-
Autumn Leaves
December 13, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Touchy-Feely Football
April 4, 2012 | 54 comments
-
Guess What, Grandpa?!!
January 16, 2012 | 48 comments
-
Important to Decide
November 9, 2011 | 18 comments
-
Now For a Dozen
August 3, 2011 | 48 comments
Media Matters
Osceola Who?
Jeopardy misses the full story.
A recent edition of the TV quiz Jeopardy offered the question of who an Indian named Osceola might have been. One contestant suggested “Cree[k]” and two declared “Seminole.” Those two were declared correct by the ceremony master, Alex Trebek.
I felt sorry for the person who suggested “Cree,” because Osceola was indeed a Creek Indian, born in Alabama and a migrant to Florida, where the Seminole Tribe was struggling to maintain itself against an ever-encroaching population of white U.S. citizens, protected and encouraged by U.S. troops and volunteers.
Heading the Indian removal was President Andrew Jackson and his Indian Removal Policy. His treaties stripped the southern tribes of three-fourths of Alabama (native to the Creek) along with parts of Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi. Kentucky, North Carolina. and Florida. The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in with a ruling that it was illegal for Indians to hold title to land and Congress complied by passing the Indian Removal Act. Jackson’s aim was to drive the “Five Civilized Tribes — Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole” west of the Mississippi.
President Jackson declared of those who might resist displacement: “They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits or the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition.”
The U.S. Army and the Seminoles fought three wars between 1816 and 1858. Osceola had moved to Florida after the War of 1812 and became a leader of the Seminole resistance, accounting through his leadership for several minor victories, and a major one called the Battle of Okeechobee, presided over by general Zachary Taylor. The government hyped what seemed a defeat into a major victory and Taylor eventually entered politics and became president in 1849.
Before this, however, Osceola had led his Seminole adoptees into several skirmishes.
But in October of 1837 he made the mistake so many Indian leaders made: he assented to a truce, and was taken captive by General Thomas Jesup, who threw him in jail where Osceola fell ill and died of malaria. Many Americans had come to admire Osceola as a fighter for his homeland and they were incensed at the treachery. Jesup recommended ending hostilities by granting the Seminoles a reservation in southern Florida, but the new President, Van Buren, rejected the idea and gradually nearly all the Seminoles bowed to the white supremacists and moved to Arkansas.
It was over for that part of the country in which a man named Osceola had captured the nation’s attention. The attention of all except those who invent the questions for Jeopardy.
About the Author
Reid Collins is a former CBS and CNN news correspondent.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Reid Collins
More Articles From Media Matters
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/29/osceola-who
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- Current Wisdom
- The Thatcher Legacy
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Von Mises Jr| 5.29.12 @ 7:45AM
Andrew Jackson was known as "Sharp Knife" by the Indians who he continually betrayed. He foisted inhumane atrocities on the Cherokees driving them off their lands to the West called the "Trail of Tears." Jackson shaped the Democrat Party.
Today, his liberal Democrat Party in DC and the Social Democrats in the United Nations are the new "Sharp Knives" about to stab property owners in the back and lead your children in a "Frog March of Tears."If you don't understand and stop Agenda21 out of the UN, you and your children will be pushed off your land just as the Cherokee.
c. j. acworth| 5.29.12 @ 7:53AM
I'm reminded of the scene in the Clint Eastwood flick "The Outlaw Josey Wales" where Josey gets the drop on the Cerokee "chief" (played to perfection by Dan George). "It's not suppoed to be easy to sneak up on an indian." says Josey. "I'm an indian all right," says the Chief. "But here in the nations they call us the civilised tribes. They call us civilised because we're easy to sneak up on. White men have been sneaking up on us for years."
