So why were the Kerry girls booed at the MTV thing?

[valvano]

:confused:

Why were the Kerry girls booed last night at the MTV thing? I know they aren't as pretty as the Bush twins, but that was pretty rude. Especially surprising since 95% of the MTV audience is probably going to vote for Kerry just out of pure hatred for Bush.

[100% ILL]

That's an assumption

[bilbo]

Who do you think gets tickets to MTV's corporate events?

[100% ILL]

The nation is almost evenly divided between Kerry/Bush. The Dems used to have the "working man" vote on lock, but not any longer so to assume that everyone hates Bush and loves Kerry in MTV land is a very ignorant statement. My parents aren't voting together this year. THat's pretty significant of the division this election year.

[bilbo]

100% ILL, my question was not aimed at your remarks.

[valvano]

Still, I would think that a bunch of idealistic teeny bopping kids would be a safe audience for Democrats, looks like that is not the case.

And as far as to the audience of an MTV event, I haven't a clue. I have other things in life to worry about besides who attends an MTV event, such as the start of ACC football.

[girlcoastal]

I think the audience was booing the serious under tone of the entire thing, not just the girls and not the Kerry campaign. I don't think they wanted a lecture. I felt really bad for the girls, I'm not a fan of Kerry myself, and it would be rude to boo him when he is speaking (or anybody), but it was really uncalled for when the booed his daughters and I think the also booed the Bushes, but it died down some. But all those people looked like complete jack asses when their talk turned to red cross donations, how can you boo the red cross? jeez.

[bilbo]

Still, I would think that a bunch of idealistic teeny bopping kids would be a safe audience for Democrats, looks like that is not the case.


The audience probably had very few "idealistic teeny bopping kids"

[EN[i]GMA]

Big 10 > ACC

Go OSU!

[bilbo]

And as far as to the audience of an MTV event, I haven't a clue. I have other things in life to worry about besides who attends an MTV event, such as the start of ACC football.

That's odd, then why bring up the topic on a Beastie Boys message board?
:rolleyes:

[Echewta]

When I went to a RATM concert, they booed the Indians that were blessing the event and telling people not to litter because its Indian land. Meanwhile, nobody booed when Zach read from a book for a good 15 minutes.

Kids are stupid I suppose. Maybe they booed the Kerry girls because they don't get trashed and use fake id's.

[valvano]

GMA']Big 10 > ACC

Go OSU!

I'll see you guys in Raleigh in a couple of weeks.......

(y)

[ASsman]

The youth are ignorant.
And from the numbers I have seen they go from liberal in college to conservative once they mature. But those statistics are a few years old.

[paulk]

My guess is that they're ugly.

[Ace42]

When I went to a RATM concert, they booed the Indians that were blessing the event and telling people not to litter because its Indian land.


Maybe they saw that cheesey 70s advert with the crying indian? Considering the actor was actually of Italian extraction with no indian blood at all, and considering that Native Americans while portrayed as 'living in harmony with nature' managed to wipe out buffalo from over-hunting aided by the newly imported invention 'the horse' and considering that an indigenous (Alaskan I think) native population were the first to try to return to the practice of whaling after their main species of preference reached sustainable numbers, maybe they think all this eco-Indian propoganda is insulting to their intelligence? I find it quite galling.

[Jasonik]

I'm sure it was so well thought out. :rolleyes:

It was probably more like, "we didn't pay to be lectured at, shut the fuck up and get on with the show!"

[EN[i]GMA]

True. Or maybe they just ignorantly booed an Indian off stage. I don't honestly know. It's pretty lame to boo someone off stage either way. Unless their a crappy band/artist.

[Echewta]

The Indians weren't giving the finger to everyone. They were just saying to make sure not to trash the place. I'm sure the mental giants that attended the all day festival were booing because of the overhunting of the buffalo or scalping. I would love to know how many there would actually know what "eco" means.

[greedygretchen]

considering that Native Americans while portrayed as 'living in harmony with nature' managed to wipe out buffalo from over-hunting aided by the newly imported invention 'the horse'...I find it quite galling.

first know what you are talking about before you speak...Native Americans on horses didn't cause buffalo extinction,numbnuts, western expansion and the railroads did (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012570)

"But the inexorable push of settlers westward changed all that. The building of continental railways in both Canada and the United States provided easy access for anyone who wanted to shoot buffalo - and there was no shortage of takers. Commercial hunters killed the animals primarily for their hides, used to make highly coveted buffalo coats. They left behind carcasses that slowly decayed into piles of buffalo bones, making the prairie so white some said it looked as if it were covered in snow even in summertime.

