Originally Posted by Dedalus

Guys, seriously, this is pointless. Human's of every race, creed, culture and religion have slaughtered and enslaved each other since the dawn of recorded history. Trying to apply 21st Century sensibilities to the past is a fruitless endeavor. That is revisionist history at its worst. You just have to realize nothing is black and white. Hollywood movies to the contrary, bad people do good things and good people do bad things. Just what do we do today that seems perfectly normal to us will some bleeding heart in the future condemn us for?

Deb I am sorry to say, if we get into a real all-out 4T war, vilifying the enemy is a part of it. Poke around the internet for posters of how the Germans and Japanese were portrayed during WWII, and that is living memory for a substantial amount of the population.

I do pray that we evolve as a human race and not merely accept killing and violence as the norm. We have evolved in other areas, we can also become more human instead of barbaric in regards to demonizing those who are different from ourselves. If we are to survive, seeing ourselves in the other is crucial.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I do pray that we evolve as a human race and not merely accept killing and violence as the norm. We have evolved in other areas, we can also become more human instead of barbaric in regards to demonizing those who are different from ourselves. If we are to survive, seeing ourselves in the other is crucial.

We have, in fact, to a large extent done this already.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

Guys, seriously, this is pointless. Human's of every race, creed, culture and religion have slaughtered and enslaved each other since the dawn of recorded history. Trying to apply 21st Century sensibilities to the past is a fruitless endeavor. That is revisionist history at its worst. You just have to realize nothing is black and white. Hollywood movies to the contrary, bad people do good things and good people do bad things. Just what do we do today that seems perfectly normal to us will some bleeding heart in the future condemn us for?

Take a good look at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for some indication of how less tolerant humanity has become for people who organize wars of aggression, give false assurances of peaceful intentions while the government plans hostile actions, mistreat prisoners of war, perform cruel experiments upon unwilling people, establish slavery, promote and facilitate massacres, violate treaties of peace, and bleed conquered nations.

It is bad policy to treat the people of conquered countries badly; disgruntled subjects of an occupying power become the perfect fifth columns of a conqueror. Hernan Cortes could conquer Mexico easily by exploiting discontent among the discontent of the conquered people of the Aztec Empire who didn't appreciate being compelled to give up people to be sacrificed to Quetzalcoatl. In more recent times, humane policies that General George Catlett Marshall established ensured that once the US Army came into control of a community, then the war was over for that community. American and British troops came to know that they faced no guerrilla activities. Contrast the Germans, who even if in occupation of a country and having no constraints upon revenge against anyone who turned on them, always had to watch their backs.

Deb I am sorry to say, if we get into a real all-out 4T war, vilifying the enemy is a part of it. Poke around the internet for posters of how the Germans and Japanese were portrayed during WWII, and that is living memory for a substantial amount of the population.

Also think of what the German and Japanese leadership was like. Reality suggested itself in those posters. Sure, the Nazis had some vile images of FDR and Churchill... not that the Nazis had much credibility.

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.

You are wrong. You are the one making simple factual errors!

Harrison continued the genocidal war against the Seminole in Florida. I am part Seminole.

Tayler continued the genocidal war against the Native Americans of Oregon.

The aggression continued everywhere under their watches.

Perhaps you should educate yourself before telling others what they do and do not know Kaiser.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

You are wrong. You are the one making simple factual errors!

Harrison continued the genocidal war against the Seminole in Florida. I am part Seminole.

Hahaha...wrong! The removal of the Seminoles occured under the Jackson and later Van Buren administrations. Harrison took office in March 1841, spent the next 30 days fighting the flu, fighting with Henry Clay, and trying to hire people for work in his administration, which took alot longer than 30 days. He didn't get much else done. Then he died in April. Not surprisingly his VP Tyler put an end to the dispute with the Seminoles by 1842.

Simply spouting nonsense doesn't make it true. If you're going make blanket accusations about a President you better make damn sure you have the evidence for it.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

Perhaps you should educate yourself before telling others what they do and do not know Kaiser.

He's a history professor.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

He's a history professor.

There are history professors and then there are history professors. I would venture to say that not all history professors agree on any given subject. Some of the greatest Historians that I have read would disagree with some of the information that is thrown into the till here.

This is why, just because a person has a title doesn't necessarily mean the information is always 100% valid. I have known some preschool teachers who are marvelous and their style of discipline and nurturing of children is commendable. Then others who also call themselves preschool teachers are not who I would consider competent to teach or care for children.

