Oklahoma Bans AP US History

[The United Colonies of Earth]

That's a bad class. It's unnecessary and distorts history.

EDIT: Edit changed things, sorry.

It's okay.

[The Orson Empire]

Another fellow Oklahoman on NSG? I thought I would never see the day!!

And once again, my home state fucks up. I'm glad I already took AP US history last year.

Hahaha, same here! I knew another on here, but that was a long time ago...

I am very glad to meet you, as I honestly felt like I was the only person from Oklahoma on this forum.

[Ripoll]

It wasn't really genocide, like at all. The US found itself in countless Indian alliances to kill other Indians, it wasn't that we had a systematic hatred for Indians, it was simply that we needed to expand. They weren't defenseless either, yea sure we did some really bad things, and we shouldn't be afraid to scold those actions, but were they understandable in the context of history? Absolutely.

That's what history classes do teach us, never look at history with the mindset of a 21st century outlook. Look at history the way people living through it would have. Then you can compare it to today, and that's how progress is made. Understanding it all, then correcting it.

It was genocide by definition. Stop whitewashing history.

Genocide - Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

I don't think all of that is applicable to the US-Native relationship. You can't just dismiss it like that, frankly these things are never really that simple.

We didn't wage war against the native people, we waged war against specific tribes and displaced those peoples from more specific locations. It wasn't a systematic killing of all natives for the sake of systematic killing.

I don't think all of our actions were right in the slightest bit either. Andrew Jackson was a jerk, and frankly our worst president economically and socially. But history is never that simple.

[Ordia]

Hahaha, same here! I knew another on here, but that was a long time ago...

I am very glad to meet you, as I honestly felt like I was the only person from Oklahoma on this forum.

Glad to meet you too! Yeah, I know that feeling, at least for the forums it seems we're few in number.

[Nerotysia]

Hahaha, same here! I knew another on here, but that was a long time ago...

I am very glad to meet you, as I honestly felt like I was the only person from Oklahoma on this forum.

Oh, shush you two. We all know Oklahoma isn't a real place.

[Arana]

It was genocide by definition. Stop whitewashing history.

Genocide - Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

I don't think all of that is applicable to the US-Native relationship. You can't just dismiss it like that, frankly these things are never really that simple.

...all of those things happened. The government destroyed their food source. They kidnapped their children and brought them to become ''Americanized''. They forced them to convert to Christianity. Oh yeah, and all the massacring villages full of women and children.

[The New Sea Territory]

It wasn't really genocide, like at all.

Killing thousands of people deemed "inferior" to take their land and possessions is obviously not genocide.

[The Orson Empire]

I am very glad to meet you, as I honestly felt like I was the only person from Oklahoma on this forum.

Glad to meet you too! Yeah, I know that feeling, at least for the forums it seems we're few in number.

Indeed.

But man, our state is fucked up, isn't it?

[Ripoll]

Genocide - Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

I don't think all of that is applicable to the US-Native relationship. You can't just dismiss it like that, frankly these things are never really that simple.

...all of those things happened. The government destroyed their food source. They kidnapped their children and brought them to become ''Americanized''. They forced them to convert to Christianity. Oh yeah, and all the massacring villages full of women and children.

We also worked with many Indian tribes who aided the US in waging war against other tribes, and many Indians willingly integrated themselves for the better. I wont deny we did wrong, but to say we only did wrong is a bit harsh and frankly untrue.

[Bezombia]

I would prefer if a neutral view was presented on history.

History isn't neutral.

[Arana]

...all of those things happened. The government destroyed their food source. They kidnapped their children and brought them to become ''Americanized''. They forced them to convert to Christianity. Oh yeah, and all the massacring villages full of women and children.

We also worked with many Indian tribes who aided the US in waging war against other tribes, and many Indians willingly integrated themselves for the better. I wont deny we did wrong, but to say we only did wrong is a bit harsh and frankly untrue.

Yes, we did work with those tribes. Then after they killed the other tribes, we forced them off their land. I believe it was known as the TRAIL OF TEARS.

[Ordia]

I am very glad to meet you, as I honestly felt like I was the only person from Oklahoma on this forum.

Oh, shush you two. We all know Oklahoma isn't a real place.

THAT'S NOT TRUE!...at least...it wasn't for a time.

Well back to the topic, glad I got the education that I did, when I did.

[Ripoll]

It wasn't really genocide, like at all.

Killing thousands of people deemed "inferior" to take their land and possessions is obviously not genocide.

O please, I've already established my position and backed it up. If we are going to continue with this emotional nonsense again for the sake of hating America and statehood so be it.

We have to understand all of history and realize it's more complex than "etc is evil"

[Arana]

Killing thousands of people deemed "inferior" to take their land and possessions is obviously not genocide.

O please, I've already established my position and backed it up. If we are going to continue with this emotional nonsense again for the sake of hating America and statehood so be it.