In the United States, the decimation of the buffalo was part of a deliberate, and successful, effort to starve the Plains Indians into submission. As Geist recounts in his book, many high-ranking U.S. officials were explicit about their intentions. 'The civilization of the Indian is impossible while the buffalo remains upon the plains,' declared secretary of the interior Columbus Delano in 1873. Two years later, Gen. Philip Sheridan told a joint session of Congress that buffalo hunters had done more to settle what he called 'the vexed Indian question' than the entire U.S. army. Sheridan urged the politicians to continue to support the hunters. 'For the sake of lasting peace,' he said, 'let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated.'"

and you know, i don't usually resort to name calling but this comment was seriously too ignorant for words and i guess Ace42 you need to re-read your signature and stop spreading misinformation about Native Americans...

[Ace42]

and you know, i don't usually resort to name calling but this comment was seriously too ignorant for words and i guess Ace42 you need to re-read your signature and stop spreading misinformation about Native Americans...

Opinions differ on the matter. People are kean to brand the Custeresque "pioneers" as gun-toting Indian hating psycho-crats that they were. HOWEVER, the fact of the matter is that the media is full of distortions and misrepresentations of Native Americans being some pastrol ideal, totally intune with nature. Like all 'primitive' (and I use that word with great care) civilisations, they existed to the maximum of the capabilties. They did not take "only enough to meet their needs" - like *all* men they took as much as they could get. Due to Buffalo migration, this was quite few. The hunts were seasonal events where everyone grabbed what they could while the getting was good. Horses, not native to America, allowed them to follow the herds further and quicker, and thus dramatically improve the yield. The "valuable pelts" your straight-laced source gives were traded by the indians for guns and whiskey, and more horses.

I'm the first to bash Americans on this, but the fact is that the guilt-card (whilst justified in the US on numerous occasions) is over-played. "The railroads were designed to kill off indian society, gambling poker and whiskey were invented to kill of indian society" blah blah blah.

Yes, I know the Americans feel guilty about their hereditary imperialism, yes I read about the white millionaire who was tracking down descendants of slaves his distant ancestors owned and was giving them money to appease his conscience. Yes I know about infected blankets, Little Bighorn, etc etc. But the fact is that guilt clouds the American psyche to the point where they feel guilty about things that were not really their fault. I'm not saying the west didn't have a part in the extinction of the Buffalo, not at all.

I am saying it is a fallacy to say that indians, armed with guns, horses, innate knowledge of buffalo hunting, and the instrinsic desire to hunt buffalos as always had no part in their decimation.

So get off your liberal high-horse for one stinking minute. Jeez.

PS: What a surprise that an article about the conservation of Bison blames white settlers for their extinction, not the horses and technology that came with them. Because only evil white right-wing genocidal madmen hunt buffalo in order to destroy the Indian way of life.

"But it couldn't've been the Indians. Even armed with Guns and Horses, how could a society which hadn't wiped out the animals for their entire history do so *after* white men appeared!"

[DorkusMalorkus]

They booed cause bushes brother is the governor of flordia sooo they booed the kerry girls

[greedygretchen]

Opinions differ on the matter.

Duh, opinions obviously...but what are the facts?

People are kean to brand the Custeresque "pioneers" as gun-toting Indian hating psycho-crats that they were.

so you see my point...oh wait a minute

HOWEVER, the fact of the matter is that the media is full of distortions and misrepresentations of Native Americans being some pastrol ideal, totally intune with nature.

I wonder if John Wayne would agree with that? And I guess they would name pro-sports teams things like the "Chiefs","Redskins", "the Braves" because Native Americans are viewed as such nature loving hippies!

Like all 'primitive' (and I use that word with great care) civilisations, they existed to the maximum of the capabilties.

and how, pray tell, do you know that? have you ever heard of the Aztec/Maya very advanced civilizations? Yes, violent civilizations but wasn't Europe also violent-and isn't "civilization" still violent? I take this from Zinn's A People's History of the U.S.

These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like the Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing. These traits did not stand out in the Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and it's first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus.