Every profession, even with the same degrees, can differ greatly. I would say when it comes to history, life experience with those who have been oppressed is worth way more than mere book research.

I mean, look at our politicians. Many are lawyers with amazing degrees but I wouldn't want them representing me. Just because one has a degree doesn't make them a know all. Their worldview makes for most of what they teach. Just as most of us.

My husband was a Catholic priest at one time before he left the offical ministry. He was an amazing minister. He promoted the message of unconditional love to the parishioners. Unlike some who were staunch and demanded the people to live by the letter of the law and in perpetual guilt. My husband, along with a few others from our area were educated in Rome. All came back with varying degrees of theology. So life experience sometimes has more to do with qualifications than degrees.

No one has all the answers. Everyone has a piece of the truth.

I'm just sayin.

The fact remains that accusing David of needing an education when he has a great deal more on the subject than the one making the accusation is preposterous. Yes, he can still be wrong (and often is). What he cannot be, in his own field, is ignorant.

Originally Posted by Deb C

There are history professors and then there are history professors. I would venture to say that not all history professors agree on any given subject. Some of the greatest Historians that I have read would disagree with some of the information that is thrown into the till here.

This is why, just because a person has a title doesn't necessarily mean the information is always 100% valid. I have known some preschool teachers who are marvelous and their style of discipline and nurturing of children is commendable. Then others who also call themselves preschool teachers are not who I would consider competent to teach or care for children.

Every profession, even with the same degrees, can differ greatly. I would say when it comes to history, life experience with those who have been oppressed is worth way more than mere book research.

I mean, look at our politicians. Many are lawyers with amazing degrees but I wouldn't want them representing me. Just because one has a degree doesn't make them a know all. Their worldview makes for most of what they teach. Just as most of us.

My husband was a Catholic priest at one time before he left the offical ministry. He was an amazing minister. He promoted the message of unconditional love to the parishioners. Unlike some who were staunch and demanded the people to live by the letter of the law and in perpetual guilt. My husband, along with a few others from our area were educated in Rome. All came back with varying degrees of theology. So life experience sometimes has more to do with qualifications than degrees.

No one has all the answers. Everyone has a piece of the truth.

I'm just sayin.

And to be perfectly blunt in my Xr style (or my ISTJ style as I'm spending time understanding Myers Briggs), this is exactly the type of wishy washy squishyness that is so frustrating sometimes to read.

You can debate the results of a certain historical events. Now I don't know David K from Adam. But his posts are usually well thought out despite a slightly concerning tint of pessimism about the future. Still, I like reading his posts because they are informative and he brings out evidence to back up his some of his views.

LV, is also someone I don't know from Adam. It's posts (and I refer to it because it posts in a troll manner) is here solely to gain attention by carpetbombing these forums with ridiculous several sentence accusations laced in absurdity designed to gain some type of reaction (which I suppose I provided above)..I mean, come on..WH Harrison a war criminal???Really?

No, Deb. No one has all the answers..this is true. But some have more of the truth than others, and some others don't have any of the truth at all because they've chosen to remain ignorant...IE listen to what they only want to hear.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

And to be perfectly blunt in my Xr style (or my ISTJ style as I'm spending time understanding Myers Briggs), this is exactly the type of wishy washy squishyness that is so frustrating sometimes to read.

You can debate the results of a certain historical events. Now I don't know David K from Adam. But his posts are usually well thought out despite a slightly concerning tint of pessimism about the future. Still, I like reading his posts because they are informative and he brings out evidence to back up his some of his views.

LV, is also someone I don't know from Adam. It's posts (and I refer to it because it posts in a troll manner) is here solely to gain attention by carpetbombing these forums with ridiculous several sentence accusations laced in absurdity designed to gain some type of reaction (which I suppose I provided above)..I mean, come on..WH Harrison a war criminal???Really?

No, Deb. No one has all the answers..this is true. But some have more of the truth than others, and some others don't have any of the truth at all because they've chosen to remain ignorant...IE listen to what they only want to hear.

I wasn't talking specifically about David. I was responding to the post that was indicating we should listen to him because he is a history professor. It really concerns me that we think a person, again not speaking of anyone in particular, that one is more credible because of credentials.