Mike W| 5.29.12 @ 7:56AM
Don't we get enough PC junk on the liberal sites? Do we have to get it here. The Indians were a defeated race that could not hold their territory militarily. Quit the bleating about white supremacy and remember that it can and will happen to any nation/race or group.
nathan| 5.29.12 @ 10:19AM
@Mike W: The Indians were a defeated race that could not hold their territory militarily." How far do you want to take this? Let's substitute a few words here shall we? "Two thousand years ago the Jews were a defeated race that could not hold their territory militarily." On that basis according to you did the United States bearing no responsibility for what happened to that militarily defeated race during WWII (we did not build Auschwitz or any of the other camps) have an obligation to support the right of return of that beaten race to the land they had been thrown out of? No, none of you really want to go there right? Didn't think so.
But also, beating an opponent is one thing, abusing them, systemically mistreating them, engaging in enthnic cleansing, putting them on reservations that clearly did not have the resources to sustain life for those who were forced to live there similar to the ghettos during WWII, engaging what all intents and purposes was genocidal acts against that race, well no, we don't get to do that. And what was the justification for what we did? We dehumanized them. Sherman, Sheridan and others out west after the Civil War made it clear that these were "savages", "animals", not human at all and therefore exterminating them was not only acceptable but a necessity, similar to what the Germans would say about the Jews decades later.
Which is why as we engage in conflicts today we have to remember that we fight against "people", at all time it's people, humans we engage against, who have rights, who regardless of the actions we accuse them of, we cannot violate our principles and do evil things in the name of "good intentions". We saw the results of those "good intentions" a century and half ago right? And based on the rationale here, we can take somebody else's land that doesn't belong to us purely on the basis of force alone, Fifth Amendment rights be damned? At the time of the Trail of Tears, at the time of that ethnic cleansing sir, the Fifth Amendment made it clear that no "person" could be deprived of life liberty or PROPERTY without due process. And I'm sorry but with the Bill of Rights in force, those Indians should never have forced off their lands.
We either obey the Constitution folks, or we don't. We either support the rights of others, even when they are too weak to enforce those rights for themselves, or we don't.
We don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we choose to obey. It binds conservatives as well as liberals. Y'all try to remember that will you?
PolishKnight| 5.29.12 @ 11:18AM
Sadly, Nathan, this historical example clearly illustrates how the Constitution "binds" us based upon the whims of the Supreme Court and various political forces. Consider the line: "that no "person" could be deprived of life liberty or PROPERTY without due process." The courts and the military made and took their orders and went through a process. The soldiers "followed" orders. This protection is about as useful in protecting your rights as asking a policeman to show you his badge.
The ultimate protection of our rights, therefore, is caring about the Process. If you have to capitalize something, capitalize that. If you don't handle the Process, then the Constitution is about as useful as a piece of paper under air conditioned glass. You've got to handle the voters, politicians, the bureaucrats, the educators, the media, and the military.
Conservatives, at best, have a hand in the last element of that Process and have lost everything else and the voters are being squeezed out much like the Native Americans. Worshiping the Constitution is about as useful as doing a rain dance.
nathan| 5.29.12 @ 11:53AM
@PolishKnight: Thank you. You said the "soldiers "followed" orders. Those orders were as we understand were clearly illegal and should not have been obeyed. We do not do a very good job in this country today educating our military or even our civilian employees regarding legal versus illegal orders and instructions. I have no doubt that the government would not have a hard time finding any number of soldiers/miliary units willing to carry out the totally unconstitutional provisions of the Fifth Amendment destroying NDAA.
The Geneva Conventions that we are signatories to make it clear that you cannot rely on the legal authority of your own country regarding the legality of the acts you are engaged in. You must make an independent determination as to the legality of the orders you are given. This was to avoid the "I was just following orders" defense in future war crimes trials. That's why to a fair extent the opinions rendered by Yoo and Bybee were meaningless especially in the face of over 100 years of judicial precedent going back to the Philippine Insurrection, the Tokyo War Crime Trials, and Vietnam which is closer in time. Interrogators and other actors should not have relied on those opinions for legal authority to act and put themselves at risk by doing so.
Who Needs Curly?| 5.29.12 @ 2:31PM
Hey Moe!
Whyntcha ask wiseguy Larry if the 2nd Amendment is at all useful?
After all, everyone knows 'How-ard' is at least 1/32 injun!
