tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post3422375552786737879..comments2024-02-10T18:19:36.406-08:00Comments on Newspaper Rock: Review of 1824Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01478763837213733775noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-20930920491817008952009-09-08T05:01:38.661-07:002009-09-08T05:01:38.661-07:00I'd say DMarks is right and Stephen is wrong a...I'd say DMarks is right and Stephen is wrong about America's 19th-century attitude toward its un-American neighbors. For more on the subject, see <a href="http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/09/1824s-premise.html" rel="nofollow"><i>1824's</i> Premise</a>.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01478763837213733775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-60335225366900535362009-09-07T13:39:57.325-07:002009-09-07T13:39:57.325-07:00The sentence you quoted was my summary of the book...The sentence you quoted was my summary of the book's attitude, Geno. It doesn't have anything to do with what the fictional Patrick Driscol asserted.<br /><br />Your overgeneralization about what blacks and Indians want is ridiculously broad. Like any other group, these minorities have a full range of beliefs and values.<br /><br />Given that something like two-thirds of all Indians live off the rez in cities, it's hard to say that most of them want "independence." It would be more correct to say they want the best of both worlds: their traditional Indian cultures <i>and</i> the mainstream American culture.<br /><br />You made a couple of valid points: 1) that Indians historically have been more separatist than other minorities and 2) that whites <i>perceive</i> blacks as the biggest "pet peeve" or problem. But your assertions about what blacks want sound prejudiced at best.<br /><br />For more on the subject, see <a href="http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/03/separate-nations-for-blacks-indians.html" rel="nofollow">Separate Nations for Blacks, Indians?</a>Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01478763837213733775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-45834180237764603302009-09-05T04:19:55.851-07:002009-09-05T04:19:55.851-07:00The view expressed in the middle paragraph of Geno...The view expressed in the middle paragraph of Geno's statement is a rather strong bit of anti-Black racism. I am not sure if it is Geno being the racist, or if he is paraphrasing someone else. I've giving the benefit of the doubt here, considering that the rather toxic racism in that paragraph is rather strong.<br /><br />------------------------<br /><br />Stephen: What we are talking about is some sort of "Liberia" effort in North America, right? It's one thing if a "Liberia" is created in Africa, but quite another if a "Liberia" is spontaneously created in North America in the westward shadow of the giant blade of the always-moving bulldozer of Manifest Destiny.<br /><br />When I look at how the young United States of America handled things as it grew, it appears to me that this "rebel Arkansas" would not have lasted.<br /><br />After all, the separate Mormon nation did not last and had to be taken over. And that wasn't even good farmland, and it was run by whites.<br /><br />I've not read the book, and am not sure exactly how Rob's "pretext for invading the new nation" happened in the novel, but I could easily imagine "sooner" settlers going into this new nation. And if these settlers are killed, the USA would have a pretext to invade it. Or perhaps it might not even be settlers, but just people trying to pass through the rebel Arkansas to territories beyond.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-71979264404821797462009-09-04T20:51:40.912-07:002009-09-04T20:51:40.912-07:00"If another country formed on the Unites Stat..."If another country formed on the Unites States' western border--one that provided a safe haven for Indians and runaway slaves--Americans wouldn't tolerate it. They couldn't stand the idea of giving up all that productive farmland and letting blacks prove they could run their own country as free men."<br /><br />Very doubtful; if the average American back then was really that bad the abolitionist movement wouldn't have existed.Stephennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29769707.post-31768026149233131392009-09-04T09:12:10.143-07:002009-09-04T09:12:10.143-07:00The mindset of the Euro-inbred's in that era i...The mindset of the Euro-inbred's in that era isn't uncommon. Likewise, but there is a flip-side to Driscol's vapid but weak assertions. Thus, the major difference between a Negro and an American Indian:<br /><br />"The former slaves have become businessmen and soldiers, while the indian is sharpening his knife."<br /><br />The Negro is the White Man's pet peeve. They follow him around, wanting to be like the "Great White Father"--hence equality and their "civil rights". If I can recall the proper Indian moniker given to the Negro which I cannot spell it out here, but it refers to them as "the Black-White man".<br /><br />The Indian on the other hand, is his own man. He wants his Independence, the right to self-govern as First Nations, the right to economic prosperity on its own terms. The Indian wants his tribal sovereignty free from govenment interference. They don't want to be like the Negro who follows the White Man around. And because of that, I guess we are hated for it.<br /><br />GENO--Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com