I just see so much going on these days with blind obedience in our politics that I am hyper sensitive to following because of one's degree. Again, this is not about anyone in particular.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I wasn't talking specifically about David. I was responding to the post that was indicating we should listen to him because he is a history professor.

But that's not what the post was saying. It was a response to the accusation that David needed to educate himself. It wasn't saying "we should listen to him because he's a history professor." It was saying, "accusing him of needing to educate himself is ridiculous because he's a history professor, and therefore quite well educated on the subject already."

Good Goddess, I'm the last person to resort to the ad autoritandem fallacy. I've even called David himself on that one a time or two! But there is a certain amount of study and learning that is implied in having an advanced degree on a subject. It doesn't make a person automatically right, not by a long shot. But it does make a person automatically NOT ignorant.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But that's not what the post was saying. It was a response to the accusation that David needed to educate himself. It wasn't saying "we should listen to him because he's a history professor." It was saying, "accusing him of needing to educate himself is ridiculous because he's a history professor, and therefore quite well educated on the subject already."

Good Goddess, I'm the last person to resort to the ad autoritandem fallacy. I've even called David himself on that one a time or two! But there is a certain amount of study and learning that is implied in having an advanced degree on a subject. It doesn't make a person automatically right, not by a long shot. But it does make a person automatically NOT ignorant.

I admit, you make a good point.

I think this might be a good point to bring up a Myers-Briggs detail, the difference between the thinking type and the feeling type. Thinking and feeling, as Jung used those terms and as they have gone into the M-B diagram, refer to two ways of making decisions about the environment. (Sensation and intuition refer to two ways of perceiving that environment, which isn't the same thing.)

Thinking is the use of reason, evidence, logic, scientific method. It's most useful for answering questions of objective fact: questions about what is.

Feeling is the use of judgment, value estimation, social skills, and empathy. It's most useful for answering questions of value: questions about what should be.

Most people lean towards one of these, and are deficient in the other one. It's a common error to try to apply thinking to questions that are more appropriate for feeling or vice-versa. For example:

1) Questions of value cannot be finally answered by logical reasoning from first principles or from material evidence. Ultimately, a judgment must be made on a non-rational basis -- a feeling judgment, not a thinking one. A good example of this is a religious believer trying to assert moral arguments on the basis of reasoning from Scripture. Such arguments are rarely convincing even among people all of whom believe in the Scripture being used, because one's own feeling function -- the appropriate tool for value judgments -- trumps any logic.

2) On the other hand, questions of fact have nothing to do with morality, or with social interactions such as compromise. For example: "The truth lies somewhere between the two" is a feeling statement with no place in answering questions of objective fact; if for instance a discussion ensues between a creationist and someone arguing on the basis of evolution, the truth does not lie in a compromise between the two. The creationist is simply wrong, period. That a conclusion based on evidence is somehow perceived as immoral is irrelevant here, and that's another common error.

Each function is very important and each has its appropriate type of question to answer. It is a fundamental error to apply either to the wrong sort of question. There has been a fair amount of that on this thread.

Yes, I'm still trying to understand the detail into MB. What I know at this point is several times I've tested ISTJ. Very strong on the I(90), T(65%), and J(75%). I'm debating the S/N as I can see some intuition aspects inmyself. I suppose it would be a small 's' then. And maybe this is why I don't have much patience for either party. Both ignore the facts for whatever political agenda they have in mind. I guess its a whole new avenue for me to study.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I think this might be a good point to bring up a Myers-Briggs detail, the difference between the thinking type and the feeling type. Thinking and feeling, as Jung used those terms and as they have gone into the M-B diagram, refer to two ways of making decisions about the environment. (Sensation and intuition refer to two ways of perceiving that environment, which isn't the same thing.)

Thinking is the use of reason, evidence, logic, scientific method. It's most useful for answering questions of objective fact: questions about what is.

Feeling is the use of judgment, value estimation, social skills, and empathy. It's most useful for answering questions of value: questions about what should be.

Most people lean towards one of these, and are deficient in the other one. It's a common error to try to apply thinking to questions that are more appropriate for feeling or vice-versa. For example:

1) Questions of value cannot be finally answered by logical reasoning from first principles or from material evidence. Ultimately, a judgment must be made on a non-rational basis -- a feeling judgment, not a thinking one. A good example of this is a religious believer trying to assert moral arguments on the basis of reasoning from Scripture. Such arguments are rarely convincing even among people all of whom believe in the Scripture being used, because one's own feeling function -- the appropriate tool for value judgments -- trumps any logic.