PolishKnight| 5.29.12 @ 3:45PM
Ironically, the left would just LOVE to have European and "world" courts trump the legal authority of the USA and redefine "human rights" based upon their own definition rather than the Constitution...
Keep in mind that "just following orders" defense is perfectly find when the country wins the conflict such as North Vietnam against the USA. One thing you have to admire about the left: they play for keeps and they play to win or at least not lose and would rather burn the world to the ground than give up political power.
Who Needs Curly - Moe? Moe?| 5.29.12 @ 5:43PM
Hey How Moe!
How 'bout askin' wiseguy Larry if the 2nd Amendment
is as, less, or more useful than doing a rain dance?
Howa howa howa howa howa howa howa howa howa howa
howa howa howa howa howa howa howa howa bout it?
PolishKnight| 5.30.12 @ 9:40AM
What good has the 2nd amendment done so far, eh? The airport is full of people with "don't treat on me" T-shirts waiting fearfully and quietly in line to be groped. Oh, wait, most of them don't even have the guts to wear the tees for fear that they'll get pulled aside for even more ADDITIONAL screening!
In the meantime, the left has control of most of the courts, the police unions, and in the near future, the military.
PolishKnight| 5.30.12 @ 9:40AM
What good has the 2nd amendment done so far, eh? The airport is full of people with "don't treat on me" T-shirts waiting fearfully and quietly in line to be groped. Oh, wait, most of them don't even have the guts to wear the tees for fear that they'll get pulled aside for even more ADDITIONAL screening!
In the meantime, the left has control of most of the courts, the police unions, and in the near future, the military.
Occam's Tool| 5.30.12 @ 12:46PM
Prior to the Geneva Convention or the Nuremberg codifications of illegal orders.
Occam's Tool| 5.30.12 @ 12:48PM
From wiki (just note dates): "The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. The singular term Geneva Convention denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth treaty. The articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) extensively defined the basic rights of prisoners (civil and military) during war; established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war zone. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 194 countries.[1] The Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections of non-combatants."
The Trail of Tears predates the Civil War.
Dan D| 5.29.12 @ 8:50AM
I watched the show and the contestant answered (questioned) Cree. Alex said they would have accepted Creek or Seminole.
JimP| 5.29.12 @ 9:24AM
Thanks for the clarification, Dan. I'm glad to know I still can watch Jeopardy without feeling like I am watching a 'reality' tv show.
JimP| 5.29.12 @ 8:53AM
Similar to 'Mike W' I am scratching my head wondering why this column is at TAS. I do find it interesting since I am 1/16th Creek. Truly. Not like Lizzy Warren. But LIKE Lizzy in that I look like one of the "White Eyes". That's a good thing though since it helped me "pass" in the world of the "Yellow Legs". Now that I have outted myself I'm sure the "long knives" will ostracize me from the country clubs that I don't belong to and which I would not join anyway if they would accept a character such as I (and I'm not referring to my lineage). H/T Groucho.
Thanks for the excursion into Jeopardy world which I will never again watch because the answers are suspect. I guess I'll return to the world of work and trying to add to the chorus of Americans who want a return to our Founders' Constitutional intent or as close to that as they came. There's no point in crying over spilled milk.
Gary B| 5.29.12 @ 10:00AM
So, what's the present-day equivalent of broken treaties with the various Indian tribes? Is it promises by the ruling elite that new legislation is not deceitful and does not contain a raft of hidden and camouflaged treachery targeting honest, taxpayers? Do we now need to pass it to see what's in it?
I believe we're learning fast what it was like being an Indian. We are ruled by a world-class pack of liars. Although insider Romney is theoretically better than The Muslim, he's not the answer by a long shot.
