became the plains tribes. A few tribes, such has the Natchez, still observed the culture in a degraded form as late as 1800, the Natchez's king (who was considered a god) living atop a Mississippian mound.

Could you give me a reference for that? I learned the opposite in school.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Could you give me a reference for that? I learned the opposite in school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture

After the destruction and flight of the de Soto expedition, the Mississippian peoples continued their way of life with little direct European influence. Indirectly, however, European introductions would change the face of the Eastern United States. Diseases such as measles and smallpox caused so many fatalities, because the natives lacked immunity, that they undermined the social order of many chiefdoms. Some groups adopted European horses and changed back to nomadism (Bense pp. 256–257, 275–279). Political structures collapsed in many places. By the time more documentary evidence was being written, the Mississippian way of life had changed irrevocably. Some groups maintained an oral tradition link to their mound-building past (such as the late 19th-century Cherokee- Hudson pp. 334). Other Native American groups, having migrated many hundreds of miles and lost their elders to diseases, did not know their ancestors had built the mounds dotting the landscape. This contributed to the myth of the Mound Builders as a people distinct from Native Americans, which was rigorously debunked by Cyrus Thomas in 1894.

...

Grand Village of the Natchez: The main village of the Natchez people, with three mounds. The only mound site to be used and maintained into historic times.