Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Native American

2007-05-24T17:10:50Z

Lobo:

"crossing the Bering land bridge ''sometime after the Great Flood''."

Sorry, but that italic part should read "anywhere from 15,000 to up to 60,000 years ago"

It had to happen during an [[Ice Age]], where, ironically, my edit stating that none have ever occurred (since they were all pre-[[Creation]]), was removed.

Feel free to also state the "fact" that YEC's think it happened post-4004 BC or so. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:37, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This page should be renamed to "American Indian". A native American is anyone who was born to Americans in America. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:37, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Native American is the term applied to those inhabitants of the New World before the arrival of Columbus and their descendants per the US Census, BIA, and many other government agencies, along with the anthropology and history departments of universities across America. Many modern Native American groups are moving away from the use of the term Indian, as it is a name given to them by Europeans, and is not self-referent. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:51, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: All those people use the term "Indian" just as commonly. The term "American" is also European in origin. Perhaps the article could explain that some people have an ideological reason for preferring a particular term. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Only in an archaic sense does it apply to non-Indians--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Not true. It is hard to find anyone who says that it is incorrect. What is out-of-date is the trend to switch from Indian to Native American. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

DO you have a source?--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Are you doubting that a native American can be someone who is native to America? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I see from your edit that you want to say that native-born Americans can't be called native Americans anymore. That is just not true. Also, there is dispute about who the aboriginal people were, so "native American" certainly cannot be defined by them. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Does this mean that anyone born in the Americas is a Native American? It does not matter if they are from Chile, the U.S. or Canada?--[[User:Lobo|Lobo]] 13:10, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:The South

2007-05-24T17:08:23Z

Lobo: /* Solid South */ OK, before editing, check the map. Nixon did NOT carry Texas in 1968

It gets tricky defining "The South" as far as a geographic region in the United States. The ones listed in the article are what I would consider to be Civil War Era south. However, I've found this map as well on the census website that has a considerably larger scope [http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf here]. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 15:48, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==Solid South==
Both of the Bushs carried a solid South in 1988, 2000, and 2004. Clinton won in 1992 & 1996 by winning some southern states, but not all of them. <http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/>

Any reason that you removed the category Rob? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 12:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I removed Missouri and Kentucky because they were not part of the Confedracy.--[[User:Cobb|Cobb]] 12:35, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I made a change regarding the 1968 election. The Democrats carried Texas.--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 13:28, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Before someone reverts this again, please note that the Democrats carreid Texas in 1968--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, before editing, check the map. Nixon did NOT carry Texas in 1968--[[User:Lobo|Lobo]] 13:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Kerry material ==

:Democratic [[Senator John Kerry]], the party's 2004 Presidential nominee, [[mock]]ed Southerners and their tradition of military service during the 2006 Midterm elections saying,
{{Cquote|You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq. <ref>[http://www.airforcetimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-2325787.php Blistering of Kerry for stuck in Iraq' remark continues] By Rick Maze, Military News ''Air Force Times'', November 01, 2006.</ref>}}
:The incident is widely believed to have killed any hope for Kerry to run as a viable Presidential candidate in 2008, or ever again.

I don't see what this has to do with the South. According to the reference, the speech was made in California, and the reference does not, as far as I can see, even mention the South. If you assume that he was mocking military volunteers (my perception is that he was attempting to mock Bush for getting ''the U. S.'' stuck in Iraq, and phrased it so clumsily and gracelessly that it was readily subject to misinterpretation... but never mind), well, military volunteers are not limited to the South. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:48, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Education ==

I'm not sure this 'ding' against the south is justified. Any part of the country, southern or not, has lower scores for minority populations - and the south happens to have a higher percentage of minority population than most other areas of the country. Going by overall trends in our country, it should be expected that the south would test lower in educational achievement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: You are right, there are always cause and effects when it comes to this sort of thing. Perhaps the article would be better served by just providing some demographic data and allowing the reader to draw the correlation. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 12:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::A review of the cite provided (and it is a good cite) shows virtually all scores from all states are minutely below national averages, minutely. See for yourself. There are two scales with national averages of something lke 238 and 257 (speaking from memory), and '''''all''''' states consistently come in 2 or 3, seldom more than 5 or 6 pts lower, IOW 98 to 99% of the national average. One instance, from memory, I think MS had one embarssingly low score. It's little more than a curiousity, and doesn't deserve much attention. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:30, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well then, it seems like we're all agreed that it doesn't belong here. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

The South

2007-05-24T17:07:11Z

Lobo: /* 1964 to present */

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="toomanyboxes" style="margin: 0 5%; text-align: justify; background: #f0d0f0; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #b0b0d0">
'''This article is a candidate for immediate deletion.''' <br>
The article is not of encyclopedic quality. It is '''uninformative''' and '''superfluous'''. Please vote at [[AFD The South]].
</div>

'''The South''' is usually identified as the eleven states that made up the [[Confederate States of America]] which consisted of [[South Carolina]], [[Mississippi]], [[Florida]], [[Alabama]], [[Georgia]], [[Louisiana]], [[Texas]], [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]] and [[North Carolina]].{{fact}} The South is currently defined by the US Census as the above listed states, as well as [[Delaware]], [[Maryland]], [[West Virginia]], [[Kentucky]], and [[Oklahoma]]. [http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf]

Although the south once fought to secede from the union during the [[Civil War]], today they are known as much as all the other states of the Union for their patriotism and commitment to morality in government.