Vern Crisler| 5.29.12 @ 10:54AM
I also wonder why this politically correct view of Jackson was published by AmSpec. Even Wikipedia has a more balanced view than the above writer:
______
Jackson in 1845: Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Jackson's presidency was his policy regarding Native Americans, which hostile historians see as amounting to the ethnic cleansing of several Indian tribes.[44][45][46] Jackson was a leading advocate of a policy known as Indian removal. Jackson had been negotiating treaties and removal policies with Indian leaders for years before his election as president. Many tribes and portions of tribes had been removed to Arkansas Territory and further west of the Mississippi River without the suffering of what later became known as the Trail of Tears. Further, many white Americans advocated total extermination of the "savages", particularly those who had experienced frontier wars. Jackson's support of removal policies can be best understood by examination of those prior cases he had personally negotiated, rather than those in post-presidential years. Nevertheless, Jackson is often held responsible for all that took place in the 1830s.
In his December 8, 1829, First Annual Message to Congress, Jackson stated:
This emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers and seek a home in a distant land. But they should be distinctly informed that if they remain within the limits of the States they must be subject to their laws. In return for their obedience as individuals they will without doubt be protected in the enjoyment of those possessions which they have improved by their industry.[47]
Before his election as president, Jackson had been involved with the issue of Indian removal for over ten years. The removal of the Native Americans to the west of the Mississippi River had been a major part of his political agenda in both the 1824 and 1828 presidential elections.[48] After his election he signed the Indian Removal Act into law in 1830. The Act authorized the President to negotiate treaties to buy tribal lands in the east in exchange for lands further west, outside of existing U.S. state borders.
While frequently frowned upon in the North, and opposed by Jeremiah Evarts and Theodore Frelinghuysen, the Removal Act was popular in the South, where population growth and the discovery of gold on Cherokee land had increased pressure on tribal lands. The state of Georgia became involved in a contentious jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokees, culminating in the 1832 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Worcester v. Georgia), which ruled that Georgia could not impose its laws upon Cherokee tribal lands. Jackson is often quoted (regarding the decision) as having said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" According to Remini, Jackson never said this, as the quote first appeared in Horace Greeley's The American Conflict in 1864.[49][50]
Photograph of Jackson at age 78, 1844/45In any case, Jackson used the Georgia crisis to pressure Cherokee leaders to sign a removal treaty. A small faction of Cherokees led by John Ridge negotiated the Treaty of New Echota with Jackson's representatives. Ridge was not a recognized leader of the Cherokee Nation, and this document was rejected by most Cherokees as illegitimate.[51] Over 15,000 Cherokees signed a petition in protest of the proposed removal; the list was ignored by the Supreme Court and the U.S. legislature, in part due to delays and timing.[52] The treaty was enforced by Jackson's successor, Van Buren, who ordered 7,000 armed troops to remove the Cherokees. Due to the infighting between political factions, many Cherokees thought their appeals were still being considered until troops arrived.[53] This abrupt and forced removal resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 Cherokees on the "Trail of Tears".
A daguerreotype of Jackson.By the 1830s, under constant pressure from settlers, each of the five southern tribes had ceded most of its lands, but sizable self-government groups lived in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. All of these (except the Seminoles) had moved far in the coexistence with whites, and they resisted suggestions that they should voluntarily remove themselves. Their nonviolent methods earned them the title the Five Civilized Tribes.[52]
More than 45,000 American Indians were relocated to the West during Jackson's administration. A few Cherokees escaped forced relocation, or walked back afterwards, escaping to the high Smoky Mountains along the North Carolina and Tennessee border.[54]
Jackson's administration bought about 100 million acres (400,000 km²) of Indian land for about $68 million and 32 million acres (130,000 km²) of western land. Jackson was criticized at the time for his role in these events, and the criticism has grown over the years. U.S. historian Robert V. Remini characterizes the Indian Removal era as "one of the unhappiest chapters in American history."[55]
Von Mises Jr| 5.29.12 @ 11:05AM
Vern, I read "Andrew Jackson and the Indian Wars" by Remini. Not only did he continually lie and deceive the Indians, but he was known to be ready to kill any man that crossed him as a General. He also, right or wrong, took vengeance on the First Central Bank, and was famous for his rebuke of the Constitutional process in stating "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
Let's hope that Obama with similar disregard for people, financial systems and the Constitution is also soon a footnote in history.