They did not take "only enough to meet their needs" - like *all* men they took as much as they could get. Due to Buffalo migration, this was quite few. The hunts were seasonal events where everyone grabbed what they could while the getting was good. Horses, not native to America, allowed them to follow the herds further and quicker, and thus dramatically improve the yield. The "valuable pelts" your straight-laced source gives were traded by the indians for guns and whiskey, and more horses.

Before Europeans came who would the Indians sell these pelts to? And where did they get those horses again?

I'm the first to bash Americans on this, but the fact is that the guilt-card (whilst justified in the US on numerous occasions) is over-played.

Surprisingly enough, I agree with you on this. I agree that we need to learn from the past and get moving with the future. I am against reparations for slavery or internment...I am for better healthcare, better infrastructure, better natural resources (i.e. hemp) and better education for all Americans-and for all World citizens for that matter

"The railroads were designed to kill off indian society, gambling poker and whiskey were invented to kill of indian society" blah blah blah.

But moving towards the future doesn't mean oversimplifying the past. It means truly learning from the past and being able to know the truth about what happened, being able to accept it, and being able to move on with new knowledge/insight gained.


Yes, I know the Americans feel guilty about their hereditary imperialism

hmmm...which we "inherited" from where again? oh,yeah, that beacon of civility (note the big,globs of sarcasm dripping from my voice) England...

I'm not saying the west didn't have a part in the extinction of the Buffalo, not at all.

That's not what it seemed like from your initial quote...

I am saying it is a fallacy to say that indians, armed with guns, horses, innate knowledge of buffalo hunting, and the instrinsic desire to hunt buffalos as always had no part in their decimation.

As it is a fallacy to say that "Native Americans while portrayed as 'living in harmony with nature' managed to wipe out buffalo from over-hunting aided by the newly imported invention 'the horse.'" It's only one part of the story...


PS: What a surprise that an article about the conservation of Bison blames white settlers for their extinction, not the horses and technology that came with them. Because only evil white right-wing genocidal madmen hunt buffalo in order to destroy the Indian way of life.

so railroads/trains were not considered technological advances?

"But it couldn't've been the Indians. Even armed with Guns and Horses, how could a society which hadn't wiped out the animals for their entire history do so *after* white men appeared!"

or how about this? "Oh no it couldn't have been solely the Europeans fault because they were so white,educated and Christian and they wouldn't just shoot buffalo just for fun or sport from moving trains because only evil,savage,pagan Indians on their brand new horses would kill buffalo!" So get off your anti-liberal high horse.

wow all this from Kerry's daughters getting booed on MTV-was that what this thread was about? sorry y'all :o

[mcaismyhero]

^^^Good taste of Ace's own medicine. Nicely put.

[Funkaloyd]

The MTV thing reminds me of this (http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/71444.php) incident. Most of the crowd booed, they wanted their shitty show to go on.

[baltogrl71]

besides the fact that todays youth seem to be for the most part only about partying and don't care about anything (thanks to mtv and videos such as freaks gone wild) I think someone should have coached the kerry girls how to address this kind of audience they came off too conservative while the bush girls are known partiers and looked like they fit in with the crowd. and i'd be surprised if any of those fools vote at all.

[Ace42]

Duh, opinions obviously...but what are the facts? A lot more complex than you would have me believe.


I wonder if John Wayne would agree with that? And I guess they would name pro-sports teams things like the "Chiefs","Redskins", "the Braves" because Native Americans are viewed as such nature loving hippies!

I thought we weren't talking about works of fiction? While I appreciate the irony, I fail to see the point. If you want to bring up westerns, what about Tonto, the lone ranger's aid? He was always portrayed as being "in touch with nature" - whether he was listening to the ground to detect the approach of bandits, or predicted storms, etc etc. Do I have to start digging out obscure westerns dealing with indians to illustrate that this obvious stereotype is and has been peddled throughout the US media for the last 50 years, and (being a stereotype, and a western media invention) is obviously false?


and how, pray tell, do you know that? have you ever heard of the Aztec/Maya very advanced civilizations? Yes, violent civilizations but wasn't Europe also violent-and isn't "civilization" still violent? I take this from Zinn's A People's History of the U.S.