==Presidential politics==

After the ratification of the [[United States Constitution|U. S. Constitution]], the two most important schools of interpretation of that Constitution came to be associated with [[Alexander Hamilton]], a Northerner, and [[Thomas Jefferson]], a Southerner. Each came to dominate the thinking of his respective region, if only following his death. The two men were also associated with competing sectors of the economy -- finance for Hamilton and agriculture for Jefferson -- and their supporters were therefore identified with Americans who had widely divergent outlooks on and goals in life. This was one major reason the South has always looked at politics differently than any other major region.

[[Andrew Jackson]] was the first national politician to attempt to fuze the two schools. His experiment, a party in which Northern laborers and Southern yeomen would have an equal stake, lasted throughout the [[Second Party System]], but was unable to hold out in 1860 against the challenge of the [[Republicans]] led by [[Abraham Lincoln]]. Later Democratic Presidents, taking their cue from Lincoln, were far more inspired by Hamilton, seeking almost without exception to expand the role of the [[Federal government]]; but the legacy of Jackson and the [[Civil War]] would keep the South on their side up until 1968.

From the end of the Civil War to the 1960 election, the "Solid South" as political pundits called it, nearly always supported Democratic candidates. Since 1964, the South has become increasingly important to Presidential victors.

===1964 to present===
The Solid South began to break down in the 1964 election, when five southern states voted for Republican [[Barry Goldwater]]. The largest and President Johnson's homestate, Texas, remained Democratic. In 1968, [[Richard Nixon]] carried Florida, and the Carolinas, while an Independent [[George Wallace]] carried the rest, with the exception of Texas, which remained Democratic. Former Democratic Gov. George Wallace commenting on his 1968 Presidential bid declared, by using a base of electoral votes in the Solid South <ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1968ec.gif 1968 Electoral Distribution]</ref> and adding a few Northern and Midwestern industrial belt states could accumulate enough electoral votes to win. Wallace did not win in 1968, But eight years later in the 1968 election, Democratic contender [[Jimmy Carter]].<ref>[http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/1976ec.gif 1976 Electoral Distribution].</ref> succesfully employed Wallace's notion. Since the 1972 election, candidates Richard Nixon (1972), Jimmy Carter (1976), [[Ronald Reagan]] (1984), [[George H.W. Bush]] (1988), and [[George W. Bush]] (2000 and 2004) carried every Southern state. In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan carried every southern state except for President Jimmy Carter's home state of Georgia. [[Bill Clinton]] carried Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia in 1992, but lost Georgia in 1996.<ref>http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/></ref>

Large numbers of Southerners have served in the U.S. military. During the Civil War southerners did not volunteer in large enough numbers to match the military needs of the south. Approximately twenty percent of all Confederate soldiers were therefore draftees (compared to eight percent in the Union armies), and they were subject to “compulsory reenlistment.”<ref>Tinadall & Shi, ''America: A Narrative History'', 7th ed.(New York Norton, 2007):616-618.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Native American

2007-05-24T17:00:10Z

Lobo:

Native American is a term that refers to the aboriginal people of the Americas. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was sometimes used to refer to Americans descended from Europeans

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2007-05-24T16:35:00Z

Lobo: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

They sensibly replaced it with the human sacrifice to the concept of justice (capital punishment). The improvement here is that efforts are often made to avoid sacrificing innocent individuals. Thus the blood-lust of the population could be nurtured without arbitary victimisation of innocents. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
: North American Indians did not practice human sacrifice. [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it was definitely good for the natives. Look at how they lived before Europeans came to America. They lived in tepees and were practically naked all the time. Wouldn't you want help if you were in that situation? Thanks to our colonial ancestors, native people now have a much higher quality of life due to casinos, yet are still able to maintain some of their old ways on their reservations. It is the duty of civilized peoples to raise their inferiors up from savagery. Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" comes to mind:

:Take up the White Man’s burden—
:Send forth the best ye breed—
:Go bind your sons to exile
:To serve your captives’ need;
:To wait in heavy harness,
:On fluttered folk and wild—
:Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
:Half-devil and half-child.