Vern Crisler| 5.29.12 @ 11:41AM
See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal
The idea of Indian removal west of the Mississippi didn't start with Jackson. It's the old idea of "Liberia" out west, solving problems by removing a whole population to some other location. The only alternative popular idea espoused was usually extermination.
I don't defend everything Jackson did -- he was a pretty rough and tumble character -- but any subject involving Indians has to be discussed in the context of the times, not in terms of today's politically correct template.
Von Mises Jr| 5.29.12 @ 1:18PM
When the UN and DC liberals move the whole rural population to an Agenda21 "Smart Growth, Sustainable Development" communities in the likes of Detroit, New Orleans or Newark; will it really be that much different?
I know we both look at the bigger context and sometimes disagree, but taking that as a specific comparison, do not social engineers want to put us on a Reservation where they have control instead of just letting people alone.
GW| 5.29.12 @ 11:35AM
President Jackson declared of those who might resist displacement: "They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits or the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition."
Given the high rates of alcoholism on the res today, I'd say Jackson may have had a clue about what he was talking about.
KennesawJack| 5.29.12 @ 11:56AM
Do you think the high rate of alcoholism may be borne by despair. Despair at having been forced on to reservations, often far from their ancestral lands, with little or no natural resources or arable land? It is incredibly shallow to subscribe to Jackson's description of those native Americans he displaced. What do you say about those tribes who have begun to prosper now that they can legally build casinos? Seems to me they work hard at making them successful and seeing to it that the benefits of their foray into free enterprise find their way to the people. Ira Hayes died an alcoholic, but only after the nation to whom he gave so much, put his ass back on the reservation.
At the end of the day, if we're honest with ourselves, we treated Indians shabbily. What happened, happened. We can't turn the clock back. It's time we all got over it, both the Indians and us. We've got much bigger fish to fry, most notably getting this Marxist out of our White House.
Vern Crisler| 5.29.12 @ 12:40PM
Stossel did a show on Indian reservations. He demonstrated that Indian reservations were heavily subsidized by the federal gov't and that's why they had no incentive to improve their lives. Those Indian tribes that haven't received gov't money are doing well.
KennesawJack| 5.29.12 @ 1:21PM
Vern, to a large extent, true. The reason for the heavy subsidies, though, is because of the comparative uselessness of the land and lack natural resources on the reservations. Sort of a government made cycle of dependency.
Occam's Tool| 5.30.12 @ 12:44PM
GW: the Rez is an ultimate Liberal construction. There are plenty of Native Americans who, being properly raised, will turn out to be VERY hard workers---take my adopted children Rebekah and Isaac, for example.
Jackson was also a slaveholder. Admirable in many respects, but severely flawed.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.29.12 @ 11:44AM
Mr. Collins has taken an answer from Jeopardy and has turned it into an article. While Jeopardy is a thinking person’s game show, it is a game show, nonetheless. Furthermore, Dan D’s post at 8:50 a.m. suggests that the losing contestant answered “Cree” (a collection of tribes from the Great Lakes and western region in the US and Canada), which is distinctly separate from the “Creek” Indians, which were one of the tribes subject to the actions Mr. Collins goes on to describe. If accurate, that would tend to further undermine the premise from which Mr. Collins launched.
As I read the article, I was reminded of the Mad Magazine parody by Dave Berg from the late 60’s/ early 70’s, where one hippy protester remarks on a warm September day that it is Indian summer, and the other goes off on a screed about the mistreatment of the Native Americans by the people, government and Hollywood. When asked what that has to do with the term “Indian Summer”, the complaining hippy can merely shrug.
I carry no brief for Andrew Jackson or Martin Van Buren in their treatment of the civilized tribes, but nevertheless, after Mr. Collins’ article, I too can merely shrug. I can only presume that Mr. Collins has been taken in by the fake grandchild arrest con again, and needs whatever TAS pays to make up the shortfalls in his personal revenue stream.