I know this because all entities on the planet do it, from the cat that eats its 3 weeks of food in one sitting when the owners go on holiday, to the parasite that starves its host to death, to viruses that kill the host. This is the same through all mankind, and is often the cause attributed to the failure of communism by Americans. There have been numerous cross-culture psychological tests done into this phenomenon, and I although I am loathe to dig out my papers, I could (if suitably motivated, and it would take me a lot of motivation to locate and dust off those papers so if you call my bluff on this, you will no doubt be proved right) find out the source and dates of the studies if you want to call me a bare-faced liar again. If not, then you can accept that it is proven to be in human nature to take all that you can. The experiment that I saw reported (and there were more than one, this is just the one that stands out) involved rationing of food. The people were told that if they leave food in the "pot" (IE kitty, like the 'pot' in poker) more will be allocated in subsequent days. They were left to take as much as they wanted, and although they could adequetly and comfortably survive on equal rations indefinitly, all of the test groups invariably broke down when hoarding started and resources were wiped out. This is not "white men's greed" or anything obtuse, it is an observable psychological fact. Mayans, Arawaks, whatever, this is not a culturally specific phenomenon.


Before Europeans came who would the Indians sell these pelts to? And where did they get those horses again?

See, this is what I was hoping you would say, and you did. "It is the white man's fault for giving them guns, horses and buying them pelts" - surely that amounts to exactly what I said? They harvested to the maximum of their capabilities. Whether their own innovation or white men, or climate change, or whatever brought the change - it still illustrates that people are the same the world over.

It means truly learning from the past and being able to know the truth about what happened, being able to accept it, and being able to move on with new knowledge/insight gained.

And what is the "truth" ? What we currently believe? By that rationale, the US civil war was about slavery. Which it wasn't, irrespective of what Amistad (that quite good [imo] Steven Speilburg film) says.


hmmm...which we "inherited" from where again? oh,yeah, that beacon of civility (note the big,globs of sarcasm dripping from my voice) England...

I do note it, and I think it is pretty facile. We weren't talking about the English history of the wiping out of the Bison. If we were, then you'd see that my above point is quite clear, opinions differ on the causes of the eradication of the buffalo. Some tow the North American party line, and say it was a terrible chapter in a book full of inhumanity (when will these hands be clean?) whereas some say that like a number of social myths and assumptions, it has only a small basis in actual fact, and a lot of basis in how people interpret those facts in accordance with popular belief- IE social politics.


That's not what it seemed like from your initial quote...

You aren't European, you can be forgiven for not appreciating irony.


As it is a fallacy to say that "Native Americans while portrayed as 'living in harmony with nature' managed to wipe out buffalo from over-hunting aided by the newly imported invention 'the horse.'" It's only one part of the story...

No matter how you square it, it certainly isn't living in harmony with nature.


so railroads/trains were not considered technological advances?

Unless they were tallying buffallo squashed on the rails, that is quite facetitous, but I see your point. Still, what percentage of people using the railroads were using them expressely to hunt? How useful were they in being able to hunt? Is the article implying that at every stop there was a local Buffalo hunting shop where you got your map of Buffalo feeding pastures, and got hooked up with equipment, and people to buy your spoils? Or did the railroads bring the carts full of skinning paraphenalia too?


or how about this? "Oh no it couldn't have been solely the Europeans fault because they were so white,educated and Christian and they wouldn't just shoot buffalo just for fun or sport from moving trains because only evil,savage,pagan Indians on their brand new horses would kill buffalo!" So get off your anti-liberal high horse.

*moving trains* ?!? The article does not say that at all. It said it gave people access to them. IE, people who couldn't get to the "west" in order to hunt, could. Do you honestly believe there were trains of armed people going on massacre day-trips doing strafing runs?!?

Which do you find it easier to believe? The profligate buffalo were wiped out by day-trippers travelling the breadth of the country in order to shoot animals for their valuable pelts, but did this from moving trains using psycho-kinetic powers to strip and aquire these pelts (yes, I too can be facetious)?
That these white hunters used the railroads to get "kinda near" to the buffalo, but then jumped the trains mid-journey in order to chase down the herds of buffalo migrating all across the planes, covering every corner of a still relatively unexplored country in their sporting desire for animal-slaughter?