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::I sincerly hope that the above opinion is not serious, and if it is, that it is not the opinion of the majority of contributors on this site. What a shame.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 19:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm hopeing this is a Devils advocate posting or one based on sheerignorance of history and contemporary life in Indian Country, because it is one of the most racist, bigotted things I've read in a long time. Maybe this is what the next round of media articles about Conservapedia will focus on. I can see the headlies now. "New Wiki becomes bastion of skinheads and American Nazis"--[[User:Third Day|Third Day]] 09:58, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Am I allowed to argue on both sides? I don't think this is a black and white issue.

If the reports of "smallpox blankets" and Caribbean slavery are true, then Columbus took advantage of several thousand native Americans. Also, I've heard that the native population was reduced 90% by European colonists - presumably through conquest and starvation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is, the question seems bit of a Trojan Horse, but I would imagine that those who survived would say no. Bringing disease, alcohol and superior firepower to wipe many of them out, then settling their land out can hardly be a good thing from their point of view. Hopefully a few of them will respond here. Of course from the colonists' point of view everything has turned out pretty good. Also European colonization of the Americas covers a very wide range of incomers and indigenous peoples so there can be no simple answer. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

No. Just look at the [[Trail of Tears]] and the [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]. I don't think after the North American Indians (who did NOT practice human sacrifice) who surivived mass slaughter, deportation, the rape of their women, the capture of their land, the deliberate and inadvertant spread of disease were thinking: and they brought us Christianity! What benevolent people! [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

My God. I cannot believe that anyone is so historically ignorant that they even could ask such a question. Let’s put it this way: If invaders raped your women, forced their religion on you, stole your land, and exposed your people to diseases that resulted in population loss of 90%, would you be OK with that? I did not think so. White man’s burden? Who asked for your help? We were just fine until you jackasses showed up.--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I hate to ruin your liberal-taught preconceived ideas of how America was colonized, but you have been grossly misinformed. There was not nearly as much raping going on as is claimed by anti-European groups. And for the most part, at least in North America, land was not stolen. It was bought by the British/US governments from tribal leaders, but some of the tribe members refused to leave and had to be evicted or killed. And don't pretend like native tribes were having one big peacefest prior to the arrival of Europeans. The fact is that tribes had been at war with each other for centuries, committing atrocities that rivaled or even surpassed those of the colonials. Even when uniting against the so-called "invaders" would have been in their best interests, they didn't do so.
:If it wasn't for European colonization, there would still be wars between tribes going on today. You're welcome.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
DO you have any sources to back that up?--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::I thought "scalping" was common knowledge. Do you really need me to give a source for the practice? Torture was so common among some tribes that it is became a mark of courage to endure it with no outcry. Maybe the 'courage' thing needs a reference, but *sheesh* can't you just go to Google when someone makes a point in a debate?

::Are we airing our different points of view to find out how others think, or do we imagine a huge audience is watching to see who wins? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:55, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Good to know that that rape and murder is something to be thankful for. So remember, the next time someone breaks into your home, kills you, rapes your wife, and carries your children off and sells them into slavery, you are supposed to thank them! No wonder people think conservatives are stupid and racist! They never miss a chance to prove they are!--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 15:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur, moral equivocation doesn't make what colonists did either helpful, good, or justified in any way. Just because some of the tribes were at war with each other, or that they commited atrocities that "rivaled or even surpassed" those of the colonists, doesn't make it alright that we devastated them with disease, took any of their lands whatsoever, and commited any acts of violence for the goal of westward conquest. The fact is, colonists were the result of their decimated population, and the loss of their tribal lands, whether through sale or force, and that has to be recognized. And even if it was our intervention that stopped their warring (though clearly, that was not the goal when we set out to expand "our" country), it cost them more than any of their tribal conflics ever did. The natives got the short end of the bargain.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 20:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

One almost does not know where to begin. As the above poster noted, it is hard to fathom why this question is even asked in 2007. Nervertheless, I will try to address some of the misconceptions I see above. Most native peoples did not practice human sacrifice. As for the person above who states that jative land was not stolen, I agree with the poster who challenged him to provide sources. I noticed that none were forthcoming. As for not uniting in the face of European invasion, you have to remember that Native Americans viewed themsleves as over 500 different nations. Would France, Spain, et. al. have united in the face of an invasion? I also wish to address the remark concering scalping. Around 1980 or so, James Axtell published an article in the William and Mary Quarterly called "The Unkindest Cut" that showed that scalping was a European innovation. European officals paid Indians a bounty for each enemy scalp they brought in. In the eighteenth century, on the Carolina frontier, colonists also collected these bounties. So, who really is the "savage" here? I do not agree with the rather forceful tone of davyjones, but posters on Conservapedia may want to consider this: Some of the things they post can be used against conservatives. If you post something that could be made out to sound "stupid" or "racist," I assure you, there is someone out there who will use it that way. Since what we want is to win people to the conservative side, think before you post. I'm not saying do not say what is on your mind, but think how it can boomarang on conservatives.--[[User:Lobo|Lobo]] 12:35, 24 May 2007 (EDT)