2) On the other hand, questions of fact have nothing to do with morality, or with social interactions such as compromise. For example: "The truth lies somewhere between the two" is a feeling statement with no place in answering questions of objective fact; if for instance a discussion ensues between a creationist and someone arguing on the basis of evolution, the truth does not lie in a compromise between the two. The creationist is simply wrong, period. That a conclusion based on evidence is somehow perceived as immoral is irrelevant here, and that's another common error.

Each function is very important and each has its appropriate type of question to answer. It is a fundamental error to apply either to the wrong sort of question. There has been a fair amount of that on this thread.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Hahaha...wrong! The removal of the Seminoles occured under the Jackson and later Van Buren administrations. Harrison took office in March 1841, spent the next 30 days fighting the flu, fighting with Henry Clay, and trying to hire people for work in his administration, which took alot longer than 30 days. He didn't get much else done. Then he died in April. Not surprisingly his VP Tyler put an end to the dispute with the Seminoles by 1842.

Simply spouting nonsense doesn't make it true. If you're going make blanket accusations about a President you better make damn sure you have the evidence for it.

The resistance did not end with the killing of Osceola. It went on as Harrison, who had taken part in many ethnic cleansing, become president. Harrison was the "commander in chief" but did nothing to stop it. Tyler (who was never a militarist) ended the dispute, but only after he had finished most of the ethnic cleansing two years later. Should we have given him the retroactive Noble Peace Prize? So both the warmonger Harrison and the civilian Tyler were both wrong.

So you do not know what you are talking about any more than Kaiser does.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

He's a history professor.

So?
I have seen his blog and his wiki page, but in this case it looks like he is a history professor who does not know what wars were going on under what president, and what a president does.

He is part of the militaristic establishment. That explains a lot about his attitude. He is like Bushitler: born on third base, but he thinks he hit a triple! His propoganda say that he is also an expert on baseball. Maybe he will understand.

But shouldnt a professor who teaches professional killers know about our ethic cleansing orf the Seminole? It looks like he does not know much about his job!

Maybe Hutch and Kaiser should study together, no?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But that's not what the post was saying. It was a response to the accusation that David needed to educate himself. It wasn't saying "we should listen to him because he's a history professor." It was saying, "accusing him of needing to educate himself is ridiculous because he's a history professor, and therefore quite well educated on the subject already."

Good Goddess, I'm the last person to resort to the ad autoritandem fallacy. I've even called David himself on that one a time or two! But there is a certain amount of study and learning that is implied in having an advanced degree on a subject. It doesn't make a person automatically right, not by a long shot. But it does make a person automatically NOT ignorant.

Kaiser is supposed to be the mighty war expert, teaching killers about history, but he does not know about the wars America has waged. Does that not make him ignorant? Perhaps, he is deliberatley ignorant?

He sounds like another spoiled rich male.

Why are we engaged in troll-feeding? Who does this help?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why are we engaged in troll-feeding? Who does this help?

Are you calling me a troll? Answer one question. Who is right about the ethnic cleansing of the Seminole?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why are we engaged in troll-feeding? Who does this help?

Good point. The name "Lady Vagina" should have been everyone's first clue. Nobody but a troll would adopt a name like that, and the pattern of posts bear this out. He's* a troll. Ignore.





* In particular, no woman would adopt that name. He's a male troll. But the important point is that he's a troll. Ignore.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Good point. The name "Lady Vagina" should have been everyone's first clue. Nobody but a troll would adopt a name like that, and the pattern of posts bear this out. He's* a troll. Ignore.





* In particular, no woman would adopt that name. He's a male troll. But the important point is that he's a troll. Ignore.

Who is a prude?

Originally Posted by Hutch74

And to be perfectly blunt in my Xr style (or my ISTJ style as I'm spending time understanding Myers Briggs), this is exactly the type of wishy washy squishyness that is so frustrating sometimes to read.

You can debate the results of a certain historical events. Now I don't know David K from Adam. But his posts are usually well thought out despite a slightly concerning tint of pessimism about the future. Still, I like reading his posts because they are informative and he brings out evidence to back up his some of his views.

LV, is also someone I don't know from Adam. It's posts (and I refer to it because it posts in a troll manner) is here solely to gain attention by carpetbombing these forums with ridiculous several sentence accusations laced in absurdity designed to gain some type of reaction (which I suppose I provided above)..I mean, come on..WH Harrison a war criminal???Really?