Or that the Indians, who had a ritualistic tradition of the buffalo hunt where they would regularly set about killing as many buffalo as possible, who inhabited the length of the country anyway, whose entire life-style was dictated by the practice of hunting buffalo, whose society infact defined prosperity by the number of buffalos killed in a hunt, who all of a sudden had access to guns and horses (a much more useful mode of transportation for hunting buffalo than a train, considering animals generally dislike loud fast moving metal objects, and soon learn to dislike them even more when gun shots are associated, and thus avoid them and the lines they travel on) not to mention an added incentive for catching them (the value of their pelts which could be traded for more guns, horses, not to mention whiskey and any other consumer-product that the 'civilised' west cared to peddle)

<deep breath> did.

Personally, I think that should be suitable an argument enough to raise questions about who is to blame. Certainly more than enough to justify my initial point, which has evidently been lost in all of this, that the [past] Native Americans are *still* not the pastorally intune society that people believe they were. More than enough to suggest that disagreeing with your version of events is not "ignorant."

You have provided nothing (specific or substantial) to refute the point that the Native Americans did indeed hunt to the maximum of their capacities, nor provided any form of statistics to show the numbers involved. So, it boils down to you calling me ignorant because I don't believe that however many white hunters there were were better buffalo hunters than the combined hunting abilities of the combined Native American population.

As you have not refuted that the Native Americans adopted the use of guns and horses in their hunting practices (and thus had the same technology available - the fact that they already inhabited prime buffalo hunting locations makes the use of trains to reach these locations irrelevant), then the only explanations are:

1. There were more white buffalo hunters than there were Indian hunters.
2. The white buffalo hunters were more efficient.

I do not believe that white hunters were naturally "more able" horsemen / marksmen. I find it hard to believe that the white *BUFFALO HUNTERS* outnumbered the native buffalo hunting population (all of the tribal males of a suitable age).

If you have statistics to contest this, I will be more than willing to "do the math" and see if there is proof approaching "conclusive"

[ASHLEY]

They didnt belong there, their speak sucked. (n)

[Ace42]

http://www.brown.edu/Courses/HI0179/Lectures/Lecture_Nine.htm

Cause for collapse go beyond the popular image of Americans shooting buffalo from trains.

Buffalo population already diminishing by 1840's, well before completion of transcontinental railroad in 1869.

Indian overhunting?

Introduction of European livestock diseases: anthrax and brucellosis

Hmmm "popular image of shooting buffalo from trains" - guess that is where you got that from, when it does not expressly say it in the article (the link to which has no gone dead for some reason, so I can't re-read it to make sure)

The pre-horse Blakfoot family, for example, was monogamic but, when faced by the hide boom the warriors began to marry more wives and to raid women in order to have more tanners for the hide market. The wealth they got was considerable, since a Blackfoot hunter with four wives as an average earned about $1500-2000 a year, which he invested in firearms, alcohol, blankets, tools and trinkets, while in the same period - 1830-49 - a white hunter earned $400 a year

http://www.hakomagazine.net/english/hakoengl1.html

I can look for further corroborative sources if you want. Just to show you that while you may disagree with what I said (and yes, it was over simplified due to it being off the point of the thread, somewhat) I take offence at bandying around the term ignorant

Walt Whitman well expressed in his poem, Leaving from Paumanok, what is the very essence of Indian Otherness for a man of European culture: being natural. The native is either as cruel and brutal or romantic and panic as Nature, he is both a brute and a custodian of the Earth. (...) Even in the most favorable theories, such as that of the Good Savage, the "primitive" American was a paradigm of pure instinct, unity with nature, a pristine, authentic living rebuke to the affectedness of civilized life. So Rousseau and his New Age followers, together with all the other versions of the white man's Indian, simplified the multifold reality of the actual Indian communities, erasing their individuality and trapping them in the European fantastic mental building. (...) paints the icon on the "nice buffalo family", depicts the Indians as ferine and extreme and the cowboys as brave and tough. Nature seen as hostile to human progress and something to tame

http://www.hakomagazine.net/english/hakoengl8.html

Although hard to read (I think the translation to English has lost some of the sense) this, to me, reaffirms the case that the "intune with nature" image that *is* attatched to indians (and WAS used in that cheesey 70s advert) is indeed a racist stereotype. The fact that it is in part flattering (The 'Good Savage' is absolved of blame for the loss of his way of life because it was 'casued' by White men's inventions and interventions) does not give it credibility.