Petronius| 5.29.12 @ 11:53AM
Middle class Whites are the Indians today: Social pariahs and traitors to the Liberal establishment, and the constituency rejected by all politicians because of adherence to traditional morality. And Mommy Government cannot stand Our resistance and desires to live by and for Ourselves without hindrance from them. So they send the IRS to impoverish Us and the EPA to restrict our activities and take what was Our property to give to Occupiers. The Cavalry will come next year when the Second Amendment is declared null and void by Executive Order and we are herded into the FEMA camps to await execution.
Why would I say this? The Republican Election Judges in all the cities are really Democrat moles; no that the RNC would dare put up a fight over the coming fraud and theft. They all want in on cutting up the graft.
cicero| 5.29.12 @ 3:37PM
I love it when history is analysed out of context. Jackson had been involved in may of the Indian wars that had errupted in the first half of the 19th century. Everyone seems to think that the native americans were a group of peaceful waifs who made a living selling beads and blankets at intersections. A reading of accounts of the Red Stick Rebellion, the massacre at Fort Mins (I think that is the correct identification of the occurance), where over 400 whites, mostly women and children were killed and scalped, and various other instances of indian depradation on settlers, could give reason to Jackson's beliefs and actions. You had a clash of cultures whereby one group, of overwhelming population and technical superiority went up against a basically stone age group of hunter gatherers who moved from place to place as they exhausted the resoursces. They constantly displaced whomever they found in their way that were weaker than themselves.
By the time of the removal, the Cherokee had basically settled in a large area of the southeast, that were recognized as tribal lands. They owned them in common. The problem developed that their culture allowed for theft, pillage, rape, and basically stealing other peoples' stuff. Jackson gave them the choice of adopting the white mans' way of earning a livving - farming - or moving west onto lands where there were no whites at that time. About half chose the former, while half chose the latter. Those that chose to stay were allotted land from the indian lands, and merged into the society around them. Those who chose to stay with their ancient culture, moved west.
The history of the north american indian is one of constantly choosing the wrong side in any conflict, and refusing to recognize the fact that their way of life was inconsistent with what was staring them in the face. I could cite examples, such as the Iroqious tribes in New York and Pennsylvania, but to do justice would take longer than this blog will tolerate. I suggest to anyone interested "The Long Winter's Count" that was published a few years back by, I believe, the U of Col. It was supposed to be the first of a series, and dealt with the Indian from pre-history to Lewis and Clark. There are other recent publications that also take a more historical view, as opposed to taking sides.
Johnimo| 5.29.12 @ 4:36PM
Thanks, Cicero, for a reasoned account of the "conflict" between the Europeans and the Indians. All people should be citizens of the US, the reservations system ended through the allotment process, and race no longer used as the basis for Indian benefits and handouts.
Skippy| 5.29.12 @ 7:46PM
In California today, Indian tribes are hurriedly removing long-time tribal members from the official rolls in order to shrink the number of recipients of the Indian Casino bonanzas.
As an Indian(1/16th)of the southern tribes(Choctaw, Chickasaw)I have spent my life in embarrassed shame over the treatment of and behavior of Indians.
It has been said that the white man killed every Indian with a brain or a spine, and only the cowards and morons were spared.
That, and the policies of Big Daddy/Big Govt would explain a lot about their current condition as hopelessly dependent drunken losers.
Cobalt| 5.29.12 @ 10:59PM
Does Elizabeth Warren qualify for a share of the indian casino bonanza? I bet she would take it.
Rich Rostrom| 5.30.12 @ 12:16AM
"Osceola... became a leader of the Seminole[s]... for several minor victories, and a major one ... Okeechobee, presided over by general Zachary Taylor. The government hyped [it] into a major victory and Taylor eventually entered politics and became president in 1849."
This implies Taylor's political success was based on his claimed victory at Okeechobee. But in the intervening ten years, Taylor had won four major battles in the Mexican War: Palo Alto, Resaca de la Palma, Monterrey, and Buena Vista.
Occam's Tool| 5.30.12 @ 12:42PM
Both the Japanese internments AND the Trail of Tears were done by Democratic administrations.
And Nathan, Am Yisroel Chai. Choke on it, jerk. Along with Jack, Clint, and Red.