No, Deb. No one has all the answers..this is true. But some have more of the truth than others, and some others don't have any of the truth at all because they've chosen to remain ignorant...IE listen to what they only want to hear.

I'm an INFJ and even I hate this postmodern nonsense that "everyone has a piece of the truth". It is one thing to study all the sides affected by an historical event and the differing perspectives, that's good, unbiased historical research. it's quite another thing to declare that all perspectives must be taken at face value and that we must reject taking all those perspectives and weaving an objective and fact-based historical narrative

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I think this might be a good point to bring up a Myers-Briggs detail, the difference between the thinking type and the feeling type. Thinking and feeling, as Jung used those terms and as they have gone into the M-B diagram, refer to two ways of making decisions about the environment. (Sensation and intuition refer to two ways of perceiving that environment, which isn't the same thing.)

Thinking is the use of reason, evidence, logic, scientific method. It's most useful for answering questions of objective fact: questions about what is.

Feeling is the use of judgment, value estimation, social skills, and empathy. It's most useful for answering questions of value: questions about what should be.

Most people lean towards one of these, and are deficient in the other one. It's a common error to try to apply thinking to questions that are more appropriate for feeling or vice-versa. For example:

1) Questions of value cannot be finally answered by logical reasoning from first principles or from material evidence. Ultimately, a judgment must be made on a non-rational basis -- a feeling judgment, not a thinking one. A good example of this is a religious believer trying to assert moral arguments on the basis of reasoning from Scripture. Such arguments are rarely convincing even among people all of whom believe in the Scripture being used, because one's own feeling function -- the appropriate tool for value judgments -- trumps any logic.

2) On the other hand, questions of fact have nothing to do with morality, or with social interactions such as compromise. For example: "The truth lies somewhere between the two" is a feeling statement with no place in answering questions of objective fact; if for instance a discussion ensues between a creationist and someone arguing on the basis of evolution, the truth does not lie in a compromise between the two. The creationist is simply wrong, period. That a conclusion based on evidence is somehow perceived as immoral is irrelevant here, and that's another common error.

Each function is very important and each has its appropriate type of question to answer. It is a fundamental error to apply either to the wrong sort of question. There has been a fair amount of that on this thread.

Very good post, Brian! This NF is in agreement. My favorite example of this I have run into is how back 100 years ago many progressives rejected and many conservatives embraced Darwinian Evolution because of the Is-Ought fallacy.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

Are you calling me a troll? Answer one question. Who is right about the ethnic cleansing of the Seminole?

In return, tell us why this has anything even remotely to do with the next election cycle.

Well, what an interesting exchange.

We all know that there were continual conflicts, more or less bloody, between white people and Indians as the white people moved across the country. Lady Vagina argues that they were genocidal (whether in intent or simply in effect is not clear.) Most of us do not think that they were consciously genocidal. But what she thinks, apparently, is that anyone who was President for even one day while such a conflict was going on, even three thousand miles away (Oregon) in an age when I don't believe there was even transcontinental telegraph as yet, is guilty of genocide. I think, actually, that she believes in collective guilt of all white people, or at least all white people in authority, for this "genocide" as she calls it. I think the responsibility for particular events falls on the people who set them in motion and actually carried them out.

I would like first to ask her a question: do you think that the world would be a better place if white people had never come to America or if the Indians had quickly united to wipe them out?

And a second question: you say you are part Seminole. Are you part white? If you are, then allow me to point out that you would not be on this earth if white people had not come to America. (Nor would I.) We are all products of human history as it happened, not as we would want it to happen.

I am equally uncomfortable with the idea that "everyone has a piece of the truth." Everyone has their own truth about what they lived through, yes. But I believe that historical truth, to the extent that it can be ascertained, is reflected in primary documents written by people who were there. That doesn't mean that you can trust every document, it means that you have to try to read every document you can and decide what the most likely event seems to be.

Now if I were to write, "Lady Vagina sounds like another lazy bitter Indian," I would be accused, rightly, of being a bigot. She wrote that I sounded like another spoiled rich while male. That is the statement of a bigot. I was brought up to hate bigotry and I still do. I'm going to give her a chance to answer my questions, above, and then I'm going to put her on my ignore list. She may not be a troll, but she is a bigot.