[D_Raay]

You think maybe they thought they were the Bush girls?
There was lots of confusion what with the introducing of all 4 at the same time.

[greedygretchen]

you know what Ace42 I could go through and really rip your last post to shreds,tit for tat, but at this point i feel it's moot (and i really don't feel like dissecting bullshit)...you cannot even acknowledge the fact that I agreed with you on a certain point-which i think was the major point. And what's with the "you're not European so you don't appreciate irony" bullshit? How condescending was that? (oh wait now you're gonna tell me that you saying that was ironic and how me saying this was exactly what you knew i was gonna say or what you were trying to trigger me to say-you've used that tactic in every "debate" i've had with you thus far-yawn)...
and yes white Americans (i.e. European descent) shot buffalo for sport from moving trains (http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/stbuff.Html)
you don't realize that this perception you have that Americans perceive Indians to be so "in tune with nature" is false...a lot of Americans perceive Indians to be fierce warriors, savages, scalpers, vicious skilled hunters (like they even needed horses and guns to kill buffalo-no this doesn't validate your so Indians would've killed buffalo to extinction point because guns and horses allowed them to kill more, much faster in combination with numerous other factors)-so now do you understand why major sports teams (i.e. teams famous to the American public) would name themselves after Indians, Redskins, Chiefs, and Braves? Well if you still don't let me spell it out for you-the teams want to appear as fierce warriors-brave,strong and tough...Is the song by Red Hot Chili Peppers called "Fight like a Brave" or "Hug trees like a Brave"?

So really, let's get back to booing the Kerry girls shall we? :rolleyes:

[travesty]

The youth are ignorant.
And from the numbers I have seen they go from liberal in college to conservative once they mature. But those statistics are a few years old.

Wasn't it Phil Mickelson who said something like...
"If you are under 30 and a Republican you don't have a heart,
If you are over 30 and a Democrat you don't have a brain."

[infidel]

Supposedly I read that the Bush daughters popped up on the big screen off camera behind them and that's when the boo's started and the Kerry girls were trying to quiet down the crowd

anyways, Bush and company don't mind the alienation of voters, if Bush had his way he'd be a dictator ( he said this )You are mostly right, my brother was there and said the booing was for the bush broads. Viewers on TV got a different impression though because the bushes were there on video and MTV was able to cut out the audience noise 100%. But since the Kerry gals were live even though MTV tried to eliminate the booing by cutting off the audience mikes it still came though the stage mikes.

One thing's fer certain if I was to vote by looks the Kerry girls would win hands down. (y)

[bilbo]

Wasn't it Phil Mickelson who said something like...
"If you are under 30 and a Republican you don't have a heart,
If you are over 30 and a Democrat you don't have a brain."

Maybe Phil said something idiotic like that, but the real quote originally came from Winston Churchill back when the terms liberal and conservative were defined correctly.

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

Todays quote could be, "if you make less than $250,000 a year and you vote Republican you're a fucking lemming."

[abdulmohammad]

That's unexpected. The youth normally go liberal. David

That's where you're wrong...after being fed the same left-wing bullshit from MTV to RollingStone for years and years, the kids are coming up on some Alex P. Keaton type shit...with hippy parents that don't understand how their son/daughter are comin up Republicans. Liberal youth are droppin like Michael Moore at a marathon.

word is bond

[Jasonik]

David

That's where you're wrong...after being fed the same left-wing bullshit from MTV to RollingStone for years and years, the kids are coming up on some Alex P. Keaton type shit...with hippy parents that don't understand how their son/daughter are comin up Republicans. Liberal youth are droppin like Michael Moore at a marathon.

word is bond

I second that.

The new way to rebel is to be pro-Bush. I mean, it pisses off their teachers, it goes against all the crap they're fed by my most of the mainstream (musicians, hollywood types, news, NPR, etc.), it even pisses off most other countries!

Fox is the media underdog for cryin' out loud!

Sick, but true. :eek:

[Ace42]

you know what Ace42 I could go through and really rip your last post to shreds,tit for tat, but at this point i feel it's moot (and i really don't feel like dissecting bullshit)

Yeah, the notes from a lecture specifically about the subject, from a qualified professor belonging to a US university is "bullshit not worth looking at"

Sorry if it wasn't an article, but not having done the course, that's all I had cursive access to. But, it certainly isn't "bullshit" - and you saying it is merely because you disagree with it is pretty damn stubborn.