We have to understand all of history and realize it's more complex than "etc is evil"

You seem to yell out ''emotional nonsense!'' whenever somebody tries to argue that killing innocents is bad. You did it in the Troubles thread, and you're doing it here.

[Ripoll]

I would prefer if a neutral view was presented on history.

History isn't neutral.

It actually is, if you hadn't noticed conservatism, liberalism, anarchism, communism, and socialism all derive their values from looking at history in different ways and finding different areas that support their ideologies so they can make it work.

[Ordia]

Glad to meet you too! Yeah, I know that feeling, at least for the forums it seems we're few in number.

Indeed.

But man, our state is fucked up, isn't it?

Well it seems like it now. I mean, there was always a few things here and there I thought were silly, but now...our state is a sad place. I've actually considered becoming a history teacher...

[Ripoll]

O please, I've already established my position and backed it up. If we are going to continue with this emotional nonsense again for the sake of hating America and statehood so be it.

We have to understand all of history and realize it's more complex than "etc is evil"

You seem to yell out ''emotional nonsense!'' whenever somebody tries to argue that killing innocents is bad. You did it in the Troubles thread, and you're doing it here.

Killing is bad. Frankly a lot of what I posted in "troubles ahead" was foolish of me, but this is American History. I know this shit because I'm an egocentric American. It was a lot more complicated than white men are evil. We have to understand economic motives, Indian friendly politicians (though unpopular, they did exist) and the viewpoint of the common white man and how that played a factor in all of this.

[The New Sea Territory]

O please, I've already established my position and backed it up. If we are going to continue with this emotional nonsense again for the sake of hating America and statehood so be it.

We have to understand all of history and realize it's more complex than "etc is evil"

You seem to yell out ''emotional nonsense!'' whenever somebody tries to argue that killing innocents is bad. You did it in the Troubles thread, and you're doing it here.

Shh. Be careful where you point that logic.

[Scomagia]

It wasn't really genocide, like at all.

Killing thousands of people deemed "inferior" to take their land and possessions is obviously not genocide.

Don't even bother. Arguing with a Native Genocide denier is like arguing with a Holocaust denier. There's no point.

[Ripoll]

Killing thousands of people deemed "inferior" to take their land and possessions is obviously not genocide.

Don't even bother. Arguing with a Native Genocide denier is like arguing with a Holocaust denier. There's no point.

Genocide didn't happen, displacement and unjustified killings did sure but it didn't equate to genocide. I'm not a holocaust denier, nor do I deny our less than friendly history with natives.

I'm simply stating that the way you guys are arguing, would be akin to the founders were slave owners, therefore they were all terrible evil people whom we shouldn't respect the ideas of at all.

You can't look at history with 21st century values.

[The New Sea Territory]

Genocide didn't happen

Hence why Sco said this:

Don't even bother. Arguing with a Native Genocide denier is like arguing with a Holocaust denier. There's no point.

[Arana]

You seem to yell out ''emotional nonsense!'' whenever somebody tries to argue that killing innocents is bad. You did it in the Troubles thread, and you're doing it here.

Killing is bad. Frankly a lot of what I posted in "troubles ahead" was foolish of me, but this is American History. I know this shit because I'm an egocentric American. It was a lot more complicated than white men are evil. We have to understand economic motives, Indian friendly politicians (though unpopular, they did exist) and the viewpoint of the common white man and how that played a factor in all of this.

...what? I mean the discussion about the Troubles, the conflict in Ireland from the 1960s to the 1990s... are we talking about the same thing?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

...all of those things happened. The government destroyed their food source. They kidnapped their children and brought them to become ''Americanized''. They forced them to convert to Christianity. Oh yeah, and all the massacring villages full of women and children.

We also worked with many Indian tribes who aided the US in waging war against other tribes, and many Indians willingly integrated themselves for the better. I wont deny we did wrong, but to say we only did wrong is a bit harsh and frankly untrue.

Mostly is a better term. Briefly working with a few native tribes and having some willingly integrate does not make up for genocide and mass murder.

[Ripoll]

Killing is bad. Frankly a lot of what I posted in "the troubles ahead" was foolish of me, but this is American History. I know this shit because I'm an egocentric American. It was a lot more complicated than white men are evil. We have to understand economic motives, Indian friendly politicians (though unpopular, they did exist) and the viewpoint of the common white man and how that played a factor in all of this.

...what? I mean the discussion about the Troubles, the conflict in Ireland from the 1960s to the 1990s... are we talking about the same thing?

Yes.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

We also worked with many Indian tribes who aided the US in waging war against other tribes, and many Indians willingly integrated themselves for the better. I wont deny we did wrong, but to say we only did wrong is a bit harsh and frankly untrue.

Mostly is a better term. Briefly working with a few native tribes and having some willingly integrate does not make up for genocide and mass murder.

Planning "kill 'em all" from the start isn't a qualification for genocide, is it? Did the government have this policy?