...you cannot even acknowledge the fact that I agreed with you on a certain point-which i think was the major point.

You wanted to engage in back-slapping rather than dealing with the unresolved issues instead?

How condescending was that? (oh wait now you're gonna tell me that you saying that was ironic and how me saying this was exactly what you knew i was gonna say or what you were trying to trigger me to say-you've used that tactic in every "debate" i've had with you thus far-yawn)

Indeed, it was ironic, so why you needed to get all arsey about it considering you claim to have "got the irony" is beyond me. I think you are just looking for an excuse to be peevish TBH.


and yes white Americans (i.e. European descent) shot buffalo for sport from moving trains (http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/stbuff.Html)

As the other site which I cited states, the whole image of "the west" was tainted. That, like any picture, is as accurate a representation as the artist wants it to be. Logic should tell you it is contrived, as it couldn't've been sketched from that perspective by the artist, as the train would've moved in no time at all. Thus is is self-evidently a contrived piece of art, no a still-life, nor some sort of factual report. It is catering to the misconception which the lecturer at Brown university points out, and is in no way contradictory to my point. Merely illustrating that the popular misconception is very popular indeed does not help your point. Also note that that engraving actually comes from a list of *stories* not actually news articles.


you don't realize that this perception you have that Americans perceive Indians to be so "in tune with nature" is false...a lot of Americans perceive Indians to be fierce warriors, savages, scalpers, vicious skilled hunters (like they even needed horses and guns to kill buffalo-no this doesn't validate your so Indians would've killed buffalo to extinction point because guns and horses allowed them to kill more, much faster in combination with numerous other factors)-so now do you understand why major sports teams (i.e. teams famous to the American public) would name themselves after Indians, Redskins, Chiefs, and Braves? Well if you still don't let me spell it out for you-the teams want to appear as fierce warriors-brave,strong and tough...Is the song by Red Hot Chili Peppers called "Fight like a Brave" or "Hug trees like a Brave"?

Since when has being "intune with nature" been mutually exclusive with being "fierce warriors and savages" ? If you had actually read instead of dismissing the sites I quoted, you'd see that the authors were repeatedly *LINKING* the "natural" and the "vicious-primal" iconography of the savage.

Furthermore, a vicious nature (and this is irrelevant, as I do not think that any 'primitive' society is intrinsically vicious, so this is purely to point out the error of your logic) is *confined* by their means. All organisms on the planet are kept in check by environmental factors, when these factors are removed (IE the Indians get guns and horses) consumption increases. The more voracious the organism (and thus society) the quicker it will reach its new limits (in this case, extinction of buffalo) - I am not (here) saying this is what happened, but it is the logical conclusion of your arguement, which is, as you put it, moot.

And it is not a perception that *I* have - it is a perception which has been attributed to the US people and Media by numerous scholars much more qualified than you and I put together - so again, stop trying to imply I am ignorant or spouting off uninformed tosh.

Just accept there is adequet room for more than one point of view on this issue.

[valvano]

Do you have a source or link?
The only thing I saw on the news was a blurb about the BUSH TWINS getting BOOED on MTV. Mentioned nothing about the Kerry girls....

Like usual Valvano....you got it wrong.

Like usual Burnt Toast, you got it wrong:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/candidates.daughters/

[travesty]

Maybe Phil said something idiotic like that, but the real quote originally came from Winston Churchill back when the terms liberal and conservative were defined correctly.

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

Todays quote could be, "if you make less than $250,000 a year and you vote Republican you're a fucking lemming."

Thanks for the clarification Mr. Baggins. Had no idea of the real source, but I am pretty sure Phil threw it out there too. But, of course, he surely exceeds the lemming payroll quota.

[bilbo]

Fox is the media underdog for cryin' out loud!


Spoken like a real genuis. :rolleyes:

[HotAndWet]

:confused:

Why were the Kerry girls booed last night at the MTV thing? I know they aren't as pretty as the Bush twins, but that was pretty rude. Especially surprising since 95% of the MTV audience is probably going to vote for Kerry just out of pure hatred for Bush.


I actually think the Bush twins look like pigs, and they're not very intelligent either. I actually think the Kerry girls are more attractive physically and intelligence wise.

[infidel]

Am I alone in thinking they look greasy?